Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-12-1990 Council Packet
I AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1990, 7:00 P.M. (*)Asterisk items are considered 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 Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALI. 1. CONSENT AGENDA* 2. Oath of Office - Officer Jeffrey Larson APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of January 22, 1990 F[I3 12 i990 PARK Cl 4. [MISSION COMMENTS Park Dedication a. ) Policy b. ) Set Public Hearing at Council Meeting c. ) Bederwood Baseball Field LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - JoEllen Hurr Rep. 5. a.) Review of Comprehensive Plan Drafts b.) Milfoil Program PTANNING COMMISSION COB4MENTS - Edward Cohen Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZObING ADMINISTRATOR'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 and vacations. * 6. #1428 Otten Brothers, Willow Drive/Highway 12 - Commercial Site Plan Review - Council Review of Proposed Signage - Garden Center Use 7. Conceptual Transportation Plan Northwest Area 8. 11470 Dan & Ruth Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision 9. 11473 Jacquelynn Kelly,2056 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variances 10. #1467 Charles & Ann Hommeyer, 4125 Oak Street - After-the- Fact Variances 11. Proposed Zoning Amendment — Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) ENGINEER'S REPORT * 12. Well Bids Highway 12 * 13. Well Water Test Drilling Paytient #2 a.) Change Order #1 and #2 14. Highway 12 Sewer and Water - Payment #3 15. Plans & Specs - Water Tower - Resolution 16. Plans & Specs - Pump House/Pumps and Pressure Tanks - Resolution 17. Sewer Interceptor - Resolution * * * riQV ,• I. '=|;.. "e^os" 'r‘^U^^iPn^^■eaci^'^^TtS'' he?r„p^"Ifle in the AVeSde uV:s Te"St from the Recorder. which may be obtained uponENT AGENDA*of Office - Officer Jeffrey oarson iiooxtiFEj 12 1990JINDTES.ar fleeting of January 22, 1990 •rM Hi'ON COMMENTS Dedicationolicyederwood^Baseball Fieir"*^^^ Meeting WV CONSERVATION DISTRICT RBPnn>p :SSI0N COMMENTS - Edward r«hea «d Cohen Representative s - (Unit 5 Minutes Per Person) TRATOR * S REPORT *Pp!l"csits"„%%^““°-,« «e^%r‘S:*?3 ‘l>shsubdiuio;_ ___®5 execute resm ®/**Applicants need no?%t"^ Recordeni^s desk subdivisions and vacations!” ® 'Resolutions for 12 - CoooercialCenter Use Review of Proposed Signage - )an & Ruth°Parten” Sion «»» Bayside Road - Preiin,i„ary acuelynn KeUy,2056 Shady„ood Road - Rfter-the-Pact .rVan«s‘ 4125 Oak street - After-the- d Boning Anendnent - section 10.03, Subdivision 14 s Highway 12 er Test Drilling Pa^-ment #2 nge Order #i and #2 12 Sewer and Water - Payment #3 Specs - Water Tower - Resolution ,Specs - PU.P „ouse/Pu=o°p^“‘-"d Pressure Tanks - :erceptor - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1990, 7:00 P.M.MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORTCITY18ADMINISTRATOR'S RFJ*ORT . Stubbs Bay Sewer Meeting . City Facilities . Navarre Area Master Planning . Highwood Storm Sewer . Marinas. Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting . Lake Minnetonka/Wells . Highway 12 - Corridor Selection . Canine Program. 1990 Fee Schedule - Ordinance Amendment. Bid Award - Asphalt Roller and/or Trailer . Consultant Services/Engineering Rate. 3865/3877 Shoreline Drive - Hazardous Buildings - Resolution. Annual Investment Report . Compensation Adjustment - Officer Mark Thornton . Employment - Part Time Officer (See Administrator's Information) . Agent of Record . Animal Control Vehicle . Telephone Installers Contract Amendment . Recycling Commission - Joint Powers Agreement . Administrator's Information City LOGO Comprehensive Plan Extension 1990 Board of Review Date Tree Trimming - Corner Old Beach Road/Shoreline Drive Telephone System Installation DARE Golf Dome Part Time Officer Hiring December Receipts and Disbursements Goal Setting CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (39*) BILLS (40*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 02/12 02/19 02/20 02/26 02/27 Council Holiday - President's Day Planning Commission Meeting Council Precinct Caucus Day 7:30 p.m. •I I 1 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE \) CITY OF ORONO V^Ckia JLIU^MEETING DATE . -I h PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELCW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 1. -----S ^ 7^'v. ^ImL— !uK 'Z-'-,l!c. ■ Vj----------------------^ ' ■ — 2.)rrs ‘i\pI'rtx't'fi-a?^. (/ J 3. J, 'f'-'v.JC^hzi 1 OlL‘^.^'3 ^ ^ 4C.1^ ^ in V ■^/>" C>..-".r4icn—^ / h r n ffcitr r — — 5. r ' - t. ’/LrC P, / .-L-. l-A’ ^/c X \l d'-A 95<t/7 1 / ' '^cPS' Pt. .-/,v PP}/. 9. V// :iJ/'>>!, .} i '}fi f{ C .‘iT> .0. / v> <f[; (dt h 'M U9X n <7/ L h' V .d.Ar^lJk^ ^ tl) /I'.) Ii (}>. .4. /I ' ?(.o. v-(r ^///s " ^i/9 /i: fi:.,/Cl / ^ * f »ti ^ #7 / 7.1 • 8. 9. 0. j i I TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM; John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director FL'j 12 f‘lTV 0? OP-'irf; DATE; February 9, 1990 SUBJ; Park Dedication Fee Ordinance On Thursday, February 8, 1990, the Park Commission met to discuss comments and concerns from the Council and residents the new Park Dedication Ordinance. The Commission decided to prepare information to be presented to the Council at the February 26, 1990, Council Meeting and to set the public hearing date at that same time. « f f rty 12 i9rj f I •(h- TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE: February 9, 1990 SUBJ: Improvements to Baseball Diamond- Bederwood Park On Thursday, February 8, 1990, Mr. Gary Larson from the Orono Baseball Association attended the Park Commission Meeting to discuss improvements to Bederwood Park baseball diamond. The Park Commission indicated to Mr. Larson that his request would be reviewed by staff to determine necessary procedures to follow regarding structures in parks, and will notify him as to when the matter will be before the Council. TO: FROM: DATE: 13090.3 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 5, 1990 ^5 rt:^ 12 ii3o ' . . .7 Oi- tv—;.;. SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District - 1990 Milfoil "Campaign" Attachments: A. LMCD Letter Dated 1/26/90 ISSUE - Apprising the Council of the program change for the 1990 Milfoil removal program. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A the LMCD has indicated a possible shift in their program for 1990 to make the program more effective for the dollars available. It specifically lists requests of the local community in three areas. DISCUSSION - Issue 1 of Attachment A has already been transmitted to LMCD by the Orono staff. 1. The City has provided the necessary access points and information for hauling to LMCD. Issue #2. As for a composting site, the City Is exploring making available its composting site for milfoil coming out of predominately Orono areas but mot ready to make a recommendation until staff has a better handle on yard wastes for which we're mandated to compost. It should be noted in all three of these issues that Orono does have 40% of the shoreline and its jurisdiction encompasses about that much of the actual water surface. Issue #3 relates to finding a means .iy which the cities share the cost through providing trucking assis^ance for the milfoil. The program as originally established, featured contracting out the program for 1990. The concern however, is that may not be money from the DNR or the Army Corps of Engineers as had been programmed. Because of this they have decided not to contract out but to operate in house with a substantially reduced program. As such the LMCD was trying to determine what availability the City may have in the hauling. The City would have limited ability of truck and driver for some hauling. Thenormal cost of this would be approximately $25 per hour. The LMCD would like this on a gratis basis. If the City desired, a reduced rate could be negotiated. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Transmit any comments. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Indicate level of interest in utilizing City equipment and personnel to assist in the program and or how much it would change. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council direct staff to work with the LMCD on composting, personnel and equipment during 1990 and that also discuss what is any reduction of the City's contribution based on a more economical milfoil program. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council direct staff to continue cooperative efforts to determine the availablility of personnel to assist in the program and what corresponding reduction in contribution that this may have. Ayes _, Nays _. CC! John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JoEllen Hurr, Orono LMCD Representative •> LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 26, 1990 . — »•.» j • 1 A »• a TO* Mayor James Grabek and to Administrator mrk Bemhardson FIOM: SUB.'* JoEllen Hurr 1990 Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Control Program, Shoreland Off Loading, Disposal Sites and Trucking Assistance The oropsect of LMCD conducting Its 1990 Weed Control Program as house" operation, rather than contracting the ser^rlce, has a num economic advantages. LMCD is further facing the likelihood that It will be conducting the 1990 of our costs, namely-trucking to disposal sites. T A !-« mflvimlze the return on our limited funds, there are a few In: 1 Identifying fire lanes or similar shore access points 40* with a conveyor extension we have. A singi c «« .-i4 11 ha A few days to a week generally. All cutting 3...e normlly bofore 5:00 pm. Light maintenance on the h.rve.t.rs will be done In the early evening. 2. supplying -mpoet/weed dlspn.al_^e»« ^ rc'.etltr'ttS ^t ”co'ntrormeasnre. by ehortenlng the hauling dl.tance. »IU reduce our future dependency for city funds. 3. Providing a city truck ^ trhlrTt^uck-Lull^irrtit ;rde^. ..ot^. :'n h “::‘one"rcrirr; cothme «bach-up thi. .hort h.ui » a nearby dispo«al site are Invited. He .111 be in to, ch ulthln the week to explore how you can ae.l.t In these areas. Ihauks g'^ing this your early consideration. 13090.2 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator TlD12 b30 PVTV ti^ DATE: February 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Comprehensive Plan Attachments:A. LMCD Draft Review Response Dated 2/7/90 B. LMCD Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Dated 1/17/90 (Memo Only) C. LMCD Memo Dated 1/26/90 ISSUE 1, Discussion of the draft review responses from LMCD. 2. Update on the process for consideration. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 22, 1990 meeting they were presented with the draft on funding and indicated that the Orono LMCD representative, JoEllen Hurr would be available for the February 12, 1990 Council meeting. The Intergovernmental Relations section is currently in draft stage. The principal consideration is the size of the Board and who are its members. The alternatives break down in three forms. 1. Retain the body as it is with equal representation on the Board by each of the 14 communities around the lake with no off lake representation. 2. Policy Board consisting of an expanded Board moving from 14 to 18 which included representation from off lake. 3. Reformating the Board to a 9 member Board consisting of one representative from each of the five zones on the lake together with representation from 4 agencies off the lake. The concern related not only to the number on the Board and the equal representation as it relates to funding, but if funding is to come additional sources off the lake, the level of their representation. Attachment A's discussion of management structure indicates that 2 is the presently endorsed direction. This relates to the funding draft discussed in Attachment B. DISCUSSION Issue #1 - LMCD Discussion of Dra^ Responses - As indicated last time a“r"ev iew response was being prepared for the LMCD h representatives to discuss with their Council's. The reformulated article addresses some of the City's initially identified issues. Significant issues include: Recreation Management - The concept of limitations being imposed on various users ac a function of density may not be a method which is fully understood at this point. Also is the issue of marina growth. Public Safety - The level of investment ol: local police forces in upgrading public safety on the lake plus the need to address fire and EMS. Shoreline Protection - The standards and criteria should not be significantly different than Orono's present ordinance and Orono can remain more restrictive. (The question for Orono is if adopting LMCD rules for shoreland protection will satisy DNR for Orono's shoreland protection on its other lakes.) The involvement of LMCD in on shore functions will be a new dimension. Environmental Protection - No significant issues are apparent from this draft. Management Structure - In addition to the composition of the governing board is the source and amount of dollars needed to implement the comprehensive plan. If you have questions please feel free to call JoEllen prior to the meting. Issue #2 Process for Hearing - As noted in Attachment C the staff has requested 7 copies of the next draft which will be 1 document incporporating all the areas as noted in Attachment B. It is anticipated that this draft will be available publicly in April with comment through June. ALTERNATIVES Issue II 1. Retain present Board. 2. Expand to include additional members. 3. Reformulate the Board. Issue #2 Review discussion 1. Accept the information. 2. Comment and accept. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. I I Igsue #3 Process of Hearing 1. Accept the information. 2. Table until drafts are received. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - Following discussion of each of these items by CouncTI wi th their LMCD representative together with any directions to the representative in advance of the hearing draft being prepared for any input that the Council table the matter until receipt of the next draft in April. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council accept the information and after any discussion on the issues table until receipt of the information in April in advance of the hearings. Ayes __# Nays __. cc:JoEllen Hurr Gene Strommen, Executive Director LMCD Dave Arndorfer, February 7, 1990 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Preliminary Summary At this time, the Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka will have the following Chapters (subject to revision by the Advisory Committee): I. Introduction II. Regional Setting III. Recreation Management IV. Boating Experience and Safety V. Sl\ore lands VI. Natural Environment VII. Management Structure VIII. Implementation IX. RefeTonces X. Appendices A. Authority B. Definitions C. Shoreland Standards and Criteria D. Funding E. Implementation Budget Additional Appendices will be added as appropriate. INTRODUCTION The Long-Term Management Program provides a guide for preserving and protecting Lake Minnetonka while enhancing the use and enjoyment of the lake. It is intended for use by managing entitles to control the level of change that occurs both on the lake and in the adjoining upland areas in order to: a) protect the lake from pollution, b) preserve and protect the natural environment of the lake and its communities, c) provide for open public access and use of the lake, d) protect the local tax base. e) enhance aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake's surface, f) protect public health, g) protect public safety, as well as h) assure protection of the lake from other detrimental effects of human activities and certain natural process which are detrimental to the lake. To achieve these protection and management goals and objectives, this program covers not only the lake and its shorelands within 1000 feet, but provides some guidance in the drainage basin above the lake to assure that environmental protection is achievable. In the 1960s and 1970s, various proposals were offered to establish regional parks on Lake Minnetonka. None of those came to fruition, presumably because regional priorities were elsewhere. But in the late 1970s, the state and regional priorities were char.gtd. One expression of that change is evidenced by the Metropolitan Access Committee (composed of the Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural Resources, and Department of Trade and Economic Development). In a 1979 published report, that Committee listed Lake Minnetonka as a high priority lake with inadequate access. Regional interest in the Lake was reaffirmed in the 1982 and 1986 Task Force reports. 1 February 7. 1990 .. Throughout period of change in regional and state interest in the lake, intergovernmental relations, institutional arrangements and funding did not change. The level of cooperation needed between state and regional interests on one hand and local interest on the other was not developed. The result was conflict, misinformation, and with resolution in the courts. This is the context within which the work on the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka was initiated. The authority for developing the plan is clear. First, the legislation forming the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) gave the District the authority to formulate a program to protect the lake. Section 13 of the Laws of 1967 grant the LMCD the power to regulate the lake; implicit with the authority to regulate is the authority to plan. Further, Section 3(j), authorizes the District to "undertake research to determine the condition and development of the lake and the water entering it...; and to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution.” The authority of the LMCD is enhanced by the Metropolitan Council's underlying legislation, which gives that agency the power to direct organizations within its jurisdiction to pr*c are comprehensive plans. At the time this study was undertaken, the Systems Committee of the Council was considering using that authority. It opted to defer to the LMCD and to allow them to continue its efforts in developing the Program for the lake. REGIONAL SETTING This chapter will include sections on the lake's location; access; a socioeconomic profile lakeshore communities, the county and the metropolitan region. RECRFJVTION MANAGEMENT Future management of access and use is to impose progressively more restrictive regulations as density of boats increase on the lake. Fundamental to allowing access and use to increase on the lake is enhanced enforcement of existing and future rules and regulations. This means that growth in use and access will be allowed to a point (density of 7.0 acres per boat, we are now at density 8.0). Beyond density 7.0 acres per boat, no growth will be allowed unless there is a concomitant increase in the level of the Water Patrol. The progressively more restrictive regulation of access first focuses on limiting the growth of homeowner associations using outlots and certain marina conversions. To further assure that marinas remain available to the general public, condominium docks will be banned (not docks at condominiums). At the same time, storage of boats at riparian residents will be reviewed. The management excursion boat operations and boat storage will be improved. Also very important is the allocation of up to 700 boats entering through public access points to assure decisions on access reflect future addition of 350 additional boats to the lake during peak hours. Later, as density continues to increase, there will be no growth in access of any form without appropriate enforcement of ordinances. Without increased law enforcement presence on the lake, no form of access will be allowed to grow. February 7, 1990 Municipal access will be fix at existing levels when density 7.0 acres per boat is reached. The frontage foot rules will be reviewed to determine of more restrictive ones are needed. At density 6.0, further growth of access at multiple docks must be linked to development of additional anchorage opportunities (similar to the north side of Big Island, but on a smaller scale). A program to eliminate grandfathering at municipal and homeowner association docks is initiated. Further restriction of boat storage rules will be examined. At density 5.0, there will be a policy of no growth on all forms of access. Grandfathering of storage will be eliminated and further restriction of all forms of access will be reviewed. Other management objectives for access include: 1. u*:ing zoning of the lake (as cities use zoning on land) to implement the access controls, work with the cities to optimize winter access over public lands, improve regulation of ice houses, cooperate with state and regional agencies to obtain funding for the program of adding additional car/trailer parking at public access, and implement a program of remote parking with shuttle service as needed at new public access points on the lake. 2. 3. 4. 5. Management of recreational use of the lake employs the same concept as lake access controls. The increased regulation of use begins with designating and creating anchorages and destinations for boaters, implementing a boating education program, limiting boat wakes, and restricting the use of personal watercraft. The legislative program for licensing boat operators and titling and registration of boats is provided. At density 7.0 acres per boat the more restrictive regulation includes reviewing speed limits, use and storage of boats on individual bays, and maximum length for boats. A certificate from an approved beater education course will be required to operate a boat on the lake if the legislature fails to initiate a boat operator license program. Ultralights will be restricted from using the lake's surface. A study of conflicts will be conducted. Finally, emphasis on anchorage opportunities, or destinations, continues. At density 6.0 and 5.0, use restrictions between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekends and holidays are increased. Anchorage opportunities continue to increase. Other management objectives to be implemented as soon as possible include: 1. seeking legislative authority over parking, hard cover and sanitary facilities at any facility that requires a multiple dock license, develop a plan for controlling dock use areas under various water levels, and review buffer zones, speed limits and quiet water areas from time to time. 2. 3. IFebruary 7, 1990 s. PUBLIC SAFETY The major Public Safety objective is to increase the level of the Water Patrol. Other Public Safety objectives seek to maintain the high quality of the Water Patrol, emphasize boating education and safety, improve noise enforcement, improve coordination and cooperation between the Water Patrol and other law enforcement agencies around t'^a lake, and obtaining an open radio frequency for all 1 ce-oriented law enforcement agencies. Without increase law enforcement presence, the recreation management objectives .argely will be unattainable. Public safety objectives are twofold: 1) continue to provide for a safe recreational experience on the lake, and 2) maintain the quality of the recreational experience. To accomplish this, emphasis is placed on boater education, providing law enforcement agencies better enforcement tools and increased patrols. Patrols are to be increased more for assuring a quality recreational experience than for improved public safety. Increased patrols are sought to provide more visibility, better compliance with rules and regulations, but particularly to enforce wake and noise regulations. The purpose is not to write more citations, but to improve observance of safe boating practices. SHORELAND PROTECTION The ultimate objective ^ i the Shoreland Management Plan and the On-Shore Facilities Plan is to improve use of the lakeshore, while protecting the lake from the adverse effects of development and re-development. Individual cities and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are the primary source of enforcement for these regulations through a new Shoreland Management Ordinance and the Watershed District's 509 Plan. The role of the LMCD is limited to coordination, oversight, and review. The District's primary recourse will be through the DNR. The Shoreland Management Plan establishes minimum "Standards and Criteria" for a shoreland management ordinance to be adopted by the cities. The standards and criteria supplant the DNR's statewide standards and criteria. This will produce a consistent set of rules and regulations, to be implemented by the individuals cities, which protect the lake from the most adverse effects of development and re-development along the shoreline. Individual cities are encouraged to be even more restrictive than the minimum standards and criteria. Other management objectives include encouraging communities to restrict building heights throughout their entire jurisdiction. The LMCD also will seek agreements with individual cities to review building height variances and all variances for riparian parcels in the communities. The review and comment authority will be sought as the LMCD adds the appropriate staff with the capability to complete timely reviews. The On-Shore Facilities Plan emphasizes growth of shore-based recreation rather than increased boating use of the lake. Consistent with the LMCD recreation policy first adopted in 1072, the LMCD shall take an active role in the planning of any shoreline recreational facility of potential regional significance, maintain its policy of not owning or operating parks, seek regional funding for parks serving regional populations, encourage coordinated <•February 7, 1990 development, management £nd regional funding of all lands of regional attraction, improve shore fishing access. The plan also calls for neighborhood parks remaining under local control. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Environmental Protection objectives are closely related to the Shoreland Management Standards and Criteria. The purpose is to minimize the degradation of water quality as more of the lakeshore is developed or redeveloped, and as the upper basin develops. Cities will be directly affected, primarily through Watershed District programs. The Long-Term Management Program calls for using the Watershed District's 509 Plan and regulatory process to provide additional protections from the adverse effects of development. These are designed primarily to protect wetlands and water quality both in the lake and from upper basin discharge. More restrictions on catch basins and sediment traps are sought. No more than 25 percent of a lot shall be hardco^'^r. Wetlands of particular importance below the 929.4 contour are to be identified and protected by the LMCD. Above that contour, the cities and the Watershed District will be encouraged to provide protection. In some cases this may restrict use of protected wetlands for boat storage beyond the minimum tha^ is required by law (1 boat). The fisheries objectives seek better inanajft mcnt of the sportfishing resource. Habitats and spawning areas are to be identified and protected. Better data on fish populations is to be collected on a periodic basis. The objective is to assure sufficient data so that a sustainable sport fishery is assured. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE The LMCD shall continue to be the primary agency responsible for managing recreational use, access, and environmental protection. It will be expanded to 18 members, with one member from each community and four seats assigned to county and regional agencies. These include: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Hennepin County, and the Metropolitan Council. The plan calls improved coordination, communication and cooperation by all agencies. Interagency agreements are sought between the LMCD and the DNR, the Watershed District and each city. The LMCD will seek to obtain authority to enforce the DNR's or the Watershed District's permits through increased inspections and review. The District will seek closer ties with the Watershed District in order to assure that wetlands and water quality objectives are met. To the extent that the LMCD is successful in obtaining more protection for wetlands and water quality, cities will be affected. Developers will have to comply with additional controls on runoff and wetland infringement. Additional funds are required to Implement the management plan. These funds would be required whether or not the LMCD is the primary implementing agency or some other organization assumes responsibility. Major new funds are needed for the Water Patrol, otherwise access and use will be severely restricted. Affording better protection to wetlands, water quality and maintaining the February 7, 1990management and regional funding of all lands of improve shore fishine accede rh^ i , ^ regionalig under local control. P an also calls for neighborhoodPROTECTIONnd:^L'“:a ^h" «=he sho„u„dty as more of the lakcshore ls°dLe? 'I'd degradationn develops. Cities will be dlr« t-i redeveloped, and asrict programs. directly affected, primarily throughKoTpro^es's"!;” L°5l=0,slopment. These are designed orimariTadverse:°cat‘h" htiJl-^''t shall be hardco-!r!^^"'^"'^ sought. No more than 25y the LMCD^ ^Above tha^coIlLur^ identified e encouraged to provide protection ^ In'^sr Watershed protected wetlands fnr some cases this may <1 boot). beyond Che minimum thL Is 3jectives seek better manag(ment of the soortfichin iwning areas are to be identified ma ®P°^"“®hing resource. ■ la to he collected on a pi ;d^c basL »" .t data so that a susta.nallo stlU'‘usLr/Ts " rruRE . access, and e^vironlenLl^proLctior^^f^ managing assig^:rto^^ an^Hennepln Regional Park District.^HennepirCount'y^^and the igency agreementrare sought ^between^Se'^LMC^ :^rL-Sa\eistd ^^:tr^cTrJe^:I f iji-r--.:- eview. The District uin f through increased • to assure that wetlands^nr^at^”^''’' Watershed nt that the LMCD is succetef i ^nality objectives are water quality, cities will be aff more protection ditlonal conLls orr^^Jin^fr^ig^nt^^^^ ^wLther^o^not jhf thr"""- nation assumes responsibility otherwise access and use will ^ needed for protection to wetlands, water qualuraL^mllntlJnin^ the February 7, 1990recreational experience requires more funds. The LMCD is targeted for adding at least two additional staff positions to implement the objectives contained in the Long-Term Management Program.The purpose of the funding program is to distribute the cost of management programs to all who benefit. Several sources are identified for the increased funds. The first is to maintain the present 1 mill levy on the lakeshore communities. That levy shall be independent of individual city limits. A new property tax on the entire service region for Lake Minnetonka is proposed. Other sources of funds include a metropolitan boat sticker (license), and an improved service fee structure. The LMCD will seek bonding authority for appropriate improvement projects. (This is consistent with lake improvement districts formed by counties under Minnesota Statutes.) February 7, 1990two additional stattp^^H.n..e»e„t S 1^4.30.To no.TUr;"ui''u-o Hlnnosooo Scotutes.)TO;122089.6Mayor and City CouncilPROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrafeir^ QQ)DATE: January 17, 1990SUBJECT: LMCD's Draft ReviewsAttachment: A. Lake Minnetonka Funding PlanB. Draft Outline 'eurij1 / C:FISSUE -1. Update Counil on review of the plan drafts by JoEllen Burr.2. Presentation of the draft of the LMCD Funding Plan.INTRODUCTION - At the Council's November 27, 1989 meeting during the discussion of the LMCD's Comprehensive Plan drafts it was requested that the City's LMCD representative, JoEllen Hurr, prepare reviews of the drafts. DISCUSSION - Issue ^ Review - The idea raised by Orono's Council had merit for all the LMCD communities so a draft review for each of the representatives to use in their communities is being prepared so they can discuss the drafts with their Councils. It was hoped that these would be ready for this meeting but they will be ready for the next meeting. JoEllen will be in attendance at the February 12 meeting with the review and her comments. Given the substantial feedback Orono has given on the plans this review will attempt to additinnally address some of those issues. This review will be helpful in the upcoming hearings regarding these matters as will the comments from the December 2, 1989 LMCD meeting and the City's previous reviews of these drafts. (Cable TV has announced a schedule for televising the 12/2/89 meeting for those interested.) In a meeting on January 18, 1990 with JoEllen and myself the consultant, Dave Andorfer, gave us Attachment 3 as the draft outline for the full document. As you will note he has taken several of the suggestions Orono has given in the format for the reports next draft. It is expected this draft will be ready for public review in April. From this further hearings will be held. Additionally several of the issues related to LMCD/City jurisdiction, Marinas, land use, contract enforcement and lake management and funding were discussed which will aid as background in further discussions of the draft. Issue #2 - Funding Draft - As for the funding plan, they are seeking several forms of funding including: a. ) Have taxing authority to benefit properties as a substitute for the current LMCD dues paid by the Cities. b. ) Establish authority to tax County wide subject to limitation. Q.. •• • c.) Use of Metro Parks and Open Space monies for capital projects. d.) Establishment of a metropolitan boating license with funds going to lake management agencies. e.) Further use of users fees. From the Cities standpoint the separate taxing authority instead of dues may lessen at least the appearance of control by the member communities. It would not necessarily raise greater monies but do so on a different basis. The County wide levy may have a bearing as to the composition of the LMCD Board that is eventually approved. A metropolitan boat license serves to represent a feasible way to get at the long supported Orono position of an LMCD boat sticker and the expansion of users fees is also philosophically in line. A portion of this could include having a cost of service fee at the public accesses. Following the next meeting sraff will be working with its LMCD representative to delineate the specific major policy issues for lobbying during the upcoming LMCD review. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information 2. Discuss and accept. 3. Table until February 12, 1990 meeting. RECOMMEND AT I ON- It is recommended that the Council, after any discussions, accept the information and table discussion until its 2/12/90 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by ^_, that the Council after discussing the information table to its 2/12/90 meeting. Ayes , Nays _. cc; JoEllen Hurr, Orono LMCD Representative Gene Stroramen, LMCD Executive Director I LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTTO: LHCD City AdmlnlsCrators/Managers FROM: Gene Strommen __ DATE: January 26, 199oH-^ SUBJ: Public Review Draft of the Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Management Plan The completion of the Intergovernmental Relations and Funding studies of the Comprehensive Management Plan moves us to the next step in preparing for the Public Review Draft of the total Plan. This Draft of all twelve study areas will be in the range of 150 pages in length. The cost of preparing this Draft will be substantial. The Draft review will begin upon its distribution starting April 19. A public hearing will be held in June. Following that process, and taking into account the response of all public agencies, including our 14 Lake cities, the final Plan will then be printed. Distribution of the final Plan will not be affected by your needs for copies of this Draft. Our question at this time is that of how many copies you believe your city will want of the Draft. We will provide a copy of each council member if you believe each will want one. If one or two council members will do the review for recommendation to the full council, then we would prefer to provide only those copies that will actually be reviewed. We will provide one or two for your city administrative review purposes, whichever you prefer. Please complete the enclosed reply form and return it after checking this with your mayor and council. We would appreciate your response by February 16 since we must finalize the printing specifications in February. You may call Joan Mansk with your reply if that is more convenient and timely, 473- 7033. We are sure you will find this to be a thoughtful projection on the conside rations Lake Minnetonka and your Conservation District will face in the next 25 years. TQt Joan Mansk, L.M.C.D. 402 E. Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Please reserve and send Mayor/City Council. Please Name i»reser\^e ^nd send re: LMCD Comprehensive Lake Management Plan copies of the Public Review Draft for our copies for our administrative review. Ollo^ _ _ _ City Thank you for your response by February 16 To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson rrr; 1 o‘ - J. / j M Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February 1, 1990 #1428 Otten Brothers Nursery & Landscaping - Willow Drive/Highway 12 - Review o5 Proposed Signage for PUD Development »* • * r • List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Elevations Exhibit C - Plan for Pylon Signs (A & B) Pertinent Section of Code - Section 10.45, Subdivision 5 (A) - B-6 Zone, accessory uses as regulated in the B~1 zone. Section 10.40, Subdivision (B) - Accessory uses in B-1 Zone, refers to Section ' J.61, chapter dealing with regulations for all signage n commercial zone. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) - A) Total area of signage is limited to 1 s.f. for each front foot of lot. Lot has frontage along Highway 12 and Willow Drive as follows: Highway 12 frontage = 688' Willow Drive frontage * 600' Total Signage Allowed = 1,288 s.f. Total Signage Proposed = 688 s.f. B) Individual signage not to exceed 50 s.f.: Proposed Pylon A = 168 s.f. Proposed Pylon B = 81 s.f. As part of the PUD application, applicant seeks approval of an area allowance for 2 individual signs. It should also be noted that in the B-3 shopping center district, total area for 1 single sign is allowed at 100 s.f. I Zoning Pile #1428 February 1, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Section 10.61, setback. Subdivision 3 (D) - Allowed height and A) The building is proposed at 30'+ in height. Plyon sign A proposed at 21' and pylon B sign proposed at B) Required setback = 10' Proposed at Willow Dr/Highway 12 Per directives to applicant at the time of conceptual approval of the general concept stage of the PUD, Mr. Otten has submitted a total signage plan for the garden ce''’er project. Based on the factual findings noted above, it would appear that applicant seeks approval for 2 pylon signs that would exceed the allowed 50 s.f. in area under the B-l/B-6 standards for signage. This approval is sought under the PUD application and Council's authority to deal with variations from the recommended standards. This special approval will be set forth in the final resolution approving the PUD and final subdivision. 2390.1 / / TO* FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adr»inistrator> February 8, 1990 V tr'V \1 2 iQQ(j • • " /j SUBJECT: Road System Review - Northwest Orono Attachment: A. Road System Memo Dated 2/5/90 ISSUE 1. Presentation of information related to the transportation pattern in the northwest area. 2. Determine what direction, if any, the Council desires to take in designating additional corridors in the area. 3. If direction given, the specific impact, if any, on pending applications in the area. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 22, 1990 meeting they requested a review of the future road needs in the Bayside area west of Tonkawa. DISCUSSION - Attachment A outlines the issues related to the northwest area. As noted the east/west links are adequate however there is a possible future need for a north/south link between Bayside and Watertown west of Stubbs Bay Road. This would provide not only that connection but could limit the number of direct access onto those collectors. Related issues noted include roads connecting to Bayside from the south. These would again limit the number of direct accesses on Bayside, solve some remote lot access problems and eliminate some dead ended/non cul-de-sac streets. The zoning staff feels that the road system review presented is preliminary and conceptual only, and recommends that the issue be studied in much greater detail as part of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan revisions in 1990. ALTERNATIVES ISSUE #2 1. Select specific corridors a. Bayside to Watertown b. South of Bayside 2. Designate - general corridors a. Bayside to Watertown b. South of Bayside I J 4^ Q 3. Defer designation of corridors until a Comprehensive Transportation Study is initiated and completed. 4. Table for further discussions 5. Choose not to have the corridors. - If a corridor is desired, action on present application: 1. Designate a 50' outlot from currently proposed subdivisions to make corridor possible. 2. Designate only half the needed corridor. 3. Designate two 25' adjacent corridor outlots, leaving the possibility to have one of them revert back to owner if further study shows future need is absent. 4. Handle in conjunction with the application consido.ation with these and others in area. 5. Take no action. 6. Require road to be constructed as part of subdivision. 7. Go '•’'rop.gh official map procedure for right-of-way acquisition in th» xt several months. RECOMMENDATION - (See Attachment A) Regarding Issue §2, it is recommended that Council defer final designation of future road corridors until a Comprehensive Transportation Plan revision/review can be initiated and completed. Regarding Issue #3, the City's ultimate interests may be best served by providing a potential 50' corridor now for future road use. If that corridor is ultimately determined to be unnecessary, part or all of it could revert to the private owners. until a comprehensiveUitu/ea^r-d ccpletea.or further discussions not to have the corridors.. „ a oorriaor is aeslrea, action on presentI; a 50. outlet iro. currently proposed euOdivlsions to Ldor possible. :e only half the needed corridor.:e only naxi. ^ .te t«o 25- V to have one of tnem 5 future need is absent. u conjunction uitt the application considerat.on uitt others in area, action. road to be constructed as part of subdivision. otticial aap procedure ior ri,bt-o£-way ac,uisttt ct several months. :I0N - (See Attachment A)■ION - is»ee ....... fnal issue 12, it is reconusended that Council rrl^“ra;%;^"i=on7rrvrercVn\e initiated and issue #3, the City's “J,'‘^"/7,lao7norf“ ""‘uCe^ oV -77u77“r77eft‘t;”U"l%r?yate To:Prom:Date:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 5, 1990Subject: Poad System Review, northwest OronoList of Exhibits -Exhibit A - Existing Grid SystemExhibit B - Possible Grid Connection, Bayside to Watertown Exhibit C - Enlarged Area MapExhibit D - Conceptual Connection Poad Routing Exhibit E - Topographic MapIntroduction -The Zoning staff, the City Engineer, and the Public Works Director have reviewed the northwest Orono road system. The area of concern is generally west of Stubb's Bay Poad, south of County Road 6, and north of North Arm Drive. The transportation plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan, in the "Pural Transportation Policies", indicates that the existing road grid system is adequate for anticipated traffic densities based on the current zoning standards. The plan relies heavily on the long term use of private roads. I would strongly recommend that you review the transportation plan (Chapter 7 of your Comprehensive Plan) as a prelude to Council discussion of this study and its potential effects on current applications. Existing Grid System - , , j jCity Engineer Glenn Cook has advised that a 1/2 mile grid system generally has become an accepted standard for rural areas undergoing development. Looking at Map A attached, note that Orono has a grid system of east/west roads spaced generally 3/4 to 1 mile apart. Starting at the north end, these include County Road 6; Highway 12; Watertown Poad; County Poad 15/Fox Street/Bayside Road; North Shore Drive/North Arm Drive; and County Road 15. The grid system of north/south roads is generally well established in the central area of the City, including Orono Orchard Road, Brown Road, Willow Drive, and Old Crystal Bay Poad. West of Old Crystal Bay Road, while a grid pattern exists, many roads are not continuous, which leads to the need fora circuitous route for many trips. The existing road system in this area reflects patterns of early development around the northwesterly bays of Lake Minnetonka while generally skirting large wetland areas. Li_ P.oad System Review, Northwest Orono February 5, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Bayside Road Area Grid considerations Because the City is currently reviewing a number of applications along Bayside Road, west of Stubb's Bay, the Council requested analysis of the road system needs for this specific area. Significant to note is the area bordered by Bayside Road, Watertown Road, Stubb's Bay Road, and McCulley Road, an area roughly 0.75 mile wide and 1.5 miles long. As shown in Map B, a case could be made for extension of a connection between the south end of Orchard Park Road down to Bayside Road, with a possible continuation to North Arm Drive. Such a connection would likely become important in the future if development densities increase in the area. Such a connector road would generally parallel the Ring Route (County P.oad l^'/McCulley Poad/County Road 6). Map C is an enlargement of the area in question. An important factor in consideration of a future connection between Watertown Road and Bayside Road is the large wetland northwest of Stubb's Bay. In general, the City would probably want to avoid crossing this wetland with a road system. Map D indicates two logical options for routing such a connecting road. Additionally, it shows some potential options for interconnecting local road systems between Bayside Road and Nortn Arm Drive. In general, staff would anticipate a connection from North Arm Lane northward to Bayride Road and westward to County Road 19. These roads would likely be necessary for development of the properties they would serve, but would probably be of lesser significance in relation to the grid system needs. Issue: "Through* Roads vs. Cul-de-sacs In discussing the Bayside Road area issues, staff has identified the following as justifications for development of "through" roads rather than cul-de-sacs: - The grid system of through roads can significantly decrease emergency response time. - Through roads provide an alternate access should a long cul-de-sac road be blocked as “ result of downed trees, snow drifts, etc. - For ease of maintenance, t” roads are more efficient. Cul-de-sacs take longer to . and, depending on the density of development, may require removal of snow from the site. I Poad System Peview, Northwest Orono February 5, 1990 Page 3 of 4 - Through roads provide more adequate underground utility corridors, making use of continuous lines rather than "dead end" systems. The ability of the City and utility companies to provide services increases with better access. - Although higher density development is not planned for this area, the history of development of suburbs to the east of Orono indicates that pressures for denser development are possible. Creation of corridors for through roads would seem to be prudent from a planning standpoint (although such planning may end up being self-fulfilling). Staff Recomendatlons for Specific Applications - It is not unusual for any proposal that serves the interest of the general public to be in conflict with the goals of affected land owners. The following recommendations will likely be no exception, however, they would seem to be reasonable from a long-term planning perspective: 1. Regarding the Parten application, dedicate a 50* road outlet along the east boundary to provide for future roadway to the north. Issues to be addressed in considering such a plan include: a) effect on buildability of Parten property; b) effect on buildability of Reiersgord property, especially if 25' is dedicated each side of the shared lot line; c) effect on future development of White property; d) conceptual idea of crossing the Luce Line; e) future connection routes to Bayside Road; f) effect on aesthetics of the 5 acre zone. 2. Regarding the McDowell application, there is a potential for future connection to Tonkawa Road. Such a scheme could ultimately eliminate 2 dead-end roads, but again would certainly affect the character of the area. This connection is of merely a local nature and not essential to the overall grid system. Road System Review, Northwest Orono February 5, 1990 Page 4 of 43. Regarding the 2-acre zone areas southwest of Bayside Road, note that this is an area of recent development discussion. The 4 properties noted on Map C have been the subject of development discussions. Parcel 1 (Fredrick White) was in for a preliminary subdivision last year. Parcel 2 is going to the February Planning Commission meeting as a sketch plan for 2 acre development. Parcel 3 has generated inquiries by its owner as to development possibilities. Parcel 4 has recently been through a sketch plan review for consideration of a lot line rearrangement and road access issues. The interior roads to serve this area would logicially connect North Arm Lane with County Road 19 or Bayside Road". All newly created lots should be served by interior roads, and road outlots should be dedicated to provide for future connections between adjacent parcels. CITY OF ORONO ROAD GRID SYSTEM smi Scale (Miles) ® CITY OF CRCNO ROAD GRID SYSTEM Scale (Miles) Ht/t StC» tUB. K.Z3V^. ® —1. Kut secjf. r.itB, /tar^ s >5TiS^ ® -:i ®h—H.me. r1 ^ * AM. J.I •7^ tc±i:y ^\ I*N i rj -*- -*'^1 Jp 1 * “• j-*" ~ *■ V "v\^ \ \ f/> n, • >s V ‘ -^*?-» • * '/y—•• N - \ w y IO ^ * 1 iv I 4—r '. >1:» ■e.f;' '*» 'Ml • O' \ ' ^x> w- i\ N\ --:.• •/—w! o o ' o w « BM 5o9 \ V: '-- n [ '• \ U \ rs-^t s\S',y_>N \ -7 n i . >v 1 ■ ; --X - ^ ^ • y ) i J £s— •• )»\ A i»/M I / •• \ V\ ✓ y y-U/- \ / I (I \ V ^^131 ^. - - !'.l m • '^ • • -___::' 7i)-- ^ O'a f\' - /M ^ V.\Co •• • \ 'Vc NA \ aa >7'. \ r^: ST^CCUf-S ^ o N • It t'. //'';<>?v'! •^v \ !* 9 <\o* iW\ ! 7/, e--y* ^.o- b^'. o 'cco^ ~T-A I'.iLN i-.i.* Pae.-i. 5%^f; 0< ^ ^Poo. )S^ f ^ 1 I :I \ 'sS^‘ 7" - -X ~-<^f_ rr^. (L a ^y\■3—r^/ A'Sii '■^ v°f •-£- \ r.: >^1 ‘W- - S^,^5f>. r s K59H4tr!£i^nE1 U v^^-1- m (S\ O li ia\\l iv> I l\i\\\ To: Proa: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson tiJL.ii.';:. Sii;*-.; iriU FCD 1 2 iS30 Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator 6 February 8, 1990 Subject: #1470 Ruth S Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo & Applicants' Letterr 1/19/90 Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/17/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 1/10/90 Discussion - The applicant is proposing a lot line rearrangement between his 13 acre homestead property and an adjacent 4 acre parcel which he owns. The 4 acre parcel abuts the Luce Line and was the subject of a lot area variance request in 1988, which was tabled until the applicant could provide legal access. Mr. Parten purchased this property, and proposes to expand it to increase its area to the 5 acre minimum, and provide it legal access to Bayside Road. The application as described above has evolved from Mr. Parten's original request to concurrently also split the homestead parcel into 2 lots. Staff and the Planning Commission have taken the position that the original plan would have required construction of a standard private road, to serve 3 building sites within a subdivision. The applicant subsequently dropped that proposal, not wanting to bear the expense of constructing an extremely long private road. With the current proposal, there remains a concern as to the need and timing for private road development, due to the vacant 4-acre Reiersgord property directly to the east, which gains access via an easement through Parten's property. City Engineer Recosonendation - The City Engineer had recommended that a 50' road outlet extending to the northwesterly property boundary be dedicated to provide future access for 2 existing residences south of the Luce Line, which currently use Turnham Road. Glenn also recommended construction of the rias now, and further recommended that a 50' drainage easement be dec‘.cated over the ravine traversing the homestead parcel. ^'^rther recommended that the applicant agree to grant- the City a future access easement to the nature conservancy property. Zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Planning Comission Recomendation - The Planning Commission reviewed this a^^^ .ication on January 16, 1990 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval subject to the following: 1. 50' wide outlot from Bayside Road to the east lot line, 2. 20' wide outlot extending to the northerly parcel. 3. Drainage easement for ravine to be 15' wide. 4. Standard drainage and utility easements to be granted. 5. Standard road and utilities easement to be granted over the 50' outlot. 6. At the time that a third residence is developed on this or neighboring properties which uses the existing driveway for access, the shared driveway will have to be upgraded to City private road standards. 7. Applicant to provide a turn-around or back-up apron for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. 8. Park fee for Lot 2 to be collected with the building permit. 9. Protect drainfield sites. 10. No requirement for nature conservance property access easement. Northwest Orono Road System Review - At Council's January 22nd meeting. Council reviewed briefly a letter from the applicant regarding road standards, and Council directed staff to do a review of road needs in that general area. Please refer to the road study document in your packet. That study generally suggests that it would be appropriate to plan for a future route to develop a connecting road between Watertown Road and Bayside Road, approximately midway between the Ring Route and Stubb's Bay Road. That study generally recommends that a 50' corridor be provided generally along the property line between the Parten and Reiersgcrd properties. Depending on whether the corridor is taken entirely from the Parten property or shared by Parten and Reiersgord, it would have a distinct effect on both those properties. Li Zoning Pile #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Reconendation > If the Council wishes to proceed with acquiring dedications for future roadway in this area, that certainly affects the applicants’ proposed lot line rearrangement. Council's options are as follows: 1. Approve per the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Direct applicants to work with staff to revise the proposal to create a 50' corridor along the entire length of the east property line for future road. 3. Refer the application back to Planning Commission for further consideration in light of road study recommendations. '’ote also that the City might wish to consider updating Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 4. Table for othei reasons. 5. Other. IK TO: FROM Mayor and City Council Mark 2. Sernhardson, City Adniinistrato^ DATE:January 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Parten Letter Attached is a letter from Mr. Parten^ outlin^ his concerns regarding oublic and private roads and his development. He has indicated‘a desire to address the Council and it has been indicated he could do so during public comments. This letter has been prepared in advance of his appearance. His aoolication was recommended for approval with the road by the Planning Commission at its 1/16/90 meeting and is expected will be presented to the Council for their consideration at its 2/12/90 meeting. L jl I I ^ . To:Planning Conuaission Chaiman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardscn From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:January 11/ 1990 Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing rutura Resolution rnn^licn 3ef./een Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan of mere than one user or where mere is excessive d-i/evay length. The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private liaht-of i!ay ^^idlfof Jo'^Is® VeVuir°9d,' wl th^ a”Lni^‘^*pa ved'widt.h of 2^. Th. subdivision code requires an outl^ for a prxvate road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subaivision ^1 (C)J. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. Conflict Between Zoning Code S Citv's Develocment Inten_trnMmmimm e-xtracolating of* definitions, all newly created on a public street, therefore new Procose_d to --ont^ pri-ite roads require a variance (see MPG memo or 3/6/36). *he d--- nitions for lot standards seem in dire need or revision. x. ir--e City's clear intent that development with private roads is appropriate,To do so should not require variances. I ZONING PILE NO. 1470CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 ce-ioi Date of Notice: 1/17/90 TO: Daniel Parten COPIES TO: 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ type op application: Subdivision _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dira'op"i^iNGr’“i/i6/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Con^ission reconmends the followings Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. outlet A shall be 50 feet in width and extend from Bayslde Road to the east lot line. 2. The 20’ corridor as shown on the proposal shall be platted as Outlet B. 3. The drainage easement traversing Lot 1 to be ISj. in width. 4. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements alon, al^^ lot lines, i.e. 10 ’ along perimeter lot lines, 5 either sioe interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. 5. Applicants to grant a standard road and ““l“i«,“«rc\%iro%°tit?e ?n=foiV! '/on??Ja\°etw‘niiI?ip"and maintenance of Outlet A. 6. The property owners are placed ^ the^City'v/A l^require Lot 1 is subdivided to create an thermore, at such upgrading of Outlet A to private ® developed that will make a if Lot 1 has not been split. 7. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such loop loop driveway, the minimum center line radius ^ ^ shall be 50 ’, with a minimum 20 ’ driving surface width. ® • b:“a?d luit 1 ‘such ‘ume tTa/^^esirnce^ is'lonstruclrd T /ot" l!" pro%‘e"rV; owner:” a\Y'proVec/tho« Which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. WOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION January 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 10. Planning Commission recommended against the requirement that a future easement to the Nature Conservancy be committed to. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, February 12, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Please contact staff to discuss what (if any) additional exhibits may be required for submittal prior to Council’s preliminary plat review. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:January 10, 1990 Subject: #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangement to bring the northerly 4.25 acre parcel into lot area conformance while providing access to Bayside Road via an outlot. The remaining 12 acre parcel is not proposed for division at this time. This will be a plat rather than a metes and bounds rearrangement in order to create the outlot. Note that applicant now owns th 4.25 acre northerly parcel. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request )/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 Memo Re: Conflicts/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Discussion - Please review the attached proposed preliminary plat. Briefly, the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement between the existing homestead parcel and the 4.25 acre parcel which abuts the Luce Line. That parcel will be increased to include 5 c'ry buildable acres, and will have approximately 600' of frontage on the 20' wide portion of the proposed driveway outlot. Additionally, applicant is proposing a 40' driveway outlot width extending from Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel. Please review applicants' letter of request. Staff finds merit in providing a long narrow portion of Lot 2 to provide for future additional useful "trade" acreage for the Reiersgord property in exchange for additional area to the northeast. While such an exchange may or may not occur, the future exchange concept makes sense in view of the topography of the Reiersgord parcel, and does not detract from the buildability of Lot 2. Planning Coiranisslon chalrmy Kelley Orono Planning Cotranisslon Members City Administrator BernhardsonPiannina & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning *<January 10, 1990,1470 Ruth 4 ?«potal"-“'’ ‘ion - Applicant >-« 4’:25”fc*re''p««^. rearrangement to v\din^^ Bayside, lot area conformance _ 12 acre parcel is noti via an outlot. The be a plat,osed for division f"^^reVrrangemeTt'in order to III JSroStl”?* «Ste that applicant now owns th 4.25 i northerly parcel. Exhibits ibit A - Revised Preliminary Plat drawings ibit B - APP^^?®"^®'^isgfon°Action^Notice 11/22/89 i^bft S : lllZTnl cSirslon Minutes 11/20/89 P : H^o pefconincfs/StLaards of tonlng/Subdlvislon Code vs. Comprehensive P-an .on - Base review the line rearrangement the applicants are propo 9 *-vio 4 25 acre parcel "the existing p'^^rceT will be increased to buts the Luce Line. and^will have approximately 600'5 cry buildable acres, and will nave atp driveway .tage on the 20' wide portion of the^propo Additionally, 5 to the Southeast cornerwidth extending from Bayside Road to tne s 10 acre parcel. .ease review applicants' ° q/® ot^ provide for n providing a i°y9 narrow portion ^ the Reiersgord additional J^^ea to the northeast. While ? ixc®ha‘?|rLy°''or may not ‘ .”n‘d^ VoeV nrt ^d"e//art Of hot 2. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 2 of 6Regarding lot width, the City has taken a recent direction to require that the narrow access portion of flag lots should be an outlot, so that the "front lot line" will be defined at the widened portion of the property rather than within the narrow corridor. Thi.s way, technically a variance for Ipt width is avoided. Based on this concept, considering a possible future trade. Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the 20' outlot portion be extended 100' north to abut the widening of proposed Lot 2.Access Issues -Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal:I. What should be the width of Outlot A? (Please review alsoExhibit F.) Since we know that Reiersgord has a 60' easement over the 40' wide part of Outlot A, we know he is likely to use it for access if his lot ever is granted variances to build. Therefore, this portion of Outlot A will likely ultimately serve at least 3 residences, perhaps a 4th if Lot 1 is further divided. At a level of 4 houses, both Comprehensive Plan and subdivision code standards define the traveled access as a private road rather than a private driveway. Although in the past the City has allowed a few 3 lot developments to use 30' private road outlets (Parten on Tonkawa; Strong/Massopust on South Brown Road), most 3-plus lot developments have been required to provide a 50' outlot, per the subdivision code standard. Because Outlot .a abuts the White property to the southeast, there is a potential that the White property would in the future be developed with access via Outlot A. While one could argue that such a development would merely require White to grant an additional 10' to the proposed 40' for Outlot A, the subdivision code Section 11.40, Subdivision 1 states that "street systems in new subdivisions shall be layed out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half streets". This suggests that now is the appropriate time to obtain a total 50' wide outlot from the Parter. property. It would seem to be an appropriate City policy that, where additional future development is likely to increase to 3 or more the number of houses being served by a private outlot/driveway, the City should require dedication of the standard 50' outlot per the standards of the subdivision code when it has the opportunity to do so. V ivv-ry^-.'.. ile #1470 10, 1990jarding '.ot width, the flaVlots^re that the narrow access p _ will be defined at theOt, so that the than within the narrowI, Based on this to recommend that the 20^irtfon^bfe^tendeS 10?' north to abut the widening d Lot 2.issues - r - 4.hB C.ree issues present themselves regarding access for It Should be the width of outlet A2 (please review also <hibit F.) vhe ince we know that "hV i°s Ukriy® to"b®®''*'i/” de part of Outlot A, ces to build. Therefore, "if'^his lot 9'f"?tkeirilti”ately serve at least 3 ortion of Outlot ^ is further divided. At a fnces, perhaps a 4th xf and subdivision code 'of 4 houses, both “ a private road rather>rds define the traveled access as p , private driveway. .a a few 3 lot although in the past the Marten on Tonkawa; opme^tl to use 30' ^Tw" BoadW ,gVMassopust on /to provide a 50' outlot, per opments have been requirea vision code standard. Because Outlot a ‘\\i« \^opem ^ ,v^\o%rd^:fti “^ac‘c''eVs ‘v(a Outlot » ^gta^t ’an such a development would Outlot A, the subdivision ional 10* to the proposed 40 that "street systems i Action 11-40' "“'^‘'irS^^^Sd ou^ eliminate or avoidsubdivisions shall be layed o gests that now is the g;^iS?rti^“o “ortrin » t^/l SO^.^lde outlot from the It would seem to be an appropriate City^PO^l^^^^y^that^ w^^ tional future development is 1^^®!^ private outlot/driveway, ^.^ambei of houses, being serv d by 50' outlot per ‘^'’^•■',!t;S”"^f’^tSrsubdifiriL code When it has the opportunity Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 3 of 6If the Reiersgord property develops before a future subdivision of Lot 1, the City will not have the opportunity to expand the outlot to 50' width because Reiersgord will not own Lot 1. The only future opportunity to gain an additional 10* for Outlot A would be when Lot 1 is divided.The northerly 20' wide proposed outlot segment will serve only 1 lot now and perhaps 1 additional future lot. This segment of Outlot A could be considered as merely a private driveway, not necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility easement to the City. Staff would question whether the driveway can be constructed within the 20' corridor provided. If not. Lot 1 could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlot could be increased in width. Either way, the fire code standards would require that a 20' driving surface with emergency vehicle turnaround be provided for this extremely long driveway length.II. What part of Outlot A should be paved now? What part shouldbe paved ab £ubure development: levels?If it is the City's intent to start requiring that private roads be upgraded as old existing subdivisions reach a certain level of development, that would be a positive change in policy, but with many ramifications for homeowners. Would the trigger level be based on the subdivision code standards? (l.e. 3-6 units requires 24' paving, "more than 7" requires 28' paving, 1, 2 or 7 being undefined.) Does the poor 3rd user who triggers it incur the wrath of the other 2, who will help pay for it? In the Parten proposal, is this a subdivision that should have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit level, or at any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdivision code to apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with access outlot creation? III. Should the City request a road and utility easement over all, a portion, or none of Outlot A? If Outlot A is created, the City should logically take a road and utilities easement over it, since it will ultimately serve 3 or more lots, to be consistent with subdivision code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (D). Note that the recently approved ordinance which requires public accessability to private roads for which the City has underlying easements, would have to be available for White's future use if he so desired, with no cost-sharing stipulations. slops before a future have the opportunity to Reiersgord will not own tin an additional 10' forblot segment will serve future lot. This segment ^ a private driveway, not a and utility easement to er the driveway can be rovided. If not, Lot 1 , or the outlot could be .re code standards would emergency vehicle turn- ng driveway length. sd now? What part should Is? : requiring that private Lvisions reach a certain jsitive change in policy, rs. on the subdivision code 4' paving, "more than 7" defined.) Does the poor I of the other 2, who will subdivision that should t the 4 unit level, or at f the subdivision code to line rearrangement with id utility easement over ? should logically take a ince it will ultimately it with subdivision code Note that the recently : accessability to private easements, would have to f he so desired, with no Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 4 of 6If Outlot A was to exclude the northerly 20* wide section, makina that part Outlot B, the 20' strip might be considered a private drivlway serving only 1, possibly 2, houses =erve asmerely a private driveway without the strict requirement for underlying road and utility easement.The preliminary plat drawings show that the easement serving Reiersgord’s property is to be While this would be a logical proposal, agrees to such a release, no information has been suggest that that property owner is willing to release hiseasement.Additional Discussion -AS noted at your last meeting, the property J^®north Lve stated that they do not feel an access to Bayside Road is necessary to serve their properties, and they be1 Yhave leaal access across the Luce Line to Turnham Road. The city has no obligation to provide access for these P^®P®^^y and ?he current applicant does not propose to provide them with access. A brief review of the White property to the south suggests that it might be feasible to subdivide that Outlot A. Of course, there is no guarantee that White would want ?o develop using Partens' Outlot A. A short conceivably be developed to serve White s acreage with road system from Bayside Road. The applicants have provided a 15' wide over the ravine in Lot 1, since blockage of that ravine could affect drainage of properties to the west. City Engineer's Recommendation - The City Engineer in reviewing this ®^f^®this that under the most comprehensive approach to d®v®i®P^®"^/” area, the entire length of Outlot A should be 50 wi^®' should be extended to serve the properties to the northwest, and shoul be totally upgraded to a paved standard either now j _ 3?d housing unit is built (which could be by further subdivision of Lot 1 or by construction on Reiersgord's property) or y construction on White's property. fcs-'^ ■ /O Zoning File #1470 January 10r 1990 Page 5 of 6 The Engineer recommends a 50* wide drainage easement over the ravine due to its extreme breadth and depth. He states that a 30* easement would be the miminum width drainage easement that would be acceptable. Applicant shows a 15' easement based on discussions with staff prior to the Engineer's input. Remember that the area of the easement will not count as buildable lot area for this or any future division. Also recommended by the Engineer is a provision to give the City access to the Nature Conservancy parcel via a future easement right. Apparently the Nature Conservancy has approached the City to transfer its ownership to the City, with covenants for its preservation as open space. If this occurs, the City would like the abiltiy to acquire a future easement to gain access to the property. Variances Req;uired - While the 40' outlet does not necessarily present itself as a variance to the zoning code, it does not strictly meet the intent of the City's subdivision standards due to the existence of the Reiersgord property and easement. Lot 2 requires a variance for lack of frontage on a public road. Technically, staff would interpret that neither Lots 1 or 2 require a lot width variance, since they both have more than 300' of frontage on a private road or private driveway outlet. Staff Recoonaendation - All things considered, the current proposal has merit and solves a number of concerns in this neighborhood: 1. Increases the area of the northerly parcel to a conforming acreage and provides it access via an outlet to Bayside Road. 2. Provides a dedicated access corridor to the Reiersgord property to the east which, if som day granted variances, could possibly be developed as a residential lot. The applicants' goal is to merely make the northerly parcel buildable by Increasing its area and providing it with legal access to Bayside Road. However, in attempting to accomplish that single reasonable purpose, the City is forced to consider the impact of this minor development as it affects and is affected by potential development of neighboring properties. The City's long-term goals and the developer's short-term goals do not necessarily match, and the City could potentially place extreme financial burdens on the developer in attempting to accommodate all future area development concerns. Lie #1470 10, 1990I Engineer recommends ® a® / depth^^ He states thatdue to its extreme breadth an ^ easement thatsement would be the a elsement based on f Ihis or «ny future division. BO recoimended by the pnotl"^”"!” a’ j?less to the Nature Conservancy approached L right. ''PP«ff “a^„‘e«hirto the City, with V to transfer its ownersn p this occurs, the Cxty U''b””hTabrrt?? °traoquire a future easement to gam to the property. ;es Required - 4 a. if as ,ile the 40- outlet ■3°®! "°^^^"®/aVs“not^’'s?r!”ly nett the ”f°lhVcit^rs"«bdtvi°sion standards duetto |»e_^esisten ^ ;cr/or ”"a'’ob of ”?“tS9roVa"£li®; toe^i would interpssP '>-»\"„“\ave more than 300- of frontage r\“a«"m;d*or private driveway outlet. RecooBi^nda'tion * ‘,l;^b^rof°ronce%'n%"'in^*>>i® ^ has m ^ ^ ^ Bayside Road. or-fi 2. Provides a ■3«'3i=“P®f '"d^y gr^^ variances, p*;?ssTblt*be “dele"loped ’ as a residential lot. The applicants' goal is “YVnd ^ilshsini. bv increasing its area and pro v accomplish to Ba^yside Road, "“’'^.''/'ihe cur^rforoed to consider “iSIle Reasonable purpose the ^ e“*'Vi.r ThJ impact of this minor devexop properties. The cted by devllopir's short-term goals do ;-ec^e”s"sVr\*fy" ’-liS/jrfhe^city^c-xa ^ ro roda'miu'futurfarea development concerns. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 6 of 6Staff therefore is suggesting consideration ofthe followng "compromise" position;Based up approval with ’*bove discussions, staff would recommend owing revision:A. Outlot A from Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel, be expanded to a 50* outlot width.B. Revise drainage easement over the ravine to 30* width.Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions;1. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, i.e. 10* along perimeter lot lines, 5 either side of the interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. 2. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over Outlot A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. 3. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 is subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will require upgrading of Outlot A to private road standards. Furthermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlot A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has not been split. 4. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with a minimum 20' driving surface width. 5. Because this is a lot line rearrangement. Park Fee Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence is constructed on Lot 2. 6. Drainfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use or disturbance which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. 7. Applicants are to grant City future right of entry to Nature Conservancy property via an easement at future City request. January 9,1989 To: Orono Planning Commission From: Ruth and Daniel Parten Re: Proposed Plat for Bayside Woods ri Per your suggestion we have prepared a two lot plat for your review. Based upon our discussions with city staff we have attempted to address the current and long term concerns of the city for the development of this area. Perhaps a few comments regarding the configuration of Lot 2 would be helpful in evaluating the proposed plat. The 20 foot wide driveway outiot follovT the natural contour of the land in that area. By staying away fiom the east property line as shown the driveway avoids an area with steeper slope and many mature trees. The proposed location of the driveway minimizes the need for grading, filling and tree removal. In considering how to add area to Lot 2 in order to meet the 5 acre size requirement we visited the site several times and concluded that the most desireable solution would be to enlarge the lot toward the east, but we don't control that property. However, we do have land adjacent to the only bv.' this neighboring parcel, and it seems reasonable owner would be interested in an exchange of prop be of advantage to both parties. Therefore, the is located away from the east property line, setting up the possibility of an exchange between these adjoining owners. The 40 foot wide driveway outiot covers the e.xisting driveway and provides room for any necessary enlargement. At the suggestion of city staff we have shown a 15 foot vide drainage easement over the seasonal flowage area in the ravine. In preparing this proposal we have attempted to balance good development thinking with a desire to preserve the rural character and sense of privacy experienced in the woods. This proposal is intended to provide for the long term development of this area and we request that vou recommend its approval to the Council. ding site on hat some future ty that would .'iveway outiot ••#iV;Trri r*^Kvi*]iiiii IO <•]•!• [•iiim IKFI M •! O <<• V#-. VIM •] jUHOTSS OP THE PUUnilliG COMMISSIOH HBBTIIiG HOVEMBBR 20, 1989ZONIBG FILS *1481-NCCOUSTNBT CONTINUEDrelieve drainage going into the house?Mr. Wenkus replied that ultimately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. He said that he had not applied for the building permit and just assumed that dirt would be excavated away from the foundation and the swale would be used for drainage. He said that a reading with a transit indicated the need to cut an additional 6" to 12" nearerthe house to enable drainage to occur, that same additional cut near the lake.It was necessary to takeThere were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit, the hardship being the need to relieve runoff concerns on the other side of the house. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the City should take a drainage easement across this property? Gaffron said that he could look into that aspect. Kelley amended his motion to include direction to staff to look into the dedication a drainage easement and make a recommendation to the City ’Council, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN & KCTH PARTEN 4300 BATSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding this application for a 3-lot subdivision. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it would be possible to split Outlot A into two outlots. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul-de-sac and Outlot B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlot B would serve only two lots, it cou ’.remain a dirt road. Kelley said that the issue to him is serving the lots to the east as well. Mr. Parten asked Gaffron to show the Planning Commission the proposal for a 2-Lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 1? Gaffron indicated that the alternate si in Outlot A and the 60' easement creau'^s a 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlet A. *is still located iguration for Lot OF TBB PL»W»6 COMMSSIOH ^ NOVEMBER 20, W**drainage going in , it would be due to the•ti^A 1-hat ultimately i^ -.id that he had - Wenkus ^®P^^®a.a.ino in a walkout. ®. ^ assumed that; indicated the neea It was ne:d%i't“on\\ «t ne\r the late. -----------------« tdditional cut near ^“SbUc*b«r“nT^«’closed. ------noublic neariwy — - . planningwas moved ^ “%rt?:"itfer s?I."oM-\»%„?nVgr»“ concerns on the ^ h« could look into that ’tlTit P«%-^ed“hn”m:trci%nc^^^^^^• ^ i^^r©CuXon esm^ ^ S:tL\' P^sied. a both pbrtbn 3ted.1 „........ - lion* “ “ ‘ -..#HceTbl6 'to^ would be possible^ r„^ToS - f,‘ i'n%”h” d\%%‘”lane“AY that the issue to oVr^jho “ *“ “ “ : ' "7 C OeT^u ashed where the sePtic system inning Commissioner B *ed for Lob 1? i i incabed It It is not contiguous witn Ms, MIHUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 \• IJ4»ZONING PILE fl470-PARTEN CONTIN1Kelley observed that if Outlot A were put in with only a 50' easement, Outlot A and Lot 1 will be contiguous.Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlot A.Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the ultimate flag lot".Bellows indicated that she did not approve of this configuration.Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to development with the adjacent property.Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PKD with the houses clustered. She said that what the Partens are proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdivision. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission's directive to have the septic .systems included in the homestead pad with a PRD proposal made it very difficult. Bellows indicated that she would not object to the septic systems being located in a commons area. She said that the septic system location is an item that had to give in order to not have this application be a typical subdivision. Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being proposed is the best that can be done due to the topography of the land. Bellows suggested that perhaps the City has reached a degree of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer guarantees a certain amount of lots. Ms. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will not sustain 4 lots. Chairman Kelley asked Bellows for her opinion regarding the 2-lot subdivision proposal he suggested with the 2 outlets. Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with the overall shape of the subdivision and the location, of the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that lot area variances would be required for two of the three lots being proposed. Mabusth suggested that it would not be difficult to make unique findings that would still allow denial of other less unique applications seeking lot area variances for newly created lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the road and the inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions on the development of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance \%\\ rTBS OF THB PLANNIHG COMMISSIOH MEETING HOVEMBER 20, 1989 • IHtZOnraG FILE #1470 PARTE8 COMTIW .... „ v would not be necessary with the 2-lot subdivision. Habusth noted that proceeding with the 2-lot subdivision would leave the issue of accessing the northern properties unresolved. Bellows indicated that she would prefer to see a PRD if there is to be a subdivision of this property. She said that the PRD should not resemble a conventional 3—lot subdivision and that it may be impossible to accomplish that. Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept a PRD that would have the 3 pads on Lot 1 and the septic systems on Lot 2? Bellows said yes she would accept that Qaffron advised the Planning Commission that there is an existing drainageway running through the property over which it may be necessary for the City to take an easement. Gaffron said that the area for the drainageway would not have to be excluded from the total area if developed as a PRD. MS. Parten said that she has tried very hard to meet the intentions and directions of the Planning Commission. She said that there are not any big flat areas for clustering homes, but rather there are three separate building areas. Bellows said that the Partens may not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. Ms. Parten said that they would be willing to clean up some of the City's problems with access. She noted that when making this application she had felt confident that due to the fact there are 50 acres with the parcel and surrounding property that will yield no more than 4 lots, approval would not be this difficult. Ms. Parten said that it does not make sense that this parcel cannot be subdivided. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if a determination has been made as to whether easements exis for the northwest lots to cross the Luce Line? Mr. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easement in the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested leaving the Styles property undeveloped. Mr. Asao said that he had looked at the possibility of purchasing the Styles' property which would bring his property up to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable not only to the City, but it would also require tha Partens to put in only a private driveway to serve two houses. Kelley asked for input from the Planning Commission as to the Partens proceeding with a 2-lot >: I LI To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Admir‘rator Bernhardson Froa: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 14, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - 3-lot Plat Ust of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Memo from Applicants Large Size Proposed Plat Drawings Planning Commission Action Notice 10/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 10/10/89 Discussion - The applicants have met with staff and have attempted to address Planning Commission's concerns with their revised proposal, a 3-lot plat. This proposal results in three lots of 4.3, 4.4, and 6.0 acres respectively. They would be served by a 50' private driveway outlot that connects to the Reiersgord property to the east and to the Asao property on the northwest. Each lot would meet the lot width standard as measured at the 50' setback from the road outlot. Lots 2 and 3 would require a lot area variance. The applicants request that they not be required to pave any portion of the road/driveway within the outlot. They propose to construct an 18' wide gravel driveway to the turn-around area (see Sheet 2 of the large scale site plan) and a 14' wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Alternatives - Please review the applicants' memo. They have considered two alternatives to the proposal. Their Exhioit A indicates a two lot plat excluding the northernmost parcel from the subdivision, wherein each lot would contain 5 acres, being served by a 50' private driveway outlot. Under this scheme, they would not be required to pave, and this would be considered as merely a shared driveway. Such a proposal does not resolve any of the concerns with surrounding properties and would likely make it harder in the future for those access problems to be resolved either by the City or by the affected property owners. °&dnir • rator Bernhardson Mnlniat-rator,el P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s zoning smber 14» 19093-lot Plab Its A — Memo from Plat Drawin9® . - /««B - targe,Site Ptopcsad Plat^^ C - wanning C^l| 10/10/89 D - Memo 6 ExniDit. ,llcants nave eet -- P'« S=%fvTir %%7e/sg^^“d t"rro?d%riot-tc?s “? aVd 3 «onld regnlre varisinc© • =»"‘ad/”rvV«Vwuh\rtro^^^^^^^^^ ll?%^ srav\l driveway « the turn E the large scale t' ts 2 and 3. eview the appU=ant=' «emo._^ Exh%i^“ :ly? “luch a proposal does not reso^^^^^^ it r.«rounding properties^an^^^^^^^^^ tesolved rci“tror ^y'the aKacted property owners. ,^V * . < — NmUTBS OP THE PLAMHING COMMISSION MBBTING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470>PARTEN CONTINUEDsubdivision of the 12 acres, subtracting out the acreage dedicated to the 60' easement that runs the whole south lot line. Kelley suggested putting in a 50' outlot that follows the southerly lot line all the way around to the east lot line.Gaffron observed that such a configuration would create two flag lots.Brown said that he would favor the 2-lot subdivision.Mabusth advised that the flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25' outlot the extends up to Lot 1 on the east nde.There were no comir its from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing ,<as continued.It was moved by Chairman Kelley to recommend approval of the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlot A which will run 50' from the southerly boundary to the east lot line. Outlot B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlot A to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25 ’. It was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the outlot will need to be wider than 25' to contain a driveway. Kelley said that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth suggested that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley suggested tabling the application until further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application pending transmittal of a plan addressing the issue of easement vs. outlot, site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres rather than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of what drainage information they needed to submit? Gaffron explained that the City may require a 20' to 30' drainage easement be taken over the existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays “0, Motion passed. «1471 DARTLE UPBOPP 2699 KBU.T AVENUE COHDITZONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that the Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 2 of 3 The second alternative is shown on applicant's Exhibit B as a PRD layout. The proposal appears somewhat contrived in order to place the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, within Lot 1. Applicants feel that the PRD concept is not necessarily appropriate since the shared nature of the open space would tend to negate the privacy aspects of the low density development. Applicants further are concerned about the marketability of the PRD as it applies to this specific property. Certainly applicants are correct in that the property does not lend itself to clustering, as was the case in the Luce Line Ridge PRD development just to the west. However, with 3 lots on over 17 acres, as a PRD no lot area variance is necessary since the road outlot can be credited for meeting the density requirement. Issues - 1.Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable via the proposed standard plat in granting the necessary lot area variances for Lots 2 and 3, to be less than 5.0 acres in the 5 acre zone? If so, the proposed plat would seem to address the general issues outlined by the Planning Commission previously. If not. Planning Commission should consider the PRD alternative, in which the lot area request is no longer a variance. 2.Is the applicants' proposal for an 18' wide gravel road to the cul-de-sac, with an extended 14' gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3, acceptable to the Planning Commission? If not, what additional standards would Planning Commission recommend? If Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval for lot area variances for the standard proposed three lot plat, there are number of unique findings that might be made that would set this application apart from other future applications requesting lot area variances in the 5 acre zone: 1. In order to provide future access to neighboring land locked parcels, the City is requiring an unusually lengthy outlot road that subtracts from the overall acreage. 2. Due to the extremely hilly topography and "stretched out" nature of the parcels encompassing the property, the length of roadway to serve only three parcels is necessarily of an excessive length. 3. The overall density for the three proposed lots is 5.6 acres per residence, meeting the intent of the 5 acre minimum lot size standard of the RR-lA zoning district. ■i Q..■ I Zoning File #1470 November 14r 1989 Page 3 of 3 If Planning Commission feels that these and other appropriate findings provide a substantial justification to grant the lot area variances requested» such that the precedent-setting aspect would be minimized, then a recommendation for approval of the proposed plat would be appropriate. On the other hand, if Planning Commission feels that granting the lot area variance here will ultimately lead to pressure for lot area variances on less unique properties in the 5 acre zone, then the PRD concept with three distinct building pads and commonly owned open space, could be considered. Staff would also note that if a recommendation for approval be forthcoming, the plat would be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements, a drainage easement over the major drainage ravine, park fees, private road easements and covenants, etc. I , I 1 LI - " er 'H /- Tos Date: 11190.2HD Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 11, 1990 Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future Resolution A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject to any public easement or access right. It says that driveway width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway length. The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private road design standards that state for 3 to 6 residential units, a right-of-way width of 50' is required, with a minimum paved width of 24*. The Subdivision Code requires an outlot for a private road serving 3 or more lots (Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C)]. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. B. Conflict Between Zoning Code & City's Development Intent Both the Subdivision Code and Comp. i*'?nsive Plan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area [Subdivision Code § 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive Plan Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, by extrapolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front on a public street, therefore new lots proposed to front on private roads require a variance (see MPG memo of 3/6/86). The definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of revision. It is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is appropric':e«Tb do so should not require variances. I i TO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Dan and Ruth Fatten RE: Bayside Woods Subdivision I. Proposal - Three Lot Subdivision We oropose a 3 lot subdivision with road outlot, including an *18 foot wide gravel driveway to the turnaround, and a 14 foot wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 is arranged to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown. .ariance Request ai - Lot Area Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are 4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively, Lot 1 is 6-0 acres and the proposed road outlot is 2.3 acres. The overall density of this project is 5.6 acres per residence. The unique terrain of the property together with the creation of a 50 foot wide road outlot of 2.3 acres creates a hardship that we feel justifies the granting of a variance. Variance Request #2 - Paving We recognize that at some future date the driveway Outlot could access up to six properties and provide access to three landlocked parcels. The additional cost of bituminous paving fcr the 1#250 foot long driveway to the turnaround is approximately $23^000. We feel that if paving is a requirement, those costs should be shared by a.’l benefiting parties. Therefore a variance is being requested to waive, for the present time, paving of the driveway. II. Alternate - Two Lot Subdivision If a variance for paving is out of the question we propose a two lot subdivision, shown as "Exhibit A". The additional expense of paving the driveway and turnaround make a three lot plan economically impractical. This plan produces two 5 acre plus parcels with n^ variances required. o Planning Commissionand Ruth Partenide Woods Subdivisionil - Three Lot Subdivision)ose a 3 lot subdivision with road outlot, including foot wide gravel driveway to the turnaround, and a 14 ,de gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 is sd to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown.;e Request ai - Lot Area»d Lots 2 and 3 are 4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively,LS 6.0 acres and the proposed road outlot is 2.3 »rall density of this project is 5.6 acres per ice. The unique terrain of the property together with jation of a 50 foot wide road outlot of 2.3 acres 5 a hardship that we feel justifies the granting of a :e. :e Request »2 - Paving ognize that at some future date the driveway Outlot access up to six properties and provide access to landlocked parcels. aitional cost of bituminous paving fcr the 1,250 foot riveway to the turnaround is approximately $23,000. 1 that if paving is a requirement, those costs should red by a.*.l benefiting parties. Therefore a variance is requested to waive, for the present time, paving of iveway. ate #1 - Two Lot Subdivision ariance for paving is out of the question we propose a t subdivision, shown as "Exhibit A". The additional e of paving the driveway and turnaround make a three an economically impractical. Ian produces two 5 acre plus parcels with no variances ed. Page 2 - Bayside Woods Subdivision III. Alternate #2 - PRDExhibit B is an attempt to create a PRD as requested by the Planning Commission. The intent of a PRD (as explained by staff) is to cluster home sites in one area of development and leave open space for the enjoyment of the residents, maintaining the overall density of the project at 5 acres or more per residence.The topographic features of the property, potential septi-: sites, and the natural building sites make clustering homes unfeasible. The use of open space around builc. sites when the sites are separated as these are, woulc infringe on the privacy of the residences and therefore make the lots less marketable. lA - Bayside Woods Subdivision Iternate #2 - prdfhibit B is an an-tanning Commission^'"^Th^°• ® ^s reguestort kper residence. ^ the project at 5 acres ore topographic features of■rings on the privacy of fhf ■ *"^«se are, woulc '' less »ar.etsSe «=l^-nces and the«feJe ..a^e EXHIBIT A / i ix9iraiti \"i ♦ •fl.OMO ^^•»o.\W ♦ »)> *<no\♦ *•!\\ '/ \i ’a u /<> /// V \ \ V A N ;4r:::: too^,Mr>> •tojr I » <0)0 / ; »5.e iOSO.t I EXHIBIT B I TO:Daniel Parten COPIES TO:1015 Tonkawa RoadLong Lake, MN 55356TYPEOF APPLICATION: Subdivision /. To: From Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lA, 5 acre, unsewered Application - 3-lot Class III subdivision to create two new 5 acre building lots in addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map J.xhibit C - Property Owners L' jt Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Drawings (c'.*-’• C rc '. Exhibit E - Letter from Neighboring Property Owner White Exhibit F - Sketches by Staff Including: 1. Neighboring Property Ownership •2. Acreage Layout 3. Scale Concept Plan Showing Building Sites 4. Existing & Proposed Driveway System 5. Staff Conceptual Sketch A 6. Staff Conceptual Sketch B 7. Staff Conceptual Sketch C Exhibit G - Subdivision Cede Section 11.10, Subdivision 21(^c.j 4;;. 03.21/ Pertinent Facts - 1. Proposed lot areas are as follows: Proposed Lot 1=5.2 acres (existing house) Proposed Lot 2 = 5.0 acres Proposed Lot 3 = 5.0 acres Outlet A = 1.87 acres Total Acreage = 17.06 acres (per survey - does this figure include 33' of right-of-way for Watertown Road?) 2. Proposed Lot 1 would not abut a private or public outlet road, but is proposed to be served by an easement driveway, which conflicts with Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c). Lot 1 contains the existing house and the existing primary drainfield. The site evaluation report on file indicates there are no suitable alternate drainfield sites within proposed Lot 1 and the only apparent alternate site is within Outlot A. The southerly 60' of Lot 1 contains an existing private "road" easement in favor of the Reiersgord property to the east. Applicant has not excluded this existing road easement from his calculation of lot area as required by the subdivision code. i Zoning Pile #1470 October 10, 1999 Page 2 of 5 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Proposed Lot 2 is a "flag" lot which would have 60' of frontage on Bayside Road per the proposal. The flag portion of Lot 2 also is covered by the 60' existing road easement^ which again was not excluded from the area calculation by the applicant's surveyor. Primary and alternate drainfield sites for Lot 2 would be located along the noxtherly lot line of Lot 2. Lot 3 abuts the Luce Line Trail and was the subject of a variance application which was never completed. This subdivision proposal increases the area of that parcel to 5.0 acres (including the proposed road easement). One of the issues with that prior variance request was access across the Luce Line Trail, which the applicant could not obtain. The current proposal leaves Lot 3 with no frontage on a public or private outlet road, but gives it about 158' of frontage on a proposed 30' private road easement. Outlet A was proposed for possible sale to the abutting property owner at 4360 Bayside Road. However, since septic testing indicates the only alternate site available for Lot 1 would be within the area of Outlet A this poses a problem. The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements of the septic code, which requires that drainfield sites be within the building lot which they serve. The proposed dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 generally follows a deep ravine. The proposed 30' easement road was located to fit the existing topography. The property contains steep slopes which significantly limit the potential roadway locations. A number of variances would be required in order to approve the plat as proposed: A) Lots 1 & 3 would require a variance for lack of frontage on a public roadway. B) Lots 1, 2 & 3 would require lot width variances. At the 100' setback from Bayside Road, Lot 2 is only 60' wide where 300' in lot width is normally required. Lots 1 & 3 do not front on a public roadway nor a private road outlot, hence they each technically require a 100% variance for defined lot width. C) Section 11.03.24, the definition of "minimum lot area", requires the exclusion of private or public access easements from the calculation of lot area. With this in mind, the actual defined areas of Lots 1 & 2 are each about 4.0 acres, and that of Lot 3 is 4.95 acres. Each lot would require a lot area variance. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 3 of 5 D) Variance to Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c) to allow 3 lot development without a private road outlet. Discussion - In early discussions with staff, the applicant was advised that complete septic testing would be required for this 5 ticre subdivision due to the slope concerns on the property. Additionally, it was suggested to applicant that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) be considered for this property due to its unique natural characteristics and unusual boundary configuration. As of a week before this writing, applicant had been requested by staff to provide a revised proposal showing outlot roads rather than road easements to serve the subdivision. In your discussion of the issues noted previously, staff would suggest reviewing sketches FI througii F7. FI notes the neighborhood ownership pattern and the location of neighboring residences to the north. F2 notes the acreages of the three blocks of property within the subdivision. F3 is a reduced version of the applicant's concept plan for two new building sites. F4 Indicates the existing and proposed driveway system. Especially note the extreme length of driveway that would serve Lots 2 and 3. From Bayside Road, the driveway serving Lot 3 would be about 2,100 feet (or four-tenths of a mile) in length. Sketch F5 is the first of three conceptual layouts provided by staff for discussion purposes. This layout provides a 50* road outlot to the Reiersgord boundary, and uses the applicant's proposed 30' corridor for Lots 2 and 3. The alternate site for Lot 1 is within Lot 1, although the contiguity is merely through a 10' wide neck. With this configuration, there is still an apparent need for an outlot east of the 30' driveway corridor, and this outlot would need to become part of Lot 1 to make up the required 5 acres for Lot 1. This sketch shows Lots 2 and 3 abutting the private road outlot and containing significant frontage on that outlot. The required 50' side and 100' rear setbacks for the existing house would be maintained. Please note that staff is not recommending this configuration, it is only for discussion purposes. Exhibit F6 is staff conceptual sketch B, which shows a typical "block" subdivision configuration that ignores the topography concerns for road construction. Each lot would have the required frontage on a private road and meet the lot width requirements. Also, the Asao property would have frontage and required width on the private road. Zoning Pile #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5 However, the negative aspects outweigh the positives in this layout. The required 5 acre minimums are not met. The road could not feasibly be constructed within the outlet due to the steep slopes which would have to be cut or filled. The road wipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for Lot 2. The alternate site for Lot 1 is still on a separate outlet not attached to Lot 1. Again, conceptual Sketch B looks good on paper but does not accommodate the topography or physical characteristics of the property* Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit P7, suggests a planned residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2+ acre building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acreage as an open space outlet. Outlets B & C would be private road outlets. Outlet C could conceivably be narrower than the standard 50' private road outlet, since it would serve only two lots. Staff Recommendation - Given the information provided by applicant, staff would recommend that the following issues be addressed for the applicant so that he can return with a revised proposal more in keeping with the subdivision requirements while still relating to the natural characteristics of the land: 1. Should this be a normal plat subdivision, or should it be a planned residential development? 2. Is there any justification to grant variances to allow development with easement roads rather than private road outlets? 3. If a private road outlet is required, should it continue to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a private road outlet be continued to the Asao and Deters properties to the north, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for those two properties might ultimately not be necessary? 4. Will Planning Commission require that the alternate site for Lot 1 be within the boundaries of Lot 1, if this is a plat? or, if this becomes a PRD, will Planning Commission allow the alternate site for Lot 1 to be within the open space outlet? 5. Presuming that whether this is a plat or a PRD, the ^®******ission will not waive the standard requirement that outlet roadways be excluded from lot area, if the remaining acreage after exclusion of roadways is less than 15.0 acres, will Planning Commission consider granting of lot area variances with the subdivision? i. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 5 of 5 Additional ents - 1. Applicant is advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for plat review. 2. Once a revised proposal has been received, further review of drainage and other site concerns will commence. I f . t I e #1470 , 1989 5 Cooments >Applicant is advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for plat review.•nee a revised proposal has been receivedf further ^ of drainage and other site concerns will comxnence.M -1^ i-. ,t - jii.CITY OP ORONO -fiSOBDIVISION APPLICATIONPROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Fimm OFFICE•. 09/2Z'LPlease check one - PropertyAttach legal description to application.3 1 - 23^3applicantName Omnta Phone (home)Pari crAddress:Phone (work) ^^/~73/«^ _ _ _ _ _ —^ •j nAc^UJa ~F o3c I City; Lc^^c,—L3 Sip; ^ OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) ^‘7/~ ~7 .^/^ - O ^ Phone (work) ^^/~~73/-^ Address ; / cy^F:.^cua B>3d City; Ao^Cr UdA^^-----Zip .^2.-------- (attach list if more than one) Name JJ EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) n n o nc. / Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)__ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ PROPOS^ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Lina Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites /Number of Building Sites; Proposed Gross Density; Minimum Lot Size; Proposed Use; (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) ijp\ ,*!) - .*"Ti'ltf300wobdivisioh - - - - - - - -. Property J6- _ _ _ription to pppii«!i!2:- - - - -r"97/-5^2-- - - 'irnn^J^T i pok£!4!a_2a^.?tH:- -'‘■''Iy5_7I*7 3i__rrrrtf--x phone (home)_^ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ checH) Acres DeY Acres parcels Acres Total, air y Residential; no. o£J^ other (specify)- - - - - - - tig District^^__ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purp building sites) " ,ot line Bearran,e.ent Only (n ■“ for New Building Sitessubdivision for ^ % 3 E Building Sites: Existing Units '^ew Units ■* Total Units Gross Density* Lot Size: Use: (check) units per 777 --^ ’ . „e Dry Buildable tan Residential -other (specify) MINIMOM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION1. Completed Application Form2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey.3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtainthis list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center348-3271).4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of thenames on the above list with no return address (use address labelsobtained with property owners list).5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application iscomplete.Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments).2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat.3. Title opinion.4. Easements, Covenants, etc.5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit.Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) ^ Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and 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 Commission 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 to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ;/) q:uj ui ULi (/) cr M M 1/1^ Ul UJ ^z i vcicapitalw OCT-B Va capiul.inc. KQ Boxj^* Long Late, MN 5S356 • (612)476-2637 October 3, 1989 JEANNE A. MABUSTH Building & Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO Orono Village Hall P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Residential Subdivision 4300 Bayside Road Dear Ms. Mabusth: In conjunction with the Parten application for a proposed three lot residential subdivision of a property located at 4300 Bayside Road, I submit the following information. If blacktopping of the north-south access road from Highway 84 is being considered, the following information may be pertinent. 1) The blue quarter-section map which I have tends to indicate that that road is d" pa^t on our property. (Our property abuts that road on the east and north of Highway 84.) I visited briefly on this with Mr. Gronberg, and he indicated that he thought it appeared that way also. 2) When that access road was put in, it was raised above elevation so that drainage on the extreme southwest corner of our property was restricted so that there appears to be about a third of an acre which has now become inadequately drained and uncroppable, particularly in wet years. 3) If a culvert would properly drain that corner before the blacktopping, it obviously would make that partial acre more usable again. If a telephone or other visit on any of the a^ve is appropriate, I will be most pleased to be available. Very truly yours. t P. White I t ' I r I 0 r *\ I inn m*n CJ o . . 148.04 S89»46'orE 2 /'/y^^'Y;,.v:.v;.2.;^n^ \; \ :':i-:/ / y/f> ^" .*/' i:/ I'fy^Z^C'Yy 'n'xj/r///7"yy^ \(,y> \ ■'A^L / W \'V — ^ irj:; / / / / USt^c. Pity / \ ' - . .’w - ' . \ .; V ;X. , V ' y Cti^Titio •>iAM rAsrurnr C .I y M89*44 ‘32"W 593 53 / \ .jc\y" F-l TO »U •<- *I '-'O 70*53‘5^W^ 129. 29 / =Zoo ^ _ Li I .r^:c \ 3 Y//?. .AM«4#;*oi"r i-V^ .ty'^ ,AntAs ifCCr'<Mi KasLsrt l\ K \ \ ■|h . - .Xrxy7<^c^/j /./ ,4Sfl^^ '\ j ^ 'CiftfiMO <»MI* Mif Mfur •'=^t:*c5(r .148.04 ' A r/<,v • zi» y / X / / ; N89*44*32"W S93.9S I 'V .v>’OTO io »>/ 0><H. r-c. Aci^eACtC vasff!-'' TO HO <14 Ac.. c Nro*59V 129.29 COt^Ct^Tt'^U - *'-»*' S^^L-’tCM j2 , t* ^ »I -Zoo Q • C F-7 (^K^TCH ‘c‘ ■I .•1 H V Subd. 21. Special Requirements for Class II and III Subdivisions. A. Improvements. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider prior to Final Plat approval, shall be fully completed and shall have had a certificate of satisfactory completion issued by the City Engineer prior to endorsement of the Final Plat by the City. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider after Final Plat approval shall be fully set forth in a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Subdivision approval. All local streets in subdivisions where sewer and water are not available shall be private unless otherwise approved by the City at preliminary subdivision approval. The City reserves the right to determine whether a road is to be public or private in all areas of the City. B. Public Roads. Public streets and roads will be required to be platted, constructed and dedicated to the City when required by the Council consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City staff and the established City oractices and design standards. Public roads shall be completed and issued a certificate of satisfactory completion oy the City Engineer prior to Final Plat approval or, when specifically authorized by the Council, shall be subject to the conditions of a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Plat approval. #■1^0. Private Roads. When the Preliminary Plat has been aporov^ on the basis of a private access road providing the only access to three or more lots, the private road shall be identified on the Final Plat as a separate outlot. The private road shall be identified by name if the road serves four or more lots. Whenever a private road outlot is proposed, the subdivider shall be required to provide for a permanent homeowner|s association or road maintenance agreement acceptable to the City in order to insure ownership and maintenance of the road outlot. D. Road and Utilities Basements. The Council may, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and/or City staff, require the sut divider to convey to the City certain road and utilities easements permitting public ingress, egress and access over orivate roads as a condition of Final Subdivision approval. 1. Whenever a private access road is authorized, the required outlot shall be included on and conveyed in a road and utilities easement in the standard City form. 2. Whenever areas of the plat are to be set aside for public or private utility construction and use, said areas shall be described and dedicated for public use on the plat. This shall include areas shown on record plat drawings as "drainage and utilities easements". .... >3. Whenever a road and utilities easement is required, the easement shall be fully executed prior to Final Plat approval using the legal descriptions of the Final Plat and shall thereafter be filed in the chain of title of the property concurrent with the filing of the Final Plat. 442 (4-1-84)ORONO CC s for Class II and IIIpublic and/or private apleted by the subdivider illy completed and shall ompletion issued by the Final Plat by the City, luired by the City to be Plat approval shall be : to be executed prior to streets in subdivisions shall be private unless iry subdivision approval, whether a road is to be:reets and roads will be Jicated to the City when 5 recommendations of the nd the established City oads shall be completed completion oy the City or, when specifically t to the conditions of a to Final Plat approval. le Preliminary Plat has ;cess road providing the private road shall be te outlot. The private oad serves four or more >roposed, the subdivider ermanent homeowner|s icceptable to the City in if the road outlot. dents. The Council may, tsion and/or City staff, City certain road and :ess," egress and access Subdivision approval. vate access road is .ncluded on and conveyed ndard City form, the plat are to be set truction and use, said public use on the plat, at drawings as "drainage i utilities easement is ited prior to Final Plat he Final Plat and shall ;itle of the property S 11.0321. Improvements, Private" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will22. "Improvements, Public" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will ultimately assume the responsibility for its maintenance and opera tion upon issuance of the certificate of satisfactory completion.. . "Lot" - A tract, plot or portion of a subdivision or other parcel of land intended as a unit for the purpose, whether immediate or future, or transfer oi ownership o**for building development. Every platted lot shall be a buildable lot or an outlot. . . '‘^RTArea, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum aicea required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for c specific property. All rural lots must comply with the Citys on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian ease ments, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain eleva tion for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. 25. "Lot, Buildable" — A lot or combination of lots or outlots which meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter for the intended purpose. 26. "Lot, Outlot" - A lot which is intended only for public or private roadways, open space or other use, which use must be restricted by the appropriate easement and which use must be approved by the City at the time of final plat approval. The use of the outlot will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easement. 27. intersection of "Lot, Corner" - A lot situated at the two (2) streets, the interior angle of such intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. ORONO CC 419 (4-1-84) (4-1-84) I Mayor Grabek & Orcno Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson F[l[!l2*i930 & Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: January 9, 1990 #1473 Jacquelynn Kelly, 2056 Shadywood Road After-the-Fact Variances - Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J - Application Applicant's Addendum Property Owners List Plat Map Plan for Current Deck - Comparison of Hardcover & Setbacks for Former & Current Deck Gaffron's Memo to Mabusth Re: Hardcover Gaffron's Worksheet/Sketch 1-3 Hardcover Fact Sheets Staff's Sketch of Variances Needed for New Structure Survey P**.cinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 [(A) - Lakeshore setback required for current deck] Required ® 75' Existing = 71.4' Variance » 3'6" or 4.8% (B) Average lakeshore setback required for new structure. Setback of 19-20' at maximum encroachment point beyond average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variances. 0-75' Zone: (note rip rap is excluded from hardcover calculations) Previous » 0 s.f. Current * 16 s.f. or .23% 75-250' Zone: Allowed * 3,161.25 s.f. or 25% Previous * 7,239.46 s.f. or 57.2% Current * 7,697.46 s.f. or 60.9% 250-500' Zone: No changes proposed within this zone. Excessive hardcover is reviewed at Allowed “ 155.4 s.f. or 30% Existing » 984 s.f. or 65% (exclude portion within right-of-way *■ 835 s.f. or 55%) 'i ng Adininistratorlywood Road “ Hearingparison of Hardcover rent Deck e; Hardcover , Needed for New current deck] tred for new structure, oachment point beyon Zoning File #1473 January 9, 1990 Page 2 of 4Section 10.25^ Subdivision 6 (B) — Side setback variancerequired for current deck.Required = 10'Proposed = 9 'Variance = 1' or 10%Review of After-the-fact Application -On September 6, 1989 a Stop Work Order was issued forrenovation and remodeling work within the interior of the home and deck addition being done without a building permit. On that same day a permit was issued for the renovation and remodeling work within the interior of the house. All work on the deckwould have to cease until hardcover facts were submitted and an updated sur’.ey.On Sept^flber 15, 1989 the contractor submitted hardcover calculationA and an updated survey. The contractor was advised of the neeo ror an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances. At that time it should be noted that the P^^fial deck structure had nor encroached the 0—75' setback area. On September 19, 1989 a citation was issued because work was continued on the deck. Additional foundation posts were installed. On November 9th the Zoning staff conducted the customary on site inspection of the property as part of the vaiiance application procedure. Staff found the deck completed except for required railings. Staff advised the City Attorney of the current status of the deck and requested that he send a letter to the applicant's attorney advising of the continuing violation. The City Attorney's office has advised the the owner's associate, James Michael Klein, has pleaded not guilty to the citation. A court date has not been scheduled as of this City Attorney has advised the City to continue with the variance review as the courts will be awaiting the City's final action on the variance application. jver variances, eluded from hardcover >7.2% ).9% this zone. Excessive 1% k lin right-of-way ) 3i Zoning File #1473 January 9, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Review of Deck Proposal - The applicant has constructed a deck that encroaches 19--20' in front of the average lakeshore setback line in addition to the 75' lakeshore setback. The deck has also been found to encroach the required 10' side yard setback. Hardcover facts have been noted above. The current deck would require hardcover variances in the 0-75' zone and approval of additional hardcover within the 75-250' setback where an excessive amount exists over the allowed 25%. Please review Exhibit E, the applicant's addendum has noted that there is no difference in the area of the former deck and the current deck. The plan shows the underlying 14'x36'5" deck with 3'x7' stair structure. Note that the increase within 75- 250' setback area is 442.2 s.f. or 3>j%. The previous deck was located 83' from the lakeshore. The current deck is 71'4" from the 929.4 elevation of the lakeshore. Please also review Exhibi" I, staff's sketch designating all required variances for currer deck. Options of Action - 1. Denial based on the following findings: A) Unaccfci/table/insufficient hardships have been presented by applicant. What are acceptable hardships for this property? B) The encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback line is not necessary nor acceptable. C) There is no acceptable hardship that would allow the encroachment of the required side yard. The applicant has failed to support variance request with a matching removal of existing hardcover. If Planning Commission is consistent with previous Council approvals of similar variance requests, additional hardcovers would also have to be removed. Denial would require the immediate removal of the existing deck. A >ry 9, 1990 3 of 4^ of Deck Proposal -Jk«hlre’’setblS’® “-2»'•qulred 10 ■ ™® ■3«l' has al,o h.on ? ‘><^««on to thea’bov'eV The"«r«^"'!,.«'=‘’hct. HVr°dc‘^=*ve/lrc'ia‘'i “"“'X* 0-75* 2ono a-j deck would reon<»-ea k ^ have been" setback whert ln*’e°c«slve^'^^*“°"“ '-«^«verwl?hla"?h*'•/, elevation of tll'e®\'’a°kesh d^rfs^ir 4'"-“®=' '>«i9natln, ell "e,nL%"|%%“vL^e%*1~ c'u^^l"of Action -olal based on the following findings:3'"We .en ptesented essary nor acoeptabll*!® ^‘"'eshore setback line is not ho^^enVo"f°t^nrS‘u\Ved -1- the ''?o be el would reguire the i„ediate removal of the existing Zoning File #1473 January 9, 1990 Page 4 of 42. Table. Planning Commission may wish to table the application providing applicant with the option to come in with a revised deck plan (no hardcover or encroachment of lakeshore setback *> establish a reasonable setback beyond average lakeshore setback line) and plan for the removal of existing hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Planning Commission may also wish a trimming back within the 250-500' setback area. Planning Commission may establish a limit as to an acceptable amount of hardcover percentage within the 75-250' setback area currently at 60.9%. What is an acceptable level for this property? What is consistent with previous similar applications?The total area of the property is 21,119 s.f. or .48 acres (required area is 23,560 s.f. - the property meets 90% of the area requirement).3. Approval. If you can find that the current application meets the intent of the lakeshore regulations of the zoning code, the comprehensive plan of the City, and to be consistent with the City's action in previous similar applications, than Planning Commission members may grant approval of the proposed application. Obviously the only feasible options of action available to the Planning Commission would be either a straight denial or the tabling to allow applicant to bring in a revised plan more in keeping with the City's current standards and policies. <-he’ -V wish \o’’e«ne *■"Planning C®”''"/itcan" «"hh ^^®o°'’eic”o»chment °£Lon p"o-«ls” !ertovri»£r u:h^r;i-a “rit-',V us?“«fhhin'ts;-»«i-250' 8®^^* 4.hts property?\Tlsr‘wp££«*^°"’" £ or .48 acresIvious sleilah 21.£1 ’.UV »*•«-. ot the property r propertytal a’^®* ?e 23»560 s.f*fc^Tirement). current °z*oni°g can find that Rations of the J^rof tVi of the CiJ;X'cas>"?rorehenslve PlhJV X£ vou can Untsiior-e nnh^^cft-^a"C t r"X the Citys acj^iaslon member ions, than ^^an £(.,tion. liable to ■•of the proposea app aval lahie y the oniyJ^«lf “e?ttn the City '’oning File #1473 Ffeoruary 7, 1990 Page 5Additional Comments & Planning Commission Recommendation - List of Additional Exhibits -Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit n Exhibit 0 Exhibit P Exhibit Q Planning Coirmission Notice of ActionBear Correspondence 2/5/90Hardcover Fact Sheet 75-250' Setback AreaConsents of Adjacent NeighborsProposed Agreement by ApplicantStaff SketchAmended PlanThe Planning Commission denied all variances requested by applicant for current illegal deck. Planning Commission recommended that applicant be allowed to reconstruct a deck that would extend no closer to the lakeshore than the previous deck (extend 14’ in front of front line of residence). Review Exhibit P, this deck would encroach no more than approximately 2+' beyond the average lakeshore setback line. In addition, the revised deck could not extend into the required 10' side setback yard and held hardcover at the present 57.2% level. Since that meeting, staff has spoken with Stuart Bear, applicant's attorney, and recommended that with the revised plan realigning the lakeshore deck per Planning Commission's directives, that it would be appropriate to also show reductions in existing hardcover, within the 75-2 50' zone. Mr. Bear was advised that the 57.2% recommended by the Planning Commission would be found too excessive. Mr. Bear agreed to discuss my recommendation with his client and has submitted an amended plan for Council's review and consideration (review Exhibit Q). Review of Amended Plan - The amended proposal shows the deck at the present configuration with the portions within the 0-75' being removed. As a result, there is no longer any hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. The current deck as amended would extend approximately 16' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Review Exhibit P, The Planning Commission's recommendation asked that the revised deck hold to the original setback line. The revised proposal still shows the deck at the 9' side setback, which was against the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Applicant proposes a reduction of 10.1% hardcover within the 75- 250' setback area (please review Exhibits G, H2 and M). Landscape areas with underlying plastic totally some 1,681 s.f. of hardcover is to be removed. Applicant shows no reductions within the 250-500' setback area, now at 64.77% hardcover. The majority of that hardcover is landscape areas with underlying plastic and bituminous paving. oning File #1473 t^bruary l, 1990 age 5Jditional Comments & Piann^« o, »adlM Co™,s3lo„ Reco«e„d.ti„„ -Exhibit Exhibits -S: 0. *cuo„Ex"J;jbit S : Propos^^£P^^^^^Exhibit o " Sketch^®'"®"*' ApplicantQ - Amended Planommended ^that''Vla^'"®® requested by this deck wnii 1 front line of reefean Previous deck °r/keV 'mmended that with\»f ®®®r, appi icant"s%^?®*^ meeting, op'’rrat:\^o""aVsUZ'=f""'«- -n^d^r hr£ sslve. Mr. Bear anJf i’*."® commission would i." 57.2% of Amended Plan - The amended proDo«:fli cu r\“s''u^^^°"the^e is%^5 “°"® Present ^ Exhibit P ThP^'^o!’^ °f average lakeshorp”°^3%5 ®^*^®nd the revised Jp^i, ^°mmissLn ’s rPonJ ®ftback line, ed propofJi om*; to the origTnll asked«as ag7i®|J ®tili shows the deck at thp The •ant propose*? p ^®*^ommendation of the pipnnT^^^^ setback, setback'^ aria (" 1 e?s‘e°"r“' "^iSPover w"®thi?"A'^‘,°"-ape areas with u^nrio^i • review Exhibits c n? dcover i«? lying plastic totpii. M). 5 and bitt^i^^Sf^a-iW/ - w^Yb"rdVr•l ;• Zoning Pile #1473 February 7, 1990 Page 6Although applicant has proposed an agreement to limit any further intensification of the current deck as proposed in the amended plan, the City's own ordinances would require a variance approval if the subject deck was to be enclosed. If a deck is to be approved by Council, the resolution approving the structure would fore.iarn any property owner that the deck structure could not be intensified without the appropriate approvals of the City.Options of Action Available to Council -1. Denial finding that applicant has not demon' rated sufficient hardship to allow for more permanent structural hardcover within an area already containing excessive amounts of hardcover, and to require the immediate removal of the structure; or2. Approval asking for the following reconstruction of the current deck structure: Per applicant's proposal, remove structure within the 0-75' setback area, but also require removal of that portion of the deck that encroaches the side yard setback area, and approve 75-250' hardcover at 47,1%. Council would be approving a 16' encroachment of the average setback line; or Per Planning Commission recommendation, hold applicant to the 14'width requiring a 2'+ average lakeshore set back line encroachment and approving no side setback variances. Council may consider allowing 989 s.f. area of current deck to be reconfigured within the 10' side setbacks and the 14' extension from the front line of the existing residence. Prior to Council acting on such a proposal, applicant would have to submit a revised plan showing the reconfigured deck. Council must also approve applicant's proposal to reduce hardcover in the 75-250' setback area to a 47,1% or request additional removals either in the 75-250' or 250-500' setback u-eas. Council Action - To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be prepared for Council's action at the February 26, 1990 meeting. e #1473 , 1990)ugh applicant has proposed an agreement to itensification of the current deck as proposed in theensifie/ without the appropriate approvals of the City.Action Available to Council -al finding that applicant has not demon cient hardship to allow for more permanent stiuoturai :over within an area already containing excessive its of hardcover, and to require the immediate removal le structure; or3val asking for the following reconstruction of the >nt deck structure:Per applicant's proposal, remove structure within the 0-75 ’ setback area, but also require portion of the deck that encroaches the side yard Ltback area, and approve 75-250- hardcover at 47 1%. Council would be approving a 16 ’ encroachment of the average setback line; or Per Planning Commission recommendation, hold applicant to the 14 ’width requiring a 2’+ average back line encroachment and approving no side setback variances. Council may consider allowing 989 s.f. area of current deck to be reconfigured within the 10 side setbacks and the 14 ’ extension from the fjont line of the existing residence. Prior to Council acting on such a proposal, applicant would have to submit revised plan showing the reconfigured deck. oil must also approve applicant's proposal cover in the 75-250 ’ setback area to a 47.1% tional removals either in the 75-250 or 250-50 ack wteas. ction - provide staff with conceptual direction so that riate resolution can be prepared for Council s action at ary 26, 1990 meeting. CITY OP OROiiO - VARIAHCE APPLICATIONInitial Application Fee $150.00($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00(no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application faeyPROPERTY LOCATIONSite Address 2056 Shadywood Road ^ . 00 ^HProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) 38-17-117-23-31-0014Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or X torrens?Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.c >• v« •J. k . w • W W V\ Vr.rrv *-.4. i. ■ . ■ . . «7 V U « •APPLICANTName Jacquelynn M. Kelly Phone (home) (612) 471-0421 . *“..c-y\.wVcPhone (work) (':i2) 338-0103 Address: 2056 Shady\i700d Road OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same as above City; Wayzata Phone (home) Zip; 55391 Phone (work) Address:City;Zip; Date Property Acquired August 1989 (month/year) I 6f3oc) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $5,000.00 Describe request in detail: Repair and replace existing attached deck. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other r DESCRIWIONbOP^™SD^pPROPra^^ compliance with Zoning Code aeouirements; See attached statement- - - --- - '■ bequired submittals 2' certified P?optrt“oLer7 List of ovmers within ISO' (you must obtain thiruJt from HeLepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 3. ItlmpVdV'legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels wde^h D3roD0irtiy ownsirs Xist}« 4. Certificate of ^survey including hardcover calculations as requxred. 5* Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owr''’'S -ist). 14-#■ of 7. As an addendum to this application, ease attach a separate list of any otner persons you wish notified this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff._ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ mug Aoolicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please reLmllv your va?ianL application is not complete if the above information has not been included. C«tificItion"by"zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^___________________________ ______________________ ?Sf'a^Itant^^by agrees to provide all information squired or requested bv the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay unusual exoenses incurred in review of this application, and ?Se information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's c ^ rrn a mi r^: x- - - - - - - - - - Date ~ - - - ackoCi:^^'"and ag^^es to this application ^nd further luthor^zes Reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investig tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature * ^ ADoIicant must ha\^a^^2^S^als^hto the City offices 25 days before the Plinning Commissi<^'Meeting. 4lanil2ng Commission are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. an unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make ®^^®"9ements to have_an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildi g Office of this change prior to the meeting. J I I . -• • mm 4 1 •// ^ G r. ••-. .4^# ;*i -j'-t»v DESCRIPTION OP HARDSHIP AKD DESCRIPTION OP OTTOSnAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS In August 1989, the applicant, Jacquelynn Kelly, purchased the property which is the subject of this Variance Application. At the time ot the purchase, there was a rectangular-shaped deck attached to the back of the home, between the home and the lakeshore. The deck was in disrepair and in a dangerous condition, as the deck floor was rotting and the supporting posts for the deck were not secured in the ground. Ms. Kelly specifically bought the home because she liked the deck area which overlooked the lake. After moving on to the property, Ms. Kelly retained an architect to assist her in repairing the deck. The architect suggested to modify the design of the deck somewhat and to repair and replace the underlying post so that the deck would be strong and secure. Ms. Kelly arranged for these repairs. After repairs were underway, Ms. Kelly learned through her construction worker and her architect that the new deck would be in violation of both the Orono Hardcover Ordinance and the Orono Setback Requirement. She also learned that the old deck was certainly in violation of the Hardcover Ordinance and may quite possibly have been in violation of the Setback Requirement. The new proposed deck actually provides less Hardcover than the old deck. Ms. Kelly is presented with a unic'ie situation. She purchased this property because of the deck area which overlooks the lake. She had no idea that she was violating any ordinances and really had no warning that she was in violation because there seemed to be no problem with the existing deck structure. Ms. Kelly's new deck is substantially completed. She will be faced with an undue hardship if she is forced to remove this deck because she has spent her funds to hire an architect and construct the deck. Further, if she is forced to remove the deck, she will not be able to use her property in the manner she intended to use it when she purchased it a few months ago. Allowing the new deck to remain will be within the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in that the existing use of the land for a deck area would be retained, while the new deck provides a stronger and more secure structure. I c o & hi sT Ma * UJ HI IS uis S! s M h» §3u. >* Ui1^ Q. UJ ac° S z M a IUJ X 9^ CO N CO r-l No iH Ui h- o M O o §« Xs CQ t5 k3 5 X»- •H »H a o « 0 o o M o Cl K> Q lU ^ CO K» > a M o Z1 < 3 K X -I H o iH UJ I i-l K CC iH >!• O hi “) O X CO <M < hi O Z hi UI UI s s < 2x “* ^SS ^ o S o a. ^ hi o o o X UJ #-i a -I UJ > hi < -J M h- H UJ X hi UJ UJ o o s hi UI UI n^tal •H 0 UJ _ CO < *H o o z o.I UJ 3 >9 UJ nOo s h* hi O h* iH O X X hi M Ka (0 O! O O aoa.a. UI ac Z a 3 oe a Z UJ «t « < U|\a t9 O H > >- ^ ^ -J o ^ ^ c: hi UJ UJ UI ^ Q UI CM rH Q O « o a •-C ohi g hi >“ CNJ o I < X »H to iH Irv ^ M hi O CO (NJ hi o CO CO o < a h- O u. CL o CK •H o 9^ Q£ hi UI O UI i -i o£ X < UJ h- O S O' > cz a o UI X 2 « § 2u.< X < UJ UJs.ill O H hl o o o u T 3 M to o vO>r r-l sO M hi to to hi u CM d I tO h* a •-i < I h. ••1 O CO o hi Q UJ Q “o a ri z o <^ u. o UJ h- > < »- K *-l cl u o UJ Ui a CSI CO CM « Q O X o o ^ o hi O fj a O' -j Z <r hi < O UI K CO O UI UI •H Q o oc o o ^ o hi Q hi > CM O I «t h* X »-c CO I rv oo CO CM hi o < h- M UJ to UJ M -J (0 CO w _-I tf CO rM O O' OC hi UI O UIo 9 Sss < CZ M M vO > UJ « o < Z Z OJ Z UJ J- Ui (Z X Z Q o «< X o a z UJ < < >• \ cz ^ Q. UJo aS li o iH o o o M o o hi >- UJ -J O CM O Cl Q 1 < Z < Z ^X r'. X UJ u >• Z pMirM CJ t1 O 2 h- •H ^ Z <<1 X X «<COKh» < H UJ h- <•H O u X <•J N CO UJ O hj < >< O Z CO c) > CO CM O O <&hi O CZ d CM z »- Ui (Z Of r oa < (Z o O Z UJ < < > \ o: < u CL UJ a. Z CZ ^ a o K h- o tc§ X M < ul Z M UJ I- UJ OC Ui UJ Clu a UJ M OC z UJ M O a a “2 UJ p £ u. u. O O J i :i i(«) ;(«) (K)6 “4in) m ff -T5iVi*^ t 9(9r)3tK) :(W)i ue) ^ * ♦ii (»<)I I UZ) (9e) 1 : t e3''>v»l iCM 0«Oai O0« 't »0' A *•*•- (9C) ^lUZ) (W) iir. b T«) s (l< (Cl)« _J To: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Froa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning S Zoning Administrator Date:January 3, 1989 Subject: Hardcover Review - #1473 Jacquelynn Kelly# 2056 Shadywood Road As you requested, I have reviewed the survey and hardcover calculations provided by the applicant and would make the following comments: 1. I did not visit the site but did carefully review the survey, which is quite detailed as to locations of various hardcover items. 2. In the 0-75’ zone, actual square footage of deck is approximately 16 square feet. The applicant also apparently included the area of shoreline rip rap as hardcover, which we ordinarily would not consider as hardcover. Therefore, the hardcover in the 0-75' zone is apparently 16 square feet or 0.23%. 3. In the 75-250', applicant's calculations show 59.76%. My calculations come up with 60.9%. This includes a portion of rock landscape bed across the northerly lot line. Approximately 1/4 of the 75-250' hardcover is in rock bed areas. Also, the bituminous driveway area is extensive, comprising about 1/3 of the hardcover on the property. 4. The 250-500' zone is relatively small, and contains about 65% hardcover. This includes driveway pavement, rock beds, and a small storage shed. I included 149 s.f. of rockbed in the right-of-way, in my calculations. i.C. C.Z. SS*/= /A, 250-500' 500-1000 ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION HORKSH^S8T8ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONSJ 0-75K^^^25^' 250-500 ' 500-100C Exietine HARpgovgR in Zone 50-500 ' 500-1000 /‘ 5»F, ‘S,P,S,F,S.P.S.P.^0^zz±££_s,f, S.P. / r2i££_i... 2 /oCKTtT , ,, ion S.P 5^ J,J», , S.P. 81P. S.P. S.P./ j.f, H l:iM«I an ■• *1 •1 i •s ^b-O s s< •s. t. S.J • SiP •Sli* 9iFi t • s.^. 9 •♦%•• • S.F.•_ fl.F. '■^3-9.Pi ■rr'-.f ^0 y /'/f ,• ./ fi.,V>W'- h ir.7 >» >w* % %. ,v— *i ■3Y r ZONING PILE NO. 1473CITY OP ORONO P.O. Bo;: 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323TO: Jacquelynn Kelly2056 Shadywood P.oad Wayzata, MN 55391 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION473-7357COPIES TO Date of Notice: 1/24/90Stuart C. Bear Chestnut & Brooks 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South 9th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OP APPLICATION: After-the-Fact Variances DATE OP MEETING:1/16/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: To deny all variances sought by applicant for current proposal as follows: a. setback variance to required lakeshore setback of 75'. b. hardcover within the 0-75' setback area where more is allowed. c. 19' to 20' encroachment of average lakeshore setback line. d. increase of 3.7% hardcover in 75-250' setback area. e. side sc .back variance to south lot line. The Planning Commission did note that they would approve an encroachment of tne average setback line for a revised deck that would not encroach further than the original deck at 14' in front of the front line of the existing residence. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of a side setback variance for a revised deck. The Planning Commission approved hardcover at the current 57.2% level and said this percentage could not be exceeded. Per our recent phone conversation Mr. Bear, you were advised that in light of recent Council actions that your client would be well advised to provide an amended plan noting the directives of the Planning Commission for the location of a revised deck. In addition you were asked to consider additional removals of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Your revised plan should locate the areas proposed for removal. Your revised plan should .oe submitted no later than February 2, 1990, for the February 12th meeting of the Council, or February 16th, for the February 26th, Council meeting. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if you have any questions concerning the above directives. CHESTNUT & BROOKS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW JACK L. CHESTNUT WILLIAM E BROOKS. JR. KARL L.CAMBRONNE* CORTC. HOLTEN CRAIG A. ERICKSON DENNIS B. JOHNSON ALANB DE.M.MER'* ROBERTA. LiiFLEUR. CPA JEANETTE A. FREDERICKSON STUART C. BEAR BRIAN W. RUDE •Al^O AD.MITTED IN WISCONSI.N ••ALSO AD.MITTED IN CALIFORNIA 3700 PIPER J/VFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. .MINNESOTA 55402 16121339-7300 FAX (612) 336-2940 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. W. ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55103 (612)2«M1900 "ebi.uary 5, .J90 HAND-DELIVERED Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Department 1335 South Brown Road Crystal Bay^ Minnesota 55323 Re: Jacquelynn M. Kelly After-The-Fact Zoning Variance Zoning Filing Number: 1473 Our File Number: 9244 Dear Ms. Mabusth: 1 : ; ; Enclosed herewith for immediate filing please find the following in connection with the above-referenced matter: 1. Revised hardcover calculation worksheet for zero to 75 feet zone, and 75 to 250 feet zone. 2. Revised survey of the subject property dated January 25, 1990 (t^n copies). 3. Consents from adjoining land owner. 4. Agreement As To Future Construction And Improvements. As you can see from the enclosed materials, Ms. Kelly v/ill propose the following revised plan to the Orono City Council: (1) remove a portion of the lakeshore side of the deck to meet the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement; (2) remove a portion of the south side of the deck to meet the 10 foot south lot line setba'-’c requirement; (3) remove all rock beds within the 75 to 250 foot setback area, as shown in hatched marks on the revised survey; and (4) with these changes, there will be zero percent hardcover in the zero to 75 foot setback zone and 47.1 percent hardcover in the 75 to 250 foot zone. ki h‘ s1 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth February 5, 1990 Page 2 As for the encroachment in connection with the average lakeshore setback line, Ms. Kelly has obtained the consents of the adjoining land owners who are most affected by the area configuration of her deck. The adjoining land owners consent to the construction and placement of the deck now located on the property, as shown on the revised survey. Moreover, Ms. Kelly will propose to the City Council that she and the City of Orono enter into an Agreement regarding future construction and improvements, in a form much like the Agreement enclosed herein, which would restrict future deck construction and improvements. The intent of this Ag_-eement is to preserve the deck in its present form, while restricting future construction, such as the placement of a screened-in porch or three-season porch on the deck surface. The restrictions contained in the agreement would run with the land, restricting Ms. Kelly and all subsequent land owners. Thank you for the courtesy of putting this matter on the calendar for the February 12, 1990, Council meeting, while allowing me an extention of time to file our revised plan. : appreciate all of the direction you have given me throughout this matter. Very truly yours, CHESTNUT & BROOKS, P.A. SCB:dh Enclosures mne A. Mabusth :y 5, 1990for the encroachment in connection withre setback line, Ms. Kelly has obtained the c„g land "''°Thl”diSiSng land owners consent tonation of her deck. The ad30ining x j^^cated on theistruction survey. Mo Ms. Kelly will ^to^ tlfe °<^rty Council that she and the City of Orono enter ; ^^re^Lent |egatdin, rtu?rr^ iec\^ rckTn Ttrpr\Vent™lo^"?\"^i?I -^u%e“ cKii?n^. sfcM^ oi^^a :?iins^contained^ i^ th? sting Ms. Kelly and all subsequent land owners. , a.y,_ /'mirfesv of putting this matter on the piruarv 12 199^ Council meeting, while allowing of S to flit our revised plan. I appreciate all "direction you have given me throughout this matter. Very truly yours, h sures CHESTNUT & BROOKS, P.A /> Stuart C. Bear £.-»: ST I Nfl HA^SqSVcn IN ZSN5A. KOUSc LSNSTH B. 6aRAS c __HjI c, D riysnay __ Di SlOSWALK __llll E. Patio/ D eck f.LandscapsARSAS UNOSRLAIN BY , . PLASTIC • SHESTINS 47.9 32.6X - X - X 20.35 2.5 X 3.5 883.51..022 449.7 2,272.3 135.9 167.7 1,021.8 S.PiS.F.5.FS.FS.F S.P. S • A • _ S.F. 0 -(Proposed) j,;s, 9.? m ■ 6. OrHS.R Total KA.icc3V£.=i in Zons • , ^ Tctal A.=.sa i:! Iz'.'.t m 5,952.9 rirn 12,645 i n • f • -• ' " — 5,952.9 12,645 S.F t / • — _____J\ CONSENTThe undersigned, the adjoinina lanriujoinxng land owners to propertv ^56 Shadywood Road, Orono Minn nn.oni Minnaaota, hereby consent to the-tron and piacenent or the deot no„ located on the propertyis attached hereto.1^ ?/- -?d ir '?'■ TU^jd,(Addifess) A1., --?a. 'i ^ ^ .? T / y\i?>£)> i.y tf 4//r’,5- e**r*t / r-.V,. V rvA ^ li j\ ^ ^J/\^^ \ \ 3 f2§ \ X' INITIALED V >>? U t*-i\ \ X\ *V->X\• »•* vX » ■% \ I .-•A v.^.v 0= CONfiEMT The undersigned, the adjoining land owners to property located at 2056 Shadywood Road, Orono, Minnesota, hereby consent to the construction and placement of the deck now located on the property, as shown on the survey which is attached hereto. Dated:-•/ ^*.7 Dated: J ~/-f0 ''A' y<£: V • /' •rL / /A (Address) 4* *• ♦ . Si - 4T'J gVv; , j* 1 7-' v./ . "Lj:1 /i. (Address) : ,1 ■J O -7e .- ■*r , ^ci-r-s. K-v. t.- ‘ *7iVT/7 ./ £1 INITIALED: AGREEMBMT AS TO F CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1990, by and between the City of Orono (hereinafter "City of Orono”) and Janquelynn M. Kelly (hereinafter "Kelly"). WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, Kelly is ^he owner of certain land located at 2056 Shaoywood Road, in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (hereinafter the "Land") and legally described as follows: Southerly one-half (S‘i) of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Gust S. Johnson's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Kelly has constructed a deck on the Land, as shown on the survey which is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein and labeled Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the deck violates the average lakeshore setback site line requirement, as set forth in Orono City Ordin^n;e, Section 10.22, Subd. 1; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of resolving this matter. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants as set forth below, the parties hereto agree as fellows: 1. The existing deck construction as shown on Exhibit "A" shall remain in its present configuration without further alteration and location on the Lund. o 2. The City of Orono shall grant a variance for the enforceability of Orono City Ordinance, Section 10.22, Subd. 1, as it pertains to the average lakeshore setback requirements for the deck. 3. No new deck construction or improvements, other than replacement of the existing deck construction, shall be made to the deck as it now exists, as shown on Exhibit ”A.” Replacement of the existing construction shall not increase the area, change the configuration or change the location of the deck as it now exists. 4. The City of Orono shall not issue any building permit for construction or improvements to the deck which would be in violation of paragraph 3 above. 5. The foregoing declarations shall constitute covenants to run with the aforesaid described Land and shall be binding upon the City of Orono, Kelly, and all other persons and parties claiming through them herein and for the benefit of and limitation upon all future owners of said Land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement As To Future Construction and Improvements on the date and year as first set forth above. CITY OF ORONO Its Jacquelynn M. Kelly STATE OF I-’IN’NESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ilENNEPIN ) The above and foregoing instmment was acknowledged before me this_ _ _day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1990 by_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ on behalf of the City of Orono. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The above and foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1990, by Jacquelynn M.Kelly. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY; CHESTNUT & BROOKS, P.A. (Stuart C. Bear) 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 MmetonUiC'ldc t' SHAOVWOOP-i^P CCooNT-< Roao no. \V EXHIBIT I f ■/Ldqe of lAjnholc HiT.juihOVJS «0<^OWH># f 5HA0VW00P CCOONTS ROAD HO To:Planning Conmiission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson fVftf*'“Iff! 1 2 1930 riTV ^ Proa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:January 11, 1990 Subject: #1467 Charles & Ann Hommeyer, 4125 Oak Street Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 — After-the-Fact Portion: A) The retaining walls and deck area located within 75' of the lake. 1. The retaining walls are located adjacent to a sand blanket at the shoreline. 2. The deck is approximately 45' from the shoreline. Note the survey submitted with application does not designate the 929.4 elevation. 3. 13.5'x5.42' deck within lakeshore yard requires an average lakeshore setback approval. Current Request: B) The applicants seek a setback variance to the average lakeshore setback for a fence 6' in height that will extend approximately 30' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Please review Exhibit B. The fence is located along the north side lot line adjacent to the newly constructed home. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - A) Hardcover variance required within 0-75' setback area (review Exhibits G & N). Allowed = 0% Proposed » 287.37 s.f. or 3.68% 75-250' setback area. Applicant notes 27.1%, review Exhibit 0. Note, staff cannot confirm accuracy of 75-250’ hardcover inventory as survey has not been submitted showing updated improvements. At 27.1%, the 75-250* setback area already has excessive hardcover. /6 Zoning File #1467 January 11, 1990 Pags 2 of 4 Note, stairs have been constructed per standards set forth by City for stairways within 0—75' where steepness of lake- shore banks requires additional structure. Hardcover for Stairs * 201.5 s.f. or 2.58% Deck & Retaining Wall » 85.87 s.f. or 1.10% Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 - A retaining wall was constr .cted in the lakeshore yard without the required conditional use permit and variance. Applicants' submittals inform us that the retaining wall was constructed some time in 1981 by the prior owner. Applicints note that it was installed to prevent further erosion of the lower lakeshore banks. List of Exhibits Exhibit A1 Exhibit A2 Exhibit B Exh5' '• r Ext Exh Exhi ExhiL .. J Exhibit Exh^bit Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit H I L M N - Application Variance for Fence - After-the-Fact Variance/CUP Application ■ r "*erty Owners List • V Map • L Letter DNR Application • Survey Submittec’ with Current Application ■ Survey submitted with Application #632 ■ Survey submitted with Application #731 • Staff Letter to DNR ■ Staff Letter to Hoi.imeyer ■ Resolution #1475 • Site Plan Deck/Steps/Petainino Wall ■ Hardcover Fact Sheet 0-75' • Hardcover Fact Sheet 75-250' Review of After-the-Pact Phase of Application - As applicants' submittal in' mation notes, the deck was constructed prior to the issuanc f a building permit and completed prior to the issuance ' .he Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. It shoul . .• noted that at no time did a survey submitted for the previous land use applications nor for the building permit, did the deck area appear on the survey. The deck and gazebo were discovered at the time the varianc« application for the deck at the property to the north was reviewed by staff. At approximately that time, the DNR had contacted staff to seek information regarding the sand blanket which was discovered by the DNR Inspectors. The applicants have proceeded with the required after-the-fact t>lIcatlon with the DNR. Staff has received no final informatior/ as to the esolve of the sand blanket. Applicants may be able to advisr .it our meeting. auMi. k- . . . .. *“■ Zoning File #1467 January 11^ 1990 Page 3 of 4 At a meeting with the applicant, applicant was advised of the need for the filing of the after-the-fact variance. An extension was granted to Mr. Honuneyer and the application rescheduled for the January meeting, but it should be noted that Mr. Hommeyer filed the application soon after being advised of the need for the after-the-fact variance. The applicant has failed to list hardships for the after- the-fact phase of the application and should be given the opportunity to note those at the meeting. The steep laV'siihore banks of this property require a stair structure to assi<.;t with access to the lakeshore. The stairs have been installed per informal City standards. They are less than 4' in width and safety landings have been designed with less than 4'x4* safety landing stops. Options of Action - Retaining W«?17. - Approval or denial. If denied and retaining walls are to be removed, what other method of control of erosion would you approve in its place? Stair £ -ructure - Approval or denial. If denied, what other form of access or means of access would Planning Commission recommend? Stairs have been constructed per informal standards of City - Inspector should confirm that structure meets Building Code standards - building permits are rc'T’-ired for lakeshore access stairs. Lakeshore Detached Deck - Approval or denial. If denied in its present location, would you approve a detached deck within the lakeshore yard in front of the average lakeshore setback line similar to the location approved for the property to the immediate north in a recent variance review? In that application, a hardcover variance was not required within the 75-250* setback area. If this deck is located within the lakeshore yard out of the lakeshore protected area, a hardcover variance within the 75-250* setback area would be required as follows: Existing « 4,480 s.f. or 27.1% Proposed = 4,550.2 s.f. or 27.5% Additional Hardcover = 73.17 s.f. or .4% L'SMf.pr*] •A •»• Ti n:Hii [•ftl*!* 0M *1 [•IS Oitf*! •TiTcTbli •liw.1* I «<•]•] [•i«pc*s*r^ [•i»pp« iw Zoning File #1467 Feburary 6, 1990 Page 5 Additional Coanents and Planning Coamission Recommendation - Additional Exhibits - Exhibit 0 - Planning Commission Notice of Action Exhibit P - Fommeyer's Letter of 1/22/90 Exhibit Q - Revised Site Plan Reflecting Improvements within 75-250' Zone The Planning Commission recommended approval of the after- the-fact variances and average lakesnore setback variance for the proposed privacy fence along the shared lot lines of Lots 2 and 3 based on the following findings: 1. The 2 1/2'+ high retaining wall located to the immediate landside of a sand blanket in the lakeshore yard to be a satisfactory method to deter future erosion of the lower lakeside bank. 2. The access stairs, at less than 3' in width, meets the informal standards of the City for lake access stairs. 3. 13.5x5.42' lakeshore deck is acceptable as removal will create more of an impact on the steep lakeshore bank. 4. The proposed privacy fence of 6' Igh was approved based on the hardships set forth by applicant noting loading area of tram was close to a lakeside patio sitting area. Such fence would provide visual and noise screening from their property. The minority opinion found the retaining wall in the lakeshore yard to be a satisfactory method for erosion control and the steps acceptable based on the informal standards of the City and recommended denial of the lakeshore deck within the 75' setback area finding such action inconsistent with previous Council actions and would establish a negative precedent in the review of similar, future applications. In addition, the minority opinion noted that the applicant failed to demonstrate the need for the 6' high privacy fence noting that the elevation of fence was not noted to determine any negative impact on the property to the north. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff met with the applicant and advised that the application as approved by Planning Commission would not be approved by the Council and advised applicant to submit an updated survey locating existing improvements in the 75-250' setback area where already excessive amounts of hardcover existed. If Council was to deny the existing deck located within the 75' protected area and would consider approving an average lakeshore setback for a relocated lakeside deck, that the updated site plan would provide Council with the necessary information to determine which areas of existing hardcover can be considered for removal. r«ifr*Hfi»i M O zX« •i*iM L#lc«!i] I •II ■ O «• jview Exhibit N, the hardcover facts between the 75-applicant. Staff has reviewed the updated (libit Q) and has made an adjustment for the gravel . Staff determined 1,630.7 s.f. of hardcover for area as opposed to 1,346 s.f. originally presented Total hardcover within the 75-250’ setback zone is o 28.3% with an excess now of 3.3% hardcover within tback zone.cant has submitted photos for the Council's review the impact of the elevation of the 6' high privacy lew windows of the residence to the norch. Please t P, Mr. Hommeyer has submitted an update on the ssue with the DNR confirming that an after-the-fact n issued by the DNR as of November 30, 1989.Ion Available to the Council -f wall (2'9" high, runs approx. 30+ lineal feet, :and side of lakeshore sand blanket). If deniedapplicant for a more acceptable form of 5ntrol for lake side bank or, if approved, finding•d of erosion control to be acceptable and the height and materials to be of a design and color .nto the natural screening of lakeshore bank. airs. Approval finding the existing lakeshore -o meet informal standards of City for lakeshore steep access banks. lakeshore deck within 0-75’ setback area. IS proposed; or led on the following findings: PP*^oVal of such a structure within the lakeshore feted area would be inconsistent with previous il actions. pproval of this structure would provide a negative dent in review of future similar applications. Zoning File #1467 Feburary 6, 1990 Page 7 3. Applicant has failed to demonstrate suitable or adequate hardships to allow the deck in the present location. Council should be prepared to advise applicant if they would allow the deck to be relocated in front of the average lakeshore setback 1*ne and out of the 75' setback area. If so, applicant must be prepared to reduce existing hardcover with n the 75- 250' setback area to allow the increase of H.17 s.f. of additional hardcover. Applicant should Lo asked to provide an updated survey relocating deck and reflecting removals of existing hardcover within the 75-250’ setback zone for your February 26th meeting.D. Privacy fence (6' high along the shared lot lines of Lots 2 and 3 running approx. 30' in front of the average setback line). Denial finding applicant has not demonstrated adequate hardship for the variance; orApproval based on the following findings: 1. At the proposed elevation, the 6' high fence will have no negative impact on the lakeshore views of the view windows of the existing residence to the north. 2. The location of the patio area on the lakeside of applicant's residence and the tram on the adjacent property to the north necessitates a view and noise barrier. Council Action - To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for Council's action at their February 26th meeting. If an average lakeshore setback variance is approved for a relocated deck area, applicant must provide an amended site plan showing new location of deck and portions of existing hardcover to be removed. Council should provide applicant with guidelines for the amount of hardcover to be removed (refer to Exhibits M & N). 1 Receipt;-I CITY OF OROHO - VARIAMCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variano Renewal Variance Pee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A *4 <; PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address///.jCS CDoJa ST~ AI n Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ Please check one - Property abstract or rumr ^ lJ5i torrens?09/22/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) ot-W Name < Ra/aJ f4oiViMt?vt^ Phone (work) 2 2u'i.A.^_ _ Address: Hi 3 S OoJUs^7~~_ _ _ _ _ City: CZ>/oAu_ _ _ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District rc^ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF RBQ:• fiir.-hr Estimated Construction Cost $ tLoo Describe request in detail: (f^wC^yvit*^ G' tfloAq* irYOL\^ AJ lx/ -4-1-^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (Front Side Rear) Other AaV WMiik t HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations t-lo gjUjmLj r>LU?CLVgj/ Wv Wcv VU ■yAStjy . DESCRIPTION OP ONUSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain -his list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees t' ■ \y a. I fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this applicat < and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Jcnowledge. 4/ Applicant's Signature IM Date OffNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby aclcowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verificatiqJI-ioS 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 p esent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetingr please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meriting. ■ • ri• ' ’ ■■*?. .Jl :, •■■CITT OF ORONO - GZSERAL LAHD USB Jtf|LICATIpN -a PROPERTY LOCAHOH Site Address SsVrgg'i* OCo^O______________________ Prop0jT^y IdGXitification Nuinfasr (P.I.D.) ■^//2,^3 X - *.*v^ V'V'.'VVPlease check one - Property ^ abstract or _ _ _ _ torrens? r^i (for Conditional Use Applications only)V• u A,>.' VV • VChiCX.■;crrTOT_ ru.*j.v vtvi , . t - » • , j --‘i.uwAi • ^^•.fPlease attach legal description to applicatxon if not includ^,-^Ty on required survey. APPLZCABT Name Cha^lrt f hkutfun f Address dUS Oa-^T OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) d-~jS ‘ 0^1 _ _ _ _ _ _Phone (work) _ _ _ _ _ City r^ronc*_ _ _ _ Zio 5£3 SC» Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zip_ _ _ _ _ After-the-Fact Fee $100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) Date Property Acquired ^ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEBS - CONDITIONAL USB PERMITS > Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee Residential accessory Use Institutional (church, school, etc.) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Indus rial Use _ _ _ _ Land Alteration Grading and filling ~ designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or pore__ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIOHS . ,^4.$150.00 Conunercial Site PIm Review (+ consultant fees; $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation with Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning $100.00 Appeals ______ Other - see fee schedule PBBSEirP OSE OF PROPERTYPresent Zoning District iR i Present Use of Property ti i Residential Other (specify) DESCRZPTXOH OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: »K. vJimaiuL# rgv»twt<teL nn%»<k«>xg X«OCC. Lt»»‘AK>W\ \ tW4<.ViiV^ If «qg . REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Canter 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal size! envelopes \‘10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been Included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied : it true and correct to the best of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acicnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members 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 Commission 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 & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. { • O>r inro Ni a. . m ga UJa o «0 _ m a tn o o X < <M z00 O Z pH otn o u u 4* -J i;/ o H C5 y uM 2 i: K> </) M M tn in 0 «< V- 9 Z Z Z ''^{gg m iii -j -j CNi CS U2 Ui• o > > <o a ui UJ c*•H < a o m 1 II O OQ ^ < CO Q»n t t ^ vO Kl inin CO Kl i; ii°i s0°s rH « e 01 ^ UJ UJ I S I- ►- O UJ UJ *H H- a. ^ i Uj U4 o in S oE <M > > «S“*“ K> O 4< < vOm M inin o <5 ^ UJ i= -• u,» CNJ O >r -j o rH O Oo O O U I- a <I-o u. u. O O ? CNJ CNJ o 0 1 CMoo X oK<a m UJ ^ ^ CM K UJ ^ OL O a< aocra. Is>s < UJ OL Z2 < O H «oo 3 in Kloo w «n CM ■l . I •H CO <f Kl O “ [j;ac ac K> UJ UJ in > ^ in SS.i : X UJ c/i <n ^ S M a o -J X « m o25 S ^ 5 S X pH oU U >t -J 1 fg^ o (/) N> UJ CJ X I o ^33 *H I sDo a Klo a o Kl O UJ UJ N UJ UJ « X IM % > > UJ UJ -J -J « s M M X Xa a •« <41 §5 chaK>aa o “ia _ a a > a UJ a j M 3a < •< 4 ^ f*a •• . i.V. V * : •. .•J * • *7* »•' -*.> r \ ■•• § 5s 5 “ ' pr:-«T»T®T®T ’nn .. « V JJMSTATE OFk DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES rr^ .METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL',. MK 5';106^ PHONE NO. 296-7523 -MINNESOTA 1990'0.550September 6, 1989 . f <sy ;V^ Nio*48*?o-e V,snr-^ ^2^ / A•J yrr ............ . m \ :**.*:' ; • .•*’**** '* M* ; .•••^ — Jtj J. V.-b. .s o p.«>< W-!. \ •/.. .X, \S( 5 Vi •' zy^^' h» *-•ft: •60.71 k-4«J5^ \s-\' icro :X! ft »T0 I - . ■« \ --A iP i'IS nil r Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hommeyer 4125 Oak Street Long Lake, MN 55356RE: UNAUTHORIZED SAND BLANKET, V90-6031, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133)NORTH ARM #22Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hommeyer:As discussed August 21, 1989, the sand placed on your property exceeds the criteria for work that can b-s done without a Deparrtidnt of Natural Resources permit. Since we have no record of a DNR permit for this sand placement, this action constitutes a misdemeanor according to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105 i7, and is punishable by fines up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail. in order to be in compliance with state rules, you have the following alternatives for action: 1) P,.etain a sand blanket that is no more than 50-feet vide along the shoreline (or one-half the lot width, whichever is less), lO-feet waterward of the Lake Minneton.ca ordinary high water mark (OHW) of ?:9.A' (NGVD, 1929), and 6-inches thick. Voluntarily remove all sand thu- exceeds the above-referenred dimensions. 2) Apply for an after-the-fact permit to retain the work you r. ve completei. A set of permit application forms was left with you on AugvisL 21, 1989. The minimum fee for an after-the-fact permit application is $250 (doubled normal $75 minimum application fee plus minimum $100 for field inspection costs). You are further advised that compliance t*1th DNR rules does not preclude compliance with c:.her authorities. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Ron Quanbeck @ 473-4224) and the City of Orono (Jeanne Mabusth @ 473-7357) should be contacted regarding pertinent regulations. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPi CYEH fa*’ \L Mr. & Mrs. Hommeyer Page Two I understand Mr. Honnneyer is in the process of preparing an after-the-fact permit application. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 296-7523. Sincerely, Ca'J? Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc:Ron Qiianheck, JMM Jeanne Mabusth, City of Orono J. Konrad, C.O. J. Fax, St. Paul Waters Lake Minnetonka (27-133) #22 file C146:kap I STATE ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONENO. METRO REGION VATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 file no / 296-7523 ^ a O- izCDNR PROTECTED WATERS PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER RFOUEST FOR REVIEW ANT) COMMENTS DATE: ^ 0 GWTO: USCjO^^^ ^ Q, 0>f*^ (j m Wt— C 0 ■“ L- FROM:CEIL STRAUSS, AREA HYDROLOGIST WATERS AFFECTED: L-u.lu_ kJ, fi-rr-N v’SOR:PROJECT SPONSOR tr-o^vn -e^1 NATITIE OF WORK:A PTE (L-- tfE - F A<ri ^ cL bl Pr~^ -Pz)! lc-£h «. '-j ^ S' t . JOOO AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Hev J.?ya5|rO(^A*TMfNT OF ^ NATUIAl tCSOURCES • k.Xflll .«4 4 fc.«*rt • •«,»TO WORK IN mOTECnO WATERS OR WETUINOS IMauOnC OMI StfFTTI » » Please read instructions belore anempting to comoieie this aopiicaiion ;------------Al7no„„oA,4m|.,ao.,:.o5 ■ij^MHogVcX fCHAULPi LU /o/9 City, state. Zip Coflei T P A NO D swcd acrt: □ WD DuSCOE Teieonone Numoer&areacooe (g^2 )y750fv^ ^ 0< u 2.2.0 * Z.t 3 Jn i '^umucr. cjiaic. ^ip uofle ■edi— ,,. „ ...4, Section!SI No C'o._____ Countv Townsnip(s) No 77 V Rangc(s)No ''3 yjJ Lot. Block. SubOivision ------^I. rfln li-P/» * wnpwn □ excavate □ fill □ drain □ construct □ install ESTIRIATEO PROJECT COST $ □ repair □ remove □ abandon JS other (specify) _Sav\cf hUuUf-j- Z Shoreline z: snore-protection □ obstruction C channel □ harbor z: bnoge jR'Sand blanket □ permanent oock □ culvert Z norap □ wharf □ dam G other (specify) VII VIII IX. w. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET): iJc VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS) --------- av'>rou;-c 3^ cx.A'Cuv^v'e.OV cooJti, Uv^. PURPOSE OF project : (tl^n ^ this pro.ect is needed!--------------------------------------------------------------- O .Small Cf re.ck, 4^o\r irQCT«.a.'Vvov\<t \ cl*> ^ a,ou.«j dock 0.0^ wrosj.c<a « n J a XI. xti ALTERNATIVES (Other alternatives to the action proposed) Vno ^na . k.-<\cjio v%___________' ---------------- ir • V '• 'Z7, r'"' .... »» cooceffiing mis jppiiaiion are true and correct to me oest ot my knowledge *"”* '"’ormalion summed and statements made state Of /Ti/r\f\A<z/:>-l-/x. - COUNTY OF Dr\^ .pnO - i . I J .* :i », SoDsaiOed and sworn 10 before me this ^^^'^*tr*(faY of IQ I My commission eipirts MARILYN K. LOGELIN NOTARY Public-MINNESOTA Signature of Notary Oistribution; White. DNR Blue; SWCO Green Watershed Districi Goldenrod City or County Pink. Army Corps ol Engineers Canary: Applicant ■ I- •\V^i^:^i ':^;p -• r > ■ - t •-,- 4. . -• iA - ■=>S:'i:i'---A. -Vv ..^l'!^ , . V* * **•'. “* ! »^ • -"i«jj. :• -‘r, / ' Vr^'.t^ ^ r •; ■■ -■ '■ '-. »•, • ■ s&rr^TJSrTv-tf:^^^ I 1. -p- w ~ • -i •i :: • ; J V. •• • •^ _ • • .-j .• 1 ► 4 ••• • • • «*. • ? - u O - i: c • • Q • • j I ▼j • ^ Lia 3 c ••• - —^• c t; c•••• o ✓Z .•-*k; 1 •• TS •r-. •?• • • •Wu* c * io ••nr.u* •—»o 11. r j -: j.: ••• —4 c c t1 ^ r ^ *•'> ;i IXC t . .: X i-^'f.; ^». • .* Vjir Ntl ■. ;. : 'l i : * •• • . • * •*• ?« •••R i.4 .2 10 C C »: • — C ?*•• u c -n o O U 1.1 ri ^ •5*.T Q. x:c- 1 —i o o’* m» t , • i lii-.vir -“^ ■1 .1 ■ I f I I I tm 9ao U 9n • •fl 3i c '•*.3 1 (/I § ? •• O •• *.- •’ / •> >> • •• J •.# r • «• • ij( - V. -51.on " r ^ •J *! • u- V ? O G.*, —^ ••• i w -3 t* ^ .V 2 t^l 0^0 c — u »i ^ tJ « «. Ji • *1 p JS .1 W # • ^ •lb i; i «t-• •. 3 w X i ; •I 4.; ' •• .«(•• u _« «» li Ktc r k i 2 • ^ • » J « •*. •* S.'i A" b« o 1 .i t. o U Vc 31 lu 3 «-• •• c'9 • l£ C J i 6 3i ^ o -f 'ii -jfj 5 3 •3 e L. ir* « , I** • ? 3 'i X *i >.3 • J > 9^ 1 a '/I “S^ s* •j5 3 ? .1 lU • r*ig •«•••• 9 *w) Ol ( ^ 'b b J i2-' • •• ' . 'V,* V. . . " r «N> ; %, ./^"7,• / -..■i •j J33 I CITYOFORONQ CITY of ORONOPost Office Box 66 *0173101 Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake MinnetonkaOctober 10, 1989Ceil StraussDepartment of Natural Resources Metro Region Waters 1200 Warner Rd St. Paul, MN 55106Re: Permit Application #90-6067Charles W. Honuneyer - After-the-fact Application Dear Ms. Strauss: The City of Orono has no additional comments regarding the sand blanket installed within th<* applicant's lakeshore yard as long as the standards of the Department of Natural Resources are satisfied. Upon inspection of the lakeshore yard, staff noted retaining walls of approximately 2-3' in height installed along the land side of the sand blanket. Such retaining walls require conditional use permit and variance approval from the City of Orono. Mr. Hommeyer has been advised by the City of the need to file an after-the-fact variance application for deck areas installed within the 75' setback area. If the retaining walls are to remain within his lakeshore yard, his application with the City of Orono must be expanded to include the retaining walls adjacent to the sand blanket. Please contact my office if you have any questions concerning the issues discussed above or if you need additional information from the City. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/tln cc: Mr. Charles Hommeyer, 4125 Oak St, Long Lake 55356 BUILDI.NG & Z0NI.NG - 473*7357 assessing ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-358 IM BLir WORKS - 473-7 359 ‘‘ .... cr CITY of ORONO CITY Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323• Munid|»al Offices OF ORqNO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 10, 1989 Charles W. Hommeyer W.A. Lang Company TCP Towers Suite 830 121 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: 4125 Oak Street Dear Mr. Hommeyer; As requested, you have submitted a letter seeking postponement of the review of your after-the-fact variance for the deck constructed within the 0-75' lakeshore setback area of your property. As the official date of the January Planning Commission meeting has not been established, please make sure that your application is filed by the deadline of December 22, 1989. A complete application consists of the following: 1. Survey locating deck and any other structure v;ithin your lakeshore yurd to remain. 2. Update of hardcover on your property. This should also include the 75-250' setback area. 3. Adjustment of fee payments on current variance application filed with the City for average lakeshore set back of fence to include penalty fees for after-the-fact variances as follows: $200.00 for variance application for lakeshore setback and hardcover within the lakeshore protected area; $200.00 double fee for penalty $50.00 additional fee for average lakeshore setback variance for privacy fence within lakeshore yard. ($150.00) Payment already received $300.00 AMOUNT DUE BUILDir.G a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing ADMINISTRA nON A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 47 3-7359 Li.. ■ Charles Honuneyer October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Please see that the submittals and Information requested above are submitted no later than Friday, December 22, 1989 to assure scheduling at the January Planning Commission meeting. You will be notified as soon as the January Planning Commission meeting date is finalized at the end of the year. Failure to file the land use application by the specified deadline date will necessitate the issuance of a citation to you by the City of Orono. The City has also been advised that you have filed an after-the-fact application for a sand blanket installed within your lakeshore yard. Please be advised that the timber retaining walls adjacent to the sand blanket also located within your lakeshore yard would require a conditional use permit and variance approval. If it is your intention to keep the retaining walls within the lakeshore, you should expand your application to include the retaining walls also. Please contact my office if you have any questions concerning the matters discussed above. Sincerely, a (X > PTA Jeknne A. Mabusth, Building t Zoning Administrator JAM/tln cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Tom Barrett, City Attorney Si'St- /. '/' j 'C,-- ... J fttr 4r:'' ] sfv.' ■ • $: ‘ f !V |r:i j <■’ .• .f ■■■’■ y/i^ v\ •^1 |: .1 1t- • 4? /■ >. j i. t.f • • r CUyormONO nuokunoM o^TNicnv ma. U7$ OtMKino VACin«e*8 T» NimI€|^| tMiMf Code SoctloA J4.4Sa - riU 731 '4haca«4* Ch«rl«a llaaaoyoc Is eha ownoc (hsrsslMr "MiMf*} sf prsM'ty Isesttd wUhtn ch« Ciey of Orono (harsaCtsr *CUy*i at 47t rack Una, ta^ally daacrtbad as Uea 2 and i, ilaek 4, and Uta land 4. •*•••* SttMit *pcop#cty*)i tdiaraaa* Kha ownor Im» appUad co tha Clky far vaciaaaaa ta aunieipal saaia« eada saetion 14.4S2 ta allaw eanstcaaklaa aC a am raaldanea ana pcapacty eonsiutir.f| of 22«mtauaca faak laakaadat kfea raaalrad 4l«S4ds4«iara faat, with.) lot width aC ltd Cast laataad at kha r^uirad 144 faat and with .i ;iouth alda yard sathack af 4 faat Inataad at tha raaalrad It faat. •«••••••• Now« Tharafara ta tt Rau'^lved hy tha City Cowncil af Ovana*Ninnaaota: rindlnqs 1. This application was raviawad as sanlna flla aa. T31. ^..1X^7.^,* ‘.UtVu.T “• “-‘••‘"•‘•'-‘WU..*.., la th« Oroflo Plannin^i CoiMtaaion r«vi«w«4 thlM 4pplleatlMM Mcch 2^ Ifilt AAd r^coiMieni04 ^ppc^v#! #f V#flMM MB K r«sirlofiti jI unit hati nxiat^il on pcopofty Coc BBBt M yo^ra. Tho oxi itinri hou*ie, not eonnoototf tB Minlctpsl sower^ h»is not h«M*n occuplttd sine# Iftla bi Thn owner ot nn « |if op*;ct / to tho ioMtfloto Moth of tMtB 1 ond Ip otock ^ h i:; ::uhnitt.«d writtofi approval of tha Mtkaak varianctta c) The iifooi ••n.i 4»at wniUi .#f tho property is jonalotofit with tho surroun«lln4| proportiooa ft) tor.*; ? «in*l s >u c 'lC tp s*!p.iratofl Croo tho propoaod hoAofitojii <i.ir , i .ml 4^ Block t) by a plattod r#a4# cont.iin l2p^iH i |i4 II •* ....... in iru*.i .iml cannot bo Ofodlto4 In tlll:i .ippl l•4ll• tv • ■'i ■'k il P i.. i r •. 1 i. *4^ tiij h City of ORONOfmOLUnON OFTHiaTVCOUNOk •) Aa av4f ><!• i*t«shof "j 3'snbACk line nt IM !••• piMM tte house ok th* pr«p«fty*3 noitowuak wlHkh. C) The vorlonco opplication doos not collet Wf MMf vorloneos to tho ouniclpol toning eo4o. 4.Tho Cltv OooAoll hos eonsldorod ship opplUMlMlMl^l^ * _______________^ M mm«niw o o OW9 w —-w—-r _ — -w^ - th» lladlofS ond todo—oHotiono ol tho fldyl^ r Clreports hyClty ttof f«eoMonts hy tho ownor por»&as* ood tho otfoet of tho ------------- soCoty ood uolioro oC tho ooi Ith, aalty. tho City CoMoell finds thot tho eoodltioM Odlitthtf ttU •cty oro pooullor to it o«d do not opply fooodoUf Ihfh^5. pcopocty pf0^rty In this ***^iWoJi**lMold not odoocMly olloct ccoCfie e^ltl^> ll^» dlt^ poso 0 lleohotordor other iantoc to noifhhor * >| foo ytttyt ootooroly dorvoosoeonwaAivn^c to thoooooc* hot Idhioooooff •• oiloolotood ^tooofoo oSTSSS .it koopinp oith tho spirit and oooprohonslvo plon oC *.h*i City tlOf Cf^uMieu. afton am ITt S! A*5L‘7.'KS‘;:}3 WiVjS:*. »gsias>!g i. tho All oslstinT structures on pcopocty OMt ho tOMOOi 9*}f* •• .1 . b.iUi», Mjll^ „ looolltion pocolt oust be cooovlnq those stcuetuces. 2, Now cosldonso oust bo hooted to y 1*1 Ml •??**• Metropollton S«.ivlco Av.iilability ehoepo hot hooh MM. No Other voclaot;*?:* *f« <jr •ntod or pocolttod for thlc stcoeturo. «. Authorities «ir ni»- • rhit; vet »onco cun with M r»i*r. wit the ounuc , to*it •«•• iH*tois:i»vo only and OMt ho oo^dlL 11* *‘***il> I 3 : '’••M ■ -tv ..'Ir „,^0R0«0UMaho"* » *ij'.-i'rra’fJ. ,^u. -»« __U.U «g»a:»*s giiti«^....... ’"‘“'“..rli^.Vr'itfsas! wm. 2&S»S t Vm. •?v:v •• . :':iHm iithof'‘•«• j| [Jl't !• - V''*'r*“ ji ..............,t«M*pnr K.».i «»/ = ty af Oconu ». Hu* yst «t •*»¥• SS<>^ City of ORONOlOUmON O^THtCttVtOUWCIl147»” • __________to tho t#r*t •* •••Inna, hotoby afr##b M th# ••/I <»y •*An«p««n »»7 •*’” -----------CtTV or OOOHOATTtSTt •*«V. «? * STAT* or AtmitSOTA ) )9S vv COUNTY or MfNNfMN ) .... MtAtY ruMl* on th I * ipp*««0,uM« ^ jM -»* ‘wwiinj! SSSM-fS»5-«■•'!■.jj*' P”VTv;V..i-i'/l .l.<t »• l«»»l •••««•< "" ft -' v-t itvl I-'''* / ^ C ^ ' MMiy 8. IVO*f * ‘ • noTAliY iMIfUC - - ^ ^ * ■• orvi* ' ’onuitrr i i6*l . . i..,i I.. *«. ' «-'•*« I ‘ •« th*CieyntOr*n*P*» Thl«.Ior«n.'nf l« •..'.-VI »;•• «;»•«•••' • Mtnni'T:n».« r;».M*i»*'« n —•« T'w ?"••• .......... . Thi-t Itrtlr•<"•*«•* •*•* • *' ’”'*“ ^''^' «TI»V *»f Oi«»nn n.O. O'** (tiytt>«l W«»y»•••. I.* t .lAs,J5#Sit|ift;pSililfe#ii0mKfSpi11*1,§iillitlirll PS¥1 iii11Bi|il:'i: ■.'•1il tl' ■ "■' HARDCOVEH CALCUUTION MORKSHEETJ^ ^ Ti-hf 2ScT3AC:< ZONE: (ciRc:^ one) Existing H ardcover in Zone •f?1^’ Sdi^Q « , 5OG-lG0a4«^J A. H ouse LENGTH WIDTH E. Garage , c. Driveway . X X X X X X X . S.F. , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. D.Sidewalk X - S.F. X = S.F. 13.5 X s.az - __ 73./7 S.F. E.’at 10/ Deck X * • ^ S # F . F.Landscape X * S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X » __ S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X * . S.F. ^7.1 7 X 3 - ^O/.^ S.F. G. Other 3^. it S X \ 4z » f2.7 S.F. UaUs Total HAancavER in Zone S.F. Total PaoPERrf Area in Zone 7^00 . S.F. \±^iU2 .4[I!.7ioe?Y inn - 3-C8 _A I % HARrCOVE.3 C4LCUUTI0N WORKSf^* ScT3AC;< ZONE: (CIRCLE OML^ 0-75'^7^250J E-asTiNG H ardccver in Zone A. H ouse 0. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck 41 LENGTH *3^X X X Miorn IS S a. Garage U c. Driveway iL _ X _ X - X _ X . - X . . X _ a?-6 ts F.Landscape ! C areas UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING m ( rA4t0t$^ s. Other x - X . X X X . X . X _ • Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone fn 4460 iLS.^ S.F. Si F. S.F. 6 7^ n f 4 /So S.F. . S.r* S.F. S«r •7.;^ ^ TL,. /aC :< /.a - S. r • 7^^ /i_o tCo __ S.i-. _ S.F. _ S.F. „ S.F. _ S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. ‘7'^;r-i5.7 !6 SZo I g I X IQO £Ue_% 9 £■•2 7 o CITT OP ORORO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 20RTIIG PILE NO. 1467 NOTICE OP PLANNING CONN ISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 1/24/90 TO: Charles & Ann Hotntneyer 4125 Oak Street Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: After-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit DATE OP NESTING: 1/16/90 VOTE: 4 For 1 Against Planning Coanisalon r Current variance request: nds the following: The Planning Commission «’ecommend<:d approval of the 6’ privacy fence that encroached the average lakeshore setback line by 30'. After-the-fact variance request: Approval as submitted. Planning Commission approval was based on the finding that to remove the existing deck within the 0-75' setback area would create undo damage. The majority of the opinion of the Planning Commission found the steps, retaining wall and deck structure acceptable within the lakshore yard. The minority opinion of 1 approved the stair location, finding they meet the current informal standards of the City for lakeshore lots with steep lakeshore banks and found the retaining wall satisfactory method for curtailing erosion but could not approve the deck within the 0-75’ setback area finding the such action would be inconsistent with previouse actions of the Council and established a negative precedent in the review of similar future applications. In addition the need for the privacy fence was questioned. Per our recent meeting in the Zoning office after the Planning Commission meeting you were advised of Councils recent actions with similar variance requests for structure within the 0-75' setback area. Staff advised that your current proposal would more than likely not be approved by Council and recommended that you provide an amended site plan/survey locating all existing improvements within the 75-250’ setback area referrenced in your hardcover calculations. Additional information would allow Council necessary information to determine which of the existing improvements could be removed to allow the relocation of the lakeshore deck within the 75-250' setback where already excessive amounts exist. In order to meet the deadline for submission of new information for the February 12, 1990 meeting of the Council, your revised plan should be received by February 2, 1990, deadline for the February 26th, meeting is February 16th, 1990. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if you have any questions January 22, 1990 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne: Just a note to bring you up to date on the sand blanket permit. The permit for the sand blanket that abuts the lower retaining wall, the rip wrap work and the first 10 feet of the blanket lakeward of the rip wrap was received in November, 1985. A permit for the blanket that is about 20* X 20* and extends lakeward of the original blanket was issued by the ONR November 30, 1989 - permit No. 90-6067. Sincerely,u Charles W. Hommeyer CWH/jlr -•*; u V -— • o c: ••.... '♦* ? _ .* *• •« •• 1 • ». .; • • • ••• t .J 0^ • • *> - .. u <: -- tw: ^ 3 ' •• r (;? .'*• *•*1 •. •o k.1 • «»• • • —% .• •w **:* j ••c «..rr. #—*# ij IL.r • M, «• ^ C .j ^ -J — «n c c o Qilf" V !r • • .f' O ^ ^ (2 o 3 ♦ • I'*- (« •• I -f .- ■ -v I (V ^ I l'Mr‘ 2790.1 , / To: Proa i Dote: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrato- Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 7, 1990 Consideration of an Amendment to Recently Adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance: Inclusion of Pools as Lot Coverage List Of Bxhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Minutes 1/16/90 Exhibit B - Staff Memo 12/21/89 Exhibit C - City Administrator Memo 10/19/89 Exhibit D - Staff Memo 7/21/89 Exhibit E - Council Minutes 8/14/89 Exhibit P - Current Ordinance as Adopted Discoselon - . ,Council had previously referred the question of including pools in the lot coverage calculation to the Planning Commission. Please review the memo of December 21, 1989. The Planning Commission confirmed that their intent in originally recommending a lot coverage limitation was to limit visual encroachment of structures that project above the ground. Please review the Planning Commission minutes of January 16, 1990. Planning Commission recommended that the ordinance remain as previously adopted^ with the intent that in-ground pools with no projections of fencing, structure or walls more than 6' above grade, not be considered as lot coverage. Where fencing, structure, or walls/retaining walls extend more than 6' above grade, the current ordinance would be interpreted as requiring such a pool to be included as lot coverage, because it constitutes a visual encroachment. Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend leaving the recently adopted accessory structure ordinance as is. Staff RecoaMiidation - staff would concur with the Planning Commission recommendation. Council Options - 1. Leave ordinance as previously adopted. 2. Direct staff to draft an amendment per the drafted language of the 12/21/89 memo. 3. Table. 4.Other. MXVDTBS of the PLMWIMG COMNISSIOH MEETING JAMDART 16, 1990 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS A. SECTION 10.52, SOBOIVISION 3 B. SECTION 10.03, SOBDIVISIOH 14(C) Of Mailing w.r. duly noted. Mabusth explained the chances being proposed. Kelley indicated that the inclusion of t.he availability of municipal water service to the Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer Availability in the Highway 12 Corridor area was fine. The other Planning Cononissioners concurred. Gaffron noted the Council's request^for a Planning Conaniss-.on recominendaticn regarding inclusion or all pools as -ct covp.rac-e He asked the Planning Commission to clariry ..hei. inter.-. 'oJ the Lot Coverage Ordinance. Garrron's concerns are that 15% is not a sufficient percentage if poc-s are -ncluded a.nd whether the intent of the jrdinance was to limit visua- encroac"’"ent of structures that stand above ground. ''yitt Planning Commission replied that was their intent. Gaffron noted that there are two different types of po^ols commonly built, and they should be treated differently, ^a.^ron said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. concurred with Gaffron and added, if there is a pool that is 8' above ground and has an additional deck, that *s a structure. Qa^fron said that it is his understanding that the Planning Coromiss’ion would like the Ordinance to remain the way it was written. The Planning Commission said that it was written the way they intended it to be. Mabusth asked if a fence is required around a pool and it is at least 5’ high it should not be included in lot coverage? - , *'.4 ^h« first point to consider is whether the raised in the Peterson application for a pool. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. A — —5T-0 122189.2 To: Proa: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator December 21, 1989 Consideration of Amendment to Recently Adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance: Inclusion of Pools as Lot Coverage Introduction - On August 14, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance 72, Second Series which regulates location, area, and height of large accessory structures (copy attached as Exhibit A). That ordinance amended Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C by limiting the percentage of lot coverage by structures on al lots 1.99 acre or smaller. Prior to adopting that regulation, upon staff recommendation the Council revised and detailed the language such that all roofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade, and any tennis courts, pools, patios, decks and other open structures which are fully or partially surrounded by fences that are more than 6’ high, would count toward lot coverage. On September 25, 1989, the Council discussed reconsidering whether pools should be included in the lot coverage calculation, regardless of fence height. On October 23, 1989, pursuant to a memo of October 19, 1989 from the City Administrator, Council directed staff to initiate the process for consideration of such an amendment. Based on the City Council's discussion, the amendment to be considered would be to revise Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to read as follows: "C. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exeed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: 1. All roofed structures which extend more than 6* above grade level. 2. Tennis courts, peelsr similar "open" structures enclosed by fences, railings than 6’ above grade level structures extends more than entire structure shall count patios, decks, and all when partially or fully or walls which extend more (if any portion of such 6' above grade level, the toward lot coverage). Consideration of December 21, 1989 Page 2 of 3 snt - 3. Pools, including pool basin and associated deck or atio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, eck, or patio is enclosed with a fence. ~I lUMificati<ms - Staff would request that the Planning Commission seriously ccnsider the original intent of the lot coverage code revision. It is staff's impression that the Planning Commission wished to limit the visual density of development on small properties by limiting the percent of above ground structural encroachments. There are typically two types of pools constructed in Orono: 1. In-ground, below grade pools, typically a hole in the ground lined with concrete and surrounded by grade level patios. Typically this type of pool has permanently affixed diving boards, and often is surrounded by a fence ranging from 3* to 6' in height at a distance of 4' to 20* from the pool water surface. 2. Above-ground pools, typically with a wood superstructure containing a 3' high plastic-lined steel basin, which may be partially below grade at one end to provide a deeper diving area. The decking around such pools is typically at a height 4' above grade, and may be surrounded with an additional 4' to 6' fence outside the deck area, hence a total pool and fence height approaching 10*. Prior to adoption of the current ordinance, staff felt it was imperative that, if a lot coverage ordinance was to be adopted, the items to be included or excluded from calculation should be strictly defined. Since a side and rear yard fence height of 6* is normally allowed in any non-lakeshore district, staff felt that on small lots, any upward encroachments higher than 6' would be considered as visual encroachments contributing to visual density of a neighborhood, hence "tennis courts, pools, patios, decks and other open structures partially or fully surrounded by fences more than 6' above grade" were considered as being visual obstructions subject to the lot coverage limitations. The idea that ^1 pools should be considered as lot coverage by structure, without regard for the actual height above grade that the pool extends, would seem to be in conflict with the perceived "visual density" intent of the lot coverage ordinance. Consideration of Aaendaent -December 21, 1989 Page 3 of 3 Staff Re ndatlon - Planning Coiranission is requested to review and consider the intent of the lot coverage ordinance recently adopted, and determine whether its purpose was to merely limit visual density of above-grade structures, or whether it was intended as a further hardcover restriction for small lots. Staff would suggest that the two concerts not be intermingled in a confusing ordinance. Staff fails to see a listinction between grade level pool structures and grade level decks, patios, sidewalks, driveways, etc. in the context of visual c^chments. If grade level pools are to be considered as lot coverage but grade level patios are not, then Planning Commission snould clearly redefine the Intent of the lot coverage ordinance, and consider whether the 15% limit is appropriate. Staff would also caution that the accessory structure code as it currently exists is not perfect, and is extremexy detailed and not easily administered. Our accessory structure code, as well as many of our other unique ordinances, are a tangled web which is extremely confusing to the general lay person. ■■■ ^ Sp*r 101989 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator! October 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Oversized Accessory Structures Ordinance - Regulation of Pools Attachment: A. Oversized Accessory Structure Memo Dated 7/21/89 B. August 14, 1989 Minutes (Excerpt) ISSUE - Presentation to Council on background regarding the exclusion of pools in determining accessory structure allowances. INTRODUCTION “ On September 25, 1989, Council discussed reconsideration of the issue of pools being included as accessory structures for the purpose of determining "percent of lot coverage by buildings", only when such pools have a fence that exceeds six feet in height. DISCUSSION - Prior to the introduction of the accessory structures ordinance, any pool under 1,000 square feet that met the applicable setbacks could be constructed in a yard without any variances. The oversized accessory structure ordinance recently adopted contains a number of specific regulations pertaining to pools as follows: A. Any pool of basin structure greater than 1,000 square feet must meet minimum setback requirement greater than the normal 10 foot setback. B. For all lots under 2 acres in area there is a 15% maximum limit on lot coverage by buildings, which include both principal and accessory structures. Any lot regardless of size would be allowed a minimum of 2,000 square feet of buildings. Pools and tennis courts with fences over six feet high would be considered as accessory structures for purposes of this calculation. AS noted in Attachment A, the issue raised at the August 14, 1989 meeting involved whether the regulation of these accessory structures was one of visual density or mass, or if in fact it was on a different basis than being total structural foot print of a lot. As noted above the exceptions in the accessory structure ordinance were for tennis courts, pools and patios and other open structures, including paddocks and arenas, with fences no higher than six feet in height. These represent a diverse range of "structures". A swimming pool is the most substantial of the above items considered as a structure, as opposed to a paddock or arena which is not so much a structure as an area that I is fenced. jf the Council desires to include pools in the regulations as accessory structures which count against "lot coverage by buildings" regardless of the fence height, an amendnent of the accessory structure ordinance could be referred to the Planning Commission for initiation of the process. Under both the previous and present ordinance a pool of limited size can be constructed on any size property provided the required normal or oversized accessory structure setbacks are met. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2* Direct that an ordinance amendment be drafted. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council request staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment regulating pools as a building type accessory structure, but leaving tennis courts, paddocks and arenas as excluded items when they have walls or fences no greater than six feet in height. Patios and decks would still be treated as structures requiring setbacks or non encroachments, based on their height above grade. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by __ that the Council haVing accepted the information direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for Planning Commission consideration for inclusion of pools in the calculation of percentage lot coverage by buildings for a given property. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Planning 4 Zoning Administrator I To: Dat«$ Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bemhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning July 21, 1989 Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures List of Exhibits - . j ,Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance with Minor Revisions Since Last Meeting Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 7/7/89 Discussion - This item was tabled at your July 10th meeting for further review. As of this writing, I have received no further comments from Council members. A few minor changes have been proposed since your last meeting, as follows: 1. The language that defines pools as non-oversized accessory structures makes it more clear that grade-level, non-encroaching patios will not be considered as part of the structure. 2. For the 15% lot cove a requirements for small lot •, structures to bo included nc.'/e been defined as follows: a) Any roofed or covered structure exceeding 6’ in height above grade level. b) Any non-roofed structure (tennis courts, pools, decks, etc.) of which any part including fences or walls extends more than 6' above grade level. Since the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is to visual density on a property, it would seem that any improvement that exceeds 6' xn height would reasonably be considered a visual impact and should be included in lot coverage. Since the maximum aHw*** is 6’, yards that are fenced in with a 6' fence would Mt be counted as lot coverage, but a tennis otherv fences would be included, as would a gazebo accessory building. Pools might or might not depending their height above grade and the type of fencing or walls existing. I Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures July 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, staff is suggesting that for the lot coverage sections, a minimum allowance be granted for small lots, so that for instance, a typical 50* lot in Navarre would still have the ability to construct a detached garage in addition to the house. The proposed revision sets the allowance for any developed lot at 1,500 square feet, which would be 20% of the typical 50 ’xl50 ’ lot. Of course, the 1,500 square foot threshold can be raised or lowered if Council is so inclined. 3. A new section has been added to revise and clarify the existing code section which requires an accessory building to be at least 10' away from a principal structure. Staff has consistently required that accessory buildings also be 10' from each other, but it was recently brought to staff's attention that the code as it is written only requires the 10' setback from an accessory structure to a principal structure, and not between accessory structures. The proposed revision will make the code conform to what has been consistently enforced, and will provide the necessary safety and visual density controls staff feels are appropriate. We would not expect a significant number of new variances due to this section. It also will give us the ability to legitimately require that pool water surfaces will be at least 10' from any other structure, accessory building roofed area, or other nearby facility that could be used as a diving board. This is a concern because there was at least one case approximately 10 years ago where an Orono property otmer had a pool less than 10' from the overhanging deck on the house and sustained serious injury when trying to dive off the second story deck into the pool. 4. Although not revised in the ordinance draft attached, staff would recommend that you consider revising the rear yard required setback for tennis courts, pools and paddocks to be merely 30' minimum and drop the requirement that such structures be outside the required rear yard area, since that would start to have a significant effect on restricting drainfield sites in the 2 acre and 5 acre zones. Staff Rernundstion - With the changes noted above, staff feels that the ordinance amendment is workable and would recommend adoption. II •AM GBDIHMMCB a MIHICIPAL coot BT , SBCOMD IMG TH* OMOOO I r*ij EJkTXMG THB LOCATIOB, AMBA, AMD HMXGHT OF LARGB AOCBS80K7 STBUCTOIMS Th« City Council of Orono ordains as follows: r(c",%nd ■'.Vain? fSS2i./ti™‘ToSS"? 9 (C) to rood a. follow. ».«trlctions. In all "R" districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet JJJJ except the-, accessory structures in excess of 1,000 squar feet wil' allowed under the following conditions: 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as accessory structure of footprint area in excess of ? 000 souare feet, except that the following non«roQfed accesso?? structures which area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures*7^ut are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D). " PoSls! when'^pool basin structure (excluding non encroachment-type patios) is greater tha 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas 2. Oversized Accessory Structures are regulated by the following table: Lot Area Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area Maxinum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas on a Property 0- 2.00 3.01 3.51' 4.01 4.51 5.01 6.01 7.01 8.01 9.01 1.99 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre or more 1,000 1,200 1.400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2.400 2,600 2,800 3,000 s. f. s. f . s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. 2,000 2.400 2,800 3.200 3,600 4.000 4.400 4,800 5.200 5,600 6.000 s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shall o to the following conditions: Page 1 of 4 ect a) No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard #rea (principal structure setbacks eust be eet). Further, no such structtire shall b# nsarsr thm front lot lino than tho front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30* froa the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b) The maxiauB height for such accessory structure shall be 30' or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c) Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area require ment for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall bo binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. SECTION 2. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is further amended by revising Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) as follows: B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, except barns or stables whseh shall be subject to the approval ef tha eeanellT shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Page 2 of 4 SXCTIoa 3. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is further amended by adding Section 10.03, Subdivisions 14 (C) k (D) as follows: C. Lot Coverage. In all soning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: roofed structures which extend more than 6' ateve grade level. 2. Tennis courts, pools, patios, decks and all similar •open* structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6 above grade level. (If any portion of such structures extends more than 6' above grade level, the entire shall count toward lot covera^®-) EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools, and paddocks or arenas, when accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the frIlowing special setback restrictions: Front - 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear - 30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area SECTION 4. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by adding Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E) as follows; E. Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1.000 square ee footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. SECTION 5. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono h«reby amended by revising Section 10.20# Subdivision 3 (E) as follows. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be usea for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Page 3 of 4 E. Greenhouses. Conunercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Coniwercial greenhouse structure_s shall not be located in a required yard area> and are subject further to the general zoning code requirements pe^ainlnq to accessory structures. SBCTIOH €. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by revising Section 10.03* Subdivision 12 as follows: Subd. 12. Crowding Principal Building. No accessory building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, alterered, or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory structure. SBCTION 7, Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption, and a short summary shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this _ _ _ _, 1989, by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ nays. day of Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 4 of 4 mwrtss or me oroho cooech meehw ! or eosdsi 14, w« iJrrm/AuaJr 6vnwTW* 9TTJS. il424<«4flHDNASD MJtXHZ •specially since hardcover was being reduc* loetten did indicate, however, thiSrF-S tsn ... crosswalk. use moved bv Counci Irnenber Goetten, seconded by SSSwa WarYan^V^^^^^ ""siti^piaS *fof windl^ard" M«ine! Motion, Ayes-4, Hays-0, Motion passed. #1425 NABD TEBMMLL 3405 WATgOTOmi lOAD ”“^^!SSrM””nn=n, Attorney. «s present on behalf of the Ferrells. citv Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief history of this application for a lot area variance and lot combination. approx! for on. additional lo-, rather than two lots. Mayor J;rhVd•Vre'viourly^“ndi^^^^ ?ir?ilultlnV^«^^"i« »°®“ 1'^^* Cygnet Place. that^\"r^w^o“urf\.“°:rl^^r/\o'n'pp^‘’o^r%^:^v^^^^^^ CounciImembers Peterson and Callahan concurred. Cou.cVl.»2.r"V.*ttr.^^n,=ro"l^n^» :jp'io*;ri tr.or/ttor m^%T oo? AyVsi4rSy:^;f^«ir^:,.*ed. in certain cases, to maintain tne seuo«cj».a Councll.«b« Ooetten .aid that it of this Ordlnane. pottinp on th.ir lots. lJ.*S.Tir/^ rh^tnVpVcariy ' "tt «e co„cern«l. a MIHUTSS OF THE ORONO COOHCJ-! MEETING OP AOGOST 14, 1989to theded by ing thef of the story ot lion. errelIs' Lremehts. illowing ,aa a form requsting story he would •o whether oring lot. ed in si*® lots on j indicated tonal lot- iconded by te lot area ^ A pasa®® fonoa 1 line the W I their lots. concerned, * ACCESSORY STROCTDRE CONTINUED30' setback for accessory structures was appropriate.CounciImember Callahan questioned why swiaming pooxs would be exempt when considering lot coverage. Gaffron said that the Planning Commission was concerned with the visual impact of structures covering area. Most pools are ground level and would not have any visual impact. Mayor Grabek noted, however, that most pools are surrounded by a fence.It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to approve the Ordinance Amendment for Oversized Accessory Structures. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays-0, Motion passed.EMGZNEEI'S REPORTORDERING P£ARS 4 SPECS ** NELL #3/HIGBflAT 12City Administrator Bernhardson explained that it was necessary to do test drilling to determine which aquifer can be used. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember pgterson, to proceed with the water well testing. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays>0, Motion passed. PAT REQUEST #1 - LIFT STATION 10/43 , w It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to approve payment #1 for Lift Station 10 and 43 projects. Motioi, Ayes*4, Nays*0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORTS L.N.C.O. MAYOR'S MEETING Mayor Grabek reported that the attending Mayors had indicated they would like more control over the LMCD Representatives, because they felt they were not kept adequately informed. The Mayors also felt that there were too many meetings that it was difficult to have representation at each meeting. The Mayors also questioned their ability to recall their respective LMCD Representative if they were not performing in a satisfactory manner. CXTT ADMINISTRATOR'S RRPORT: COUNTY ROAD 51 PARKING RBSOLOnOH #2675 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Staff has recommended extending the "No Parking" area 200' further east than Initially proposed. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that the City was abill trying to work with Hennepin County to widen the parking area on the south side of County Road 51. Mr. Thomas Anderson, 3550 North Shore Drive, said that he ‘ A O^OINVCi . 7$. SecOM»SlRIE3 }. AN OnOINANCE AM^NCMNO TH6 ORONO MUNICffiAL CXX>E BV KOULATINO TH€ LOCATION. AREA. AND HEIOHT Of LAROe ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Th* City CouncM ol Orono ordain* a* follows I) SECTION 1. Chapter lOollhaMunlclpNCoda olOronolaharebyamondedbyrepeNIngSac- Mon 10 03. SuMMsIon 0 (Q and aiMno a new Section 1003. Subdivision 0 (C| to read as toaows; C Ares Resiticllons In all R" disiricis no accessory buNdlng shall eaceed 1.000 square feel or footprint area except that accessory structures m excess ol 1.000 square feel wM be allowed under the loHoviring condlllons. . t.lM wwre ttiion Ovetslied /tcceeeery Structure |OAS| ahel be permlHed on ««y property An “Ovarstied Accessory Structure'* Is defined ea an accessory structure et foot print ares In excess ol t.OOO square feet, ex cept that the loSowlnq new-reeled accessory structures which exceed t.OOO s.t. leotprim area are net considered as "Overalf e Acces sory Structure*, but are aubiect to th* spe cial setbecli restrictions ol Section 10 03. SubdhHsion 14 <0| - TerwUs courts . - Rod* when pool basin structure lexclud- ing non-encrochmeni-iype patio*) is greater than t .000 St. ■ Paddocks or arenas 2. Ovorsiied Accessory Stmchires are regu- Isled by the following labl*: I r Lot Area 0-199ecre , 2 00 3 00 acre 3 01 3 50 Acre 3.51-4 00 acre 4 01 4 50 acre 4 51 5 00 acre 6 01-6 00 acre 6 01 7 00 acre *7 01 6 00 acre 6 01 9 00 acre 9 01 acre or more *ExcHidlt^ rxKi roofed tervila courls. MaaIrmirTi Individuai Accessory Siruclure Foolprint Area 1.000 s f. 1.200 si. 1 400 St 1.600 si 1.600 Si. 2.000 s.t . 2.200 Si 2.400 Si 2.600 Si 2.600 S t 3.000 si pools, paddocks, arenas. Maximum Allowed Total of Al Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on*^ Property 2.000 al. 2 400 si. 2.600 si. 3.200 el. 3.600 e.f. 4.000 S.t. 4.400 S.f. 4.600 el. 5.200 si. 5.600 si. 6.000 a.l. 3. Arrjf Oversize Accessory Structure sh^ be sublet to the foMowIno condKlons a) No such sccessory structure aliall be lo cated within a required yard area Iprincipal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot Itne than the front Nne of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory struc ture shal be located les^thsn 30' from the side or rear lot line reoardless whether less strict prmdpil structure setbacks apply. b) The maiilmum height for such accessory structure ehai be 30* or the defined height ol the principel resIderKe structure on the property whichever Is less. c) Such structure shall be flowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants In writing with the City as follows: I No future subdMslon wM be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no prtnclpal structure. SNcept that the CNy In Its subdivision approval may Qrant a Unite lime pehocf In which the oversized accessory struc ture may remain without a principal structure. In order that a prirrclpal structure may be con structed. At the end of tNs time period the oversized accessory struc*ure must be re moved If no principal structure has been con structed i. If the properly Is subcMvIded. the oversize iccessory structure and principii structure wil be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area regukemer^t for the given size M^cessory buMding IN. In subdivision approval, the setback re quired for the oversize accessory structure as deflr^ed herein shaN remain Such covenant shaN be blndlrrg on current and future property owners and shaN be filed In the chain of title of the property « SECTION 2 Chapisr 10 of Iho Municipal Cod* ol Orono Is further emended by revising Sec tion 10 03, Subdivision 0 (6) ai lollows: B. Height Restrictions No accessory build ing in the "R’ DisUlcI Shan exceed ihe height ol Ihe principal buildstg. except berrrs er-ste- bles wNeh aha* be sublset lo Ihe-epprovsref tne Council nor ehall an aeeeaaery bulld- hig eaeeed 30 feel In heigbl. SECTIONS Chapter I Ool Ihe Municipal Coda ol Orono la further amended by adding Sec tion 10 03. Subdivisions 14 |C| and <D) as toHows: C Lot Coverage In aH zoning dialricis. lor alt lots ol 0-1 90 acre In lolal area. Ihe lolal combined loolprini areas ol aN prtnclpal arid ac cessory structures shall not exceed IS per cent ol Ihe lot area The following shall be Included in calculation of lot coverage by structures 1 All rooted structures which extend more than 6' above grade level 2 Termis courls. pools, patios decks et>d fex similar ' open structures when partially or uily etKlosed by fences, railings or wans which axtartd mora than 6' abova grada laval. (II ««y portion of auch alructurea axlanda more than 6 abova grada laval. the anllr* atructura thNI count toward lol covesage.l BICIPTION. Ragardlau of lol area, every developed lot abad be aNowad al taaal i.mo equar* leal ol lol coverage by prindpil rail- dene* and garage structures. D. Tsn.n* courts, pools, and peddecM er arsnas. when such accessory structures as- ceed t .000 s I loolprini are*, shii be subiaci lo the Icdowing apeeW selbach restrictlen*: Front - 30' mMmum ai«d not wNMn Ihs ra- quired Iron! yard nor belvreen Ihe IrenI tot In* and the principal structure on tho proporly. Sid* • 30' minimum and not wIIMn the re- qulrsd side yard srss Rsar - 30' minimum and nol wNhin ths re quired mar yard arts. SECTION 4. Chapisr 10 of Ihs Municipil Cods ol Orono Is harsby amandsd by addmg Ssc- llon 10.03. SubdhrWon 9 (E| as follow*; E. Satbscks. Accssaoryslnjclureslntacess ol 750 square feel loolprini area but not sx- cttdlng 1,000 squara Isel loolprini araa shsM bs localsd at least 15 Isel from any lol In*. SECTION 5. Chapter 10ol IheMunlclpdCode ol Orono la hereby amcftded by revising Ssc- llon 10.20. SubdhrMon 3 |E| as foNowt: Subd 3. CondWonol Uses. WHhIn wy "R-1A " One Family RssMsnllal Olsiricl. no siruclurs or land shaN bs ussd lor Ihe follow ing uss* exespi by Gondillonal uso pormH; E Qrssnhouses. Commorclal grsenhouaos provided sN oulsida storage Is fenced bi such a manner so *s lo smeen the etorad material from view when observed from the pubite sheet or ad|oMng lot Cenmieretet greew how** eiraeliirea etiall r-<al be leeated In e raqvirad yard area, and are ewbjeet fw lhar I* the •enaral senlnf *ed* reowtre* manta (Mrtelnint I* aeeeaeary elnieturea. SECTIONS Chapter I Ool lit* Municipal Code ol Orono la hereby amended by revising Sec- llon 10 03. Subdivision 12 aa lollows: Subd 12 Crowding Principal Building. No secsstory bunding or siruclurs. units* an In tegral pari ol Ihs principal building. shaH b* erected, allared. or moved within Ian teel ol Ihe principal buHdIng. nor within ten feel er anelher eeeessery elruetur*. SECTION 7* Adoplion and Publication. TN* or- dinanc* shaN be eli*clive upon pubNcslion. and ShaN be pubUxii t the Laker and Pioneer newspapers i\ .'zk ol August 26. 1969. Adof ted by Ihta i^iiy Council of Orono on this 141h day of August. 1989. by a vote of 4 ayes and 0 nays Dorothy M HaNIn. clly dork James R Grabek. Mayor iPubllshad In The Laker and Pioneer Aug 20 1969) I* _ I i t I m Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Dno G Bonewoo. 0ooen W 8owne pB jOVfX>r^ C Vy>e«n <*£ 6 Pf C Oon PB 3ierir g Coott PB ’’Nynji E \oyei Aooen G Sc^uncnt PE Viarvn u SorvM P£ v<n A GoAlon PE etcn^m w Poster pb Donald C BurqjitX »E ^TV A 3ou(dor> P£ A M^von PE ^ PE * «jufmarvi Pf P PB Djy<] C uOiMOti PB ^fenco PE C Ly»xn PE g M«urv3 PE P Anoervx' PE Mau ? 9o-r\ PE aci>m C PuiieA AIA E AryjuV PE Nc^^*fO A W^fCfO PE j Bjgmor PE VUf» A X» p* p»*» 1 Cam •« PE t ) ^ ^A4rt 0 vA^»k\ PE fhomjs t Andprion AlA Gary p Bytjrvier PE VM« B Jef^sen PE t wuifaQ Gravel w PE C^'artes A EnctioT' ceo M Pjw«f|lry Mjnan M Olor> Susan M EOe»«n C ^A • ^1ViEngkittfi A Architects February 5, 1990 ' . i‘i City of Orono . Box 66 Crystal Bay. MM 55323 Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson Re: Municipal Well No. 3 Orono, HN File No. 13949 Dear John, Five bids were received for this project as shown on the attached bid tabula tion. The proposal contained a separate bid for a 12 inch dianeter well and a separate bid for a 16 inch diameter well. Keys Well Drilling Company. Inc. submitted the lowest bid on both sizes of wells in the amounts of $60,440.00 and $70,155.00 respectively. Both amounts were below the Engineer’s estimates of $78,600 and $95,200. The bid amounts are extremely competitive due to the minimal amount of well work that has been available in recent months. Keys Well Drilling is a reputable contractor and should be considered the low re sponsible bidder. Two sizes of wells were bid to allow the City to compare capacity versus costs of wells. The capacity of the 12 inch well is limited by the size of pump that could be instal.led and would have a nominal capacity of 500 GPM. The 16 inch well is limited by the rate at which the aquifer can be pumped. It is expected that the aquifer can be developed to produce approximately 1000 GPM. Based on the bid amounts and estimated well capacities, the 16 inch well costs 16Z more but has a potential for 200Z greeter capacity. Due to the competi tive bid amount and larger capacity potential, we recommend that the contract be awarded to Keys Well Drilling for construction of the 16 inch well. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard W. Foster RVF:li End. 2335 U/^est Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota SS1I3 • 612-636-4600 9f0 «•*• "• •PHOMkL FORPROIICT NO.•ID 0PEN1II8W '-. :^%:Vif.;,.•K '*>./ ■■•<• OHONO. HM1394»I hw^cby ctrtlfy ttMt tMt it m reproduction of bids rteo1v«|."«0 Ito UJa •ieb«^ «. fottor, P.i.CLL MILLING 2 LAVNE NINNE50TA INt, - CO.. -Ift___3 StHGensoN-CASIIEU 4 |.M. RflMER • IONS S NARK J. TOOT----------- ------------UK, JItLLl. INClaukUnitEriSfil&Ui Uhlteciss Istii Uhlteust isiiid.ocn.oo LS 8.500.00 L.S. 10,380.00 L.S. 9,640.00 L.f. 13.150. I n M I LLiEi^VvMJir Pomcrlntlon > ........NUNICIML HELL NO. 3 ORONO^ HN PAGE 2fILE HO. 139*9PROPOSAL ITER Quont* ty UniuUJBL&OynMit* for blotting Incl. labor forihootlnQe copt i wireItoo 8furnithe Install i rooove air cooprosslon oquipt. for air surging of the well L S L.S.Itao 9Air turolno of the well i41 > etc* 1 ttfS UEIL OWIIUHG ? lAfNt HIMHESOIAtO.^ INC.CO.. INC.__3 REnrirnsON-CASUEU 4 e.h . renneii t sons 5 naric j. trautINC. INC. HELLS. INCUnitPrlc** Tolal Price Total Mnil Unit UnitPrice Total Price Total200 Lb?. 2.:n 4CO.IX) 5.fX) i.cKiOoo 5.11) B.^t» J-etn u».oo 2.000.003C0 C.y. AO.00 12,OCX).00 50.00 15.000.00 A5.00 i.V3L:0 (O 40.00 12,000.00 85.00 25,500.00L.S. 1,000.00 L.S. 1,500.00 L.S. 1,350.00 L.S. 500.00 L.S. 1,500.0050 Hrt. 100.00 3.000 00 125.00 3.750.00 110.00 3.300.00 95.00 2.850.00 150.00 4.500.00 UXiHil*] % Jimm. m 2i 7 lAVNI NINNCSOTA _ CO.. IWC.___3 BERr.rR8<W-C«SUCLl 4 E.H. R0MH « -----------m.________________INC.3.W 1.WJ0 00 '.c'-'jv I .too (XI 10.(» 2.0(9.0050.00 15.000.00 45.00 «.«.3t.'0 tO 40.00 12.000.00 05.00 25,500.004.8. 1.500.00 t.S. 1.350.00 t.8. 500.00 L.l. 1,500.00125.00 3.750.00 110.00 3.300.00 95.00 2.050.00 150.00 4.500.00L.8. 1.800.00 L.S. 1,200.00 t.S. 2,200.00 t.. 2,000.00 75.00 7,500.00 50.00 5.000.00 90.00 9,000.00 75.00 7,500.00 L.S. 1,400.00 L.S. 750.00 t.S. 1,100.00 t.S. 1,500.00 L.S. 250.00 L.S 100.00 t.S. 2,500.00 L.S. S82.975.00 884.520.00 885,570.00 S109.420.00 rat WWICiyAL UtLL m. 3>10 11 ■» 16 IliCH WOUCTTJW ;rirtrIMMlftatlon* trmaortinQ of «t a «ettlnv up emfructlon »j- productv-Hl t P1UIU2irtll opifi hoi9 into top of UMottimo t> tat 14* product fon uoU cotinp IIS W.onfjHO, m '>tr,| rI •ro* i»ii P**iii fir. ' *ff*>irwfA t pfiia^rr^ r*Miru 4 |.t. ffipn I MU S MB i.**95^1ft .r» •**9|» ft |#r -----mu. Pi -t ftjNitintt"■4rrJfHT ^at%(|,tr*sa HM ml.^ I .r f S. I t 0 \ : ' tc'o cr i v .f»(30.aof..r w no si.oo K9.3f9.QO n.no . i.a^s.Od ?o or 9.45000 fi.oo 0^5 00UmJHaca cotlng ^ti open Hole LtmJiHaca firaC i prosjt m onnuf16* nrcducCion utU coifttQ imJL Ortll 14* apan holt throu^ tiK Llaaataaa and Jordon fW t.f. V f»*» m.rv'.M 55 no ii.«5 00 50.00 t.i5o«fi v.no 10 ofo.no 4' 00 u.f?s 00au c Y. iM 4,100.00 tao.ou '.410.00 200.w 4 (»5j oc 550.00 f 00 M9 t.r. I5.V9 4.000.00 14.00 S.OIO.til 81.00 f.lOO.OO 30.00 4,an0.00 36.00 9.960 (T OynMita tar OUttlng fncl. labor for ibaatlfio. capt t ulra ?00 Lbs ? no 600 CW 5 00 1,500.00 3.00 1.500.00 a.00 400.00 to.00 3.000.00 400 C.Y. 40.00 16.000 00 43.00 IS,000.00 30.00 CO.000.00 40.00 16.000.00 03.00 34.O00.QO cmowo. m 43 BCHGeHSON-CASlfELL 4 f.H. REIMII ft SONS 5 NftNK J. TUMI?_______INL______ _______IBL______ WSLLl. l\Unit lotAi UnitCLlSf IfiUi UnitEUlSl MliL.S. 1.000.00 L.S. 1.500.00 L.S 7.tXX3.0Q L.S. 500.00 t.S. 1.500.0040 Hr«. 100.00 4.000.00 125.00 5.000.00 110.00 4.400.00 100.00 4.000.00 150.00 6.000.00L.S. 2.500.00 L.S. 1.800.00 L.S. 2.000.00 L S. 3.000.00 L.S. 2,000.0090.00 9.0CO 00 75.00 7,500 00 50.00 5.000.00 90.00 9,000.00 85.00 8.500.009^0 VO L S. 1,400 00 L 5 7^0 Of) L 5 1.100.00 L.S. 1.500.00L.S. 1.000.00 L.S. 250.00 L.S. 100.00 L.S. 2,800.00 L.S. 500.00 S70.155 00 $76,060.00 •92,305.00 $76,630.00 $133,860.00 60,440.00 70,155.n 62.975.00 76.060.00 64.520.00 92.305.00 65.570.00 76.630.00 109.420.00 133.860.00 JH_ 4• 11 LIM6 2 UVHE nitMCSOU 5 lEMERSON.CASKLL 4 I.M. KME* • SEMt S MK J. TMIT ----------_______________1!*L ___________IS,________y«..*U»i4t Unit unit unitLil fries Toul grjee Tout eust TfiStL friss IStlL0.00 l.S. 1,500.00 L.S. ?.000.00 l.S. 500.00 L.S. 1,500.000.00 125.00 5,000.00 110.00 4,400.00 100.00 4,000.00 150.00 6,000.000.00 t.S. 1,000.00 L.S. 2,000.00 t.O. S.OOO.OO L.f. 2,000.000.00 75.00 7,500.00 50.00 5,000.00 W.OO 9,000.00 05.00 0,500.000 00 L.S. 1,400.00 LS 7^0 01) L.S 1.100.00 L.S. 1.500.00 ° 00 L.S. 250.00 L.S. 100.00 L.S. 2,000.00 L.S.500.00 5 00 *76,060.00 *92,505.00 •76.630.00 •133.0M.OO 0.00 5.00 62.975.00 76.060.00 64.520.00 92.305.00 65.570.00 76.630.00 109.420.00 133.160.00 . cm. emot. CASH de9900 WUW1CI9AL ftl MB. 1 CWOWD. ON 9ME 5EILE_iO._ ■*3949ITfO1 KEYS WELL OOILLI*« 2 LAYME OINMiSOTA _ _ _ _CO.. IOC. CO., me.3 tERSERSON-CASIItLL 4 I.H. REMNEO t EONSIRC. _ _ _ _lie,_ _ _ _5 NARK J. TRAUTMRLLl. ue.ftaomz ifeuii Unitfnist Unitfriss Tout unit 9f lee Zsifii UnitC£i£l ISUL UhittLiSM IfillLKEYS WELL DHIUING INC.JEFFtEY y. KEYS LAYNE MINNESOTA CO. INC.JOSEMN STOTKO tEMSEMSON-CASNELLINC.JOHN N. ElUKIlTSONSECMETAMY/mEASUIIEN ESTUMTOM/COOMOINATOM VICE PMEStDENT 413 N. LEKINETON MKY 5147 CALIF. ST. NE 5115 INDUSTRIAL ST ST. MAUL. NN 55104 NPLS. NN 55411 E.N. RENNER I SONS INC.R06ER E. RENNER PRESIDENT 51J. TRAUT UELLSt INC.LON R. NOUISTER SEC-TIKAS.(612) 646-7171 (612) 711-9551 NAPU PLAIN. NN 55359(612) 479-3121 156N JARVIS ST. NN 151 TlND AVS. S ELK RIVER. NR 55330 ST. CLOUD. NN(612) 427-6100 56301(612) 251-5090 Pro*: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director February 0» 1990 2890.3HD O Subject: Pay Request #2 - Water Well Test Drilling - Highway 12 Improvement Area Attached for review and approval is Pay Request #2 for the test well drilling at the Highway 12 Improvement Area. The work has been completed and I recommend payment. proposed Motion ~ Moved by > seconded by § to approve Pay Request #2 to Keys Well DrilTTng in the amount of $807.50. Ayes ___, nays ___. To:Mayor Grabek Crono Council Members Pro*: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE:January 22. 1990 PLACE:Orono, Minnesota PROJECT I Water Well Test Drilllne PROJECT NO.:FILE NO.! 13948 CONTRACTOR:Revs Well Drilling Coacany ADDRESS! 413 N Lexington Pktry_ _ _ _ St. Paul^ HN 55104 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: FOR PERIOD: FroB!Nov. 27. 1989 To:Jan. 6. 1990 SPECIFIED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE! January^ l. 1990 SUMMARY: 1.OriginAl Contract Anount $62.590.00 2.Changa Order - ADDITION $650.00 3.Change Order - DEDUCTION $ 4.Revised Contract Amount $63.240.00 5.Value Coispleted to Date $22.627.50 6.Material on Hand $0.00 7.Amount Earned $22.627.50 0s Lees Retainaae 5 Z $1.131.38 9.Sub-Total $21.496.12 10.Less Amount Paid Previously $20.688.62 11.ANOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.j 2 $807.50 Recommended1 Cor Approval by « BONESTROO,ROSENE. ANDERLIK a ASSOCIATES. INC. OWNER APPROVAL: 8y_ _ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ _ Date! PR13948 PLACEt Orono. Minnesota FILE IfO.t 13948CONTRACTOR:Keys Veil Drllllns Conpany DATBi Im22. 1990STATEMENTOFWORKUnitEst’d Quantity AmountContract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To DateIten IMobilization, transport equipt. & nat'l to project area, set up equipt. at primary well site (Ltd. to lOZ of Total Base Bid):L.S.</>oooooL S lOOZ $4»000.00 Item 2 Mobilization & demobilization to each add'l well site.Each 500.00 3 1 500.00 Item 3 Drill 4 inch test holes, collect samples & analyze L.F.10.00 720 475 4,750.00 Item 4 Ream 4 inch test hole to set 4 inch casing to Prairie-du-Chien L.F.OOC M 245 309 618.00 Item 5 Ream 4 inch test hole 6 set 8 inch casing into St. Lavreuce L.F.5.00 500 Item 6 Drill 0 inch test hole into Mt. Simon L.F.12,00 500 Item 7 Set 4 inch casing inside 8 inch casing & open hole L.F.6.00 825 309 1.854.00 Item 6 Drill It’ hole through Mt. Simon L.F.10.00 175 Item 9 Drill open hole of sufficient size to set 6 inch production well casing L.F.20.00 210 220 4,400.00 Hem 10 Place 6* casing in production well L.F.11.00 200 213 2,343.00 PROJECT: Water Well Teat DrillingPLACE:Orono, Minnesota PAYMENT NO.: PILE NO.:13948 CONTRACTORtKeys Well Drilling Company STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Itea Unit Unit Price Est'd Quantity Quantity To Date Amount To Date itea 11 P .ace 6 inch stainlaat steel •creen in production veil L.P.120.00 10 10 1,200.00 Xtaa 12 Place neat cement grout between casings and open holes C.Y.200.00 46 1 200.00 Itea 13 Develc>p 6 inch well screen Hrs.110.00 15 7.5 825.00 Itea 14 Inatall test pump In production well L.S.800.00 L S 1002 800.00 Itea IS Install test pump in Prairie-du>Chien/ Jordan test well, collect 4 analyze eater sample L.S,900.00 L S Itea 16 Install test puop in Mt. Simon test **llt collect 4 analyze water sample L.S.1,000.00 L S Itea 17 Test pumping of production well Hrs.75.00 30 6.5 487.50 Item 18 Furnish 4 install pitless adapter tank; bowl assembly with submersible motor; column check 4 bleeder valves; concrete pad; electrical controls; 4 electrical work L.S.10,000.00 L S Itea 19 Furnish 4 install 2* column pipe and electric cable L.F.5.00 160 TOTAL BASE BID COMPLETED $21 ,977.50 PR13948 Page 2 klnlaas steel :tion well L.F.120.00 10 10 1,200.00 It grout between n holes C.Y.200.00 46 1 200.00 well screen Hrs.110.00 15 7.5 825.00 mp in production well L.S.800.00 L S lOOZ 800.00 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITYt PROJECT: PILE NO.: CONTRACTOR: Orono, Minnesota Water Well Test Drilling 13948 Keys Well Drilling Company ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $62,590.00 Tf- TAL CHANGE ORDERS $650.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $63,240 00 1-22-90 NO. 1 2 3 CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION Water sampling TOTAL CHANCE ORDERS - ADD AMOUNT $650.00 $650.00 PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY; PAYMENT NO. PERIOD FROM PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER VALUE COMPLETED RETAINAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Start 11-27-89 11-27-89 1-6-90 $2^,688.62 807.50 $21,777.50 22.627.50 $1,088.88 1,131.38 TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATE RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT hO. TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED $21,496.12 1.131.38 $22,627.50 PR13948 PROJECT PAYMENT STATifgirono, Hinnesota•ter Veil Test Drilling3948eys Well Drilling Company 2890.3HDProa:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public works Director February 8, 1990T AMOUNT DO IPICHANGE ORDERS $650.00CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTTOiiIter sampling Snbjoct: Change Order #1 - Test Well Highway 12 Improvement AreaDuring the testing of the quality of water from the test well for the Highway 12 Improvement Area, there was suspicion of high radium, therefore requiring retesting of the water from the test well.Recoamendatlon - To approve Change Order tl in the amount of $650.00 for retesting of the test well for the Highway 12 Improvement Area.TAL CHANGE ORDERS - ADDUMMARY Proposed Motion - Moved by seconded by , to approveChange Order #1 in the amount of $650.00 for retesting of the test well for the Highway 12 Improvement Area. Ayes _ _, nays ERIOO Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator li-27-89 1-6-90 CHANGE OKDERDATE I PUCEi PROJECT: CONTRACTOR: BOND CO.: CHANGE ORDER NO.: Jai^uarj 22, 1990 Orono, Hlnncaota Water Well Test Drilling Keya Well Drilling Co., *13 N Lexington Pkiry, St. Pau. (Capitol Indennlty) W.A. Lang Co. Attn: H. Glennon 1 PO Box 6*215, St. Paul, HN 5516*^0215 <(0: 139*B .10* DESCRIPTION OF WORKi ••ter aanple was analyxed for Grots Alpha and Groaa Beta which are indicator testa for radiua that can be dona quickly. The indicator teat results reinstalled to obtain a water saaple to be analyzed for Radio original water teat and the resanpling are as follows. Chanee Order Itea WATER SAMPLING Groaa Alpha/Beta test Reinstall test puiap for sanpling TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - ADD ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS THIS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 . ADD REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT Unit L.S. L.S. !re high and tha test puap vaa 226 and 228 The cost of the Unit Est'd Total Ptice Quantity Aaraunt $150.00 1 $150.00 500.00 1 500.00 $62,590.00 0.00 650.00 $63,2*0.00 $650.00 Recooimended for Approval by: BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIR ( ASSOCIATES, INC. By. Approved by: CITY OF ORONO. MINN^.S'ifA By_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Approved by: KEYS WELL DRILLING COMPANY By. Date: , Mayor , Clerk Distribution 1 - City 1 - Bonding Co. 1 - Contractor 1 > BRA C0139*6 ^lON OP .104oT‘OWE, fp'toi ;^. St. ,...Bo* 64215 s» B , ®l*nnon”• «• P«i. m ssi.4.oj,jCh^nttA A__«^^iS2Kt.0£der.J^IPLIMg'*'*/B«t* test "“ ”“P f»' ««PU„,«=' 0«»t» «o. , . „„ontract amountHAMGE orders ' 0R*>er no. 1 .tract amount Unit Btfd$150.00500.00 TotAl^Bount$150.00500.00$650.00$52,590.000.00650.00 $63,240.00 ‘PPro,.! b,, •omsTsoo, sosiOT. AmEutf , associates , INC. By Approved by. *rvc ..« i*i« obillinc company OF ORONO. minnp »y. S'TA /. ^ilUibutlon 1 - clip ^ - Bonding Co. 1 - Contractor1 - bra DBTBt rUCBt ttOJBCTt CORTIACTORi BOND CO.i PILE NOt 15948CHANCE ORDERPabnury 2, 1990 OtOBO. Hliinatota Vatar Vail Taat DrillingKay* fall Drilling Co., 413 N. Lexington Pkay, St. Paul, MN 55104 (Capitol Indaanlty) V.A. Lang Co. Attnt H. Glannon PO Bo* 64215, St. Paul, MN 55164-0215CHANGE ORDER NO.t f PISCRIPTION or VORBl IpOliPLlTIOW DATE CHANGETha Contractor did not get the pitless adapter tank Installed before thefraesa in Daeasber 1989. As the eater froa the eel! is not !l" i"?.o- Aata is1990 and an aarly Spring could Inprove construction conditions, tha coapletlon data isharaby axtandad to March 16, 1990 at no change in the contract aaount.TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - DATE CHANCE ONLYORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS THIS CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $0.00$62,590.00650.00 0.00 $63,240.00 Recoaaended for Approval by) BONESTROO. ROSENB, ANDERLIK 4 ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved bjt Keys Well Drilling Co Approved byj City of Orono, Mlnneaota By_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ By.^- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Mayor . Clerk Distribution 1 - City 2 - Contractor 1 - Engineer Dete> • «• f«-i. mt s5i,*.oj,j .104*■ *«»ple yjg^*i«a«£-0£tferat£a’LING•/Beta test"“*'■ '»■• •«PU„,* <»>■>£« 00. , .•tract amountORDERS »» • 1 -UnitL.SL.S.Unitffice5^50.00500.00 11 $150.00 500.00$650.00$62,590.000.00 DATBtVUCIinojtcTiCOMTIACTORi ■OND CO.t PILE NOt 13948CBAN6B ORDER NO.t CHANGE ORDERFebruary 2. 1990 Orene, Mlimesata Vatar Vail Test DrillingEaya Vail Drilling Co., 413 M. Lexington Pkay, St. Paul, MN 55104 (Capitol Indaamity) V.A. Lang Co. Attnt H. Glennon PO Box 64215. St. Paul. NN 55164.0215 ?DESCRIPTION or VOREt COMPLETION DATE CHANGEThe Contractor did not get the pltlesa adapter tank Installed before the unexpected hard freexe in Deeeeber 1989. As the eater fro* the eell is not needed until the end of March 1990 and an early Spring could Improve construction conditions, the completion data is hereby extended to March 16. 1990 at no change in the contract amount.TOTAL THIS CHANCE ORDER NO. 2 > DATE CHANGE ONLY 30.00 »Mb(8 r« m o •] i f 8 I Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Crto G Pp9ooen Af ■ovecr* C ' w> »'jra£ o£ Arn^\ C S on *• 9 >Ct £ NOv« 9cc^ ~) <r>t P£ . 4C''.JJ ®E A Go*tX>n «»P »cnj«0 \*/ PottP» PE Donjo C 'f ^ 8'uOck ' PP A *<^"*von PC f ^ P£ T eeur'^rv' Pp -CCP^ « Pvpyw PC Cjv C O ^jOVUJU PE ••x-yri^S W PW-VX* Pp C w/«xn PE ^e'nei t MjurxS PE P Antjpnon PE Stj/t f to#v PE Pccrrr c <>usie« * • ’•vynei E An9ui P£ ►xxve»o A ^jnM PE j Eegeton PE Mart A sra P£ p^M) > PC Uirp O WbW^ PE Tbomji t Aodenoh / Gerv E PvGndpf PC M IPS ■ <»rnien PE . ®h«c G»eve< m pe C»'jnM A E'<»son M Pei%en*v -eAin M CKson ioV*n M Elierwi C PA ll'f^ XI K* I M' « •v.^ • •-m • • ^ L. i o •V February 7. 1990 Vir^f City of Orono Box 66 Cryital Bay. MN 55323 Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson Re: Vater Veil Drilling Orono, HN Pile No. 13948 Dear John, Enclosed is Change Order No. 2 extending the completion date to March 16, 1990. There is no benefit to the City to make the contractor install the pitless and pump now when it will not be needed until the end of March 1990* Since there is no detriment to the City and an early spring could ease construction, ve recommend that the time extension be approved. Yours very truly, BONESTRCO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK k ASSOCIATES, INC* Richard V* Foster RWF:li End. 233S \Uest Highway 36 • St. Paul* Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 i } ■■ i 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Otto G tunwwn IdMff w amnt. n joKftr* C n Hpmi f litfrm. ^ j«n«f C Ohon Orw t Cook. TNynji € *«J0«rv tooe*r G knuTkcnc. f E Mjrvc» L ServtM F€ <MTi A. GottinL n •Eha^W H. DonataC Sk^QM Fi Jvrry A toixKio. FE Mart Hamofi. FC »« MMk. • ftMmann Ff •eoOM I FMr» Ft DM C uor* FI l>«mn w Ft^iMon. Ff MKmClfndi Ft JMl*. MMMFf. lenntVlF AFdwn. Ff. M««t M Ff lDM«t C aUWA AiA Thooim £ Angm Ff MOMMO A lirML FI Ome j tOfMon Ft Met A sm Ft FtMH i CJMMt Ft Meto OWkl Ff thonmi t AmiiuiL At a GayF lyiMi Ff Mint jmmn Ft L FFM»OM»e Ft OMint A IfiCMDO LteM Fweiiti Hjrtm M Onon Sump M bcran C FA Cnglrmn t ArcNtacts 12 ■ ■- •.rf i Ptbruary 2. 1990 ;; V n • -,»-r City of Orono Box 66 Cryttol Boy. MN S5323 Attn: John Gerhordson Bo: Tnink Highway 12 Sanitary Savor i Hater Main Our Pllo No. 13939 Door John: Enclosod pleaso find tbroo (3) copies of Request for Paynent No. 3 i;^ the above roforoncod project. This portion of vork has been satisfactorily co»pleted and ^0 rocoBBond paynent in the anount of $41,028.41 to Albrecht Construction. Yours very truly. BONB^ft^. ROSENE./ANOERLIK t ASSOCIATE 'NC. Harlan M. Olson HM0:dh End. —a~- 233S Wnt H(ghvv4^ 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota SSI13 • 612-636-4600 vIO i woJECTtTrk Mot 12 Smlf rr S—r t Wattr Wain PLACIt______Oratto. M»«nf _________laproT—nt« CONTtACTOt t Albfcht l«ciratlnE. Ipc. rAyimiT iK>t rXLI not __ DATIi IStSf Pabryrr i. IMP IT OF aoK Contract ItM mx Unit ££iS£ lat'd OuantitT Quantity To Data Aaount To Data PART I - IAHXTART SfVIt 8* PVC, 8‘«I0* d**p In plac*L.F.$12.00 200 230 $2,780.00 8* PVC. 10'-12' d**p in plac*L.P.12.00 330 747 8,964.00 8* PVC, 12'>1*' d**p in 9iac*L.F.14.00 490 667 9,338.00 8* PVC. 14'•16* d**p in plac*L.F.IS. 00 700 710 10,630.00 8* PVC. 16*.18' d**p In plac*L.F.17.00 830 795 13,913.00 8* PVC. 18'-20' d**p in plac*L.F.23.00 100 89 1,933.00 12* DIP. 14'.16' d**p in plac*L.F.23.00 43 41 943.00 Jack eating vith 12* DIP carrier in pi.L.F.120.00 89 83 10,200.00 4* PVC, (SDR 26) fore* aain L.F.0.00 1.380 1.340 8,040.00 $td. MH 8' d**p, 4’ dia., w/16428 ettg.Each 800.00 11 13 10,400.00 Hanhol* d*pth gr*at*r than 8' d**p L.F.00*00 30 39.1 3,306.00 Cut into axiating nanhol*Each 300.00 1 1 300.00 8* X 6* PVC tarrie* vp* branch Each 43.00 3 9 403.00 6* PVC canric* pip* in plac*L.F.10.00 160 170 1,700.00 6* PVC aarvic* ria*r pip* in plac*L.F.12.00 19 13 180.00 Xnproatd pip* foundation p«r 6* incraiMnt dapth L.F.l.SO 600 1,171 1,736.30 Hachanical tranch coapaction L.F.0.01 1,600 1,350 13.30 Lift Station No. 30 L.S.36.000.00 L S 952 34,200.00 TOTAL PART I - SAHIT» Y SEHBl Pag* 1 PR13939 $118,628.00 200 230 $2,760.0S30747•*064.0(4S0 667 0.331.OC70071010.6S0.06ISO70S13.919.00100IS1.OSS.004S41943.00 IS IS 10.200.00 1.310 1.340 1.040.00 11 13 10.400.00 SO SS.l 3.306.00 1 1 300.00 s 9 40S.00 160 170 1.700.00 IS IS 110.00 600 1.171 1.7S6.S0 600 l.SSO 19.90 L S 9SX 34.200.00 PKOJlCTi Trk Bwt 12 Smlf rr Smvt i Wf r Main PLAClt Oroao, Miimaaaf________laorw—ntS PAYMUIT NOt PILI I»i___IlfSf eOOTlACTOlt Albfcht 8«cwtln«. Inc P4Tlt P«bnfry 1. 14S^ 8TATEMIIIT OF WOIK Q?nUt9t tVf Unit Unit Pries Itt'd Qasatitj Imemt (hisntltT To Pnts To Pttt PA»T m - ■ISTOIATIOW. coicrD. tod with i* topsoil 8.Y. tssdint v/topsoil. Milch t fsrtlllssc Ac TOTAL PAIT 111 • IISTOIATION 2.20 800.00 2.S00 S gUSSL.fii no. 1 -»LTT10il PATl CHAIICIS Pags 3 Ptl39S9 tit.833.00 eiABet oion no. 2 . vatth NAU 4 TEMP VtLL FIOM lIVY 12 TO VELL NO. 3 •* DIP. Clast 32 ssttr nain L.F.$13.00 390 333 $4,369.00 10* DIP. Class 52 vatsr Min L.P.17.00 30 30 •30.00 t* Istilisnt ssdt* gats valss 4 bos Each 430.00 4 4 1,000.00 C.I. fittings Lbs.1.00 1.200 1.330 1,330.00 i%* TTP< K coppsr L.P.11.00 75 80 •60.00 1%* Curb atop 4 bos Each 133.00 1 1 133.00 1%* Corporation stop 4 saddls Each 100.00 1 1 100.00 Vtchanical trsnch eoopaction L.P.0.01 1,273 4«3 4.63 Cloar 4 grub trass Each 75.00 23 36 2,700.00 TOTAL CaAliCI OIDEt HO. 2 > ADD $12,160.63 <mo.iMOrovg—ntabfcht e«^«ir«tin«, Twr.FAyMm NOims MlSTATEMENT OP «ft»risi. UtbMATIOM. COMT-n S.T.U. Milch t fertiliser Ac. Vv.u ji• * 1 o • TOs Mark E. Mrnhardaon* City Adnlnistrator PftOHt John K. Gorhardaon* Public Worka Director DATES SUBJt February 9* 1990 Authorisation to Prepare Plans i SpecifIcatlona and Advertise for Bids - Punp House/Punp/and Water Tower Attached for review and approval are resolutions for the punphottse/puaips/p issure tank and water tower to serve the Rlghway 12 Inproveaient area. ttien - To approve Aesolutions I___ ____ and t » authorlainq the City'lnGlneer to prepare plansr specifications and advertise for bids for the above. jhra^Mod Hotloo “ lioveToy ________0 seconded by 0 to approve Resolutions f and f _ _ , authorlslnq the City Engineer to prepare pIans/speelf1 cations and advertise for bids for puMphottse/poaps and water tower to serve the Highway 12 isiproveawnt area. TOt Mayor Grabek and Orono City Councllateabers FRONt Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrator DATES February 9* 1990 Forwarded recoawendlng approval. 1 '? • ■E. Bernhardson, city AdministratorR. Gerhardson, Public Works Director >ary 9, 1990dvertlse fo^^ids*-Vwd**ho« * Ar Bias Pump House/Pump/and water Towerumps/p^ issuV’e^ taSk*^ anV wJter for themprovement area. tower to serve theon >esolutlons f ir to prepare"^ans, specifTcat authorising theabove. ^ mcatlons and advertise forLon '.—seconded by _nr~_ _ _ _ _ ' ' approve Resolutions‘"sTspecTfTcatTo’ns and adverV'f Engineer touwps and water tower forirea. serve the Plghway 12 / Grabek and Orono City Councllmembers . Bernhardson, City Administrator ry 9, 1990 OfflRiending approval. A KBSOLOTIOM ORDBR1M6 PLANS AMD SPBCIPICATIORS AMD AOTBCmillMG TO ADVBRT18B POM BIDS POT A PUNPBOUSB/POl AMD PBBSSUBB TANK TO 8BBVB NBLL #3 IM TBB BIGHMAY 12 IMPROVBHBMT ABBA •SHhereas* the City Engineer has preparded the preliminary plans for construction of a municipal well in the Highway 12 Improvement area* and Nhoroan, the City has received responsive bids for the installation of a 16" well. Mow therefore, be it resolved that the City Council does hereby direct the City engineer to prepare final plans and specifications and to advertise for bids for a pumphouse/pumps/ and pressure tank to serve well #3. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held February 12, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy Hallln, Clerk Page 1 of 1 A ABSOLUTION ORDBRING PIAHS AND SPBCIPICATION AND AUTHORISING TO ADVBRTISB FOR BIDS FOR A SOOrOOO GALLON ABOVE GROUND NATBR STORAGE TANE TO SERVE THE HIGHNAT 12 IMPROVEMENT AREANhereaSr the City Engineer has prepared the preliminary plans for the construction of a Muniicpal Well in the Highway 12 Improvement area, andNhereas# it is intended to provide above nround storage to serve the Highway 12 Improvement area.Now therefore, be It resolved that the Orono Council does hereby direct the City Engineer to prepare final Plans and specification and to advertise for bids for a 500,000 gallon above gr'ind storage tank to serve the Highway 12 Improvement area. Adopted by the City Counci 1 of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular Council meeting held February 12, 1990. James R. ^rabek. Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy Hallin, Clerk Page 1 of ] 2790.1 - • / / •: .rf- TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat ■ 1 ? ■ • • . OATS: February 1, 1990 SOBJBCT: Highway 12 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line Feasibility Study Attachment: A. Proposed Resolution INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting they directed that the feasibility study be undertaken. The resolution formally directs that decision. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended to approve Resolution direcFing the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility study relating to the location of a force main/gravity sewer line south on Old Crystal Bay Road from the Burlington Northern Railroad to the Metropolitan Waste Cfmtrol Commission pump station at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road. It is additionally recommended to include the costs of the feasibility study into the project costs if a project is ordered. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, to approve Resolution I directing tKe" City Engineer to prepare a feasibility ^"tudy relating to the location of a force main/gravity sewer line south on Old Crystal Bay Road from the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission pump station at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road. It is additionally approved to include the costs of the feasibility stuc into the project costs if a project is ordered. Ayes —, Nays 2790.1 r. r /'• V" r •' 12 ‘ritv CouncilMayor ana Mmlnlstrat.M,r. E. Eernnarason, CUyFebruary ^bine r.aslblUty Stuay t. Highway 12 sanitary.ent: h- ^rogosea Heaolution,, Councll-a les' "'^^i^’rasoVution tor»allyunaertaken. :rthat aecislon. ^^„„„aea « >PP;o« Eeeo^^ :ing commission P'^®^ *_ded to include •—■"■ “••• *' ‘ ItVis^'orAere^^ approve seconded t>y —' prepays * - Moved by tr-'ritv Engineer to p ^ force POSED a irec ting the l°®®VavRoad from the llb^lfty Vtuay^ -\%Vt"h on old ,";\\?Metr"opolit^;^^^^^ n/gravity sew ^’’^fon'^at 100° ^l^of^the feasibility "to the projectinto A RBSOLOTIOM ORDERING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A SANITARY FORCBMAIN/GRAVITY TRUNK SBNSR LINE OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROADWhereas* the City of Orono has constructed sanitary sewer and water improvements adjacent to Highway 12 known as the Highway 12 Sanitary Sewer and Water Impro'/ements, andWhereas* the existing sanitary sewer trunk line adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad in Long Lake is not of adequate size to accept the increased flows from the Highway 12 improvement area * andWhereas* there is an alternate route for a sewer line that would accept the increased flows, that being a force main/gravity sewer line south on Old Crystal Bay Road from the Burlington Northern railroad to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Pump Station at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road, and Whereas* the most efficient manner in which to obtain the necessary information and costs is to perform a feasibility study. Mow therefore* be it resolved that the City Council does hereby direct the City engineer to prepare a report as to the feasibility and costs of a project not to exceed $6,000.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 22nd day of January 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy Hallin, Clerk Page 1 of 1 13190.5 TO: FROM OATF Mayor and City Council Mark E. BernharJson, City Administrator January 31, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project Attach.Stubbs Bay Significant Questions January 30, 1990 Meeting . Letter from Terry Olson Received 1/29/90 J, Letter from John Thiesse Received 2/6/90 ISSUE 1, Provide a summary of significant questions from the meeting on January 30th. 2. Outline process steps for Council to consider if this is the appropriate route to go. INTRODUCTION - After a brief overview at the beginning of the meeting which incapsulated the presentation from last summer the forum was opened up to questions and comments. While several questions were repetitious of those from the previous meeting there were some new ones that are summariz'?>i in Attachment DISCUSSION Issue #1 - Meeting Summary - In addition to the questions outline3”’there were comments such as the gentlemen who felt that the project wa needed even though he had sufficient room for an additional ; p .ic. He felt that the property was much more marketable with a sewer system, providing a wider range of people who were willing to buy it, together witl. it being a permanent solution. What was not mentioned was the ability of someone to add to their house with sewer, which may well be restricted. It was indicated in the discussion th?t the City would consider the project if 70% of the people in the area were willing to sign the waiver at th>« point. The process of petition and signing the waiver for a .f'l.vlfic amount allows each ind.’i i'^ual person to decide if the beneiit to them of the project is -‘efficient to "sign on for that amount" rather than the City pei.rtitting a Court decide it after a significant amount of litigation. Issue 12 - Process - The process that was undertaken on the Crystal Biay project was one in which although *'*:• City had discussed a contribution, the City undertook the » »ing steps: 1. Hold the public hearing 2. Adoct the project 3. Adopt the assessment4. Allow the 30 day appeal process5. Have the Courts determine the benefit to thepropertiesAs an alternative process in the Stubbs Bay area a revised process is suggested to limit the City's risk in two ways:a. The expense of undertaking the plans and specifications together with bidding process which is approximately $ 20,000-$30,000 by getting the committment to the project by a substantial majority of the people in the area.b. Limiting the risk of substantial appeal waivers by:1. Minimizing the actual assessment to that as close to the amount allocated as in the Crystal Bay project with the balance being a connection charge. 2. Not ordering the project until the risk of appeals has been quantified. A proposed process to do this are a follows: 1. Project Petition - Send out a letter which contains the petition and a special waiver. 2. Plan and Specifications - Await receipt of upwards of jd%. ~TE alesser amount is received and it appears that few, if any additional ones are coming in that it De reconsidered by Council to determine if they want to go ahead or not as to the degree of risk for the plans and specification expenditure. If the project does not go ahead the City funds that expense. 3. Code Enforcement - As an optional step council could consider further restrictive development controls in the area as to expansion of homes related to both zoning and septic together with giving a deadline for all those with failing systems to go on holding tanks. 4. Bidding - If sufficient numbers are received ordering plans and specifications and going to bids. 5. Assessment Hearing ~ Once bids are received, hold a hearing and the special assessment and adopt the assessment. (Subsequent assessment can be made if additional expenses are incurred.) The vote for ordering the project as there would be at least 35% petition would be a simple majority of the whole Council. 3. Adopt the assessments:Have°“tl,e*Co'ur?J''deF®"?profertier the benefit to thes^“V^Tge«ld'’to°?.”.‘". Stnbbs Bey area a e • hggested to limit the city's risk In two ways:IpeciflJfuonJ togethe"/wlth“bIdd^ ‘’’® ^ndapproximately $20 000 process which iscommittment to the pr'ojeot to'i’'’® w'’^’ Setting thi of the people in thi area. substantial majoritylimiting the rist of substantial appeal waivers by:the amount^allo^cated*^as to that as close toWith the balanc“e“b^!n^%= co"nn‘e’-=^fc'•/Vh"aige^^^has blerguanUfiea.^''°^®s'= “"til the risk of appeals ■ed process to do this are a follows: the ^easrarisi^a'sp"faria?verf ^ =°"talns ^ ^ “'’“^tds Of that few, it any addiuLi, „ ‘t appears It be reconsidered by Counili V V® in that want to go ahead or „it “Ho th. they the plans and specification degree of risk for i:,Vnlt! - -V- t\Tc"tt5“?u-nds"th‘a^l MfWiI [•Hi 6. Determine Number of Appeals - The appeal period after the adoption of special assessment is 30 days, once that has lapsed no further appeals can be made, if the notification has been given in that time period .7. Ordering the Project - Based on the appeals the City can then determine whether it desires to have the project ordered or not.8. Project Construction - Then the necessary contracts and financial arrangement can be done.ALTERNATIVES -Issue #1 - Summary of meeting questions and responses, A. Accept. B. Comment. C. Suggest policy or change direction. Issue #2 - Process. A. Undertake process as proposed. B. Utilize the Crystal Bay "Process" C. Develop a different process. D. Take no action. F.. ston the oronech consideration. [•Hlitsl* cXeisliOBBtle [•Milts 1 6. Determine Number of Appeal s - The appeal period after the adoption of special assessment is 30 daysr once that has lapsed no further appeals can be made, if the notification has been given in that time period.7. Ordering the Project - Based on the appeals the City can then diTermine whether it desires to have the project ordered or not.8. Project Construction - Then the necessary contracts and financial arrangement can be done.IVES -- Summary of meeting questions and responses.A. Accept. B. Comment. C. Suggest policy or change direction. - Process. A. Undertake process as proposed. B. Utilize the Crystal Bay "Process" C. Develop a different process. D. Take no action. E. Stop the project consideration. i' i n t 13190.(CTPJSUMMARY OF QUESTIONS - STUBBS BAY SEWER MEETI!DATED 1/30/90Following are major questions and responses to those questions from the last meeting. Further significant questions included the following;1. Why are certain areas included in the project and other areas excluded?A. Two acre - There are certain two acre properties that are included in the project because of their proximity to the availablilty for sewer. Specifically those in the Stubbs Bay north area. This is in part due to decisions as to the project area made several years ago, when this area was identified together with the proximity for service. Other two acre areas such as Sussex will not be included and it becomes an issue of where the demarcation is made. The area for Oxford could be included because of the lakeshore (however it was indicated by a resident of the Oxford area that at the present time six to eight residents are opposed to doing it.) B. What about inclusion of 2 houses to the east of Leaf Street? DATION - It is recommended that the Council having made ents or had any further questions regarding the summary he information. Issue #2 - It is recommended to table consideration until 2/26. Further information on financial support by the City on prior projects and a draft letter to residents will be presented. MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council reviewed the information table to Febraury 26, 1990 Ayes , Nays __. nn Cook, City Engineer n R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director nne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator hael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. There are two houses that are served by a private drWeway further east on Leaf Street, staff is presently exploring whether they should be included based on their septic availability. Cygnet Place - Presently Cygnet does not require service as the failings in any septic systems have been corrected. The inclusion of this, however, in the project would not substantially lower the cost of the project in Stubbs Bay. Any purchase of capacity for that future development would by the same rational require the people in Stubbs Bay to pay a portion of the capacity on Tonkawa and have those rebated so that in effect it may not be to any gain to those in the area. Additionally Cygnet will be an expensive place to sewer because of the existing topography. There were comments regarding the specific design and 13190.( y|C 'P ■'TfPO0-^ea.TnMS - STUBBS BAY SEWER MEETI.RY OF QUESTIONS ---------------dated 1/30/90' "e:a:n%’r„=i:.rea.c.uaea . .e a„a a.e. .eaa... . ...e are ce.»U - -:,r;roa:m « Tn the project tLae in the Stubbs Bay ilty tor sewer. Spe aecislons as to ea This U In part aue to ae „„ “’ea .aae several yeara aBo Other lea will not he = where the aemarcation is maae. ::a"=ouia he lneln^-^^"*““=:of the oxford area ^ enrtToe"sU to eight residents are oppoae the present time s» ' . „ of 2 houses to the east of heat t about inclusion of a he a orlvate dr-veway are two houses that are e^/ .„tiy exploring reast on Leaf Street; ^ septic ,r they should be mciu hi require service r Place - presently Cygnet '10 “ " ‘ ^ ..rreoted. pflill^s in any septic systa»s “ "ii:iry iL:r :;e «:roV -iier^uin; ro£ the%apacity on -nxa-^an^^ -rplaoa - 1„ effect It tay not^ an expensive pla • ''^1sV°of the existing topography. ' d-nq the specific design and e were comments regar specific property concerns.A. Fred Blanch property/Bayside - This property owner was concerned that the service to the property would require the taking down of a number of trees that presently provide a substantial screening to his property. Staff indicated that they would work to develop a solution that would not necessitate removal of that significant screen.B. Saving Trees/Minkema property - At the corner of Leaf and Bayside there was concern because of the depth of the line that the individual's trees may be destroyed. This may be accomplished by an alternate routing either diagonally across his property or an alternative would be to the south side of Oxford. « ■ C. Alternate design that would be cheaper - The people in the Bederwood area thought an alternate design for routing of the trunk together with the laterals may provide a cheaper design. D. Splitting the Bederwood area by lateral service area - This would be done in hopes of reducing the lateral cost for some people. Persons in the Bederwood area have asked if that lateral could be reduced or some other option looked at. If by splitting the area it may reduce one area's but would probably increase another but this will be looked at. 3. Does the process that is being proposed only skirt the law and becomes a way of "cheating the residents" out of their market value increase. A. Such an interptetation can be put on it, because the process being proposed does limit the City's risk. On the other hand it can be constructed differently. Since the City has taken the position that the area should pay its own way, if the project goes ahead it provides a means by which the project can go ahead. If the City had to have the substantial risk that it had in the Crystal Bay project, the project may not go ahead at all. (As to benefit, the process allows the individual owner to decide what the benefit is to their property rather than having a court arbitrarily decide that.) It should be remembered that any addition to the properties is not going to fully be reflected in the sale - 4. 5. 6. 7. price. While it varies from year to year, a person who does a bathroom improvement may realize 75% of their investment where someone who puts in a pool may realize only 20% of their investment at the sale price. Lateral Options - The two areas were offered the option of extending laterals providing they pay for the assessment. The questions was if they do not have a lateral the City can prove the market benefit. Should sufficient numbers not indicate an interest in doing the trunk only, the City may in fact do the lateral and assess the trunk and put a connection charge for the lateral portion of it thereby better insuring it would get its full value. City contribution ~ For nine out of the last ten projects each project has had to pay for its own sewer. The exception has been in the Crystal Bay area. The direction to date has been that the predominent policy would prevail and that this area should expect to pay the full amount of the project. Other funding sources - To the best of our knowledge there are no other funding sources that are available. The City is willing, however, to finance this over a 15 to 20 year period, both the assessment and any connection charges the City may charge. Who is providing the momentum for this project? Is it the residents? While the City had in is Comprehensive Plan in 1980 identified this area as an area for sewering the primary imputus has been from the neighborhood for those people who have failed or failing systems. As such, it will be up to the residents themselves to decide it they want this project to go ahead or not.•< January 31,1990 City of Orono — . P.C5. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 To Whom It May Concern: I wish to impress on you the urgency of the Stubbs Bay Municipal Sewer Project. I have attended several information meetings on the subject and I do not see the level of positive participation that the city requires to proceed with this project. Accordini r, 1988, fiftyline to the Stubbs Bay Alternative Waste Management Study of February, percent or all of the waste processing systems in the study area arc substandard. This is a frightfully high number of violating waste s)^tcms and the problem is compounded by the close proximity of Lake Minnetonka. As shov a in recent years with the Eurasian Water Milfoil, a problem for the lake becomes a community problem. We arc part of that problem. According to the Gray Freshwater Foundation, the milfoil requires large amounts of nutrients to grow and multiply. We help supply these nutrients with our discharge of incompletely processed effluent into the lake. By reducing a food source for the aquatic plants, we can help alleviate a very threatening problem. The city has proposed and studied seven options of possible solutions. As a registered civil engineer, I wou d like to suggest that only two of these alternatives, condemnation of all violators and municipal sewer, should be considered as viable long-term solutions. Condemnation of 40 properties is hardly constructive or beneficial to the city. Therefore, I believe municipal sewer is the only solution. After learning about the Crystal Bay sewer project, I understand the city’s reticence to endorse and order this project without receiving a substantial majority of assessment appeal waivers. Due to the extraneous impact on lake and community of the subject problem, might not a positive endorsement ot this project by the city with some community assistance in funding be more economical than the time and money expended when this project is finally deemed absolutely necessaiy? As a citizen of Orono, I implore you to treat this subject as the community and regional concern that it is, and not as a convenience for a small number of residences. Please do everything possible to ensure that municipal sewer will become a reality in the Stubbs Bay area. Sincerely, 'ohn Thiesse 3845 Bayside Road Orono, Minnesota 2590.3 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Becnhardson, City Administat DATE: February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: City Facilities _ _ __ A. Boarman Schedule Dated 2/9/90 tU'j, FL'B 12 A-.;—y • t • • ■ ISSUE - Provide updated information to the Council on the City facility progress. ^ INTRODUCTION - Following discussion of initial site cost figures It was indicated that a review of schematic, image and site co„"3\aeraU^„°?f"51t\%el\“cUon^" helpful prior to further ^SCUSSION - Staff has been working with the architect to develop the schematic phase. The work schedule on the rest of the phase Attachment A. As noted, in the next two weeks floor layouts and image discussion with Council will be commenced at the 2/26 meeting Boarman designs from the functional inside out so that they like to have a schematic floor plan prior to the image development phase. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Table until February 26th meeting. 3. Take no action. ^■^COMMENDATION - It is recommended that the information be accepted at this point and that it be tabled until February 26, 1990 meeting to discuss imaging. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by accept the information and meeting. Ayes , Nays seconded by_ _ _, that Council tabled until February 26, 1990 t - '{ i ! \ ' \ r- o A-1^ ^ EM BO ARM AN &EjASSociArES LETTITEOS (S)E /^/^ 6P WE ARE SENDING YOU □ Z Shop dnwlnp ^ C Chingo erdor Attocl-id □ Undor Mportt. covor vl □ Pl«n$ □ . / □ Samplw Awini Itomo: C Spodflettioni □ Copy 0* ,copio» for opprovalthese are transmitted m chtckod b.low: ----------- □ A* roquirtod ___________________________________ O For m\W on^ commont O ______^ RETURNED AFTER LOAN T □ for bids due - remarks — COPY TO MUNICIPAL FACIUTIES A/E FEES 1.CHAMPUN CITY HALL/POLICE RRE STATION ADDITION & REMODELING ADDITION & REMODEUNQ 2.FRIDLEY CITY HALL/POUCE RRE STATION ADDITION & REMODEUNG REMODEUNQ 3.PLYMOLTTH NEW RRE STATION NEW CONSTRUCTION 4.MINNETONKA NEW RRE STATION NEW CONSTRUCTION 5.WOODBURY NEW RRE STATION WOODBURY CITY HALL NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION 6.INVER GROVE HEIGHTS NEW FIRE STATION 7. 8. NEW CONSTRUCTION MELROSE MUNICAL CENTER NEW CONSTRUCTION apple valley RRE STATION ADDITION & REMODEUNQ 9.MINNETRISTA NEW CITY HAU/POUCE FACIUTY NEW CONSTRUCTION MUNICIPAL PROJECTS BY BOARMAN & ASSOCIATES $1,121,330 $ 323.700 $1,310,000 $ 672,000 $ 780,000 8% 8% $2,562,400 8% $ 275.900 8% $ 690,500 7-1 /2% $ 330,000 91/2 $2,700,000 8% $1,022,708 7-3/4% $1,650,000 7-1/2% 9% 8% . w9«W -nJ 'V City of Orono Schematic Design Schedule Botrman & Assoolatat, ine. Task 1. Final Program/Spaca Naadi Feb 2. Building Spaca . Planning Optlona 3. SIta Planning Optidna----------- 4. Building Daaign----------- Image Studiaa 5. Building Schematic Design and Cost Preparation 6. City Reviews Mar 2/t6 r * V7 it Apr * a/21 •K * Me ^ I! i ' .^1 city of Orono jghematteTask• ^*'*®*Proonm/Spac®NttdiBuilding Spact _Wanning OptlonaWanning Optlona___J building Daaign mageStudlaa fy Revlawa Aitooteift, fne.13090.4Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: January 30, 1990SUBJECT: Navarre Area Master Planning 'n,!,’. wKr' fi*!! ff;312 m r-oAttachment: A. Navarre Area Master Planning Memo Dated 1/12/90B. Shardlow Memo Dated 2/8/90ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council of the estimated cost to complete master planning in the Navarre area. 2. Determination by Council as to whether they want to proceed with a master plan and if so, setting a date for consideration at which the interested public would be invited. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting Attachment A summarized some of the information from the November 18, 1989 meeting and based on the direction indicated that Council would table until this meeting for further exploration of the master planning concept of the area based on estimated cost. DISUCSSION - As noted in Attachment A the City had budgeted $30,000 in 1988 and '89 and has budgeted an additional $7,500 in 1990. Of that $37,500 total, the City has spent about $18,500. As outlined in Attachment B the cost of doing a master plan process would be about $9,700 with the text for a comprehensive plan amendment an additional $2,500. The total for the master plan would bring the total to $28,200, still within the amount budgeted . ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine to proceed. 2. Choose not to proceed any further. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Establish public informational meeting on the issue. March 12, 1990 March 24, 1990 April 9, 1990 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council hold in informational meeting to undertake a master planning on March 12, 1990. The cost is within the amount budgeted for Navarre but would require a $2,200 budget amendment for 1990. »N - Moved by , seconded by , that the Councilr discussion on this matter until a public meeting on March 12, 1990. Ayes Nays __.dlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator . Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator erhardson, Public Works Dirctor vC-!>v 11690.2 TT^CiffMeiOrTO:FROM:DATE:Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat January 12, 1990SUBJECT: Navarre - Master PlanningAttachment:A. Navarre Memo Dated 11/21/39B. Navarre Memo Dated 6/21/89C. Navarre Memo Dated 10/18/89ISSUE - Determination by the Council as to what direction they would like to take as it relates to the Navarre area.INTRODUCTION - The Council held a meeting in June to review the analysis work done by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban together with holding a oublic meeting on November 18, 1989, at which property owners; business owners and residents in the area were invited at the Freshwater Biological Institute. Attachment A was prepared as a follow up to that meeting. DISCUSSION - In Attachment A there are three issues outlined which are as follows: Issue #1. Does the City Choose to do anything further at this point in the area regarding: a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use It was indicated at the November 18, 1989 meeting that the Council would review this issue in the January February timeframe. If the Council desires to do anything further with this matter staff would notify, as was i^'^^^ated at the meeting, the residents in attendance that this item would be on the agenda for its second meeting in February. Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something, at what level do they want to approach it? a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable rezonings The sense of informal discussion following the November Isth me%\!„g was that the city shouia go throagh a process to identify what it would like in the future, but that it would not take any active role in it. As such, it would be appropriate to go through a process 11590.2Mayor and City Council: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrati: January 12, 19902CT: Navarre - Master Planning :hment;A. Navarre Memo Dated 11/21/89 B. Navarre Memo Dated 6/21/89 C. Navarre Memo Dated 10/18/89 ■lik°e®\o''tiUp^^°"^^ the Council as to what direction they liKe to take as it relates to the Navarre area. ^ DUCTION - The Council held a meeting in June to review the na^a'^oMhi by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban together with ^^s'foUo'lVr'’"®"‘ ^ outlined “ the°°arl/rl/aiJrng?°°“ further at thle a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use ^0''e™ber 18, 1989 meeting that lebruary ti„,e“trame. - matter ^^ desires to do anything further with thismatter staff would notify, as was indicated at the residents in attendance that this item February* agenda for its second meeting in tl’’appr‘oLh° at what level a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable rezonings informal discussion following the November 18th meeting was that the City should go through a i<3®"tify what it would like in the future, but that It would not take any active role in it. for master planning in the land use and if possible submission of a comprehensive plan amendment. It would orobably not be appropriate at this time to undertake any attendant rezonings until there was an interest in redevelopment of the property by the private owner.In October the Council did authorize an extension of the contract as noted on Attachment C Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban has been asked to estimate the cost of completing the master planning process. This will be presented to Council at its next meeting. (The staff is also reviewing the need for an update to its comprehensive plan in light of the recent Metro Council requirements. It is not anticipated at this time that the staff will not be having much need for outside help.)Issue #3. If the City has gone forward on ^1 and #2 does it desire to undertake any active ste;i to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble land c. Undertake public financing There did not seem to be any interest in having governmental participation active in implementing any of the desired changes. Perhaps the only level of participation in improvement is the beautification plan and perhaps local assistance for that. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Indicate level of interest in undertaking master planning. 2. Establishment of further consideration at the February 26, 1990 Council meeting. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Indicate no desire to go any further. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table the matter until its February 12, 1990 meeting if it is interested in undertaking the master planning process. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by that the Council having indicated its desire in further exploring master planning table the issue until February 12, 1990, to review the cost. Ayes _, Nays _. cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director John Shardlow/Ed Hassek, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban ! I * m ......... • :: ■ .^1 ^ ;v u#' wmM gli ■ 0'f ■-'Sliiiagi* -■■ ’■0r Mm mm In the land use and •«^voT/-^ ^^2onings until f-Vi^ tinie to undertaJcA-lop-nt oe the P?ope4^V\^7 - « ln_t« s^L^® Council did auhhn->Attachment c extension of thoiraate the cLl Shard low and rih. ®-,^pfan^r„-x “Vh’t VdVt'e To^\i.vX^n,-uSr„e%"d“/in-VdVh£F^\ssemble°lfnd''^*'® businesses Undertake public financing^id not seemP^ticipatlon act"^ havingsxred changes. ^'"Plementing any of 1 o( interest in undertaking faster planning. ^^n,.^-hher cnnsideraticn at the rehruary ig, -ber discussion. »sire to go any further. JhJ'^^hry 12, 1990 meetfng if i?"!"'!! ‘able the aster planning process. ^ ^ ^ interested in Moved bv ita de3i„ ^seconded by that the Council February 12, i„?, to'”re"vfeTtSe%"Si"t" rdson,°pJbllS\otk|"Di ’ “"iaiatrator Hassek, oahlgren. ShL«ou s „ban 'IFFT' A :■ 112189.3 '1TO:PROM:Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoDATE: November 21/ 1989SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment MeetingISSUE - Providing a brief summary of the issues discussed at the pub1 ic information meeting held November 18/ 1989/ at theFreshwater Biological Institute.INTRODUCTION - Written notice was sent to all property owners within the Navarre area. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting. This represented a cross section of residents in the area/ business owners/ business property owners and persons who were both business operators and private residential property owners. DISCUSSION - The foU^^wing represents a list of issues that need to be decided in the -uture regarding the Navarre area: Issue #1. Does the City cnoose to do anything further at this point in the area regarding: a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Lauid use Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something at what level do they want to approach it? a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable rezonings Issue #3. If the City has gone forward on #1 and #2 does it desire to undertake any active steps to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble land c. Undertake public financing It was indicated to those in attendance that the first issue regarding whether to go ahead or not would be broached with the Council in the January/February timeframe and that those in attendance would be notified. Additionally/ should the City go ahead it would be appropriate that the meetings be held at the Freshwater Biological Institute. -<S*^ .4; 112189.3Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoNovember 21, 1989 T: Navarre Redevelopment Meeting- providing a brief summary of the Issues discusse'S at the ; Information meeting held November 18, 1989, atater Biological Institute. "°Aporo“tLVelV4°0 peiofe°artended"?hJ ’ '^%hls^relrlsented^r=rofs se« i" ‘he Irh‘b?s\ne"s"s ”per^«?r»ll?tv\'te°™*^^^^ 1 . ■SION - The following represents a list of Issues that need Hided In the -uture regarai"9 the Navarre area: Issue #1. Does the City choose to do anything further at this point in the area regarding; a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use issue #2. It the City does choose to do something at what level do they want to approach it. a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable rezonings T am «•? Tf the City has gone forward on SI and S2 IVeT iV'desirf'to‘SLertAe any active steps to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble land c. Undertake public financing ,s indicated to J^attendance^tl^^^ ;?i"\n tte J%nua’rVre“ruary timeframe and that those in dance would be notified. ALTERNATIVES -A. Accept the information.B. Comment.C. Table.RECOMME^ATION - It is recommended that the issue at this time be tabled for further consideration at the second meeting in Jeuiuary or the first Council meeting in February.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Counciltable consideration of this item until the second meeting in January or its first meeting in February 1990. Ayes __, Nays __. cc; Chic Remien, Executive Director Westonka Chamber Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator John SheU'dlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. Ed Hasek, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. »• . ✓ 62189.2 TO: FBOM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS:June 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment ATTACffllENTS: A. Handouts From June 1, 1989 Meeting ISSUE - Determine what direction that the Council desires to take on this issue. INTRODUCTION - At the meeting that was held regarding the Navarre redevelopment a presentation was made as to problems and possibilities together with discussing the range of alternatives the City could undertake and a range of alternatives for potential master planning or redevelopment. On behalf of the staff I would like to apologize for the breakdown in communications with the Planning Commission and others who were not fully informed of the meeting time and place. As you may be aware interested property owners were in attendance at that meeting indicating some of their needs and desires regarding the area. In addition City staff has been approached by a private development firm who has an interest in possible redevelopment on the south side of County 15. DISCUSSION - As noted there is a growing interest in this area, not only from the City, but also from people currently in the area and others from outside the area. As discussed on the 1st the range of alternatives include: A. Beautification - "Spruce up" the area in an effort to promote the attractiveness of the area and therefore the business. The level of involvement in helping implement the Westonka Beautification Plan maybe an appropriate avenue at this level of involvement. B. Master Planning/Comprehensive Plan amendment - The current comprehensive plan and zoning for the area reflects what was in place at the time it was created. As noted in the attachments this is a hodge podge of zoning uses and that longterm there may be a more desireable land utilization in the area. One of the alternatives would be to undertake a master planning of the area to designate what the City would like to see in that area as land uses and as changes come along that they would need to fit into that plan. C. Participatio n and Redevelopment - A third alternative would be to actually participate in redevelopment either / ^Presently the party interested in redevelopment is working on ^enlr^r e^s^timaU to^determine the extent of assistance needed in order to undertake redevelopment of the south side.) ACTION - 1. Make available an opportunity for those not present on the June 1st meeting to hear the presentation. 2. Undertake a discussion on the next steps. 3. Take no action. 4. Table. the facilities study. |f/e°=Tafa?r» Navarre. Ayes Nays __. ec* Planning Commission Members , . . i. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning JJJiJLtratorMichael P. Gaffron, Planning & ^sst. Administrato John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban if /IrTKM^ redevelop®** . on the those not pcesen :in9 to h ^ aucusslon on ction* NAVARRE AREA WORKSHOP MEETING Tntr4aaonJ--Coi;usion on ‘‘_^"%aVO _• Conni’ir Bu1?«nl a ^ Edlow# Oan-ty A joint meeting to discuss the future of the Navarre commercial area. n LAKE MllltlETOriKA icfinui tAf| I- J: V i -L.= |; ■ ■ r:::-::::::::::^^^^^^^ rriTT^IfnrlrfffTTv's^ ‘••;• Xi#^ \ I \ ' ^ ’I' • ).v^r -■ir.'=.rtl i"n rnr\vj,vp _iijii;i*^'^ llMjjJalEa lAKf IMNNf TONKA |tWKU»MIKMf| LAKE MltltlETOtMA iCAIUIAMt tAV| I'll’I® 0*« r««lf IU»M»MI«IOl«yta| I A«I« II* IS UIA«I« Lfl- 1C« 1 0n« r««Sf A4»i««4MI»l iMyjithHI Wl Aci* ®** M«l*a I*l«i tvilM** Otoblcl ®'3 lA*rflH C*«lM oiilikl D * 4 OiiH* Am *<*U«ai«A*| •«•!»••• iM«yki D • 5 IMUA iwaliitlt OlAWHI Sr**’'"! l*K( MMNtTONKA • WMdUUfl City of Orono NAVARRE AREA STUDY EXISTMQ ZON»IQ laar «w MCMBi »^«***—«y>•* •*•* ^ ,9.^ . i O' iwy *qB*.lAKE MUUtEIOlIKA iCfirim lAf|•» 'i• I ill I ’Init^o‘liX-i I i ■ ffa®TTfTys!ffi-TTrr'.• r*B«a *p-^*. I I X■p^}'T ]lake MUniEIOlIKAtCAHM4Mt lAVI B m r*Ml| MatMtAWU 0l«l4kl |/| A«i« B m A»tM««|l»l SmA<«»I iI«I III A(it MUI Itlfi OUUkI C mIm twikatt OkUkI Bilk* A«4 ll•l•••kA•l Bwtkaas CNaijkl LMiti NalAM»iM«i B ui Iami Oltlikl lr -ibol . /X*U"City of Orono NAVARRE AREA STUDY EXISTING ZONMQ fOOf BOO* Mtmml l!LAKE MmtIETONKAiCkfllAL BAf)V? • ■ : • I i ; U ' ■Ll^ !•;!!'«1 --N I '• •X:'-A-nTvnrj -COMM.‘:: v:\( kX • ! I I I i': / / ■ /* -4 TJ>^-V»»*«******"**t mm*. 'IL z T'VAC.COM&- • BCS.'mwH Hill!puPlfclipfN ^ModiVr ES??-• r\LAKE MMNiTONKA |t#Mr - W AAf I 1 ** * * i ^I*OMu.^ . OFF.^0 VAC.McokVii.LAKE MINIIETONKA ICAMIAMI BAf)lAKi liNNtfOlMA•.MBIIIII tAfl 4RES. City of Ofono NAVARRE AREA STUDY EXISTING LAND USE ^ jSS^*** '*'<• ikak *. 'UiMm .*.»«.• . .. -w. ^ ^ •? I J J n\[d e A** ♦**^«***'——HVV»A^‘‘ .4 ■4*11Iwi it »»“•* .. ._ »•>•rV^hj W \ • •'■“^ • r,.,-— c-.-^ 1>r^ ,(i il^xL >1•!m I y AUP ---------10 \1^(m mii^i < I. ifrfi fi—1 l^,«ID i )O0OO( ^.••***1 -T / 4' ^ \ m .V rvv V. |aUC*<^JkSI .—r**--Ht :c>'lib'a ✓/ " '___mM ktID l*l*i^ poirt BOAoAnE^ rrn^Auwn •‘•••*!rjfl?.? —-------------------- ---------------------- rm^ ------ t • j««M ---------- lA 4!^5;s3 ,'SU-v'•*'♦•*► M»«« ««•*•“*“ • !kS:~".““"-'S sks Cit'WiW HAVA ANAt CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY analysis SUMMARYCnunty Rnatf 19 AreaInadequately and unscreened parking, loading and storage result in dutter Redundant and poorly placed curb cuts result in access/circulation conflicts Aging and deteriorating buildings and parking result in an image of decline Excessive and competitive signage add dutter and confusion Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this areaSmall parcels limit expansion and redevelopment flexibility and have resulted in crowded, out of scale development, parking and setback problems Existing development exhfoits lack of unity or positive character and little sense of community Significant wooded areas buffer the existing land use transitions and require sensitive development rasrn Point Road Area Inadequately screened and unscreened parking, loading and storage result in visual clutter Redundant and poorly placed curb cuts result in access and circulation conflicts Aging and low quality commercial/industrial uses counteract the positive influence of better development Mixing of incompatible uses contributes to conflicts and disorder Small paiceb limit expansion and redevelopment flexibility and result in crowded and out of scale development, and parking/setback problems Turning conflicts occur at all major intersections Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area Inadequate screening and buffering of new development/redevelopment perpetuates harsh edges and transitions r*T*T# • J 11[i ■MTi TO • fTTI W-rtTMFfrf»Fr-^-r»3ol*lL^r*ii»iii«*.i-4<i•VSilil'Al is# arVdng. storage^ed^dunscr.®.®*? ^0„««,o<l,^ttadrcuUdo»/“«^*""^““ „t and contribute <0d curb cuts result m development«^rdal uses discourage a J^^/commeroal „nance counteraa postuvet.„d«.dopm«.» ,^id« adjacent devdopm«d--“^‘"““’"::Hd..ctbriatca de pedestrian aossings CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY lAND USE ALTERNATIVE ARnad 19 AreaEjqpand and concentrate commercialDevelop mult^jle residential to support commercialPlace commercial with buddings set back to maximize developable areaRevise street system to increase developable area, and reduce access and land use conflictsPreserve woodland and wetland buffers Develop open space corridorsDevelop and implement perfonnance standards to reduce visual and operational conflictsC^jSfn Pnint Road Area Expand and concentrate officeRevise street system to enlarge office area and reduce access and land use conflicts Develop and implement perfonnance standards to reduce visual and operational cor.cts nnwwnodv Avenue Area Develop single family around wetland Develop new park as part of wetland and open space system Develop office use at Dunwoody to buffer the county maintenance facility Combine dty and county maintenance operations Develop and implement perfonnance standards to reduce visual and operational conflicts sc,backlog- ■*a. and reduce access and landJ space corridors044® ^ °P'”'“"5l conflicts'ccmrate office»'®'oeniarse Office ,P^rfo^ance stanfl^" ““U® °^"“““'^--~a,conffi-c«% around wetland pan of wetland and open ,r n ^ i^unwoody to bufier the- 'Qt performance stand, to reduce visual andoperational conflicts '^1« »CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE BCnnntv Road 19 AreaExpand and concentrate commercialPlace commercial toward the front of the lot to maxim ize village image Develop loop road to serve commercial from the rear Develop multiple residential and office to support the commercial High quality multiple residential to capture lake and open space views Revise the street system to reduce access and land use conflicts Preserve woodland and wetland buffers Develop open space corridorsDevelop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Cnsai Point Road Area Expand and concentrate office Develop multiple residential adjacent to Co. Rd. 15 Maintain Casco Point Road/Blaine Avei.u-? interseaion for possible signalization Develop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv Avenue Area Relocate combined county and city maintenance facilities Preserve woodland buffer Revise access road and restore wetlands Redevelop county site to single family Concentrate access at Dunwoody and impiove inr*:r5ection Develop and implement strirt development st? problems '1 reduce visual and operational r •tratecoxnm crdal n,y,imtoviteg°i-°»8^_rfd«front«tthelot»toward ^^„*eiear.loop road to serve CO „,^tliecoiiioi«^ ? «oUip'« ; ^e aod op«. space vte« the Street sysw®“" .ewoodUndandwetUndbuffers iop open space corridors visual and operau letns a^XoiELEsal^ residential adjacent to Co. jble signalizaiion vclopmuluple .^hdneAvenu.-intcrsecuonf P Uonal . •„ Casco point ,4,rds to reduce visual and op . strict development standards evelop and implement stn •obletns dtv matotenance JaciB-i« .docat.coo.biocdccontyan-c*'^” ^«odUod.«fl« R.dsea«...soadand«««»« trt sinfid^ fanuly De«lopaodi«>P‘«”“‘“" pfOblClBS ct development st' CnY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE CCxmntf yofld 19 AreaE:q)and and concentrate commercial at Co. Rd. 19Place commercial toward the street frontage to maximize visibility and the small town imageDesign the street system to control access and land use confLctsDevelop multiple residential and office to support commercial usesHigh quality multiple residential to capture lake/open space viesDevelop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problemsDevelopment should enhance the areas image Preserve woodland and wetland buffers, develop open space systems Point Road Area Expand and concentrate office at Casco Point Road Design street system to enlarge office area and reduce access and land use conflicts Develop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv Avenue Area Relocate county and city maintenance facilities Develop multiple residential adjacent to County Road in and around the wetland Restore wetland and incoiporate it into the open space system Develop single family on county property abutting existing single family Develop a tystem of streets to concentrate access at Dunwoody and control land use/tni££ic conflicts Improve the Dunwoody intersection Develop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problems i i^AVAKKE___STUDYPREUMINARV l^iND USE ALTERNATIVE CHintTRofld 19 Arfgpand and concentrate commercial at Co. Rd. 19■«" the «r«. v««n ,o co=ml «x«. and land conflictlop moI,4,te r«id«.dal «d office .0 supper, conunerdu] uses i qoulrV muldple residendal .0 cupnrre luk./ope. spec viesleim stnci developmenl staudards to reduc visuai and operadonajJopment should enhance the areas imagerve .oodland and wedand buffers, develop open spac systenss LPoint id and concentrate office at Casco Point Road . »0« sysren. .0 enlarge offic area and reduc access and land use cnffics unplenren, srric developuren. sdndards .0 reduc visual and operational ad? Avenii^ e county and city maintenance facilities ■ ntuldple residential adiacen. .0 Cdunty Road in and around dte wedand wetland and incoiporate it into the open space ^tem * gl family on county proper^ abutting adsting single family concentrate access at Dunwootfy and control land Jie Dunwootfy intersection impl^aen. scric. developncc s»ndards .0 reduc visual and operadcal 101889.5DATE:Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato October 18, 1989SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment - Stage II ContractAttachment: A. Navarre Redevelopraent/Consultant AgreementDated 6/12/88B. Proposed Addendum Stage IIISSUE - Authorization to adopt the addendum as part of the contr ac*"V • INTRODUCTION - The initial estimate for the work for Stage I was approximately $15,000. Because of the protracted nature of the proceedings on the matter together with the request for development of options to help illustrate parts of Stage I, the work done by the consultant has begun to actually lapse into Part 1 S tag e 11. DISCUSSION - It is requested that the Council authorizean addendum for Stage II up to an amount not to exceed $5,000. This would bring the total authorized to date up to $20,000. A total of $30,000 has been budgeted between 1988 and 1989. After the meeting on November 18th an estimate for the balance will be prepared depending on the scope of work decided upon at or following that meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the addendum. 2. Stop the contract at the proposal. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the addendum be adopted a"s pr es ented. This authorization is up to $5,000 for Stage 11 Phase 1 Step 1. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Orono City Council authorizes amending the agreement with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban regarding Navarre Redevelopment to include an additional $5,000 for beginning Stage II work. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: John Shardlow Ed Hasik Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator ! * »• » . V I •w R\1 - 5 :'9S3 li^ 'NCC5*^^* <*^v»cT PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 rIRST AVENUE NORTH SL.'IT" 110 MIN^^E.V pCLIS. MN SSiOl 612 33^ 3300 3 JUNE 198S Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55323 Attention; Mark Bernhardson. City Administrator CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES AOROEMEOT- entered into today by and between Cm' OF ORONO. hereinafter ^ OTT DAHI.GREN. SHARDLOW. ANT5 UB^ INC., heremafter sometmtca caUed CONSUL- TAaNT. relating to the employment of the CONSULTANT as follov.s. OBJECTIVE OF SERVICES Commission and City Council, the LeUiv5Ui-i/\a ^ r'nMQTiT tan T will work in close liaison documents, guidelines, and implementing strategic. The CONSULTANT wiU ^ „,:X rrrv ro"-'t2r.t£. and affected property owners throui-hr.u: t.-.w pr-^c^-s a..o p.w^arc a report summarizing the research and recommendations resulting from the planning stu y. SCOPE OF SERVICES i?ro‘?r.sr. completion of the redevelopment process. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 2 STAGE II will be divided into three phases and will build on the findings of STAGE I. This stage is intended to be a more detailed study, identify'uig specific land uses, potential building scale and locations, and will result in a Redevelopment Master Plan. This stage will also outline specific imple.mentation strategies including; comprehensive plan and zoning amendments, design standards, and development incentives such as Tax Increment Financing. The following work program is proposed for your consideration; stage I phase I: RESEARCH AND .ANALYSIS 1. Conduct meetings with City Administrator. Consulting Engineer, and other staff to gather background data and current information, and to identify key issues involved in the planning studv.# 2. Secure information pertinent to the development of base maps, to include the following items: section maps, aerial photography, soils information, existing topographic information, vegetation, land :se. zoning. This wiU'also include locations of utilities and easements as may be available. 3. Prepare base maps of the study area at a scale of l":100 ’ for use in analysis and conceptual planning. 4. Inventory' and analyze such development factors as slopes, drainage, vegetation, and other environmental issues. 5. Inventory and analyze such development factors as land use. circulation, traffic, parking, access points, and current txx base. phase II: SUM.NLATION OF FINDINGS / DEVTLOP.MENT OF GOALS & OBJECTrVTS 1. Review findings frcn; Ph.a.se ! 'vith CITY staff. 2. Prepare a memorandum summarizing the research and analysis done as outlined above, and present the information to a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. 3 Based on input from City council and Planning Commission prepare a draft set of goals and objectives to guide the work to be conducted in Stage ff. Djhlgrtn. bharClow. and Uban. Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Pages STAGE li PHASE I: Pr^NING _ - 1. Develop preliminary concept plans and alternatives to illustrate potential future land uses, circulation, open space, major utilities, and potential building scale and location. * ^-5 2. Prepare a summary of the pertinent data and development statistics for the properties under consideration, including size and nature of development activity, existing and future land and building values, and fiscal implications. 3. Prepare a memorandu.m summarizing in •.^ri'ter. and graphic form the alternative concepts and pertinent information described above, and present it to the City Council and Planning Com mission. This memorandum will include traffic generation analysis reflecting the potential impact of proposed land use changes on surrounding streets.- - i „ )'i 4. Prepare exhibits and data suitable for public presentation of the the key issues and concepts involved, and prepare a presentation of these and other important information for the workshop with the City Council and Planning Commission. PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION I. Prepare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with findings as appropriate, which reflect the concepts adopted in the previous phase, for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council with the adopted results prepared for submission to the Metropolitan Council. 2. In consultation with City administrator. City Attorney, and other staff, prepare amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the concepts adopted in the previous phase, including application of new Zoning Districts to the properties in the study area, changes to the Official Zoning Map, and enhanced performance standards to protect the integrity of existing surround ing land uses and to guide future developments. 3. At the City’s direction and working closely with the CITY Fiscal Consultant and CITY staff, the CONSULTANT will prepare ?• preliminary Tax Increment Financing Feasibility Study. PHASE III: FINAL REPORT (Optional) 1. Edit, prepare and have printed a final report documenting the research, analysis, goals, plans, implementation tools, and promotion strategies outlined in all phases above. The report will be include two color printing of graphics, and hign quality materials and design. Dahlgren. Shardtow. and Ubin. Inc spment Plan Page 3 \ and Uban. Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 4NINGjreliininary concept plans and alternatives to illustrate potential future land uses, 1, open space, major utilities, and potential building scale and location, * 3" 5summary of the pertinent data and development statistics for the properties under :ion, including size and nature of development activity, existing and future land and alues, and fiscal implications. ^ ^memorandum summarizing in ••'•■n'ter. and grapltic form the alternative concepts and information described above, and present it to the City Council and Plannmg Com- his memorandum will include traffic generation analysis reflecting the potential impact id land use changes on surrounding streets. -‘-'i ^ )>iixhibits and data suitable for public presentation of the the key issues and concepts jnd prepare a presentation of these and other important information for the workshop 'ity Council and Planning Commission.- LEMENTATION mendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with findings as appropriate, which reflect the adopted in the previous phase, for review and approval by the Planning Commission Council with the adopted results prepared for submission to the Metropolitan Council. ;ation with City administrator, City Attorney, and other staff, prepare amendments to ig Ordinance to implement the concepts adopted in the previous phase, including n of new Zoning Districts to the properties in the study area, changes to the Official lap, and enhanced performance standards to protect the integrity of existing surround- ises and to guide future developments. ity’s direction and working closely with the CITY Fiscal Consultant 3od CITY staff, SULTANT will pr<?nare a prdiminary Tax I.ncreme.".! Financing Feasibilir/ Study. lAL REPORT (Optional) sare and have printed a final report documenting the research, analysis, goals, plans, itation tools, and promotion strategies outlined in all phases above. The report will be wo color printing of graphics, and high quality materials and design. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PRESENTATIONSIt is anticipated that five (5) presentations before the Planning Commission and City Council may be required in the pursuit of final approval of the planning study. It is also anticipated that at least two public hearings may be required. All additional meetings and revisions will be charged for on a time plus materials basis.PRODUCT TO BE PROVIDEDThe CONSULTANT shall provide the CIT'f with written and graphic materials in memorandum form as may be required during the review of this project. Board mounted, color rendered e.thibits and slides will be prepared for purposes of public presentations. At the CITY’S option the CONSULTANT will publish a final report printed on high quality paper with uvo color graphics and bound in one volume. INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY The CITY shall be responsible for providing legal, engineering, surveying, and municipal fiscal con sulting services as may be required. The CONSULTANT shall work in dose liaison with these e.xperts throughout the course of the project. None of these services will be requested without prior consent from the CITY. The CITY shall be responsible for providing updated information, including legal descriptions, aerial photos, section maps, fiscal data, topography (if available), and City infrastructure and utility informa tion. COMPLETION TIME The work outlined above will begin immediately upon receipt of the e.xecuted contract and will be completed as expeditiously as possible with work for STAGE I being completed within 60 days of commencement, unless delayed by reason of une.xpected emergencies, forces beyond the control of the parties, or by request of a party acquiesced in writing by the other p.irty If so delayed for more than ninety (180) days at the request of the CLH', the CONSULTANT reserves the right to renegotiate the contract to account for rising costs before resuming work. Dahisren. Shardlow. and Uban. Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 5 COST OF SERVICES The work will be performed on a time plus materials basis, with an estimate. We will undertake only that work which we feel is essential to complete the study and we will not undertake work which is not authorized by this AGREEMENT, without the prior consent of the City CoundL Since the costs associated with Stage II will be dependent on decisions made by the City with respect to the findings of the previous Stage, a detailed estimate of those costs will be provided at the conclusion of Stage I. The estimated cost of our services for Stage I is summarized by phase below: STAGE I PHASE I: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Research, analysis, base map preparation Time: 30 days PHASE H: FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES Consultation, writing design, analysis Time: 30 days TOTAL SERVICES STAGE I :/^O06 The work performed will be charged for on a time plus materials basis according to the above costs. All work and meetings will be computed in accordance with the attached Standard Rate Schedule, which shall be paid as hereinafter provided. All costs incurred will be payable to the CONSUTwTAi'TT upon receipt of an invoice showing the w*ork completed and the cost of said work. To each invoice not paid with’*! thirty (30) days shall be added a service charge of one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) r- o .each month delinquent. % »■ Oahigrtn. Shardlo«r, and Uban, Inc. Planiw agreed TO:LOW, AND UBAN, INC.:/ice President I City Auminisiraior , Mayor dard Rate Schedule SHARDfiOW Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director February 5, 1990 Highwood Storm Sewer .<2 ( C'2590.IHDrr-<~. 1 i> . ..‘ •- w' 1 .J I ‘ V. V.' U' 7AS a result of the July 1987 Super Storm, the City of Orono received a petition to perform a feasibility study from the residents in the Highwood Road area.The feasibility study determined that a storm sewer could be installed directing the run-off through one of two routes. One option would be to increase the size of the existing pipe to handle more flow, the other option would be to construct a new line through an existing alley (see attached).When the affected residents were notified of the options and costs, the project was not well received. Staff was then directed by Council to review the matter further to be sure there were no options over looked. City Engineer Glenn Cook and I have met with the directly affected property owners and have as an alternative suggest the following be done: 1. Attempt to acouire drainage easements over the existing storm sewer. 2. Construct a catch basin with overflow at a point where the existing City pipe ends at Highwood Road and the private line starts. The cost to construct a catch basin is approximately $500.00 and would be funded through the Public Works Maintenance Budget. This work could be completed during the summer of 1990. 3. Construct a retention pond in the drainage area on City property in the northeastern part of the drainage basin. The cost to construct a retent: n pond would be approximately $5,000.00 and could be funded through the Public Works Maintenance Budget. This work could be completed in 1991. Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Attachments: A.) Highwood Memo Dated 1/5/89 B.) Highwood Memo Dated 5/7,'88 (memo only) Forwarded recommending approval. • - V ia •; V (-rTo:Mark E.Bernhardson,From:John R.Gerhardson,Date:January 5, 1989Sobjact:Highwood Storm SewerDuring the summer of 1988, City staff inspected the efficiency of the in-place storm sewer in the Highwood Area.It is our opinion that there are no obstructions in the current pipe and have also determined that the pipe is drastically undersized. The problem at this time is that there is great opposition to any storm sewer project and/or upgrading of the current storm sewer. It is my intent to communicate with the most affected property owners in January/February to determine if he could accept some other type of alternative to a Capital Improvement Project.Recommendation - That Council direct staff to discuss with the most affected property owner options to a Capital Improvement Project. Proposed Motion; Moved by seconded by to direct staff to discuss with the most affected property owner any options to a Capital Improvement Project. Ayes _ _, Nays _ _. To: Prcm: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^^^^ Forwarded recommendir acceptance of the information. :Uc «o-^tas®"' 1989 toit. se«e'^ ctea * ®*"*’' citV »'^*Jiah«o*a M**- ',Vce°^«- „o «VhVrh-li^?he ‘i*e ■» ^\nso"ae* erji'^fis ‘- any e^fis »v/;«’'j.nO.«/V„»tive « sever. J own'r^r tV*® ° raVaelh^®- „.. «ihh f„®, .t s^taone . ee=ohae^\f<,«^rr anV loved — a most ^yes ----•' „ COU”®*-^ Henher " Ciry has>inae«.r=rT»^ „raeon. CrW .ntoriaarieh- „<-e o« the rnr. acceprance nTfAi^n^evr BTO:Mayor and City CouncilFIMM:Mark Bernhardson, CityDATE:May 17, 1988SUBJECT: Continuation of Public Hearing - Highwood Storm SewerAttachmentA. Highwood Storm Sewer Project Memo Dated 4/15/88B. Glenn Cook Letter Dated 5/19/88C. City of Orono Minutes Dated 4/25/88D. McCurdy Letter Dated 5/10/88ISSUES -1. Continuation of the public hearing. 2. Determination as to Council's desiring to undertake any public improvements in response to this problem. INTRODUCTION - At the April 25, 1988 Council meeting. Council took initial testimony at a public hearing and directed the public hearing be continued to the May 23, 1988 meeting. At that meeting concerns addressed regarded both water quality and storm water quantity in this area. In addition the principal property owners, the Vongries, who are involved in this were not able to be present at that meeting. For background information as noted in Attachment C the City did consider this matter in 1975 and directed to Mr. Sauer that the only remedy to this problem was a public improvement. DISCUSS ION - Since the last Council meeting, as noted in Attachment B, the Engineer has explored alternative solutions to this problem which include the following: A. Detention of storm water on the north side of County Road 19 for a period of time. This was determined by the Engineer not to be cost effective. B. Creation of a larger detention basin on the backside of Sauer's property by lowering the existing grade in that area a couple feet and using some of the material to berm the houses of Sauer's and Baxter together with having Mr. Sauer move his shed out of the area. This may not be cost effective. C. Instead of re-piping the whole area look to re-pipe only the portion of the existing tile which crosses the McCurdy and Vongries property. Together with providing the manhole and overflow with an 8" pipe. Mr. McCurdy has indicated in Attachment D that this is not acceptable to him. ‘'^ayor and city co • //1988’** ^°"tinuatio„" Of Public u^earinant ^^^^*foo<3 s^cr'“«Uon Of tHolin rVo°“r‘^'n« i'P'-il 25 ° “"-in'-talce «nns%S|?°""ueV tt "eeting ^ongrieV®”ettlng*'‘®^"thi ‘ :ea^-ane r"i"-T-2”92? Poe. Pnobia ’’® and <li recteV?'’”®"‘ C ti, ®inca tn ^ couno,. ‘Oe ®i"ce tn " '’“'’iiPiVro ”''- Snner eSf‘1' di.-■sS.te:.a-vAr':. '"■ Sineer ’’^od of J® the « ho “u^‘| 'IV^^'iC‘^***i«ing* ‘‘‘■'‘side -M Of rs-oi„. " ®''®a. Th?'’ in5''“°" Of ?i"9 ‘he Who] this not 1 D. Instead of putting in a new pipe by digging a trench through County Road 19, look at "jacking" the pipe under Highwood. This however is about $10,000 more expensive than trenching.Water Qua 1ity - As far as water quality is concerned, the bay these properties front on. West Arm, has been problematic from a v#ater quality standpoint for a substantial period of time. The principal concern has been that the Painter's Creek Watershed does drain into Jennings Bay and West Arm and has had significant phosphate contributitions. One contributor is the Maple Plain Treatment Plant and the second the agricultural run-off in the watershed. The Maple Plain plant contribution has been removed through the interceptor. Coupling that with the fact that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has put a settling basin project in the Painter’s Creek area should help improve the situation. (Removal of the treatment plants around the lake has improved the general quality of the lake.) As for this local Watershed, most of it is an area of natural growth with the only exceptions being drainage off County Road 19, Highwood Road and the grassed area on the back of the Sauer property. (A detention area is principally for storm water temporary storage and is what was initially proposed. Detention refers to water being held for a period of time, but is eventually drained off with retention being an area that there is always water in at least part of the storage basin. Retention areas are generally associated with attempts to improve water quality.) The actual measure of the water quality coming out of this pipe has not been done. MISCELLANEOUS - The question had been raised regarding the possibility that the back part of the current Sauer property was at one time owned by the City. This is not the case, as best the City can tell from its records. The City is unsure the extent to which this may have been a wetlands at some point in the past. The Council should be aware of the fact that although proposed as one project there are two facets to it. The first is handling the existing storm water ponding basin as it presently exists taking care of the water quantity. The second aspect is addressing the water quantity problem as it relates to Highwood Avenue itself and water draining off Highwood to the properties principally to the east of Highwood. The project as proposed would re-grade the street in order to direct the storm water away from the garages and properties and down to use the same storm water system. The first phase, that being controlling the existing storm water in the watershed can be done independently of the second, but not vise versa as redirecting the flow from Highwood in this basin without making the necessary improvements on the basin would only exacerbate the existing problem. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council undertake a solution to this problem which would be Option. I, a 21" pipe on Instead of putting in a new pipe by digging a trenchant and the second the agricultural run-off in the Phe Maple Plain plant contribution has been removedDistrict has put a settling basin the Painter s Creek area should help improve the Removal of the treatment plants around the lake haslake.) As for this local )st of It IS an area of natural growth with the only Jing drainage off County Road 19, Highwood Road and Sauer property. (A detention ipally for storm water temporary storage and is what 'proposed. Detention refers to water being held for is eventually drained off with retention tnat there is always water in at least part of the n. Retention areas are generally associated with mprove water quality.) done^^ water quality coming out of this pipe I r raised regarding thehat the back part of the current Sauer property was ^ned by the City. This is not the case, as best the from Its records. The City is unsure the extent to li' have been a wetlands at some point in the past. lould be aware of the fact that although proposed as here are two facets to it. The first is handling storm water ponding basin as it presently exists Of the water quantity. The second aspect is i water quantity problem as it relates to Highwood and water draining off Highwood to the properties ;o the east of Highwood. The project as proposed e the street in order to direct the storm water away ges and properties and down to use the same storm The first phase, that being controllinq the J water in the watershed can be done independently , but not vise versa as redirecting the flow from US basin without making the necessary improvements ould only exacerbate the existing problem. I - It is recommended that the Council undertake a his problem which would be Option I, a 21" pipe on J the City public right-of-way to be financed through special assessments. It is recommended the street regrading not be undertaken as there ia apparently little indication as to this being a severe problem. This could be done at a later date independently of the first phase. (All costs are Independent of any easement costs.)PORPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, that the Councilorder the project be undertaken and that the necessary design diagrams be drawn up by the Engineer for bidding. Additionally staff is directed to undertake financing of the project through special assessments. In order for the Council to actually order the project be undertaken, once the bids are received will require 4/5's vote on the part of the Council. Ayes _, Nays _. To:Mark E. Bernhardson,City Administrator Froa:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:February 9, 1990 12 Subject:1990 Marina Licenses m • • ^ ' '•'IS’D» •; Staff sent out 1990 marina license applications to all marina owners on January 29/ 1990. As staff advised, we have no legal authority to enforce previously agreed upon conditions for the operations of marinas without a current license that sets forth those special conditions. New review procedures and ordinance amendments are needed to affectively deal with land issues that face the City with yearly operations of marinas. It is apparent that this will not be accomplished by the 1990 season. Staff will review the application information, the status of any reported violations, and any plans for improvements by a marina within the 1990 season. At that time staff will make a recommendation as to an appropriate interim review procedure. TO: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members / FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoA^Vj Forweurded recommending acceptance of the information. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to direct staff to review application information and return to Council with a recommendation of an appropriate interim review procedure. Ayes nays _ _. rk E. Bernhardson, City Administratoranne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator 'rc’' 12 1^bruary 9, 1990 90 Marina Licensessent out 1990 uatlna licenae applications to allTe«l ’’*au“t“oclty irentoVc/Vrevlously* agreed upon'f'ol“\he“‘opVrV/ions of "V‘"“dltloSr‘ NVr”e'v'!e5 t sets forth those special conditions. ,yi8L^"s^''h\t7ac?\hVcHy wUh^yearly operations It is apparent that this will not be accomplished byison#Illl review the application information, the status of 'a violations, aSd any plans for make .[on aOtran appropriate interim review procedure. r Grabek & Orono Council Members ; E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^^ •econunending acceptcmce of the information. Moved by _ _, seconded by TO:FROM:Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratOATS: February 5, 1990SUBJECT: Joint Council/Planning Commission MeetingISSUE -1. Decide when Council would like to meet with Planning Commission to discuss public/private roads. 2. Decide what otner issues Council would like to have discussed at that meeting. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 22, 1990 Council meeting it was indicated during a discussion during the Mayor and Council Report that Council would like to discuss the issue of public and private roads with the Planning Commission. In addition to taking the opportunity to discuss public and private roads it may be appropriate to include any of the following subjects; LMCD's Comprehensive Plan City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Updates - Sewer and Transportation Marina Controls City Facilities Design A date that may be open for many people would be Monday, March 5th. Alternate March dates would be; Tuesday the 6th Thursday the 8th Thursday the 15th Friday the 16th Wednesday the 21st Thursday the 22nd ALTERNATIVES - 1. Set March 5, 1990 as the date. 2. Select an alternate date. 3. Table. 2590.1 .. .. f -f'^tf: TO' 12 1390-V n ’ror and City CouncilE. Bernharason, CU, Aamlnlstrat.bruary 5, 1990int Council/Planni"5 Commission MeetingIS like to meet with Planning to^aUcuirpubUo/prlvate roads.to discuss p like to have discussed hat otner Issues Council would U><e ,o 1990 council meeting ,~«Uh\rB?ai;in,%-lssion. mm J^_ ,h with the Ptan...,., jbjects; g'|j“orrnflo^pteheisive Plan Updates - Sewer and Transportation ty"FaclUtlel Design . he open for »any people would he Monday, March t may be °P , . would be:•nate March dates wou aesday the 6th hursday the 8th hursday the 15th riday the J-®th ednesday the 21st 'hursday the 22nd ;h 5, 1990 as the date. in alternate date. ble RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council set 6:00 P.M., Monday, March 5, 1990 as the joint Planning Commission meeting to tentatively discuss:Public and Private Roads LMCD Comp Plan Direction Comprehensive Plan Updates MarinasCity Facility DesignPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Councilestablish Monday, March 5, 1990 at 6:00 P.M. (box lunchesincluded) to hold a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting. Ayes , Nays .■3>V' I 2590.4 ■^4 '.■•i. S\V- 'Hili TO: FROH: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adininistrato^vj n.:::i2‘9-3o DATE:February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka - Lake Level By Well Replenishment Attachment: A. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Minutes Excerpt 1/4/90 ISSUE Presentation to Council of information related to discussion as to reactivation of wells to raise Lake Minnetonka lake levels. i INTRODUCTION - As you may have seen recently a petition had been circulated "to reactivate the 7 wells that were drilled in the 30’s to attempt to raise the level of Lake Minnetonka. These wells were last used in the 40's and have been deactivated, although to the best of our knowledge they have not been sealed. DISCUSSION - Initial indications from the Department of Natural Resources have been that they would not allow such r*»activation to happen. Issues of concern include: A. Quantity Needed - The amount of water needed to have an impact on the lake is appreciable. It is estimated that if the wells were pumped (365 days/year, 24 hours a day) they would pump about 5 billion gallons and that may have a minimal effect on the lake level, as much of the water pumped would evaporate. B. Depletion of Ground Water - As is true with the City and their sprinkling ban the use of this water would further deplete an already scarce and non renewable resource. It would have direct effect on the City in that we would probably be sharing the same aquifer with our municipal wells. Lowering of that could cost us substantial amounts in the long run to drill new wells. That is particularly true of the one on Highway 12 as two of the wells sit on the opposite end of Long Lake. The amount to raise the lake level in one year (5 billion gallons) would be equal to the am< nt the City would look to pump in about a 50 year time jpan for its municipal uses. C. Cost - It is estimated that pumping the 5 billion gallons would cost approximately $200,000. I r 1 ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Send City position on the matter c jNR. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information but take no action on it until such time as the City is asked to comment it. In a related note the City st^ff will present in March renewal of the sprinkling ban for the upcoming summer. (Staff is unsure at this time what impact, if any, this ban would have on the use of these wells to replenish the water.) ) • PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by that the council table discussion of this item such time as it would appropriate to comment on it. Ayes _, Nays _. special Meeting of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers January 4, 1990 Page 3 in the termination clause. Chairman Spensley indicated that he felt that the two year contract should have a definite termination, but that special projects which were separately authorized under the agreement would be performed to completion. Following discussion, it was moved by Lindley, seconded by Love, to approve the agreement as reported by Chairman Spensley, to direct the Attorney to draft the necessary language concerning termination of the agreement as described above, and to direct Chairman Spensley to sign the agreement once these modifications were made. Upon vote, the motion carried. New Business Manager Love stated that he was aware of interest '>mong some property owners or businesses on Lake Minnetonka in propo:>ing that augmentation wells be used to attempt to increase the level of the lake. Mr. Strommen reported that he was aware that a group of marina operators had discussed this idea at a meeting in December. Mr. Strommen contacted John Stine of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), who informed him that the DNR would soon be issuing a policy memo stating that the use of groundwater for lake augmentation is the lowest ranked priority, and is not supported by the agency. Manager Lindley stated that those wanting to see .he level of the lake increase h*id an understandable concern, but achievi ig this goal through augmentation wells is simply not possible; the District should take a pro-active position in educating the public about the history of the fluctuation of the lake levels and the reality that only increased precipitation will raise the lake level. Mr. Mahady noted that only two potential augmentation wells are located on Lake Minnetonka, and all the other wells are located on contributory lakes, and further that none are operational at this time. Chairman Spensley summarized the discussion by noting that the augmentation well proposal would appear to be unwise and ineffective, that the likely increase in the lake level from such a project would be too small to monitor, and would represent poor water management and a poor use of public funds. Manager Love suggested that he would seek an opportunity to share these views with the marina operators, and invite their comments. Manager Lindlr noted that Managers had received a related request to conside 'erting the Crow River to attempt to increase the level of Lake conka. Mr. Mahady stated that the DNR would ■ Special Meeting of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers January 4, 1990 Page 4likely have similar concerns with such a project which would divert water from one basin to another and would have many practical obstacles. Manager Love noted that such a project would likely have very significant issues concerning water quality. Manager Miller stated that such a project could likely never survive an environmental impact statement. Mr. John Barton, Water Quality^ Manager for Hennepin Parks, was present and stated that his office had d‘'*'£ suggesting that the level of phosphorus in the Crow River was as much as four times greater than that in Lake Minnetonka.^ Manager Love questioned how special assessments would be apportioned for such a Project. Chairman Spensley questioned what would happen with such a diversion project during wet years.Following discussion, the managers agreed that Manager Love would write a letter to those suggesting the augmentation well project to convey this discussion, and that Manager Lindley would write a similar letter to proponents of the Crow River diversion project. Manager Love expressed his support for continued policy meetings which would permit the Board to address oiigoing policy questions and long term planning for the District. Manager Miller agreed that such meetings would also provide an opportunity for greater planning and coordination with other authorities such as the LMCD and Hennepin Parks. It was moved by Love, seconded by Miller, that the Board continue with monthly policy meetings, to be held on the first Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at the Minne*;' nka Community Center, Minnetonka City Hall, and that these montnly meetings continue until April and then possibly be held every other month. Upon vote, the motion carried. Manager Miller suggested that the Board also develop more of a committee structure to provide for more effective management of the regular Board meetings. Chairman Spensley noted that the extensive opportunity provided to proper owners to discuss permit violations seemed to be the cause for longer meetings during the past year. Following discussion, it was moved by Miller, seconded by Love, that the Chairman appoint a violations Committee composed of three managers, which would include managers f m both upstream and downstream areas in the District; the > ^se of the Committee would be to review complaints of permit viol .. ns and to provide applicants and other interested parties with a full opportunity to discuss the violations and then to report to the Board at the regular meetings. Upon vote, the motion carried. I 2590.2 TO: PROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson# City Admi'*istrat Feb. ja-y 5, 1990 ? • - -- : vj! • * . w w» • « SUBJECT: Highway 12 Corridor Study Attachment: A. Hand Outs From MnDOT's 2/1/90 Meeting ISSUE - 1. Present information to the Council regarding the corridor selection meeting held by MnDOT on February 1, 1990. 2. Decision as to appointments to the various corridor selection committees. INTRODUCTION - The initial meeting for the corridor selection was held by the Minnesota Department of Transportation together with Larry Dallam of Howard, Needles and Associates at Delano on February 1, 1990. DISCUSSION - It is expected the consultant will officially start the first part of April but MnDOT is able to begin work with the communities prior to that. It. is not anticipated at this time that a joint powers arrangement will be needed but that MnDOT would like represented committees with appointed representatives from the communities to act as advisory to the process. As a result of the meeting it was proposed that there be three advisory groups, they are as follows: Policy Advisory - This would be a representative of ich of the communities that would be an advisory board ocusing primarily on policy issues and be the board eventually in ':harge of making recommendation.^ As this is only a recoi.’.mending body and that any selection would have to be adopted by the individual communities a proportional representation is probably not an issue. A primary and alternate could be appointed. B. Technical isory Committee - This would be composed of one to two, probably staff people, from the areas of planning, engineering and/or public works anticipating having a primary and an alternate to this committee. C. Citizen Task Force - This would be two persons from each community t'* initially provide input as to issues that they may be "re of in each of the communities and also be able to p» *de a communications link and advise on how to publ ‘ -i information on the corridor study and eventually t upgrade. MEETINGS - A meeting of the Technical group is tentatively 2590.2 yy.iii, ■ v-,«v^.. • V' : - i -• * fciW1„or and City Councilj «ra ritv Adml-istratoJ^ark E. Bernhardson, City n^eb. aa*y 5, 1990llghway 12 Corridor StudyMnnOT’s 2/1/90 Meeting t; H. Hand outs From MnDOT s H‘"t'lnrhVld°by‘«n^~? o"n°r’’e'bria;yr%"o/'‘'I meeting n®-*- j -»{^r»r selection.-<= the various corridor se.on as to appointments t 1, 1990. nfficially start 5S - ror4?fl“u? M^OO^ ir“bre\to b*|ln «« (t part of ^ t It is not hut that MnDOT Ite re^esented =o^‘“\Vvlaory procnaa. “ i, „aa propoaed that there be three suit of ‘';® ”®®re aa followa: y groups, they be a representative of .^ne^^^biel ,run«annd ’1re “he board ocuaing P''>”Viarge°of'’“aliing ''==°""®J^3eieotlon°viouldS:?viSSS?2S3hr.ur 1 proportional rep^^^^^ could be appointed. primary and compoaed w^r^a irtici;rtin9 “plan “n “ Vp^®®;i3"\„“VternlS thla committee. Savin, a primary and an C. Citiaen |iah £2^'lal^i'provWe Input « « each community t- ni^ 33Ch of the advlae that oi de a communication ^ ^^or studyalso be able to pi /information on the corn on how to publ ; ‘aae. and eventually a vpgeventually . ^P9— tencatively • n rtf the Technical group A meeting of tne scheduled for 1 March and a tenative of 15 March is scheduled for the Policy Advisory body. Selection of citizen individuals could take place during the March timeframe.Other members are invited to attend any of these meetings, as they will all be open.ALTERNATIVES1. Accept the information.2. Make appointments.3. Delay appointments.4. Take no action.RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the information be accepted and make appointments to the Policy and Technical Committees tabling the City's citizen appointment until further information is received from MnDOT. When received, recommending placing a notice to solicite interested citizens in serving on the committee. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by accepts the information and appoints alternate to the Policy body and _ _ _ _ alternate to the Technical Committee and tables discussion of the balance until its March 12, 1990 rueeting. Ayes , Nays the Council as primary and _ _ as as primary and as sa\®"3tive of 15 „»e„bers 7wn .ZX%VUl-‘- - «te„.^^l3!®A^^2s ^ *^*’®se meetings as.'?r• appointments.'• ”®lay appointments.Take no action.^ ^ —> At IQ _tabling the*^*^*.”^"’®”ts the ireceived ® citizen V^® Policy and "m°’’®®tion h^ && - «-e. . - • llntciff^i^&or-TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR ADVISORY BOARDFebruary 1, 1990 4:00 p.m.Delano City HallMeeting Agenda'i. Project update.Introduction of consultant.3. Project development process.4. Role of the Corridor Advisory Board.5. Data needs. ** 6. Future meeting times and location. Data Needs - To assemble the base mapping to be used in selecting and evaluating corridors, the following data will be required: - Zoning maps - Land use maps/plans - Golf courses - Parks - Schools - Cemeteries - Development plans - Farmlands - Wetlands Delano City Hall ' '/ apping to be used rs, the following TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS1. INVENTORY- Assemble all relevant maps, data, plans, policies, etc. from all affected cities, counties, and agencies.- Prepare a base map to be used in evaluating corridor alternatives.2. TRAFFIC FORECASTING- Forecast traffic volumes such that the impacts of potential corridor locations can be determined. 3. SCOPING - Identify all potential corridor locations. - Identify and describe potential impacts of each alternative. - Prepare Scoping Document for publication. - Conduct public Scoping Meeting. - Prepare Scoping Decision Document (SDD) based upon agency and public comments. The SDD will recommend a limited number of alternatives to be advanced for further study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 4. TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Evaluate all potential impacts of corridor alternatives to a level of detail sufficient to make a location decision. - Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for publication. - Conduct public hearing. 5. TIER 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - Revise DEIS to incf'rporate public and agency comments. - The FEIS will select an alternative as the preferred alignment. 6. RECORD OF DECISION “ Publish the Record of Decis the preferred alternative. 7. RIGHT OF WAY PROTECTION (ROD) establishing 8. TIER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Draft and Final Tier 2 Environmental impact Statements. 9. ROAD DESIGN Complete the detail design of the roadway. 10. ROAD CONSTRUCTION 2990.1 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat^ February 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Canine Program Attachment: A. Canine Program Memo Dated 2/8/90 ri-L ’ 12 .* ■. • - - ISSUE - Selection of a method to handle the canir Council decide to continue with it in light Standards requirements. program should the Fair Labor INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s January 22, 1990 Council meeting it was indicated that the staff was researching the issue related to how feeding and care of the dog on off duty hours was treated in light of Fair Labor Standards Act. This was because of recent indications that Fair Labor Standards considered that to be work time. Previously many communities had treated this either as a person’s own time considering the dog a pet or was using a non wage method to compensate a person for the care time. In the initial conception of che program the City had looked at care and feeding costs of about $500 and another additional $1,000 as possible compensation to the Officer for time spent in care and feeding. DISUCSSION - As noted in Attachment A various communities handled it in various ways. In addition there are a number of communities whose method probably does not conform to Fair Labor Standards Act. The City has until the start of the program to decide whether it desires to participate or not. ALTERNATIVES 1. Have the Officer work the normal time periods and pay the care and feeding time at over time rates. It is estimated that this would be about $3,300 per year. 2. Have the Officer work full shifts but continue to grant compensatory time to the Officer. Needed shifts would be made up by use of the part time officer. It is anticipated that the cost of this option would be between $0 if no make up time was required to approximately $2,400 if a part time officer were used to make up all the compensatory time. It is anticipated, as noted, that this would probably about $1,400 which is about $400 over the initial $1,000 anticipated. 3. Allow the Officer a half an hour off each day plus Evit][•Hit*[•HC*] 1 vha days '»«for car. a»4 tory ti»® ^ aa. Ayes — Chief fc TTm»«Kiex)r fInteroffice WeeoDetei February 1990Toinerk Bernherdeon, City AdminietretorFromi Hel Kilbo, Chief of PoliceResProposed Reimbureeiiient - Canine Program Daily Grooming and CareBased on a recent article in the paper on problems with pay tor doQ care, this Department has researched other departments solutions* The canine otticer, durma tne course ot the day, can spend appro;:, 30 minutes cleanina the kennel, exercisina, and sometimes trainina the doa to keep him sharp.Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted 19S5, requires that the Department pay overtime tor anvthinq put in over 40 hours per week. 1 haye checked with Chiet Len Harrei, Mound Police Department* Tiey are p^vina their canine otficer tive hours ot comp time per pay period, wtiich comes to 15 hours ot comp time per month. When taking this down times the average salary ot ^16,24 hour, it comes out to :f3200. Their canine ot-ficer works 0 hours a day and is paid comp time in addition to his regular work. In Golden Valley, Director Mooney states he gives the canine otficer 0 hours straight pay every two weeks. This wol« . j tigure out to 3,0 X 2 X 13 pay periods X 16.24 » ^1600, They work their doa hdindler G hours a day. In Bloomington, Captain Port indicates that they are looking at working their canine handler ^-1/2 hours ana a' owino the other half hour as an 0 hour period for c^*^ing an j'^oominq ot the dog. If we take the 8 days m the e pen X .5 (30 minutes) it comes out to 4 hours per > period, taking 4 X l~l/2 X 13 X 16.24 comes to :il270 for t^e days he work*- We then calculate the days he is off out of the year, and comes to a total of f3300 for the care and arooming of the dog. We have looked at a plan whereby we might pay the dog handler 8 hours of straight duty pay and give him one-half hour of comp time for 20 days in the pay period, which comes to 14 hours. The first 11 hours of comp time would be straight time, the next three hours would be time and one- half on comp, which would come to a total o+ 15.5 hours, times 13 pay periods, comes to 201 hours. The part-time officer could be used to make up these hours at a lower rate of pay. It IS possible it will only be :iH400 over what we V •■:0.'OmtmiToiPromt^•t Intoreffie^Fobruory a, 199^"*■" city«•! Kiibo. Chiof of policmProposod Rmtmburoo^*Dolly Qrooming *0r n-r^,Mor doa cor»**^rh* ootlclt in th* o«D«r an ^^^ndardfi Art «n»T' To- -i-'.o^:v.ToL. in^-H--r. Of comp UmS o^^icr '' tH..r 00' -nd/ir«''nS:-“*,i^-.io TllTo^ ^ T- *"■“=*»•• th.t th, •ho dog. xf " ^or c^-mo an " minutoo) it com.f ! * ® ‘^*>'9 in the J'-oonung • - • totp'^'ortMoTi- i:.-:r:ir • groom, ng of tho ive looked at a mt •r a hours Of s?ifrnKr*'"*‘*^ "‘"Sht p«y th« H Of comp timo foi^ *0 P«y *nd gw* Im «®' r — -if o^• fr r — •r could be u«Irt to 201 hours. Th- It i. n ^ ***<• up these h« P*rt.-time “ '■“••‘•’>* “ *‘ • IP-r r.t« over what we i programmed. It ,s anticipated we may not have to fill more than one-half of the shift.1 would recommend that we put together the last propoeal as something to work with and within the Fair Labor Standards Act. r 2790.2 c'j1inUr - • TO: FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk • / DATE:February 7, 1990 SUBJECT: 1990 Fee Schedule Amendment Attachment: A. Proposed 1990 Fee Ordinance Amendment It has been brought to my attention that the 1990 Fee Schedule Ordinance adopted December 11, 1989, should have listed the following charges: CONSTROCTION PERMITS AMD INSPECTION FEES Fee Code Section Tree Removal within 0-75' zone 530.00 Ord. 10.22 Sub. 3 MECHANICAL PERMIT Fire Alarm System $30.00 per system Lawn Sprinkla' System $30.00 per system Attached is a proposed ordinance amendment to include these fees. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoAr'” Forwarded recommend*/.j approval PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, to adopt Ordinance No. , Second Series amending the 1990 Fee Schedule. Ayes __, Nays I 2790.3 ORDIttAllCB RO., SBOOMD 8BSX1S The City Council of Orono ordainsi Fee rode Section Tree Removal within 0-75* sone $30.00 Ord. 10.22 Sub. 3 mechanical permit rlr. Al.r. •»““ l.w« SprlnklT sy.t.» «»-«® »*' Thl. ordlnanc. b.00... .«f.ctlv. ,(t«r It. pabUc.tlon by th. council thl. 12th d.y of rebro.ry, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor attest: borotKy M. Hallin, City CierT I ■ To: Proa Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director February 8, 199i FCD 12 1930 f: Subject:Equipment Purchase Bituminous Roller and Trailer — Public works On February 2, 1990, the City of Orono received and opened bids for one bituminous roller/trailer for the Public '^orks Department. This equipment is being purchased to replace the existing roller that was purchased in 1975. The bids received are as follows: Aspen Equipment Co. Savage, MN Ziegler Equipment Co Minneapolis, MN Hayden Murphy Equipment Bloomington, MN 1 Bituminous Roller S 22,493.00 Trade-in -2,000.00 20.493.00 Trailvr 10,000 lb cap. 2,995.00 TOTM. BID $ 23,488.00 1 Bituminous Roller $ 23,554.00 Trade-in -3,000.00 20.554.00 Trailer 10,000 lb cap. 300.CO mm MS ^m m Mi TOTAL BID 5 24,054.00 SSSSSBBBCrKBS 1 Bituminous Poller $ 27,175.00 Trade-in ” 500.00 No Bid on Tailer TOTAL '■ 5 26,675.00 Long Lake Ford Tractor Long Lake, MN NO Bid on Roller Tailer Only 7,000 lb cap. S 2,798.00 8,00C lb cap. 2,998.00 The City of Orono has operated the roller bid by Aspen equipment ($25,000.00). RBCOHNBHDATION - To approve the purchase of 1 new bitur . lous -oiler and trailer from Aspen Equipment for an amount i -t to exceed $23,488.00. I > ritve. Mr.cu.j. cetl-ata*®"' *’“*’',.ry «. I”'»**ed®U!i. iSitfcflNfiFEB 121930.. ( . V, F .Bltu^lno"* *oll« *"'’tnent jr works ,*reived ana W>f\cu, o. o.ono ^.«VBtA"f=« nt CO. 1 Bitun.ino “® noller Trade-in ytail.r 10,000 lb cap. TOTAT^ BlC 1 Bituminous FoUet Tr „,llar 10,000 lb cap TfOTAt^ Blt^ ,niF»enb 1^*^^°"^ no Bid on 2,798.00 ' Tractor cap. ? 2,998.00 Tailet only 7, hid by Aspen ■ in the equip w< tuT 1125,000.00). cf 1 toa.he purchase amount „2,000.00 "20*! 493.00 2,995.00 5"23”488.00 U-»*——• e 23,554.00 ^ Is'ooo.oo "2^,554.00 • .500 .00 $”24,054.00 « 27,179.00 ^ 1 500.00 S 26,675.00 ,«••»*•••* Bituminoua Roller/Trailer February 8, 1990 Page 2 of 2PROPBSBD HOTION - Moved by seconder by _, to approve thepurchase of 1 new bituminous roller and trailer from Aspen Equipment company for an amount not to exceed $23,488.00* Ayes _f nays _ _.To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council MembersFrom:Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorForwarded recommending approval. 1 C7- iPEO 12 1330 PiTv ni:TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorFROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works DirectorDATE: February 9, 1990SUBJ: Consultant Engineer Rate ReviewRecently staff was requested to review rates for consulting engineering services. Typically in our area consultant engineers are limited to three or four firms:Schoell & Madsen Rieke, Carroll, Mueller McCombs, Frank, RoosBonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and AssociatesAll of the above firms offer basically the same service to the municipality dependent on the demands of the municipality. The hourly engineer rates all are within the $60.00/hour for a professional engineer, plus or minus $2.00/hour. Attached are the proposed engineering rates from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates for their rates for 1990. Reco—f ndation - To adjust the engineering rates as proposed for 1990. , to approve the engineeringProposed Motion - Moved by _ _ _, seconded by _ _ _ _ _ .. rates from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to the rates proposed for 1990. -i :L, »■7'. iC?- IF£S 12 i3so ■''iTV f);- .-.rjfjyjjN«rk E. Bernhardson, city AdministratorJohn R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director ‘‘ebruary 9, 1990Consultant Engineer Rate Reviewing SMvi"ea/*TypVcVnv*^ln'^o^^ consultingted to three or fou? fiJms? consultant enginU?!Schoell & Madsen MuellerMcCombs, Frank, Roosonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates^Uy-d»e;in^b\f t'b« d-^/s-? t\^ mrfc«? nal engineer, ^pl®usVr^minus'^$2foo^ho^^^ « >tion - the engineering rates as proposed tor 1990 lotion - - - -- seconded by ♦.« 'o^199T°°' ''-®"*'“SKdinik s ASoSutes%o""t ’^e”*r«el TO:FROM:DATE:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Civy Administrator Bernhardson Building & Zoning Administrator MabusthLyle Oman, Senior Building InspectorFebruary 6, 1990 *j.jgf'C 3 13 !930'iTV fr: r ii?rjSUBJECT: 3865 Shoreline Drive & 3877 Shoreline DriveStaff is requesting Council to review the above subject properties for hazardous building action. Council adopted Resolution #2359 and 2361 on January 25, 1988, requiring the securing and repair of structures at 38o^ Shoreline and 3877 Shoreline. These resolution have been rewritten to exclude roofing that was redone at 3877 Shoreline and a garage that was removed from 3865 Shoreline. Those resolutions will supersede resolutions #2359 and 2361. These are four options that can be taken. 1. Table proceeding 2. Adopt resolutions as written 3. Adopt resolutions with amendments 4. Deny resolutions Staff recommends adopting the resolutions as is and proceeding with hazardous building action. '-'tlLtf'£0 13 19S0Mayor Grab^k ( Orono Council Members ^ _City Administrator Bernhardson PuV fi ' f"r-r-i,:rBuilding & Zoning Administrator Mabusth ’t Lyle Oman^ Senior Building InspectorI February 6, 1990BCTs 3865 Shoreline Drive & 3877 Shoreline DriveStaff is reguesting Council to review the above subject srties for hazardous building action. Council adopted Lution #2359 and 2361 on January 25, 1988, lequiring the ring and repair of structures at 3865 Shoreline and 3877 sline. These resolution have been rewritten to exclude Lng that was redone at 3877 Shoreline and a garage that was /ed from 3865 Shoreline. These resolutions will supersede utions *2359 and 2361. These are four options that can be taken. 1. Table proceeding 2. Adopt resolutions as written 3. Adopt resolutions with amendments 4. Deny resolutions Staff recommends adopting the resolutions as is and eding with hazardous building action. A RESOLDTION FINDING A HAZARDOOS BUILDING AND REQUIRING THE SECURING AND REPAIR OP STRUCTURES AT 3877 SHORELINE DRIVE, ORONO THIS RESOLUTION HEREBY SUPERSEDES RESOLUTION #2361WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; andWHEREAS, Louis R. Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 is the fee owner of record of property located at 3877 Shoreline Drive, Orono Minnesota, and legally described as follows;Property Identification Number: 20-117-23 22 0006Commencing at a point in the North line of Lot 1 distance 163 feet West from the Northeast corner of Lot 2 thence West along North line of Lot 1 distance 73.01 feet thence Southwesterly at an angle to the left of 63 degrees 14 minutes a distance of 123.02 feet to lake shore thence Southeasterly along lake shore 37.77 feet thence Northeasterly 161 feet to beginning, Lots 1 and 2 Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly considered the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, hereby finds that the above descr;oed property is uninhabitable and contains unsanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public nuisance and which makes this property hazardous to the public health, safety and welfare based on the following findings; INTERIOR 1. Partial Basement; wall cracked, windows covered with plastic - UBC 2906 - 2907. 2. Basement Stairs; headroom 5'6" maximum; stair tread missing bottom. UBC 3306 (c) & (q). E.legtrical 3. Puses (two); over current protection not enough - NFPA 70 Art 240.4. 4. 60 amp service not sufficient size service - NFPA 70 Art 230-79. 5. Wiring Type; extention cords used for permanent wiring, are a fire hazard per UFC 85.107. 6. Light Fixtures : ceiling lighting fixture not provided or inoperable - NFPA 70 Art 210-70 (a). 7. Receptacles; outlets not provided, minimum 6 feet apart - NFPA 70 Art 210-52. Page 1 of 8 PI’4fflbing 3. Clean out plugs not provided. 9. Floor Drain: provide for over flow of water heater. 10. Water Heater:not accessible. 11. LP Tank: 100 lb cylinder not secured to building. 12. 5xis£iDg_CQnditiQna T & P Relief Value: must be extended within 18" of floor. 13. Shut Off Valves: could not find shut off valve for water heater. Hgating-SYSbgro 14. Type of Unit: could not get over to unit. Furnace is on dirt/mud floor - should be raised 4" off floor and is also rusting out at the bottom. KITCHEN 15. Electrical: Light not provided - switch not provided. 16. Receptacles: outlets not provided on counter tops - NFPA 70 Art 210-52 (b). Elmpbing 17. Vent: plumbing vent not provided Section 4715.0220. - MN State Plumbing Code E2si5tiag-CQnditions 22. Walls & Ceiling: needs paint. 23. Windows: sills are deteriorating - not maintained - UBC 1707 (a) - NFPA 70 Art 210-70. 24. Electrical: light with switch not provided - outlets not provided within proper distance NFPA 21-052 Art. LAUNDRY FACILITIES Haghgr-A-Drygr 25. Installed in hallway blocking doorway to exterior and basement. Page 2 of 8 , i I •• H I I ■t . « Clean out Pl„,3“ater Heater: „pt '>«ater.not accessible.’’ank: 100 lb cylinder not secured to bulidinp.£3C ? Q ^ ^ ^ -s2fi!^ ‘ ^ «=^lel valuerr^^^0„ valves: could irr^dT'’■I'Pe of Unit- —™““‘-*Ja£Sai- --- Pe“rared^^‘ n°,?-l Porbac ■°« «oor and is a/s^ruS ” nVoS? kitchen octrical: Light not provided eceptnniea, "ot piovided. (b). ®W not provided on counter ton r bops - Hppj -- not provided - „„ State Plu„blnp code ,ls s cellln "S= needs paint. dows! sill ° Art 210-70 ‘^®^®^iorating - no. - UBC 7 7n,metrical- 7 ,• . ^3) within procer a- switch distance nppa 21-051%"°''“"' ' °“biets not “SJ '"=«IKSS ,77 ^iled in haliwav m " blocking doorway to ... ■ Page 2 of g '’ds®"'ent. 26. Waste water from washer dumped in bath room sink.27. Both appliances operate by use of extension cords.28. No back-flow preventor used.LIVING ROOM29. Ceiling: needs paint.30. Windows: sills deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a).31. Electrical; light with switch not provided - NFPA 70 Art 210-70.32. Receptacles: outlets over 6' apart - NFPA 70 Art 210-52.MAIN ENTRY 33. Ceiling: damaged from leaking roof. 34. Windows: sills deteriorating from weather 1707 (a). - no maintenance - UBC - NFPA 70 Art 210-70.35. Electrical: light with switch not operable Exterior light not working and cover is removed. BATHROOM fl 36. Ceiling; damaged by leaking roof. 37. Windows: sills weathered. Plumbing 38. Vent: none provided. 39. Faucet; below spill line - no protection from back flow. MN State Plumbing Code 4715.2010. Existing-CQndii;iaDS 40. Anti-Siphon Ballcock - Float Assembly - Shut Off Valve: provided. Elggj;risal 41. Receptacle; none provided. Page 3 of 8 not r-f BEDROOM #1 42. No smoke detector provide - UBC 1210 (a). 43. Windows: fire egress window not provided per UBC 1204. 44. Electrical: ceiling light not operable. 41. Receptacles: outlets over 6’ apart. bedroom #2 - ATTIC - UBC4:. Attic: used for bedroom - ceiling height not acceptable 1207 (a). 43. insulation: observed from exterior - sncw melting off roof very fast - sign of poor insulation. 44. Stairway: 2nd floor - improper guardrail height. EXTERIOR 45. Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure. 46. Siding: weathered and deteriorating UBC 1707 (a). 47. Soffit s Fascia: deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 4S. Roof Ventilation: inadequate ventilation - only top ventilation provided — UBC 3205 (c). 49. Garage: deteriorating. Building is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation, th^is it is a safety and health hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building Code/Uniform Building Coder Section 203. Page 4 of 8 I ! Orders to remove or repair the structure were issued by the Building Official on January 21, 1988. These orders have not been complied with. HON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. That the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to State Statute 463.251, hereby orders the owner(s) to board-up and secure the structure within ten (10) days. The City Council further orders that unless corrective action is ta)cen within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, it will result in the City properly securing the building and the cost thereof will be charged against the real estate as provided in State Statute Section 463.21. 2. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261 hereby orders the owner(s) of the property to ma)ce the following repairs in order to correct the hazardous condition: BASEMENT a) Footings & Foundation: provide new. b) Stairs: provide new with proper headroom - 6’6" minimum ELECTRICAL c) Service: provide 100 amp service - installed by licensed electrician. d) Wiring: remove all extension cords used as permanent wiring. e) Receptacles: provide outlets on all walls so that no point on the floor line is more than 6 feet. f) Light Fixtures: provide lighting outlets controlled by a switch in each habitable room. PLUMBING g) Cleanouts: provide clean outs per MN State Plumbing Code by licensed master plumber. h) Floor Drain: provide floor drain for excess water release of water heater. i) Water Heater: provide access to water heater. Page 5 of 8 1 j) Relief Valve (water heater): provide temperature release valve pipe to within 18" of floor. k) Shut Off Valve: provide shut off valve on water heater. l) Secure LP tank to building to prevent falling over. HBIkTIIlG SYSTEM m) Gas Furnace: raise off floor - provide maintenance check by mechanical contractor. KITCHBII n) Provide ceiling light operable by a switch. Provide outlets on all counter tops. o) Plumbing: provide proper vent for sink and provide gas shut off for gas cooking stove within kitchen area. This shut off must be accessible. LAOHDRT PACILTIBS p) Provide adequate space for laundry room. q) Provide adequate electrical service to washer and dryer remove extension cords. p) Provide adequate drain for washer. s) Provide back-flow preventor on hose line to washer. DimiiG ROOM t) Windows: sills must be removed if rotten - provide paint. u) Lighting: provide light with switch. v) Receptacles: provide outlets maximum 6' apart. w) Walls 6 Ceilings: provide paint. LIVIHG ROOM y)paint Ceiling: provide paint. Windows: sills must be removed and replaced if rotten Page 6 of 8 -I Lighting: provide light with switch. ( Receptacles: provide outlets maximum 6' apart. M2mi BHTRT bb) Ceiling: remove and replace damaged area. cc) Windows: check all -^ills replace deteriorated sills - paint dd) Lighting: provide light with switch. BATH ROOM ee) Ceiling: remove damaged area and replace, ff) Window: replace if rotten - paint. gg) Plumbing: sink vent must be installed; tub faucet must be replaced with approved unit; remove and replace tub drum tap; toilet must be replaced with approved unit; and provide shut off valve. hh) Electrical: provide one wall receptacle outlet with GFI. BEDROOM #1 ii) Install fire egress window, jj) Repair ceiling light and switch, kk) Provide outlets maximum 6'apart. BEDROOM §2 - ATTIC 11) Attic must not be used as a bedroom unless Code requirements are met. mm< Provide insulation in attic ~ minimum R 38. EXTERIOR nn) Slope grade away from structure. oo) Siding: remove all rotten wood siding and replace and paint. West wall is falling off foundation. pp) Soffits: remove and replace. Page 7 of 8 . proviae li’Jht with switch.„„„lde outlets masi»tbb) ceiling ••j,g) Windows:‘’*'"”’lJsT''p-ia. ouhlets .ssi»u« .• hPatt.Receptac ^j repi^^^ damaged a „ paint*be»cve sna tep ,bterlcr.tea sills PChech ali . pccviae li,ht With switch, ad) Ughtinp. iUh,= ts”°« """ 7n rnaow: replace if ' installed, «ink vent must be in ^ '®PV«rovide shut off aP4r«,^ :ri'’apptcvea unit: »h toilet must „tacle outlet with OP • cal- proviae one wall receptac .metrical. ^«<ss window. ‘”t - ••““■4j) Repair 6’apart.*is.ts maximum 6 apa bb, provide ou . b«lC hh) B„»00K « - bdsss code re<nirement. ot he used as a bedroom unless iii ottic - minimum P «. reinovB foundation'* oo> t“CVwa!ris fallino "« c Pfits: remove and replace- PP> page 1 of » q^) Ventilation; provide top and bottom ventilation, rr) Entry Step; provide step with maximum 8" rise, ss) Garage; remove.3. If the repairs are not completed, or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, the City shall move the District Court for summary enforcement of thisorder.4. If an answer is filed that contests the hazardous building action, the matter shall be tried and decided by the District Court. If the order is sustained by the Court, the Court shall fix a time after which the building shall be destroyed or repaired as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.20. 5. If the Court’s Judgment is not complied with in the time prescribed, the City may ma)ce the ordered repairs, raze or remove the hazardous condition or building, or acquire the building and real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent domain. The necessary costs of such repairs, razing or removal, including but not limited to attorney fees, witness fees and filing fees, shall be a lien against the real estate on which the hazardous condition exists and will be levied against the property as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21 and 463.22. 6. That the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorizes and directs the Mavor, City Clerk, City Attorney, and other officers and employees of the City to take such action, prepare, sign and serve such papers as are necessary to comply with this order and to assess the cost thereof against the real estate described above for collection along with taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of February, 1990. APPROVED; ATTEST;James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 8 of 8 Pp-iaTsC „Tth 17'°"ope.- remove. ”“" ®" «**.^P^irs are no^-ction 463.20. ^ ^®Paired as ®fterurf a T City jnay niakt"the^ ord°^ ^oniplied with * f th°r k""-repairs, raze ^ the buildina nr ^^quire the remove the •• The necessar^ Jo'eTdous condit?^“?"P end re“f e7i"f "O' "mi?ed ?ra%e°" 0“=" repe" rV ^°«'ed7y l°n exlst%7n7„117"e ‘ th77e";f7J;a7e'”“"*«’o r. r-f^,. i Citv or o-__ . ^°*^"cii Of th --Perty as Hr'-e end WtVr e“"nne !h!!7r%ril ”, end*7er7e“«!> taxes. '^®el estate desorlJe7lJ° essess bv ... -,. “*’°''e ‘orY °f"'Feb';ua°ry?^'9\o!" of Orono, approved I Page 8 of 8 A RESOLOTIOII FINDING A HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND REQUIRING THE SECURING AND REPAIR OP STRUCTURES AT 3865 SHORELINE DRIVE, ORONO THIS RESOLUTION HEREBY SUPERSEDESWHE«E*S the CltTo7””no ’is”.’ municipal corporation organized and existi7“n“7 the^aws^'of the State of Minnesota, andwhereas, Louis R. onethauser 2 4 25 Sh’o^““;Minnesota 55391 is the T®*„°,'J\e'L °s'a7 i^ttrest in the property located at Drive, Wayzata, ”.^onesota 553.1 has t described as follows:3865 Shoreline Drive, Orono Minnesota, ana legax yProoerty Identification Number: 2^thence West 163 feet alongcommencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 2^thence^^^^^^^ the North line of Lots 2 and 1 - Lake^ Minnetonka thence degrees 56 minutes to uhe . 50 feet Northwesterly from Southeasterly along lake shore to P ^jj^^^easrerly parallel with the most Southerly , tf fhe%ort^ thereof the Southeasterly becinning Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, 5otns’ite°7f La%”din lar ” oro. o,’ Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and ^-i 1 ^ Citv of Orono/ having duly WHEREAS, the City Council statutes Sections 463,15 to considered the matter pursuant to property is uninhabitable 463.261, hereby finds V"'tonW ® rulsrn=V7nd7h7crM7be7" h7s7-perty hazardous to the public health, safety and welfare based on the following findings, INTERIOR 1. Basement: crawl space with no access. Electrical 2. Fuses (two), over current protection not enough - NFPA 70 Art 240.4. 3. 60 amp service not sufficient size service- HFFA 70 Art 230-79. 4. Wiring Type, extention cords used for permanent wiring, is a fire hazard per UFC 85.107. 5. Light Fixtures, ceiling lighting fixtures not provided or inoperable - NPPA 70 Art 210-70 (a). 6. Receptacles, outlets not provided, minimum 6 feet apart - NFPA 70 Art 210-52. Pac»e 1 of 8 Elmnbipg 7. Clean out plugs not provided - MN Plumbing Code Section 4715.0220. 8. Floor Drain: provide for over flow of water heater. 9. Water Heater: ,.jt accessible. 10. T i P Relief Value: must be extended within 18" of floor. 11. Shut Off Valves: could not find shut off valve for water heater. Heating Svstem 12. Type of Unit: Gas Forced Air, Sears, undersized for dwelling unit,. Wood - Ben Franklin, improperly installed. 13. Flue Vent Pipe & Connections: forced air - shut off valves are missing - Wood Stove: improper clearances to combustible; some charring at wall; and unit is placed on combustible floor. RBAR/SIDB ENTRY 14. Floor; wood (porch area) exposed to weather - untreated wood - UBC 1707 (a). 15. Walls: in deteriorated condition - UBC 1707 (a). 16. Ceiling: in deteriorated condition - UBC 1707 (a). KITCHEN 17. Exterior Door: blocked and not used. 18. Electrical: Light not provided - switch not provided. 19. Receptacles: cutlet not provided on counter tops - NFPA 70 Art 210-52 (b). Elambing 20. Vent: plumbing vent not provided Section 4715.0220. - MN State Plumbing Code 21. Stove: gas shut off not provided Conditioning Code Section 1345.2670. - MN Heating, Ventilating, Air Page 2 of 8 I rail rail TTTtTi M X« O V# C* t nvi r«Hst«i*i riCT:fi 38. Receptacle:Elggtcigalnone provided,BEDROOM #139. Windows: fire egress window not provided per UBC 120440. Electrical: ceiling light not operable.41. Receptacles: outlets over 6' apart.42. Attic: not accessibleUBC 3205 (a).ATTIC- attic access in closet unaccessible -EXTERIOR 43. Insulation: observed from exterior - snow melting off roof very fast - sign of poor insulation. 44. Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure. 45. Siding: weathered and deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 46. Soffit & Fascia: deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 47. Roofing; leaks on west side and south side - UBC 3202 (a). 48. Chimney: mortar joints fall out - chimney in a state of collapse UBC 3704 (a). 49. Flashing & Vent Jacs; flashing around chimney improperly installed - UBC 1707 (b). 50. Roof Ventilation: inadequate ventilation at top only - UBC 3205 (c). over 8" maximum rise - UBC 3306 (c). Receptacle: none provided.BEDRCXM #1Windows: «r. e,ress window not provided per CBC 1204.Electrical: celling light not operable.Receptacles: outlets over 6 apart.ATTICRttic: not accessible - attic access in closet unaccessible -3203 (a).exteriorw ri from exterior - snow melting off roof veryInsulation; observed from exterio- sign of poor insulatxon.Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure.Siding: weathered and deteriorating - OBC 1707 (a).Soffit & Fascia; deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a).Roofing: leaks on west side and south side - UBC 3202 (a). Chimney: mortar joints fall out - chimney in a state of collap 3704 (a). V t vent Jacs* flashing around chimney improper y Flashing & Vent jacs. :allsd - OBC 1707 (bl. Roof ventilation: inadequate ventilation at top only - Pnrrv Steos: over 8" maximum rise - UBC 3306 (c). form Building Code, Section 203. Page 4 of 8 Orders to remove or repair the structure were issued by the Building Official on January 21, 1988. These orders have not been complied with.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:1. That the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to State Statute 463.251, hereby orders the owner(s) to board-up and secure the structure within ten (10) days. The City Council further orders that unless corrective action is taken within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, it will result in the City properly securing the building and the cost thereof will be charged against the real estate as provided in State Statute Section 463.21.2. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261 hereby orders the owner(s) of the property to make the following repairs in order to correct the hazardous condition:ELECTRICAL a) Service; provide 100 amp service - installed by licensed electrician. b) Wiring; remove all extension cords used as permanent wiring. c) Receptacles: provide outlets on all walls so that no point on the floor line is more than 6 feet. d) Light Fixtures: provide lighting outlets controlled by a switch in each habitable room. PLOMBING e) Cleanouts; provide clean outs per MN State Plumbing Code by licensed master plumber. f) Floor Drain: provide floor drain for excess water release of water heater. g) Water Heater: provide access to water heater. h) Relief Valve (water heater): provide temperature release valve pipe to within 18" of floor. i) Shut Off Valve: provide shut off valve on water heater. Page 5 of 8 Ul"on ”rnuary°2iriw! a^/orders “e not'blen^:^pll^^therefore , be it resolved as follows:the City Council of the City of °^°^°3'rd-up®and%e\°uthe 63.251, ?hrcity Council further orders thatr„-j .fs v...^».provided in State Statute bectxon 463.21. ity council of the City of and in acoordanoe “"‘L" Wsf of ?Se proper?5 to make the rVefaLsnt^oldeV'to°o “o"rVe'cV tSi h’k‘’zatlou/ oondition: electrical •/!« inn «mo service - installed by licensed Service; provide 100 amp servi«- :trician . «irin,= remove all extension cords used as permanent wiring. peoeptaoles: P-vide outlets on all walls so that no point on floor line is raore than 6 feet. ■ lirtht-ina outlets controlled by a Light Fixtures: provide lighting ouciex; tch in each habitable room. plumbing Cleanouts: provide olean outs per MH State Plumbing Code by ensed master plumber. Floor Drain: provide floor drain for exoess water release of :er heater. water Heater: provide aocess to water heater. Relief valve (water heater): provide temperature release Lve pipe to within 18" of floor. Shut Off valve: provide shut off valve on water heater. Page 5 of 8 HEATING SYSTEMj) Gas Forced Air Unit (wall hung); remove and replace with proper size furnace which provide 70 degrees temperature at 3" above floor.k) Wood Stove (Ben Franklin); provide U.L. Listing and instructions for proper installation to combustibles.REAR/SIDB ENTRY1) Porch Floor: remove floor exposed to weather and replacewith treated wood.m) Porch Walls; remove all wood exposed to weather and replace with treated wood.n) Porch Ceiling; remove and replace.KITCHEN o) Provide ceiling light operable by a switch. Provide outlets on all counter tons. p) Plumbing: provide proper vent for sir and provide gas shut off for gas cooking stove within kitchen area. This '*hut off must be accessible. DINING ROOM q) Windows; sills must be removed if rotten - provide paint. r) Lighting: provide light with switch. s) Receptacles: provide outlets maximum 6' apart. t) Walls & Ceilings; provide paint. LIVING ROOM u) Ceiling; provide paint. v) Windows; sills must be removed and replaced if rotten - paint. w) Lighting; provide light with switch. x) Receptacles; provide outlets maximum 6' apart Page 6 of 8 I j’itt •'" a”'-'.a, y)Ceiling:z)Windows;aa)Lighting:bb)Ceiling;cc)Window:dd)Plumbing: jed area.deteriorated sills - paint.Ltch.pp) Flashing: remove and replace,qq) Ventilation: provide.rr) Entry Step; provide step with maximum 8" rise.i replace.It.tailed; tub faucet mu3‘ be and replace tub drum tap; unit; and provide shut off:eptacle outlet with GFI. 1 hallway or walk-in closet imum R 38. od siding and replace and 3. If the repairs are not completedr or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order» the City shall move the District Court for summary enforcement of this order.4. If an answer is filed that contests the hazardous building action, the matter shall be tried and decided by the District Court. If the order is sustained by the Court, the Court shall fix a time after which the building shall be destroyed or repaired as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.20.5. If the Court's Judgment is not complied with in the time prescribed, the City may make the ordered repairs, raze or remove the hazardous condition or building, or acquire the building and real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent domain. The necessary costs of such repairs, razing or removal, including but not limited to attorney fees, witness fees and filing fees, shall be a lien against the real estate on which the hazardous condition exists and will be levied against the property as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21 and 463.22. 6. That the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney, and other officers and employees of the City to take such action, prepare, sign and serve such papers as are necessary to comply with this order and to assess the cost thereof against the real estate described above for collection along with taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of February, 1990. APPROVED: ATTEST;James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 8 of 8 Plashing: remove and replace.Ventilation: provide.Entry Step: provide step with maximum 8" rise»e repairs are not completed, or unless an answer is filed /enty (20) days from the date of service of this order, the LI move the District Court for summary enforcement of thisanswer is filed that contests the hazardous building action, Br shall be tried and decided by the District Court. If the sustained by the Court, the Court shall fix a time after e building shall be destroyed or repaired as set forth in i Statutes Section 463.20.:he Court's Judgment is not complied with in the id, the City may make the ordered repairs, raze or remove the s condition or building, or acquire the building and real n which the building or hazardous condition is located by domain. The necessary costs of such repairs, razing or including but not limited to attorney fees, witness fees and ees, shall be a lien against the real estate on which the 1 condition exists and will be levied against the property as 1 in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21 and 463.22. the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorizes and :he Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney, and other officers and s of the City to take such action, prepare, sign and serve srs as are necessary to comply with this order and to assess : thereof against the real estate described above for m along with taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, I, this 12th day of February, 1990. APPROVED: James R. Grabek, Mayor lin. City Clerk Page 8 of 8 2190.3Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorTom Kuehn, Finance Director •%February 6, 1990 SUBJECT: 1989 Annual Investment Report mt' ifiiif:.'!; 12Attachments: A. Investment Portfolio at 12/31/89B. Earned Interest vs. Revenue Budget 1989ISSUE - To comply with the annual investment reporting requirements set forth in the City's investment policy.DISCUSSION - The unaudited statement of earned interest for the year ended December 31, 1989 shows that the City earned $510,944for all funds compared to budgeted amounts of $389,130 for a favorable variance of $121,814. The overage is made up of approximately $62,000 of unbudgeted interest revenues from the emergency contingency account in the PIR Fund and the transfer of General Fund fund balance to the Building Outlay Fund; with the remaining $59,800 of overage coming from the 13 budgeted funds in various amounts. The average yield for the year was 8.78% compared to 8.24* for 1988. The investment portfolio, at cost, on December 31, 1989 was $7,915,275 compared to $5,514,024 on December 31, 1988. The increase was primarily due to unspent bond proceeds from the 1989 Sewer and Water Revenue Bond iss’.e sold in September 1989. The preliminary projected interest income for 1990 is $533,650 for all funds based on a general decline in short term rates and the expenditure of the majority of the remaining 1989 bond proceeds for sewer and water improvements in the Highway 12 area west of Long Lake. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information as presented. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to accept the 1989 Annual Investment Report as presented. Ayes _, Nays _. TO: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ Forwarded recommending approval. REPORT NBR. IVSTOlO-04INVESTMENT TYPE NUMBER549178 COMMERCIAL PAPER 812813 BANKER S ACCEPT 259356 FED FARM CR BANK 226559 STRIP COUPN-USTB 240527 BANKER S ACCEPT 554551 COMMERCIAL PAPER 766342 CERT OF DEPOSIT 580694 CERT OF DEPOSIT 545666 CERT OF DEPOSIT 495645 FED HOME LOAN BD 220842 COMMERCIAL PAPER 559745 FED FARM CR BANK 560422 CERT OF DEPOSIT 808933 CERT OF DEPOSIT 593137 FED HOME LOAN BD 787065 FED FARM CR BANK 560418 CERT OF DEPOSIT 593251 FED NAT MORT ASN 738930 CERT OF DEPOSIT 593364 FED HOME LOAN BD 593967 FED NAT MORT ASN 593267 FED HOME LOAN BO 730147 CERT OF DEPOSIT 200560 CERT OF DEPOSIT 700782 STRIP COUPN-USTB 593073 FED HOME LOAN BD * • • AINVESTMENT REPORT BY MATURITY DATE ^DATE OF RUN 01/11/90 STATUS: ACTIVE PAGEVENDORMARQUETTE BANK FIRST MPLS NORWEST BANCORP DAIN BOSWORTH NORWEST BANCORP MARQUETTE BANK FIRST MPLS M H NOVICK A CO MARQUETTE BANK MARQUETTE BANK NORWEST BANCORP MARQUETTE BANK MARQUETTE BANK FIRST MPLS M H NOVICK & CO FIRST MPLS MARQUETTE BANK M H NOVICK & CO DAIN BOSWORTH M H NOVICK & CO M H NOVICK A CO M H NOVICK A CO DAIN BOSWORTH DAIN BOSWORTH M H NOVICK A CO M H NOVICK A CO PURCHASE MATURITY DATE DATE08/11/8912/12/8911/01/8911/26/8610/05/8910/04/8907/12/8904/07/8807/12/8904/25/8809/13/8912/01/8911/29/8911/29/8908/25/8810/02/8911/29/8912/10/87 04/16/86 05/25/88 09/10/87 10/05/88 10/15/86 01/21/87 08/19/87 12/08/87 01/05/9001/25/9002/01/9002/15/9002/22/9002/28/9003/14/9003/21/9004/11/9004/25/9005/16/9006/01/9006/13/9006/13/9008/27/9010/01/9011/29/9001/10/91 04/14/91 05/28/91 08/12/91 09/25/91 10/15/91 12/31/91 02/15/92 11/25/92 COUPON YIELD COST PAR VALUE DAILYINTEREST821673821673600.840 79 600.840.79 137.1369854189854189395.867.11 395.867.11 93 9283837500819293 500,000.00 500.000 00 116 3194730178730178216,956 50 216.956 50 44 0042880127880127.483.452 78 483.452 78 118 1935877344877344789.708 79 789.708 79 192 456488767 1 8 8767 1 282.909 18 282.909 18 69 7583800000789041100,000 00 100.000 00 22 2222912357912357280,587 00 280.587 00 71 1093770000759452200.000 00 200.000 00 42 7778853897853897949.804 56 949.804 56 225 2857805000796154400.000 00 400.000 00 89 444481863181 8631 287 199 54 287 199 54 65 3084818629818629287 199 57 287 . 199 57 65 3076895000881120250.468 75 250.000 00 62 1528860000850549300.000 00 300.000.00 71.6667833424833424184.416 80 184.416.80 42 6935837500827313199,937 50 200.000.00 46 5278 8 50000 8 38356 100,000 00 100.000.00 23.6111 8 50000 8 35543 200.125 00 200,000.00 47.2222 8 70000 8 73736 199.062 50 200.000.00 48.3333 8 80000 8 65511 100.281 25 100.000.00 24 4444 8 10000 7 98904 100.000 00 100.000.00 22 5000 9 03900 9 03900 100.000 00 100.000 00 25 1083 9 93975 9 93975 206.457 00 2C6.457.00 57 0034 8 80000 8 67945 200,000 00 200,000.00 48.8889 REPORT TOTAL:7,915.274 .62‘*7.915,399.62**1.873.4048 >H 0 1M2 H IATTA•ciwi;-NT "B* INVESTMENT EARNED INTEREST COMPARED TO BUDGET TEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1989 FUND General Park Imp & Equip Outlay Building Outlay Permanent Imp Outlay 1989 Sewer - Water Const 1966-76 Imp Bonds 1980 Imp Bond 1982 Imp Bond 1985 Imp Bond 1989 Revenue Bond Water Operating Sewer Operating Golf Operating TOTALS Over Prior (Under)Year Budget Actual Budget Actual $165,000 $188,916 $ 23,916 $214,742 9,000 11,399 2,399 8,923 19,000 21,695 2,695 18,331 12,500 (a) 58,886 46,386 9,485 i) 26,200 37,345 11,145 11,871 i) 22,350 19,618 (2,732)-0- 40,000 44,817 4,817 43,138 27,500 37,990 10,490 31,526 9,800 13,762 3,962 13,283 9,400 14,240 4,840 12,067 7,4'jO 6,699 (701)-0- 8,000 8,905 905 5,650 32,980 46,653 13,673 29,013 —19 19 -0- $389,130 $510,944 $121,814 SSS8SSSS $398,029 Notes:(a) The actual 1989 amount includes net interest earned on the '1,905,000 transfer from General Fund. (b) The budget amounts for PIR and 1989 Sewer-Water Construction Funds are used only for comparison purposes as there are generally no formal budgets created for capital projects. I DATE: TO: FROM: January 22, 1990 Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police 'IfFEi' 12 ;-i50fv-- , t .i«-r ( SUBJECT: Step Increase - Officer Mark Thornton Officer Mark Thornton will have been with the department 4 years on 1-27-90 and has performed satisfactorily. He is eligible for a step raise from $16.24 hourly (1989 contact rate) to $16,727 hourly (1989 contract rate). I request he be granted the step raise effective 1-27-90. TO; FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoi^ Forwarded recommending approval in accordance with tne contract.I H PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to approve the step increase for Officer Mark Thornton from $16.24/hour to $16.727/hour (1989 contract rate) effective January 27, 1990. Ayes _, Nays _. i 1 DATE: TO: FROM: January 22, 1990 Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Step Increase - Officer Mark Thornton Of ficer Mark Thornton will have been with the department 4 years on 1-27-90 and has performed satisfactorily. He is eligible for a step raise from $16.24 hourly (1989 contact rate) to $16,727 hourly (1989 contract rate). I request he be granted the step raise effective 1-27-90. I 289.2 3 4 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director DATE: February 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Insurance Agent of Record fUO.'if'i, WtRliNG FtD 12 \930 l The City of Orono Agent of Record Agreement with Mr, Duweyne Carlson of the Apple Valley Agency needs to be updated and signed for policy year 1990. We were very satisfied with Mr. Carlson as he continued his high level of service to the City during 1989. The fee for service requested for 1990 is $6,500 which is the same as in 1989 and is included in the 1990 insurance budgets. The agent fee is reduced by commissions earned through the policy premiums paid by the City. For example the fee for service in 1989 was $6,500.00 but after applying the commissions the City's direct cost was $1,842.25. I have attached a copy of the Agreement for Agent of Record for 1990. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , to appoint Mr. Duweyne Carlson, Apple Valley Agency, as Insurance Agent of Record for 1990 at a fee not to exceed $6,500.00 including commissions earned through policy premiums paid by the City. Ayes , Nays [•TWfKWai] [•■■■I*im^mmrn] [•MV* 2288.2(50)CITY OF ORONOor »co«., valley Mency agreas to pertoro, The negotiation and placelAaurance, In Inaara^ .o Information on coverages: inventory and nummary! 4 provide an Insurance P ; h complete accounting ol commrssrons -ly' - ":.,ear premium and loss record, p.emlum hy department as -- - - .,,„incatlon, up-dated e. LOSS exposure He annually* losses: ,. hsslst with all clat ,„0 , 0 Assistance in “las- auditing rating as engineering and loss 1 V Assistance m T. vri of lossescontrol. in-agency reco 12. Wll’-^"^'''ves established: including res Management program. 13. Assist the City 1 „lll be . , -he insurance Policy y , fee for service £»; «e j<,uowlng: prepare 500.00 and «nl 'O’ g,„esure survey and P , Conauct an P specifications 2. Obtain guotee 3, Review polic The City agrees to pay $1,000.00 upon delivery of the policies, and the balance of $5,500.00, less commissions received, upon docunented presentation.s agreement is valid for the calendar year 1990.APPLE VALLEY AGENCYDateDuweyn CarlsonCITY OF ORONO Date James Grabek, Mayor Date Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator rUj 12 1930 TiTV n;- ' TO: Mayor Grabek & CounciImembers FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: February 9, 1990 SUBJ: Telephone Contract Addendum Attachments: A) Addendum #1 Telephone Contract Issue Determine if Council will authorize an adjustment to the telephone contract. Introduction During preparation for the new phone system, it was suggested by Teri Naab that the system would be more functional by having the same programming on each phone. This would be accomplished by converting the four 8 button phones to 12 button phones at a total cost of $500.00. An additional adjustment would be $32.00 for the overtime cost to commence installation of the system prior to working hours. This would Insure that all incoming calls during business hours are answered while the new system is installed. This increase would still place it below the next lowest overall quote. Proposed Motion Moved by ______, seconded by _______that the Council authorizes the addition of Addendum #1 to the telephone contract with Telephone Specialists. Motion, Ayes ____, Nays ___. [] FC3 12 i930•'’iiv r?_i' r,^n^;f,‘ C°™cil„en,bers ROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, citv ah ■IVTE- p K ^^^inistrator^TE. February 9, 1990Contract *Mendu„tachments:A) Addendum #1 Toim^KTelephone Contractsue‘®Pho„e%on'tract"“"^ anthorlre an ad3usta,ent to the[roductiftfi ®new Phone avnt. •e Pnopra^ming o^lfch "“ne fnnctio'iia?^®“”®®‘ed byeerting the four 8 bot^"®'. «o“ d be Vec''»1 cost of $500.00. phones to 12 button phones at a «ea While the new iy"s\r?s ?„^et^M “5f"^ ^ne‘nL'’/rure“r\= increase would stiJ i ,hi -• it below the next inext lowest overall tS£d Motion Moved by rizes thp aH;rr^-' seconded bv Telephone Specialist^ #i "tlTthe \eV CouncilPeolallsts. Motion, Ayes Nays "® CITY OP ORONO AND TBLBPHONB SPBCTALISTSADDENDUM #1Upgrade Four (4) 8 Button Phones to 12 Button Phones $500.00Installation Chart \crease for Overtime 30.00 Total Adjustment: $530.00 CITY OF OROIK) AMD TBLBPHOME SPECIALISTSADDENDUM #1Pour (4) 0 Button Phones to 12 Button Phones $500.00 tion Char* icrease for Overtime 30.00Total Adjustment: $530.00 ■»rMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director January 22, 1990Joint Powers Agreement - West Hennepin Recycling Commission 2290.IHD■37E3 12 1930Attached for review and approval is the 1990 Joint Powers Agreement for West Hennepin Recycling Commission. The agreement has two changes from 1989; they are the amount which is reduced $770.00 due to a more realistic estimate of refund from Hennepin County and the forming of an executive committee. The executive committee is being formed so that routine business can be conducted without a full quorum. However, matters of substance cannot be acted upon without a full quorum as noted in the restrictions.Recommendation - To approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the West Hennepin Recycling Commission. Proposed Motion - Moved by seconded by to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the West Hennepin Recycling Commission. Ayes , nays Mayor and City Council .Mark E. Bernhardson, City Ad.'ninistratoV'' Forwarded recommending approval. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made by and among the Cities of Greenfield, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Participants") is effective on the day and year provided herein. 1. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into under the authority of Minnesota Statutes section 471.59. The Participants have determined that it is to their mutual advantage to form a single joint powers entity that shall establish and operate within the present and future boundaries of the Participants a program for recycling acceptable materials. Under the proposed recycling program (the "Program"), residents will be encouraged to deposit recyclables at central collection facilities established and operated under this Agreement. The central collection facilities will be supplemented by a mobile collection unit that will travel on a periodic basis between several satellite locations. The collected recyclable materials will be hauled to commercial recycling centers where they will be sold. Cities may also offer curbside recycling to residents. 2. COMMISSION. There is hereby created the West Hennepin Recycling Commission (the "Commission") consisting of seven commissioners. a. Appointment and Term. The governing body of each Participant shall, by a majority vote, appoint a person, who may or may not be an elected official of the Participant's, to serve as a commissioner. Appointments shall be for a two year period unless the respective governing body makes the appointment for a lesser period. Commissioners shall serve until their successors are appointed and qualified. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term by the appropraate governing body. A vacancy occurs upon the death or resignation of a commissioner. b. Compensation. Commissioners shall serve without compensation by the Commission. Reimbursement of expenses for each commissioner shall be governed by state statutes and the charter, ordinances, and policies of the Participant that commissioner represents. c. Officers. The Commission shall choose one of its members as a chairperson. The chairperson shall be appointed by commission action at the first meeting of the year. The coordinator shall act as secretary-treasurer. The chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The secretary- treasurer shall keep a complete record of each meeting and of all proceedings and business of the Commission and shall keep an accurate accounting of all receipts an disbursements of the Commission. The chairperson and secretary-treasurer shall sign all contracts authorized by and in the name of the Commission. d. Meetings. The Commission shall meet at such times and places as it shall deem appropriate but at least once every twelve months. All meetings shall be open to the public. e. Voting Requirements. All actions of the Commission shall require a simple majority of the commissioners present and voting. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum. 3. POWERS. The Commission shall establish and oversee the operation of the Program. The Commission shall have the authority to; (a) enter into contracts in accordance with Minnesota statutes section 471.345. subd. 5. as may be necessary to accomplish its prupose; (b) hire, on an independent contractor basis, such persons as are necessary to operate the Program, including, but not limited to a Program Coordinator; (c) lease a site for a central collection facility; and (d) apply for and administer grant monies as necessary to fund the Program. In no event shall the Commission incur obligations in excess of its funding as provided in paragraph 4. FUNDING. Funding for the operation fo the Program shall come from grant monies, Hennepin County, funds from any sale of recyclable materials, and city contributions. The cities agree to the following formula for funding in 1990: $163.00 plus $ .75 per household Greenfield. . . . . . .. . . . .$ 523.00 Independence. . . . . . . . . . . 835.00 Long Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . 736.75 Loretto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269.50 Maple Plain. . . . . 653.50 Medina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892.00 Orono. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,134.00 Each Participant shall contribute 10% of its share by January 30, 1990, thereafter up to 22.5% will be contributed quarterly as needed. Each Participant agrees to contribute to the Commission any funds it receives from any source for projects or programs involving recyclable materials. In addition, the Participants may, but are not obligated to contribute additional funds to the Commission for the operation of the Program. Each Participant shall provide funds for any curbside program for that city in excess of the money available from Hennepin County. 5. PUBLIC EDUCATION. The Participants agree to assist in the distribution of recycling-related information. The distribution of such information shall be distributed via municipal newsletters, water bill enclosures, general media news releases, and other mutually agreeable communication methods. -2- I 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Ageeement shall be the date upon which the last of the seven Participants has caused this Agreement to be executed pursuant to an authorizing resolution of its governing body. 7. TERM. This Agreement shall continue in effect until December 31, 1990, unless extended, renewed, or terminated by the Participants pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 0 below. 0. MCniFICATION. This Agreement may be extended, renewed, terminated or amended by agreement of all the Participants as authorized by resolution of each Participant’s governing body. 9. WITHDRAWAL. A Participant may withdraw prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement or any subsequent extensions thereof by giving 90 days' notice in the form of a resolution of its governing body, served by certified the secretary-treasurer of the Commission. Service shall be deemed to have been made on the date of mailing. Any grant monies or other funds received by the withdrawing Participant or the Commission, either prior to or after the effective date of withdrawal, that are attributable to the Participant a participation in the Program prior to its withdrawal, shall be paid to and remain the property of the Commission. 10. DISTRIBUTION UPON TERMINATION. Upon expiration of or termination of this Agreement, r-*nj assets remaining payment of outstanding obligations shall be distributed to the Participants in proportion to their monetary contributions calculated over the life of the Agreement. 11. LIABILITY AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE. It is understood and agreed that public liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance will be provided relative to the activities of the Commission and its waste recycling collection It is anticipated that the Cities of Medina, Greenfield and Independence will arrange for this coverage and that, in the event either city incurs any cost as a result of such coverage, the Commission will reimburse said City for such coat. 12. ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS. The number of Participants may be increased durin9 the teriw of this Agreement by amendroentr pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 0 above; provided that any new Participant shall also cause the Agreement as amended to be executed, pursuant to authorizing resolution of its governing body. 13. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. The Commission is empowered to appoint an Executive Committee consisting of three commissioners and the Coordinator. The Executive Committee shall meet at least one time per month and shall have the authority to conduct day-to-day business of the Commission, but shall not have authority to: (a) approve contracts or expenditures in excess of $1,000; -3- »t. purauant to the provi.lona orp“l*?api[ S''below.i^or^iSUAn ^^reement may be extended, renewedI or amended by agreement of all the Particinant* A»I by resolution o£ each ParticipanCn LdJ.fSrSuSSe^Slnttreasurer of the Commission. Se^vic^^hall briJUJ^® ioJ ’’in th* thl pfrti^iplnt*8*S"Srthil!''?I!,''“”'?*’''°"- "P”" «»Plration o£ oroutatandinlJITiSatlo^i; ahnS''be*SIj?j;|„?*5*fo‘SSe jmSens^t*®*^ P“blic”liIbilit?®iSa2rf Ace^^d®pensation insurance will be provided relat-ivo *-u e will arrange for this coverage and tha^ in p pursuant to authorizing resolution of its governing SsStasif; >rove contracts or expenditures in excess of $1,000; -3- r •(b) approve the budget;(c) establish annual contribution requirements(d) create recycling regulations; or(e) set recycling policies or procedures.The Coordinator shall keep the Commission regularly informed of the activities of the Executive Committee by distribution of written minutes to each city clerk and each city's commissioner following each Executive Committee meeting.The Commission shall appoint the Executive Committee members annually.IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Cities of Greenfield, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono have, purauaftt to authorizing resolution hereto attached, caused this Agreement to be duly executed. ecycllna regulation.: orcling polici®* P'®'® eaularlY intormed of-cSf«l-he Executivehall appoint tn .. .. of Greenfield. I"^|P*"S'rSSInt CITY OF GREENFIELD CITY OF MAPLE PLAINIts Mayor Its MayorIts ClerkDate Its ClerkDateCITY OF INDEPENDENCE CITY OF MEDINAIts Mayor Its MayorIts ClerkDate Its ClerkDate CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF ORONO Its Mayor Its Mayor Its Clerk Date Its Clerk Date CITY OF LORETTO Its Mayor Its clerk Date I 2590.5 3^ TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 5, 1990 ' l:. 1:3 ; I 4 ‘ ' *'• 5 . SUBJECT: Administrator's Information CITY LOGO - Attached please find the draft official entry blank. It is anticipated that we will be running copies sometime later this week. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXTENSION - The City of Orono is one of 28 unTts in the Metro area who have been given extensions regarding responses to the system changes for transportation and sewer. Staff is meeting this following week to determine what, if any, significant changes need to be made, they will be summarized for the February 26th meeting. 1990 BOARD OF REVIEW - Just a reminder that the Board of Review will be held on Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. TREE TRIMMING - CORNER OLD BEACH ROAD/SHORELINE DRIVE - You may- - - - - - - - - ' thl TT-T - - - - - -,have noticed or have had comments on tne amount o£ tree removal done at the corner. This is within the City of Minnetonka Beach but from our understanding has been done by the land owner to allow for better growth of the trees that remain. TELEPHONE SYSTEM INSTALLATION - It is anticipated that the system changeover and installation will be Wednesday, February 14, 1990. DARE - The first two weeks of the program have been completed and the Teachers have gained more confidence in allowing someone else to be in charge of teaching their class. Staff will continue to update you as the pilot project continues. GOLF DOME - At the Council's meeting on Tuesday, Februar’- 6th the Long Lake Council approved the golf dome. PART TIME POLICE OFFICER - Lt. Cheswick has interviewed 8 candidates. An oral board will interview 4 on the 14th and a recommendation will be presented at your February 26th meeting. DECEMBER RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS - See attached. GOAL SETTING - See attachment. 1 i - HELP US DESIGN A NEW ORONO LOCO J . aiY h laRGNa" Our current LOGO has served us well, but it is now time to retire it. CITY OF ORONO LOGO ENTRY FORM Name Age Address City# State Zip Code Telephone Number 1, Please send to: LOGO, City of Orono, Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323. 2. All entries must be received by the City before 4:30 P.M., Friday, April 6, 1990. 3. A five member panel of judges will decide the winner from similar designs. 4. The City retains the right to modify on original design as it deems appropriate. 5. The City retains all copyright privileges to any design submitted and the submitter agrees to give all such rights to the City. 6. Designs that are already copyrighted or otherwise protected may not be used. 7. The City retains the right to accept or reject all designs. 8. The wirner will receive a plaque with the new LOGO on it. 9. Contest open to all — Need not be an Orono resident. OF ORO^O jijTRY form XTAge65 Crvs«l Bay, Mt. 55323. j Orono, B0« 65, C y.ha City befo'-e 4.30 B.K- j by the cxw . «r from simile^' •«n as It deems, „cauy on a to any dealB" sabmittea ana :l9bt prlvll«9* o the City.: o otnat^lse Ptoteotaa n. not bacopy^i^ntea. to accept or reject all aeel,ns. a not be an Orono resiaent.I r- CxTY OP CRONOSUMMARY OP RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND BAX.ANCES FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1989BBGXimXIKI 1/1/B9 ENDIIIG 12/31/89Mmiwfmwan•ALANCB CASHBAtAMCB1/1/89 RICEIPTS TOTAL BUDGET (C) 1983 TRANSPIN INVESTSOLD DISBUR TOTAL BUDGET (C) 1989 % OF TRANSP INVESTBUDGET OUT PURCB CASHBALANCE12/31/89 INVESTBALANCE - iGoMrei2,961,358 3,143,349 2,664,565Perks116,402 27,433 17,000COGB00Equip Oatley 263,161 27,769 68,200Bldg Cep Otttly 145,228 36,043 129,500Nua St Aid Cons 3,519 190,000Per Xapr Bev 149,081 116,466Swr-Ntr C obs 89 1,928,291Xaip Bond 66-76 609,720 109,148 82.800Xap Bond SC 475,565 118,250 96.600Xaip Bond 82 195,025 18,433 15,650Xnp Bead 85 136,861 128,706 91,150Swr-Wtr Bond 89 498,964lister Op 113,523 177,282 191,500Sewer Op 443,170 696,698 463,220Golf Course Op 0 133,341 92,190Pooled X bvTrust Fuad 5,514,024(5,514,024)478,864TOTALS 5,514,024 98,589 7,829,037 3,912,375TOTAL LT 5,361,402 56,648 4,962,488 3,628.170YEAR —■■■■■■■■—“““OTaaSMSMB■■■GENERAL PtNID 8UMM.ARY - 19891 % OPREVENUEBUDGETBUDGETTaxes1,154,498 1,212,030 95.3%148,563 90,000 165.1%Xntergov. Revenue 488,339 440,730 110.8%Chgs for Serv 686,57/647,705 106.0% /iaes 113,876 95,500 119.2% Xnt. on Xaveet.190,751 165,000 115.6% Trsa* Pr Other Funds 0 0 Other 46,198 13,600 339.7% TOTAL REVENUE 2,828,802 2,664,565 106.2% (b) 49,2002,02^,000564.161 ’,845.6023660^9,4589.8730102,805322,740176,029121,88868,338108.578771169,985557,854132,204 5,122,550124,0809,750173,190121,74068,360108,390174,540361,240101,850 55.612,448,36164.0%190,000102.1%100.1%100.0%100.2%97.4%1.4%».8%810,744143,4690260,6722,196,3983,519636,9031,605,551542,039471,927145,120156,989498,193120,820582,0141,1370 16,138,896 478,8643,912,375 2,638,361 16,138,896 5,266,155 6,365,690303,769 17,105,747 4,767,925 3,710,920 0 18,539,271 (7,914,399) 7,914,3992,638,361 18,539,271 261,096 7,914,399303,769 17,258,369 98,589 5,514,024TOTAL 1989 CASH 6 INVESTMENT TO 12/31/89 48,175,495NOTE (a) Golf oparatlng fund budget doaa not include anounte for purchaaea for reaale or aalea tax collected/renltted. The receipta budget projecta groaa profit *• not total receipta.NOTE (b) General fund revenuea recorded will not equal receipta collected due to recelvablea billed in other accounting perloda and non-revenue receipta. NOTE (c) Budget aiBounta include achedulea tranafera, do not Include fund balance uaea or addltlona. mm .1*ivT- •WI STD *8t SID *89 STD •90 STD 1987 Stert Ttrm QDjective1988 Short Hm Otij&cti^1989 Short Tkm Gbjactivo1990 Shore Term Gl^^ctive GCAL SBrmC cm OF CBOHOB. BBUBMPSOH cm AEMDilSnATDR 1 mr 1989 - 30 APRIL 1990 Draft 5/19/89 RBvioed 6/30/89 7/31/89 9/05/89 9/29/89 10/31/89 12/04/89 12/27/89 1/31/90AREAGOAL AREA CBJBCn\'E DATES STATOS1. OCM40NITT DEVELOPMENTA. Highway 12 1. Utilities Sewer - Part I Install 09/01/8** Sewer - Part II Water System Install Install Main Well (6 rvnnths) 07/01/90 09/01/89 04/01/90 Bids Close 6/30/89 Project Ordered 7/24/89 Negotiating Aannt Terms/Oevelop Agmnt Commenced Construction 10/27/89 6 11/13/89 Oonpleted 1/30/90 except for testing 1/22/90 Feasibility Study to Orooo Plant Ordered Project Ordered 7/24/89 Ooramenced Construction 10/27/89 & 11/13/89 Conpleted 12/15/89 2/1/90 Need available water 9/U/89 Table Teat Well to 9/25/89 9/25/89 Awarded Test Wells 11/1/89 Oannenoe Test Drillings 11/6/89 Test drilling found adequate aquifer 11/13/89 Interim production well drilled 1/15/90 Teat Results CK Mail Vtell Bids Close 2/2 Tower (9-12 months) Plans Specs - order Award 07/01/90 09/89 11/89 Financing Negotiation on Utilities (Long Lake - Medina) 09/U/89 10/04/89 8/14/89 Bond Resolution adopted Requested to negotiate with ^Sedina 10/23/89 Bond Sale Awarded/AAl Rating/6.57% Bond Closing Conmonced water discussion 10/25/89 with Medina - Jtedina to meet with affected real ts 1/90 to discuss TIVE 7/31^12/04/W12/27>WX/31/9<JlATESSTW^09/01/89 = -i APEA C90AL AFC3^OBJECTIVE1. OQM®Nm OBVH/XMEOT Ooltinued•80 STO Long ‘Ife*TO Oorridor U^radeI^easlbility Study•89 STO •90 STO wrxn initiation orUndertalce corridor selection study with MnDOT consultant & surrounding citiesTake appropriate planning steps if needed in potential corridors DATES09/01/89 6/30/89-Aiiaitii»g Itaponse fnae MOot Central Office on Consultant 0V07/B9 Delayed until at least U/30/89Governor's Transporation Safety Mtg 10/26/89 11^5/89 Oowidssioner Levine announces consultant^tnOCTT corridor selection study Howard Needles selected as consultant 02/90 2A/90 Mtg with MnDOT/Consultant/Cities10/9012/909/25/899/U/99 TableTwt07/C1/9009/09U/S909/U/8910/04/89 e/14/89 Bond 10/23/89«iS3 ‘S„r. ,*aina to ^t 1/90 to discuss h:-.*- *» • 4s .-'’ ■ I ' - mm •90 STO 3. 1992 Safety Liprovenient Preliminary planapproval*88 STO •89 STO B. Navarre Redevelopraent Adopt If appropriate Wbrk with MnDOT on right-of-way/frontage roadsEncourage stoplight WillCT#/12Determine project scope/ direction '90 STO lO/Oi/09 Info meeting held 7A4/89, Awaiting long Lake response to MnOCfT 10/3/89 Hold meeting irlth MnTJT- Discussed with Otten lOAl- Need to Develop Frontage Road Prelim Costs- Develop warrantsA^lUcw Drive12/1/89 Mtg with MnDOT - Anticipate project go ahe«d if traffic signal installed1/3/90 Received frontage road estimates - 02/90 working with WSI/Van Dale/Otten1/22/90 Staff directed to work with MnDOT 1/90 Mtgs with WSlAan Dale Tb take Determine desired direction Determine beautification plan implementation if nay Cceplete Master Planning, if appropriate Determine need for Tax Increment District •87 STO C. Ocxmty Road 15 Beautification Plan 2 Project oanpletion Special assessments Determine means to uiplement 08/01/89 6/01/89-fleld Joint Mtg6/26/89 Discussed future direction 9/11/89 Changed to UA8 11/18 Oouncil/PC/Area mtg held E\BI to Council in 1-2/90 for further consideration1/22/90 Further discuss master plan process/ cost to 2A2/90 02/90 03/90 07/90 07/01/89 Project ooepleted 09/01/89 8/28/89 Assessment ^ted10/01/89 9/89 Reguest regarding Chrlstaasdecor^ions to 10/23/89 Otxincll meeting - Rmjuestrf proposal from staff if deemed appropriate U/13/89 Lighting dropped for 1989 i hXfi GCAL AREA1. amnim ceVELCPMEHr continued*87 STO D. Oonnunity TransportationPlan•90 STO E, county Hoad 116 •90 STO •87 STO •88 fftO •89 STO F. Storm Water Managefnent Plan CBJBCnVEupdate capital project guidelinesBrid9e bonding programPublic/Private street - review policyUndertake capital budget designated projectsPreluninary plan review DATES07/8909/8902/9008/01/89 Monitor action by County as to its proposed construction Review and if appropriate adopt a preliminary design Review and if appropriate adopt a final design 11/89 Ascertain available mapping Develop RTP for study if appropriate STATUS10/23/89 Revised 1990-2000 to Council7A0/89 AdoptedNeed to sub^t request for plans and specifications to submit to State - 11/13/89 Council order plans & specs 7/24/89 Memo Private/Public/Driveweya/Hoads 8/28/89 Memo Re: City Attorney Private Roads 1/19/90 Draft memo to CouncilSet public info mtg for design review at 7AO «ntg Resident review 7/26 Held Public info 9/25 - Tabled bo 10/23 10A3/89 Preliminary design approved - Resolution adopted 11/13/89 EAW response due by 11A9/89 12/89 Hennepin County remove from Capital Budget for 1990 Ccnpleted Currently delayed to 1994 •88 STO •89 STO G. Community Development Direction and Progress H. DO) OoRprehonsive Management Plan A. ) Marina Control Initiate review 01/90 CoB?)lete review 93/90 B. ) Work towards service and results oriented "No Surprises" process Review all drafts for issues and direction Present desired changes to 03/90 1/22/90 Council receives funding drafts Review by I/ICD Rep. to 2/12/ meeting Establish policies regarding 11/89the projectDetermine assessnent area interest U/01/89Engage an appraiser 11/15/89Consider financing options 11/30/89Consider development inoratoriun 12/30/89If Appropriate- Initiate project- Prepare Plans & Specifications 02/90- Project bid 03/90- Hold Hearing & if appropriate 04/90order project - Bond for project 03/90- Conraenoe project 05/90- Complete project 10/90- Assess project 10/90Review organized collection 09/89if neededReview program performance 10/89Rebid contract for curbside 10/89Review incentives to isprove 02/90participationReview recycling efforts 06/90Determine if further solid 12/90taste regulation appropriate Review organized collection if 12/90 appropriate Oonpletion 10/01/89 Bid award 05/22/89 Public informational meeting -06/89 Financing Inclement financing - Connection charges 07/89 nent Dent CBJBCriVE mTfisPublic informational meeting 08/15/890“wl*r financing options CJonsider developoent norl^iu,U_2EEJ3Eli2fi*- initiate project- pX? sit ‘- Bond for project* P'^oject- Ooqplete project- Assess projectB^iew wganized collection if neededReview program performance Itebid contract for curbsideReview incentives to inerove P®'*ticipation ^^view recycling efforts Determine if further solid ai^rcpriate Ocnpletlon STMTB^tlng held 7/27/89^g^icant issues Han Presented at 9/» TUlled to 10/23/89 »nteo at 9/2S atg^1. to u/ivw t, «. ig f,1for 1/30/90Mtg held - ttr/PeUtion to be sentU/89U/01/89UAS/8911/30/8912/30/8902/9003/9004/9003/9005/9010/9010/9009/8902/9006/9012/90 Review 9/90Exceeded e^^tations 18% diversionTb be bid for 1990 Bids due 12/8/8912/U/89 Award to tolka Dot/go to bi-weekly ■ -.i Bid award In|>letient financing - Connection charges 12/31/89 E*pcct 1/31/90 ociipletian 05/22/89 5/22/89 Bid awarded 06/W 6/22/89 Pre-construction etg. held 07/89 7/18/89 Construction coMnced Expect 3/31/90 ccepletion L 1• ^AFEA OGAL AICA CBJECnVE DATES STAITS3* CXONIZATIONAL DEVELOPfffMTA. 1990 Council Goal Setting • • H M.07/8909/89 8/2b/89 Preliminary 1990 Strategic Goal setti.xi presented 12/31/89 rV-Vipted•90 STD 1991 Goal SettingBe 1990 Budget ProcessAlternate Dates10/25/89•90 STD•90 STD 1991 Budget1991 Legislative Plan D. Team Building Assessment Board of Review 05/89Preliminary Budget guidelines 06/89Capital projects guidelines review 08/83Preliminary mill levy adoption (Truth in Taxation)Hearing 09/15/89Budget adoption 10/15/89Finad levy adoption 12/15/8906/-10/90Review12/8909/-U/90Staff12/89 Ocxincil Bd of Review held 5/U/89 & 5/24/89Presented Initial Guidelines 6/12/89 Presented Revised Guidelines 6/26/89 Initial revised plan 1990-2000 Present 10/23/896/30/89 r-*ay require action by 8/1/09 7/24/89 Adopted prellmianry max. levy 8/14/89 Adopted "Final" preliminary max. 8/28/09 Specl2d Council mtg set 9/77/89 with Budget Hearing delayed pending results of Speciad SessionRevised Schedule to Council for 11/13/89 Public hearing set for 11/30/8912/11/89 Budget adoptedTo 1/22/90 Council ii,w^ h.;•87 STDI**’’ ■■•88 STD■■•90 STD•90 STD*.•90 STD' in .•■ n •90 STD CBJBCnVE DMESliqplenent Qi^loyee Recognition 01/90Fonnalate City aqployee 06/90developmentExplore performanoe incentive 10/99 *>r«- -^vDMESSTKtOS01/90 Und«rtak« LOGO oontMt eirat/clow 4/6/90 06/9010/89 1/8/90 PraaenUid oonoaptual dlacuaalon toCouncil07/01/89 lAO/90 Reoaivad antariala to rainitlata 02/90 prooeaa. Mt9 to raClna prapaaal 2/9I 10/01/89 Anticipate delay in flequireaKnts for witil after 1/909/28/89 Anticipate Oongreaaional repeal of requirement11/89 Congress repeals07/01/89 6/89 No longer State requirement /FL'B 12 1490j j i’V ft::LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVALFOR MEETING OF February 12, 1990Pull Tab Renewal Application - Multiple Sclerosis Societysell at: Jimmies Lounge3380 Shoreline Drive MtiriNGFEB 12 1990 fiTV ft;:list op licenses for council approval rOB Hcermo or February 12. 1990Renewal Application - Multiple Scl^osis^S^iety3380 Shoreline Drive t 4^ m Department of Revenue ■ Mail Station 3315 St. Paul, MN 55146-3315 (612) 297-5300 Gaming DivisionGAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION For Board Use OnlyPaid Amt; _______Check No _______Date ___________1 Applicant - Legal Name ol Organization RUITIPLE SCIEROSIS SOC IIMEIPO " IDIITK STXII CHRPTEI 2 Street Address 23M Picollet3 City State Zip J ■» CountyPinntipoUs, RP 5SUI i Henntpin 5 Business Phone ( 612 ) 87M5H6. Name of Chief Executive Officer Uillird Hunger Jr 7 Business Phone ( 612 ) 871-lSII8 Name of Treasurer or Person Who Accounts for Revenues Eleinor Hovik 9 Business Phone ( 612 ) 871-lSM10 Name of Gambling Manager ff S Society Ueyne Novak 11 Bond Number 988Z2S8 12. Business Phone ( 612 ) 871-lSM13 Name of Establishment Where Gambling Will Tane Place Jitiie’s lounoe Havarre 14 County Henneoin 15 No of Active Members2IIH16 Lessor Name J 8 HoK:17 Monthly Rent;;6H 18 If Bingo will be conducted with this license please specify cays and times of Bmgo Davs Times Days Days Times 19 Has license ever been _ RevoKeo Date 20 Have internal controls been submitted previously'^ 21 Has currerit lease been filed with the board'^ 22 Has current sketch been filed with the board'’ Z Suspended Date ___________ 'ji^Yes Z No (If “No." attach copy) j^Yes Z No Ilf "No." attach copy) ^^Yes Z No fit "No." attach copy) ^ Denied Date GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION By my signature below, local law enforcement officers or agents of thn Board are hereby authorized to enter upon the site, at any time, gambling is being conducted to observe the gambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized game or practice BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION By my signature below, the Board is hereby authorized to inspect the bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law OATH I hereby declare that 1 I have read this application and all information submitted to the Board 2 All information submitted is true, accurate and complete 3 All other required information has been fully disclosed. 4 I am tho rhfof oxecutsvc officer of Hit? uiyamzaiion; 5 I assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful operation of all activities to be conducted; 6 I will familiarize myself with the laws of the Slate of Minnesota respecting gambling and rules of ihe board and agree, if licensed, to abide by those laws and rules including amendments thereto 23 Official Legal Name of Organization Sclerroi'is £ock4%q hJotF-i-ix S4tLr ________ Title__ ^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTlCTBY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt. i admit having been served with notice that this application will be reviewed by the Chantabie Gambling Control Board and if approved by the Board, will become effective 60 days from the date of receipt (noted below), unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which specifically disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by 24^ily/County Name^ocai Governing Body)Township If sue •$ located withm a township, please complete items 24 and 25 Signaiur^f P^sbn deceiving Application 25 Signature of Person Receiving Application Title i Date Received (this date begins 60 day period)Title ol Perion Delivering Application iOTloco. '^n.- .iing Poov Township Name CG-00022-01 14/09)White Copv - Board Ciinarv - Apoi'Cant PinH-Local Governm k i;Oi/ V..T:. ''I'.'- rr j 12 i w- p;-v nr - </o 01/21/90 PR CB PRREGOR NAME iDPT YTD GROSS CURRENT GROSS ANDERSON. BRUCE L 31 3540 42 1907.69 BERNHAROSON. MARK E 12 4481.20 2115.60 BOBZIEN. SUE A 31 1825 96 921 84 BOSMA. JAMIE L 12 964.94 499 71 BRINKHAUS. JOHN P 42 2694 48 1360 32 CHESWICK. GARY 8 31 2936 00 1468 00 CHRISTIANSON. SALLY 31 410 03 200.67 CORNICK. JAMES L 31 3138 77 1547 25 ENGLISHIII. IRVING H 31 3481.72 1722 05 ERICKSON. KURT R 31 3297 01 1415 32 FISCHENICH DAN T 31 2700 71 1331 68 FRIT2LER. JOHN M 31 3441 95 1748 68 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P 33 2651 72 1338 72 GERHAROSON. JOHN R 42 3487 89 1760 80 GREGORY. JAMES D 42 2470.27 1369 07 HALLIN. DOROTHY M 12 2284.08 1153.12 HANSEN. STEVEN C 42 2037.12 1011.11 HANGING. CAROL J 31 1142.96 550.48 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 2873.27 1402.53 KILBO. MELVIN H 31 3891.04 1964.40 KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A 15 1825 96 921.84 KUEHN. THOMAS M 15 3705 40 1870.88 MABUSTH. JEANNE A 33 3320.73 1676.49 MORAN. MARK F 31 2674.56 1337.28 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES 31 3188.72 1568.78 NAA8. THERESA L 12 1825 96 921 84 OBRIEN. RANDY L 92 2059.38 1075 28 OMAN LYLE E 33 2434 12 1228 88 PALMER. PETER B 31 240 00 240 00 OUAST . WAYNE A 92 2764 47 1179 26 RATH3UN BARRY J 92 2025 71 935 04 SASS JOHN J 42 2046 37 1003 20 SCHEFFLER LAURIE K 12 1643 42 829 69 SKREEN. dale S 42 2020.98 1032.58 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 93 2287.11 1154 64 THOMTON. MARK R 31 2797.34 1469 72 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F 31 2988 16 1542 80 TOMC2YK. MARK W 31 2779 48 1415.32 VANG BRUCE L 33 2139 08 1079 92 WALSH KEVIN L 35 420.65 234 36 WALTERS LINDA G 15 1584 29 885 84 50.392.68 ■ ■ « 31 3138.771 31 3481.72313297.01312700.71313441 95332651 72423487 89422470.27122284.08422037.12311142.96312873.27313891.04151825.96153705.40333320.73312674.56313188.72121825.96922059.38332434.1231240.00922764.47922025.71422046 37121643.42422020.98932287.11 31 2797.34 31 2988.16312779.48332139 0835420.65151584.29 02/04/90 PR CB PRREGOR 02/28/90 PR: CM PRREGOR ClPAY.EMP 9 NAME471688060505662439505662439474563339471840871475443862472503991471729281469526026469026230468821018472529007468701868507585424 469686562 468420832 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444249 471569863 475246099 504260307 472500574 121262417 470667594 334506281 474822333 476783251 470700901 473787368 475382983 473746173 477169278 473840463 469629194 475569177 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505292 307809189 500403192 ANDERSON, BRUCE L BERNHARDSON, MARK E BERNHARDSON, MARK E BOBZIEN. SUE A BCSMA. JAMIE L B»"^NKHAUS. JOHN F Ci.^cSWICK, GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORNICK. JAMES L DENNISON, TROY A ENGLISH ill. 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 HANGING, CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLEY P KILBO. MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A KUEHN, THOMAS M MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN. MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES NAAB, THERESA L OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE E PALMER. PETER B OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J SASS. JOHN J SCHEFFLER. LAURIE K SKREEN. DALE S STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG. BRUCE L WALSH. KEVIN I WALTERS. LINDm G YTD CURRENTDPTGROSSGROSS315014.56 1474.14124731.20 250.00126846.80 2115.60312877.43 1051.47121492.57 527.63424054.80 1360.32314651.73 1715.7331610.70 200.67314582.52 1443.753551.00 40.80315521.58 2039.863i4737.90 1440.89314040.51 1339.80315197.46 1755.51 33 3990.44 1338.72 42 5248.69 1760.80 42 3703.13 1232.86 12 3437.21 1153.13 42 3156.24 1119.12 31 1642.51 499.55 31 4390.91 1517.64 31 5855.44 1964.40 15 2747.80 921.84 15 5576.28 1870.88 33 4997.21 1676.48 31 4011.84 1337.28 31 4783.08 1594.36 12 2747.80 921.84 92 3058.71 999.33 33 3663.00 1228.88 31 320.00 80.00 92 4363.87 1599.40 92 3197.44 1171.73 42 3162.43 1116.06 12 2473 10 829.68 42 3027.57 1006.59 93 3441.75 1154.64 31 4145.26 1347.92 31 4486.30 1498.14 31 4309.90 1530.42 33 3219.00 1079.92 35 612.95 192.30 15 2470.13 885.84 51.385.92 ‘i NAME DPT YTDGROSS CURRENTGROSSCALLAHAN. EDWARD J 11 483.34 241.6760ETTEN. J.DIANN 11 483.34 241.67GRABEK. JAMES 11 600.00 300.00NETTLES. ALAN R 11 483.34 241.67PETERSON. BARBARA A 11 483.34 241.671.266.68 . ClPAY.EDWARD 3 r DIANN WES ^LAN R BARBARA A dpt YTDGROSS CURRENTGROSS1111111111483.34483.34600.00483.34483.34 241.67 241 67 300.00 241.67 241 671.266.68 i 1990 CITY OF OROKO CHECK REGISTER 01-31-90 PAGE 1CHECK NO . DATE AHOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV.• P.O. •MESSAGEHCS58102/06/90 8.00 8.00 •GOLDEN VALLEY CC MTG 01-4356-129-31 MANUALHCI5B202/06/90 7.00 7.00 •MN BENEFIT JAN INS 01-4152-129-31 MANUALHC9583HC9583HC8583NC858302/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/90 243.37 106.53 941.99 211.00 1.502.89 *GROUP HEALTH GROUP HEALTH GROUP HEALTH GROUP HEALTH JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS 01-4151-121-3101-4i:i-126-3101-4151-129-3174-4151-590-93 MANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALHC8S84HC8584»fC8S84HC8584fH:8584HC8S84HC8584HC8584NC8S84HC8S84 02/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/90 4.2521.4713.2511.9549.805.409.101.021.53.85118.62 •COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE COMM LIFE JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS 01-4152-039-1201-4152-069-1501-4152-121-3101-4152-126-3101-4152-129-3101-4152-174-3301-4152-249-4272- 4152-549-9173- 4152-569-9274- 4152-590-93 MANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALHC8585HC858SHC8S85HC8585HC8S85i«C8585HC8S85HC8585HC8585HC8S8S 02/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/90 728.50551.50422.00129.50 305.101.108.20340.50844.00 155.40 233 104,817.80 •PHPPHPPHPPHPPHPPHPPHPPHPPHPPHP JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS 01-3872-000-0001-4151-039-1201-4151-069-1501-4151-121-3101-4151-126-3101-4151-129-3101-4151-174-3301-4151-249-4272- 4151-549-9173- 4151-569-92 MANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALHC8588HC8586NC8586NC8586HC858802/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/9002/06/90 219.20109.60 97.85713.25320.60 1.460.50 *MED CNTR MED CN1R MED CNTR MED CNTR MED CNTR JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS 01-4151-039-1201-4151-069-1501-4151-129-3101-4151-174-3301-4151-249-42 MANUAlMANUAiMAtniALMA.NiMA.^'<alHC858702/06/90 700.00 700.00 •POSTMASTER POSTAGE 01-4321-129-31 MANUAL* ft 4 H t •••-CKSHC8S89 HC8S89 02/06/90 02/06/90 246.50 10.00 256.50 • WAVZATA WAYZATA Lie Tps3S Lie TAGS 01-4383-249-42 01-4383-249-42 MANUAL MANUAL •^•-CKS HC8591 02/06/90 914.57 1ST NATL PAY 12/25-31/89 01-2032-000-00 MANUAL ^ k£ lATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV.• P.O. • MESSAGE02/06/90 14.00 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-020-11 MANUAL02/06/90 178.73 1ST NATL •^TCAl/7 01-4142-039-12 MANUAL02/06/90 4.17 1ST NATL FirAl/7 01-4142-059-14 MANUAL02/06/90 117 47 NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-069-15 MANUAL02/06/90 8.24 ISi NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-099-17 MANUAL02/06/90 70 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-111-31 MANUAL02/06/90 5».75 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-115-31 MANUAL02/06/90 9.92 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-121-31 MANUAL02/06/90 30.55 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-126-31 MANUAL02/06/90 224.50 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-174-33 MANUAL02/06/90 7.20 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-185-35 MANUAL02/06/90 230.24 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-249-42 MANUAL02/06/90 35.00 1ST NATL FICAl/7 01-4142-290-61 MANUAL02/06/90 69.43 1ST NATL PAY 12/25-31/89 72-2032-000-00 MANUAL02/06/90 69.42 1ST NATL FICAl/7 72-4142-549-91 MANUAL02/06/90 80.75 1ST NATL PAY 12/25-31/89 73-2032-000-00 MANUAL02/06/90 80.74 1ST NATL FICAl/7 73-4142-569-92 MANUAL02/06/90 .<9.80 IS^ NATL PAY 12/25-31/89 74-2032-000-00 MANUAL02/06/90 '^9.802.242.98 •ISj NATL FICAl/7 74-4142-590-93 MANUAL02/06/90 7.500.007.500.00 •MCWILLIAMS CB SWR EASMT 01-4900-299-72 MANUAL02/06/90 85.00 85.00 •GOVT TRAIN GOETTEN SEMINAR 01-4356-020-11 MANUALC2/06/90 60.00 60.00 •LEAGUE MN CITY CONF GOETTEN 01-4356-020-11 MANUAL02/06/90 101.34 POSTMASTER 4TH OTR SWR 72-4321-549-91 MANUAL02/06/90 152.01 POSTMASTER 4TH QTR SWR 73-4321-569-92 MANUAL 1CHECK REGISTERENDORlATL4ATLHMlNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLNATLfILLlAMS n TRAIN ^GUE MN CITYSTMASTERSTMASTER-^MASTf*’XJl (ML ATL ATL ATL ATL lATL lATL lATL lATL 4ATL ^ATl ^ATL NATL ITEM descriptionFICAl/7ctcAI/7E lf'Al/7FICAlnFICAl/7FICAl/7FICAl/7FICAl/7FICAl/7FICAl/7FICAl/7FICAl/7Uv‘!2’25-3./.9POSTAGEFICAFICA FICA riCA FICA FICA FI'A FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA 1/21/901/21/90 1/21/90 i/21/90 I /? 1/90 1/21/90 ; ’,1/90 1 /:l/90 1,21/90 1/21/90 1/21/901/21/90 1/21/90 1/21/90 account NO. INV. IPO01-31-90 PAGE• MESSAGE01-A1A201-414201-414201-414201-414201-4142-Cl-4142-01-4142-01-4142-01-4142-01-4142-01-4142-01-414272-203272- 414273- 203273- 414274- 2032 74-4142020-11039-12059-14069-15099-17•111-31■115-31-121-31-126-31-174-33-185-35-249-42-290-61000-00549-91000-00■569-92■000-00-590-9301-1262-000-0001-4142-01-4142-01-4142- 01-4142- 01-4142- 01-41-.2- 01-4142- 01-4142 01-4142 Cl-4142 01-4142 01 U4272- U42 73- 4112 039-12 059-14 069-15 OQ9- 17 iii-31 -115-31 -121-31 -126-31 -174-33 -185-35 -249-42 -290-61 -549-91 -569-92 MANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALmanualMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALCB SWR EASMT 01-4900-299-7201-4356-020-11 manualMANUALGOETTEN SEMINAR 01-4356-020-11 MANUALCONF GOETTEN4TH OTR SWR 4TH QTR SWR 72- 4321-549-9173- 4321-569-92 MANUALmanual•••-CKSMANUAL••»-CKSmanualMANUALMANUALmanual MANUAL manual MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDORHC860002/06/90 103.72 2.217.88 *1ST NATLHC861602/06/90 100.00 GOVT TRAINHC861602/06/90 295 00 395.00 •GOVT TRAINHC861702/06/90 17.00 17.00 *POSTMASTERHC861802/06/90 367 50 367.50 •HOTEL SOFITELHC861902/06/90 330.00 330.00 •HENN CTYHC862002/06/90 1.068.501.068.50 •TELEPHONE SPECHC862102/06/90 10.18 ORONOHC862102/06/90 .99 ORONOHC862102/06/90 19.08 ORONOHC862102/06/90 6.99 ORONOHC862102/06/90 .25 ORONOHC862102/06/90 2.60 ORONOHC862102/06/90 6.34 ORONOHC862102/06/90 4.36 ORONOHC862102/06/90 5.75 ORONOHC862102/06/90 5.00 ORONOHC862102/06/90 10,15 71.6& *ORONO21.577.35 FUND 01 TOTAL1,068.50 FUND 14 TOTAL484.58 FUND 72 TOTAL834.61 FUND 73 TOTAL415.17 FUND 74 TOTAt24.380.21 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION FICA 1/21/90CLASS FISCHNICH CLASS TOMCHECKPO PO BOX RENT WM IN GOVT AERIAL MAPS DOWN PYT TELE 01-31-90 PAGE 3 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE ^1PETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASH74-4142-590-93 MANUAL•^‘-CKS01-4356-129-3101-4356-129-31 MANUALMANUAL01-4321-129-31 MANUAL01-2025-000-00 MANUAL01-4210-174-33 MANUAL14-4540-630-00 MANUAL01-4210-039-1201-4210-174-3301-4221-129-3101-4232-249-4201-4321-039-1201-4321-059-1401-4321-129-3101-4381-039-1201-4381-129-3101-4381-249-4201-4382-020-11 MANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUALMANUAL•••-CKSGENERAL FUND IMPROVE 4 EQUIP OUTLAY F WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD vendorNATL CHECK REGISTERgovt train govt trainPOSTMASTER^OTEi SOFITELhenn CTYtelephone specORONO3RONO3RONO5RONO)RONO>R0N0'RONORONORONORONORONOPUND 01 fund 14 PUNO 72 FUND 73 Fund 74)tal totaltotaltotaltotaltota-item descriptionPICA 1/21/90'Mil fSc'l"PG PO BOX RENT ^ IN GOVTserial maps down pyt telePETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYPETTYpettypettypettyPETTYPETTYpettycashCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASHCASH account no. invTA-4142-590.9301-4356-|29_oI 01-435e.i||.|I01-4321-129.3101-2025-000-0001-4210-174-3314-4540-630-01-31-90 PAGE 3• P-O. f MESSAGEmanual GEMUNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 02/07/30FINANCIAL REPORTS SCHEDULED RUN DATE REPORT DATE 00000000000001-421001-421001-4221-01-4232-01-4321-01-4321-01-432101-436101-438101-438101-4382-general Fund •039-12-129-31-249-42-039-12■059-14•129-31•039-12129-31249-42020-11 ACTIVITY reportsSCHEDULED RUN DATE 020690 REPORT DATE 013190PAYROLL POSTING DATES 000000000000000000000000 7/90 PAGENCIAL REPORTS HEDULED RUN DATE PORT DATE 000000000000VITY REPORTS HEDULED RUN DATE PORT DATE 020690013190OLL POSTING DATES 000000000000000000000000 1990 CITY OF ORONOCHECK NO. DATE04300604300604300604300604300604300604300G04300604300604300604300604300604300604300604300604300604300604300604300604300604300604301004301404302004302004302704303004303004303004303004303004303004303004303002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/90 AMOUNT 16 68 16 68106 35 106 35 *25.000 00 8.000 0033.000 00 •168 00 168 00 -CHECK REGISTERVENDORACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACROACRO-MINNESOTA■MINNESOTA■MINNESOTA■MINNESOTA■MINNESOTA■MINNESOTA■MINNESOTA•MINNESOTA•MINNESOTA•MINNESOTA•MINNESOTA•MINNESOTA■MINNESOTA•MINNESOTAMINNESOTA•MINNESOTA•MINNESOTAMINNESOTAMINNESOTAMINNESOTAAT&T INFO SYSTEMALL STAR ELECTRICAMERICAN NATL BANK AMERICAN NATL BANKAPPLE VALLEY AGENCY ITEM DESCRIPTIONINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCSTENO CHAIRTELEPHONEREPAIR TRAFFIC LGTMAT BONDS DUE 3/1 BOND INT DUE 3/1BOILER INS02/08/90 19 43 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS02/08/90 19.43-AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS02/08/90 19 43 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS02/08/90 19 43 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS02/08/90 19 43 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS02/08/90 3? 50 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS02/08/90 19 43 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS02/08/90 19 43 129 65 •AT A T INFO SYSTEM DAIA PROCESS 02-12-90 PAGEACCOUNT NO. INV. » P.O. • MESSAGE01-421001-421001-421001-421001-421001-421001-421001-421001-421001-421001-4210-01-4210*01-421001-421001-4210-01-4210-01-4210-01-4210-01-4210-01-4210-01-4540--039-12-039-12039-12059-14059-14059-14069-15069-15069-15069-15129-31129-31129-31129-31174-33174-33174-33249-42249-42249-42129-3101-4320-175-3401-4342-249-4244 4610-907-00 44-4620-907-0001-4372-099-1701-434001-434001-434001-434001-434001-434001-434001-4340 039-12059-12059-12059-14069-15129-31174-33249-42 ■‘r- •1990 CITY OF OF CHECK NO. DATE2f3°3l043031 02/02/1043039•««-CKS 02/C043042*«»-CKS 02/004307102/Ot•••-CKS•••-CKS 043074043074043074043074043074043074043074• * *.CKS 02/0802/0802/08.02/08.02/08/02/08/043OS1 02/08/04308S2f2085043085043085 043090 02/08/91 043100 02/08/9C ;heck registerSOTA INC SOTA INC SOTA INC SOTA INC SOTA INC SOTA INC SOTA INC SOTA INC •SOTA INC LSOTA NC ESOTA INC ESOTA INC ESOTA INC ESOTA INC ESOTA INC ESOTA INC IESOTA INC (ESOTA INC JESOTA INC <ESOTA INC 4fSOTA INC0 SYSTEMR ELECTRIC,N NATL BANK NATL BANKVALLEY AGENCYFO SYSTEM FO SYSTEM FO SYSTEM IFO SYSTEM IFO SYSTEM (FO SYSTEM IFO SYSTTH RFO SYSTEM item description office suppliesOFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES office SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES nFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies office supplies office suppliesOFFICE SUPPLIESoffice supplies office suppliesnFFICE SUPPLlEooffice suppliesOFFICE SUPPLIESoffice SUPPLl^OFFICE SUPPLIES STENO CHAIRtelephonerepair TRAFFIC LGTmat bonds due 3/1 BOND INT DUr 3/1 « TMu » P 0 • MESSAGEaccount no. INV. • P-U-boiler insDATADAT>»DATADATAdataDATADATAUAIA PROCESSPROCESSPROCESSPROCESSprocessprocessPROCESSPROCLSS 01-4210 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210- 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4540039-12 039-12 039-12 •059-lA •059-14 -059-14 -069-15 -069-15 -069-15 -069-15 129-31 129-31 •129-31 -129-31 -174-33 -174-33 -174-33 -249-42 249-42 249-42 •129-3101-4320-175-34-4342-249-4201-4372-099-1701-4340-01-4340-01-4340-01-4340-01-434001-434001-434001-4340 039-12059-12059-12-059-14-069-15-129-31-174-33-249-42 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 02-12-90 PACE 2 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE04303102/08/90 18.85 AT & T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-1204303102/08/90 2.06 AT & T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-3120.91 *043039 02/08/90 25.06 EARL F ANDERSON ASSC SIGNS Jl-4233-249-4225.06 *043042 02/08/90 76.00 ASPLUND COFFEE COFFEE 01-4382-129-3176.0004307102/08/90 40.00 BOBZIEN\SUE A IBM CLASS 01-4356-129-3140.00 *043074 02/08/90 1,241.74 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 1989 PAYABLE 01-2040-000-0004307402/08/90 1,631.10 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 1989 PAYABLE 01-2040-000-0004307402/08/90 447 57 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 1989 PAYABLE 24-2040-000-0004307402/08/90 5,864.65 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 1989 PAYABLE 26-2040-000-0004307402/08/90 6,063.38 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 1989 PAYABLE 26-2040-000-0004307402/08/90 57.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 1989 PAYABLE 73-2040-000-0004307402/08/90 228.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 1989 PAYABLE 73-2040-000-0015,533 44 •043091 02/08/90 253 56 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESS FILM 01-4210-129-31253 56 •043085 02/08/90 25.80 BUDGET PRINTING STAMP 01-4322-129-3104308502/08/90 17.66 BUDGET PRINTING PRINTING 01-4322-129-3104308502/08/90 12.94 BUDGET PRINTING PRINT DARE 01-4322-129-3104308502/08/90 162.40 BUDGET PRINTING PRINTING 01-4322-174-33218.80 •043090 02/08/90 330 00 BUREAU CRIMINAL APPR CJDN CHARGE 01-4355-129-31 330.00 • 043100 02/08/90 779 64 CASE POWER & EQUIP REPAIR LOADER 01-4342-249-42 779 64 * •••-CKS 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK HO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 02-12-90 PAGE % ACCOUNT NO. IHV. • P.O. • MESSAGE mCHECK REGISTER>OR:OMM:OMNANDERSON ASSCCOFFEESUE A10 ROSENE ASN )0 ROSENE ASN )0 ROSENE ASN K) ROSENE ASN K) ROSENE ASN 10 ROSENE ASN K> ROSENE ASNHOTOQRAPHVRiNTINGRINTINGRINTINGRINTING ITEM DESCRIPTIONTELEPHONETELEPHONESIGNSCOFFEEIBM CLASS1989198919891989198919891989PAYABLEPAYABLEPAYABLEPAYABLEPAYABLEPAYABLEPAYABLEPROCESS FILMSTAMP PRINTING PRINT DARE PRINTING 02-12-90 PAGE 2 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P 0. i MESSAGE01-4320-039-1201-4320-129-3101-4233-249-4201-4382-129-3101-4356-129-3101-204001-204024-204026-204026-204073-204073-2040-000-00-000-00-000-00000-00000-00000-00000-0001-4210-129-3101-4322-129-3101-4322-129-3101-4322-129-31 01-4322-174-33 -CK$•••-CKSft M .CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS 043110 02/U?.90 58 90 58.90ft CHAPIN PUBLISHING ADS 01-4322-249-4204311102/08/90 18 00 18 00 ft CHESWICK/GARY MTG EXP 01-4382129-3104312704312702/08/9002/08/90 1,160 00 385 00 1.545 00 ft COFFIN GRONBERG COFFIN GRONBERG SURVEY WETLAND LOCATE PARKING AREA 15-4306-651-0015-4306-651-0004314204314202/08/9002/08/90 199 81 50.00 249 81 ft COPY DUP PR INC COPY DUP PR INC MAI NT DEVELOPER 01-4210-129-3101-4210-129-3104314304314304314304314304314304314304314304314304314304314302/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/90 3 95 6.40 11.10 4.25 24 43 24 30 53 91 1 02 1 53 . 85 131 74 ft COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP FEB INS FEB INS FEB INS FEB INS FTB INS FEB INS FEB INS FEB INS FEB INS FES INS 01-4151-126-3101-4151-174-3301-4151-249-4201-4152-039-1201-4152-069-1501-4152-121-3101-4152-129-3172- 4151-549-9173- 4151-569-9274- 4151-590-9304315002/08/90 6 00 6 00 ft CULLIGAN WATER SOFTNER 74-4343-590-9304315102/08/90 532 96 532 96 ft CUMMINS DIESEL SALES REPAIR GENERIC'^73-2040-000-00043154043154043154043154043154043154043154043154043154 043154 02/0a/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/90 02/08/90 493 20 357 35 240 00 240 00 146 80 8 95 CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS JOHNSONTHOMTONTOMCHECKMORANMORANNAME TAGNAME TAGANDERSONCHESWICK WALSH 01-422101-422101-422101-422101-422101-422101-422101-422101-4221 01-4221 121-31121-31126-31129-31129-31129-31129-31129-31129-31 185-35 ••*-CKS•••-CKSftftft.CKS•••-CKS RIMINAL APPR CJDN CHARGE 01-4355-129-31 •••-CKS 043189 02/08/90 45.00 E H RENNER & SONS REPAIR LEAK 01-4342-290-61 •••-CKS ER & EQUIP REPAIR LOADER 01-4342-249-42 •••-CKS ft ft ft .CKS GENUINE PARTS CO MISC PARTSGENUINEPARTSCOMISCPARTSGENUINEPARTSCOMISCPARTSGENUINEPARTSCOMISCPARTSGENUINEPARTSCOMISCPARTSGENUINE.PARTS CO MISC PARTSGENUINEPARTSCOMISCPARTS 043275043275043275 02/0S/9002/08/9002/08/90 X90.ll908.77211.011.309.8904327904327904327902/08/9002/08/9002/08/90 179.24179.24179.24179.2404329002/08/90 65.5685.5604329102/08/90 15 75 15.7504330302/08/90 2.091.98 2.091 9804330104330402/08/90n?/n*/«n 287.22 i«n nn647.2204333002/08/90 94 78 94.78 043337 043337 043337 043337 043337 043337 043337 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/08/90 205 00 45.00 29.00 37.00 29 00 43 00 10.00 02/08/90 3 79 3 79 it KEAVENYS DRUG02/08/90 32 28 32.28 «KILBO-MELVIN02/08/90 807.50 KEYS WELL DRILLING02/08/90 807,501.615.00 KEYS WELL DRILLING02/08/90 6 00 KOEHNENS <:TANDARD02/08/90 85 00 91 00 KOEHNEN^ STANDARD02/08/90 40.00 40 00 m LAKEMTKA CONS DIST02/08/90 134.86 THE LAKER02/08/90 51.02 THE LAKER02/08/90 34.02 THE LAKER02/08/90 25 51-THE LAKER02/08/90 25 51 THE LAKER02/08/90 25 51 245 41 ■ THE LAKER 02-12-90 PAGE « ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 • MESSAGE01-4340-295-6501-4341-174-3301-4322 129-3101-4232-249-4201-4232-249-4201-4232-249-4201-4356-129-3126-2060-000-0026-4531-437-1501-4220-129-3101-4341-129-3101-4382-020-1101-432201-432201-432226-432226-4322 26-4322 039-12174-33249-42437-82437-82 437-85 •••-CKS 1»«0 CITY or ORONO CHECK NO. DATE02/08/!02/08/102/08/902/08/902/08/902/08/9(02/08/9102/08/9(02/08/9C04391302/08/9004391404391402/08/9002/08/90043915 043915 043915 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/08/90 •«•••• ?)43921 043921 043921 043921 043921 0/*»921 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/08/90 02/C '90 02/0. 90 02/08/90 CHECK REGISTER ITEM descriptionN CO N CO^R TELECRNM. iTS OXYGENdemurrageTELEPHONEDUES 02-12-90 PAGE • ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 • MESSAGE01-4320-129-3101-4380-129-31 •••-CKS•••-CKS•••-CKS i990 CITY OF 090N0 CHECK NO. DATE043S71043S71043574043LI202/08/9002/08/9002/08/9002/08/90 AMOUNT21.693.75 200.0096.893.75 *85.00 85.00 •54.62 54.62 •CHECK REGISTERVENDORNORWEST BANK MINN NA NORWEST BANK MINN NAOFFICE PROD OF MNOMAN/LYLE ITEM DESCRIPTIONBOND INT DUE 3/1 AGENT FEE DUE 3/1REPAIR TYPEWRTRMILEAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV.43-4620-906-0043-4630-906-00Oi-4340-039-1201-4381-174-33 02-12-90 PAGE 9 PO. 9 MESSAGE ■ ■■■>*y•••.CKS•••-CKS I CHICK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV.• P.O. • MESSAGE043121or • iO02, JO02/b./80 844.00155.40233.104.866.80 *PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH FEB INS FEB INS FEB INS 01>4151-249-4272- 4151-549-9173- 4151-569-92«*•**••"LCKS04342762/08/«n 47 25 47.25 •PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE 01-4321-129-3104342404342404342402/0$,02/08/.02/0i/£^.10.866.34 232.80 4,588.93 15.688.07 •POPHAM HA IK 8^ ASSOC POPHAM HAIK & ASSOC POPHAM HAIK & ASSOC 1989 PAVABIE 1989 PAYABLE 1989 PAYABLE 01-2040-000-0024-2040-000-0026-2040-000-00•■•••••••-CKS04343102/08/90 2,200 00 POLKA DOT RECYCLING JAN RECYLING 01-4392-29S-65 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWEST COMMUN TELEPHONEUSWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONEUSWEST. COMMUN TELEPHONEVESSCOINC0 RINGS WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHER CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV043SSI02/08/90 1.442.001.442.00N W HENNEPIN HUMAN SER 1990 CONTRIBUTION 01-4385-100-2104385302/08/90 213.40213.40m W HENNEPIN RECYCLING RECLYING FEE 01-4348-249-4204387502/08/90 8.198.19 n WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC UTIIITIES 01-4324-249-4204390102/08/90 350.00350.00 ATC TRAINING 01-4356-129-3104390202/08/90 54.0054.00*QRDA PUBLICATIONS BOOK 01-4322-174-3304390302/08/90 48.0048.00 MN POLICE BRIEFS SUBSCRIPTION 01-4322-129-3104390402/08/90 15.0015.00 •MN INST PUB HEALTH CONFERENCE 01-4356-129-3104390502/08/90 90.0090.00*JOHN MCKINLEY TRAINING 01-4356-129-3104390602/08/90 48.5048.50 STATE OF MINNESOTA PUBLICATION 01-4240-174-3304390702/08/90 219 25 219.25 ft LONE WOLF CONSULTING HENKE PROSECUTION 01-4302-080-1604390802/08/90 217.55217.55ft WACONIA RIDQEVIEW STRESS TEST LARSON 01-4306-129-3104390902/08/90 7.907.90ft CHANHASSEN LAWN CHAIN SAW PART 01-4232-249-42 043910 02/08/90 63.00 63.00ft MILE MANUAL 01-4240-129-31 043911 02/08/90 200.00 200.00 ft BUSINESS TESTING LARSEN EVALUATION 01-4306-129-31 043912 02/08/90 18.95 18.95 ft JOURNAL EMERQY SERV SUBSCRIPTION 01-4240-129-31 043913 02/08/90 25.00 25.00ft MN DIV EMERGY MGMT CONFERENCE 01-4356-129-31 043914 02/08/90 20.00 ASSOC MN EMERGY MQRS MEMBERSHIP 01-4380-175-34 02-12-90 PAGE 12 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. i MESSAGE01-438S-100-2101-4348-249-4201-4324-249-4201-4356-129-3101-4322-174-3301-4322-129-3101-4356-129-3101-4356-129-3101-4240-174-3301-4302-080-1601-4306-129-3101-4232-249-4201-4240-129-31 01-4306-129-31 01-4240-129-31 01-4356-129-31 01-4380-175-34 -CKS***-CKS•••-CKS i\■ .:]1980 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT 20.00 *VENDOR04391502/08/90 45.0045.00 n HENN FACULTY ASSOC04391602/08/90 1.500.001.500.00 *GLEN LITFIN TRANSF04391702/08/90 12.436.3412.436.34 *BUFFALO BITUMINOUS04391802/08/90 1.053.701.053.70 Ik GORDON LAWRENCE04391902/08/90 14.05 G & T TRUCKING04391902/08/90 863.69877.74 A G & T TRUCKING04392002/08/90 5.423.435.423.43 A N S WATERWORKS04392102/08/90 208.95208.95 *LOUD & CLEAR MRTG04392202/08/90 41.00 DEPT NATL RESOURCES04392202/08/90 25.0066.00 A DEPT NATL RESOURCES04392302/08/90 242.00242.00 A ST CLOUD UNIVERSITY04392502/08/90 500.00500.00 A LL FIRE OPT REL ASSN04392602/08/90 90.0090.00 A UNIV OF. MINNESOTA04393002/08/90 19.737.2019.737.20 A WALDOR PUMP 55.889.25 4.481.00 1.545.00 4.738.37 59.385.63 96.893.75 33.000.00 11.601.96 2.346.56 812.18 FUND 01 FUND 14 FUND 15 FUND 24 FUND 26 FUND 43 FUND 44 FUND 72 FUND 73 FUND 74 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION 02-12-90 PAGE 13 * ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGESEMINARWATER MAIN PYMNT 3 WATER MAIN PYMNT 3 WATER MAIN PYMNT 3 01-4356-129-3126-4531-436-8426-4531-436-8426-4531-436-84SWR EXT PYMNT 3 WATER MAIN PYMNT 3 26-4531-434-8226-4531-436-84SWR EXT PYMNT 3 VOICE AMP 26-4531-434-8201-4560-129-31WTR USE PERMIT WTR USE PERMIT 72-4383-549-9174-4383-590-93CLASS01-4356-129-311989 PAYABLE 1989 PAYABLE 24-2040-000-0001-2040-000-00SWR EXT PYMNT 3 26-4531-436-84 GENERAL FUND IMPROVE A EQUIP OUTLAY F BUILDNG CAPITAL OUTLAY F PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUND 1980 IMP BOND D/S FUND 1982 IMP BOND D/S FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD -CKS•••-CKS-CKS 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE■ f .• 02-12-90 PAGE 13 * ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE01-4356-129-31 26-4531-436-84 26-4531-436-8426-4531-436-8426-4531-434-8226-4531-436-8426-4531-434-8201-4560-129-3172-4383-549-9174-4383-590-9301-4356-129-3124-2040-000-0001-2040-000-0026-4531-436-84 ITLAY F ITLAY F .VINQ F rP FUND FUND FUND JND jND riNG FD TION 02-12-90 PAGE 14 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • PO. • MESSAGE y 13190.4 1 !• '!NG 'Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: January 31, 1990SUBJECT: Tabling Applications at Applicant RequestAttachment: A. Ordinance No. 10.08 Subd. 5ISSUE - 1. present to the Council a review of procedures used regarding denial resolutions and tablings. 2. Determination as to whether there is any need for a change in the ordinance. 3. Determination as to whether there needs to be any change in the procedure regarding denial resolutions. IMTRODUCTIOH - At the council's January 22,_^^19M^^meetln^^ request was made requesting relatinq to denials and wh'-n^the°six raSnt?p?ohiMtio^n sited in Attachment A comes into ecff ct. done as a two step process. The review indicated denials of applications have been done in one of three ways. •I hr> denv was adopted at a meeting with a subsequent formal Resolution presented for adoption by the Council. meeting. rouncil voting on a conceptual denial tirSll resolution being brought to a subsequent meeting. The two PJ°“|?|.°\tt|rnlys°iver %*’multiple''ylar period, lucr^’^foc'ed'ur'e'pu'ts the c\ty in the best position for considering the facts for denial. Attendant to that are the ways in which the City has tabled such applications. These include: •0* Mayor and city Council■“»••• Mark E. Bernkardson, city Administratorate** January 31, 1990Tabiin, Applications at Applioant Re,nast-tachment: A. Ordinance Mo. 10.08 Subd. 5iSUE -nra!-e^JSt ‘iS^s^riail“ln7s''.^*“ -ed nepandinpaTr^In ”inc\“°" ^ ^ “^-er there is any need tor a cbenpe in' P'-°="da"Vrt3arliJg de\°urreso!utionJf" in[’RODaCTT OM - At hhc. y* ren"/^u'’niT" °'he’’lifs? y“” that"’° = « a=ro=Uer;r “c‘s^a!‘^^ ^‘?ri/nsr&°'„e^^^ o7Vbree‘"„lJlf‘*^ O, applications have been done in subsequent formal "?es<f/utio°^'^*'^ ^ meeting with athe Council. '•aaolBtion presented for ad^tlOT by 2. A motion to direct c-hafc a. formal^resolution being brough°t formal7esol«lin""beTng br°o"ughr“to'a"suVsVque"nt :eeuSS? iraged by^the*cUy"Att ®rneys* VveV'a *>®®na procedure puts the Citv in year period ■lering the Ucts for denial; Position for catlo^?.‘'’ThesV*inolud''e?“ »as tabled such • «.1. Applicant Request - The applicant has been present at the meeting and requested a tabling either;a. Voluntarily on their ownb. At the encourgement of the Council2. App1leant being absent - For both approvals and denial's the city h"as ETbled applications when the individuals are not present unless it has been a series of absenses.3. Tabled on the consent agenda - This has been done both for approvals and denials even after an initial motion for denial has been made. In the review this was done as early as 1986 in conjunction with the Ferrell application and as late as this past September with the Ralph Burgess application.4. No^ listed on the agenda - In cases where the appTreant Tias indicated in advance of the agenda that they would like more time or are not be able to be present they have just not been placed on the agenda. There have not been instances when the applicant has asked for tabling, that the item has not been tabled. In addition where the applicant has indicated a possible change in plans in advance of drafting a denial resolution staff has usually waited until such time as any altered plans may be presented as the reasons for denial may differ based on the application revision. Instances of tabling after initial indication of denial include the following applications. Ferrell Hall Schall Waldron Peterson/Stodola Pemberton Gregory Beldin/Meline Curtis Palm Burgess Pi1Isbury The Ferrell application is "the grandfather" of all denials. The original application started in 1986 and had subsequent tablings and with modifications was finally adopted on the original application number this past summer. The essence of the issue as it relates to ordinance and practice is whether they are in conflict. A review by the attorney indicates that while not abundently clear that the policy and practice are not out of sync, but could be improved. The second question relates to the City's general policy of allowing persons, particular jly where a denial is pending, to request a tabling and the manner in which that is granted. n - The applicant has been present ateu.er =: If Councilhas been a seriesbsenses._e _ (rhis has been done abled on ^ ^^^^^^J^pl?ffPeven\fter an Initial I for approvals and a review this was'J°£or%nlal '‘f^.S^funotion f th the Ferrell! as ?%3 ’i®a\e as th^s past September with t.ication and as iate a 5h Burgess application.A .. Tn ^ases where the Not listed on .SS-Sm-j.'ce of" the agenda thatrrcan-tTias e not be able to be lenTIhey Vave ”Ist not been placed on the agenda. act been Instances when the^applicant^has^^^^ at the item has not change in plans in advance ,t has Indicated ® u^s^usually waited until >ilf.ig“aVtef fn^^tll? ^n/lcI?FoV o£ denial Include ng applications. Gregory Beldin/Meline Curtis Palm Burgess Pillsbury Jllson/Stodola rton plication is "the Yg’ef afd^\'a"d°Iuf e\u?f “tabl.lngs fiVafio\Tfas ‘?i«A;''tdopted on the original ;mber this past summer. : the issue as f "frthS'’«tor«^ I'lhri^e If "bufd^fily Clear that^t^^^^ lot out of sync, but could be impro allowing {H-^?ly'^\efe‘I'fn^^^"^^ f^ * he manner^n wnich that is granted. ALTERNA^VES -Issue #2-0rdinance Revision -1. Leave as is.2. Amend to clarify.3. Amend to incorporate new procedureIssue #3-PracticeA. Two step denial procedure.1. Leave as is.2. Amend Lo have a uniform motion for Step 1 followed by Step 2. 3. Take no action. B. Authorization for tabling 1. Take no action. 2. Allow tabling at the request of the individual. 3. Set a time limit on it. 4. Table only on Council action, not on the consent agenda. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the ordinance (as it is a zoning ordinance requiring substantial publication notice) not be amended at this time, but should there be a recodification, that this be adopted. As for practice it is recommended that a uniform motion be adopted for Step 1 that being directing staff to prepare a denial resolution. As for tabling it is recommended that the City continue to allow its policy of allowing tabling at the applicant's request but that a time limit of say, 60 days, be placed on that so that they do not continue forever. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council accepts the information and directs staff to have a uniform motion of directing staff to prepare a denial resolution for any intended denials and staff can, if there is going to be tabling, that it be placed on the agenda as aconsent or an action item but that prior to expiration of 60 days the denial resolution either has to be acted on or referred back to Planning Commission for an amended review. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. ■Jl*-.-.. •>.-: 'ii Mpi^.lailEkdS ■w Ti'*- ^ > *v mi ■ '-7 Kl-a >-',>':-;:cl.:'« B«if: J5J,: •:.., freceding document ■■'■ .'•- : ■ ..;^;.v't j ,;•{.K*’1-v i•;<Vr;;.> • •' K'r/. ■ i«f SUMpf; JS^i ■•■•'•• AC-’’’':'" ■■ 'h'.vr" ■}>r Mding DOCUMENT » ’ ^ j ' ».ir/'V ' • - ^r#''r .---------r^' <.»: I . s :i ' V; ■ ,. I ♦ ; /' t I' K reference to the Board -£'Appe'^aran^a A'djrt™i™t“!’I® ,®‘Atutes, Section l62.Vs4'°stibd*^5'"®a® ®® required by°«i=Ial newspaper ?1 t "°“=« nhaU beVr-atto*r"„Jy-%, ”£ ®PP- « ^ """iatl responsible^ tor mailing th°®® giving maij«dt Affected properfj'ani"® ®"'3 add?Jss«'' ofi^?ire-an°d'r >ar allto give mailed notice to inrii °I Proceedings tHp in the nature shll? property owners nr,■ .... oaths to witnesses and the ,• i P*^t)visions for the .Vlblcriha\?r„ci=uVJlF-"^ - -e action taten on each ;XV btir^% Subd. 3. Variances; Issuances. lall consider'^thl^fdJi^ce^ a^nd^Ve"^^*^^®"® variance, the •f^'^the^ proposed variance upon "’tTe u°^ ®°ard 5 lioh^ existing and and ^ce%*?r"ol‘"?hl Ah"al‘l^V- r?,"u^ei?| F"u‘™-^„oV s--4 ~ ron and to grant such property unde? f^^At such actions will be In k!?»V- “hen It Is Cli3Dter i ^ with th© soiri^ Anting of a ?raViance""4“a%s\?'^"®'’^P" ®a used m conneltron use If used unde'?To"d7tiSnlTlVo°werS"°'w ‘’® P“‘ ®ns allowed by the official 265 (4-1-84) S 10.082. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Chapter.5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minn .ota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling . B. The Board or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances to insure compliance with this Chapter and to protect adjacent properties. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this Chapter in the district where such land is located. Source; City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 4. Variances in Border Areas. The Zoning Chapter seeks to regulate land use throughout Orono so that the location of the various zones will be compatible to each other and to existing useu and regulations. Where property in the City adjoins property in another municipality which is subject to regulations substantially different from those applying to the City property, so as to make strict enforcement of all the City regulations as to .such property unreasonable, the Council may take into account the location of the property and the regulations of the adjoining municipality in considering application for variances hereunder. Source; Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 5. Variances; Denial. Variances may be denied by motion of the Council and such motion shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for a variance which has been denied wholly ORONO CC 266 (4-1-84) circumstances unique^to Plight of the lanHn ^’ V =«atVa"f/?,Vthe PQQAn«.<;^'i . The - •>rso„.3 lana in th"e “o'nthl "aVfUVel'-Po-ry ' --f^^ll^railxnTL'’a “t".“,a%=iXy^ al/are&£F‘^=“-°>nged beyond the^use^ variance shaV ’^ Chapter and to « 3uch lana is%“ratll:"‘“^^ « City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84Subd. 4. va • . vaJ?ous®tones tul Oton" th«%h°"!"® ‘^'’^P'" tantially different^ frL subject^ adjoins property a to make strict enfr»r those appiyi;ig ., -/emulations "'e"‘co1„ll\^ 111 M7 «9ula1io^„”'’aV% iipallty in co"„'sS8 the^Td^o^^/^ PPiication for variances herJunde Source: Ordinance No 179 Effective Date; 1-1^75^^ Subd. 5. Varia . . . "te°/minVtion ‘'"thi\ tht shfircons?f? - appiie^tion oeen denied wholly LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTIn the Matter of the Determination of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Minnetonka Boat Works Orono Marina on Lake Minnetonka, Orono, Minnesota . 1 X f• I \^ *-1 i s w,f'I <FEB - 9 :E20f ' ' 'U t»w yFINDINGS OF FACT1.Minnetonka Boat Works, Oroio, applied for a Special Density License and New Dock License for which a public hearing was held April 8, 1989.2.The applicant requested approval to expand its facilities ^rom 41 to 47 boat storage units (BSUs) on Brown's Bay, and from 25 to 67 BSUs on Tanager Lake, in Lake Minnetonka. The additions bring the water surface use of the dock installation on the tv’o bays to 24,920 sq.ft. Boat maneuvering space was not included in this water surface use calculation.3.The LMCD Water Structures and Environment Committee reviewed the public hearing report of April 8 and recommended approval of the Special Density and New Dock License at its June 10 meeting, for Board approval. 4.The LMCD Board accepted the June 10 committee recommendation to approve the Special Density and New Dock License at its June 28 meeting. The LMCD attorney was instructed to prepare the Order for the new licenses. 5.Upon receipt of the Order from the LMCD attorney, correspondence of i^ugust 24 was sent to Pat Lynch, MN DNR Division of Waters, reviewing the new license application status and reporting the LMCD Board's conclusion thar an EAW was not required. 6. John Stine, MN DNR, forwarded their evaluation to the EQB, requesting their determination as to the necessity for an ElAW per their letter of September 5. 7. The EQB subsequently did rule that an EAW was mandatory as a result of the expansion. 8.LMCD staff prepared the EAW Worksheet, subsequently presenting it to the Wa^er Structures & Environment Committee October 14, and upon the Committee recommendation it was presented to and approved at the LMCD Board meeting of October 25 for subsequent distribution as required by the EQB. 9. a. b. J*.all and public news release notice of the EAW was accomplished October 27 Publication in the EQB Monitor took place November 13. The following responses were received as a result of the notices and publicat'^on: City of Orono acting mayor questioned the lakeshore footage which includes the combined Brown's Bay and Tanager Lake shoreline. Metropolitan Council Research and Long-Range Planning Director con cluded that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with the Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. MN DNR supervisor of Planning and Review Services concluded this project will not have any adverse impacts on natural resources. MN Historical Society inquires as to possible archf^r-logical sites in the area being affected, but concluded none were involved. d. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTMinnetonka Boat Works Orono EAW, Page 2CONCLUSIONAccording to the Findings of Fact listed herein, the Special Density License and New Dock License proposed by Minnetonka Boat Works Orono on Brown's Bay and Tanager Lake, Lake Minnetonka, is exempt from further review as a result of the negative determination of this EAW*Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusion listed herein, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and the proposed application for Special Density License and New Dock License is accepted and exempt from further environmental review.1990. I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Brown, Cohen, Kanson and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Goetten attended and CounciImember Callahan was also present. #1486 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 3020 POX STREET REVISED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, was present on behalf of the applicant. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant wished to create an outlet for a tennis court. Mabusth noted that the City had recommended that if such a use was proposed for that outlet consideration should be given to the future expansion of the septic system for the "exception" lot. Mabusth said in light of that consideration, the developer was asked to set aside another outlet for future acquisition by the owner of the "exception" lot, Mr. Gronberg said that the developer has received requests for tennis courts from potential buyers of the lots. Gronberg said Ms. Wildman thought it best to provide one tennis court for the development, rather than having several, individual tennis courts. Gronberg added that Ms. Wildman felt that a tennis court would more than likely be constructed on that lot if purchased by an individual. Gronberg said th~t the developer wanted to have more control over the tennis court and m.ake it more attractive. Kelley said that individual tennis courts could still be constructed even if one is built for the entire development. Mabusth said that it was her understanding, from discussions with the developer, that covenants would be written to prohibit individual tennis courts. Gronberg said that the developer felt that the existence of the one court would limit the number of individual tennis courts, but did not want to prohibit them. Kelley asked if any restrictions had been placed on the tennis court constructed as part of the French Creek development? Mabusth replied that there were none. 7-00 D meetinge ^ '^ANUAEy !« ,«“ Orono Pianr.,' 1990""9 membejc ^°"^ission m . ioners P*‘sseni-. on th« unted the ^ohen, pan with“eVEIopMENT COW ^ «ten"d^/?e*7?oo '"“ijisioiiSurv.,„,was present ^ .Administrator " ^®half'^eate Mabu^r>, ® ty had reca^'^^°^ a that conslder^r'"''®'' 'ha? ,7"""® court ^PPllcant Pystem f°" be givefr^ ‘'=p'>'« Wol,"’ consldaratlV,’’® ■®*cep\i„^:„':P the tPture°f°^?„^ t°c 'lS?“pr;Hr#££-£Sthe IJ th-.^ that lot if *^®nnis cour^ ta„„,3 court'a'^V-®Iop:‘rl^3Cd^^^^^^^^^ that i ^ ^ore have =" tf one ?/L': ' tenni. ... “ttractrve 'I'’ that ind- ttTore~ toTavi -® l"'b:‘?-V^""- con,, ^“^-tive. that it w " ®"tire deSeloo t>e >Pct. that Pep under,,.... '^“Pfent. that it „ ® b. ta conrta. —hta //eT "--ions u^'!,','’f.t thedeve,.... . ‘“Ptohi.it written to the d Prohibit lin.it t^'^eloper felt .k Pt°Ptbtt then,. tndivldnarte^Jtetence of tb if any “““ttef ‘ttuoted as Part'"irtne''\Pe=* P*cn p, that ther '“’ ‘^teelf d7„t1 °" the ®^e were none. ®lopment? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING C iMMlSSION MEETING JANUARY 16r 1990ZONING PILE #1486-SDSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUEDCohen asked Gronberg if the use of the tennis court would be restricted to the homeowners?Gronberg replied that he believed that would be the case.Kelley said that restriction could be a ..ondition ofapproval.Mr. Joe Chadwick, property owner of the "exception" property, believed that locating the tennis court as proposed would detract from the rural aspect of the area. He asked Gronberg if they intended to cut all of the existing trees?Gronberg replied that a couple of trees would come down, but the big oak would remain. Gronberg said that the developer was proposing to plant trees along the west side. Kelley added that the Planning Commission had received a plan showing the proposed plantings. Kelley said that it appeared as though 5 spruce trees were to be planted on the westerly lot line. Mr. Chadwick asked what height the spruce trees will be? Kelley said that the tree height could be specified in the resolution approving the subdivision. Mr. Chadwick said that he will be able to see the tennis court from his dining room, living room, kitchen and bedroom and that he did not approve of that. Chadwick said that he would also lose the privacy of his back yard. Chadwick asked whether the location of the tennis court will be dug out or built up? Gronberg replied that the middle of the tennis court will be dug out approximately 3' and the north end will be filled about 3' . Chadwick expressed concern about the 3' that would be filled. He said that would place the tennis court higher than his garden and drainage could be a problem. Gronberg said that more area is being cut down than filled. Kelley informed Mr. Chadwick that the developer cannot increase runoff from this property onto his. Chadwick objected to the tennis court being located near his property and suggested placing it in a more central location. Gronberg said that the shape of that lot lends itself best for the location of the tennis court. Gronberg said that the developer would be willing to do whatever the Planning Commission asks in regard to screening. Gronberg also noted that the tennis the planning r iMMISSION meeting JANDARY 16, 1990 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990#1486 ”SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUEDked Gronberg if the use of the tennis court would beto the homeowners?rg replied that he believed that would be the case.^ said that restriction could be a wOndition ofoe Chadwick, property owner of5elieved that locating the tennis court as P>^oP°®®^ act from the rural aspect of the area. He asked they intended to cut all of the existing trees?rq replied that a couple of trees would come down, but ; would remain. Gronberg said that the developer was o plant trees along the west side. y added that the Planning Commission had .received a ing the proposed plantings. ^ ^®^ s though 5 spruce trees were to be planted on the »t line. ladwick asked what height the spruce trees v.Ill be? y said that the tree height could be specified in the approving the subdivision. hadwick said that he will be able to ®®® ^?\® his dining room, living room, kitchen and bedroom and d not approve of that. Chadwick said the privLy of his back yard. Chadwick asked whe^ther 3n of the tennis court will be dug out or built up. »rg replied that the middle of the tennis court will be ^roxim'^tely 3* and the north end will be filled about ick expressed concern about the 3' ^® le said that would place the tennis court higher than and drainage could be a problem. erg said that more area is being cut down than filled. gy informed Mr. Chadwick that the developer cannot unoff from this property onto his. ick objected to the tennis court being located near his nd suggested placing it in a more central location. aerg said that the shape of that lot lends ocation of the tennis court. Gronberg said that the would be willing to do whatever the Planning Commission •gard to screening. Gronberg also noted that the tennis ZONING FILE #1486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED court meets all zoning requirements.Kelley observed that a variance is really not required to proceed with the tennis court.Mabusth said that depended on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the various sections of code she has asked them to review with this application. Mabusth said that due to the new accessory structure ordinance, a lot coverage variance may be required. Mabusth said that lot coverage for an outlet was not specifically addressed.Kelley indicated that he would have preferred to see the proposal for the tennis court included with the original subdivision. Kelley said that had the tennis court been initially proposed and had he heard the comments from Mr. Chadwick, he would not have allowed the creation of the outlot in that location. Jann Olsten, 3090 Farview Lane, said that he could appreciate the developer's interest in providing a tennis court or recreational facility for the future owners of the development. Mr. Olsten said the developer is locating the tennis court as proposed because that location is least obstrusive to the future residents. Mr. Olsten said that his main concern regardi'.g this re^jsnt proposal is that it is after- the-fact. He said that It a recreational area is going to be created, the burden ought to be shared by those persons benefitting and using the facility. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that the City does have the right to approve or deny the creation of outlots and their intended use, even though there are no standards for them. Mr. Olsten further commented that placing individual tennis courts in the back yards of homeowners would have less impact than this shared tennis court. Olsten said that he also had concerns about relying on the homeowners' association for governing the use of the tennis court. Mr. Dan Parten, noted that he was aware of the French Creek tennis court being used by non-residents. Gronberg said that if the developer had known from the beginning there would be such an interest in tennis courts, she would have come in with a proposal for an outlot at the time of the preliminary plat. Cohen suggested that the future homeowners interested in tennis, can build their own courts. Cohen said that he has great empathy for the neighbor. Brown indicated that he was compelled by the argument that one court would preclude the need for having courts on the rnn MBETINGIE plmwihg COMMISSIOM meL486-SOSSBX SQUARE [486 ® reauireinents.'Ll zoning reqrtwlnq requirements. j i, not required to,norvea nnet e variance re re.UVtennis court. ------<«sion'she tennis court. „ntnq Commission ssaia tnat aepenaea^-,tne pj n „Kea^t.embusth said thataddressed. „referred to s®e tn .o. .ane. saia ttat^^.e^^- ’L'Tvelope^“;s"^f ,^ne ''£”t«e"%v.ners a_f^ •on/l facility developer is lo least i. Mr. Olsten said the^ that his ‘fo t\% tiat"'-.:^. r-^tional^ ponson j*'ana u“sinq"the facility. ^oes riqht to pf though there ,.„,i tennis,„aea use, even fh'^iviaual te the use of the P„nch Cte - >-nn^rrc"ouVtT. Tte " '"ea that the future^t-r/l^^^ Ci\a thtir o»n courts. Cohe for the neighbor. '^Jhe naicatea that he was compel ea^'^'tog ,nurts on ;"ou\a“;recluae the neea MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING FILE #1486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED individual properties and reduce the density. Brown said that he did not, however, like the location of the tennis court and would prefer to see it located in the interior of the project which would involve coming back with a revised plan.There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial. Motion, Ayes-4, Brown, Nay.PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTSA. SECTION 10.52, SUBDIVISION 3B. SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C)PUBLIC BEARING 10:30 P.M. TO 10:35 P.M.The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth explained the changes being proposed. Kelley indicated that the inclusion of the availability of municipal water service to the Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer Availability in the Highway 12 Corridor area was fine. The ether Planning Commissioners concurred. Gaffron noted the Council's request for a Planning Commission recommendation regarding inclusion of all pools as lot coverage. He asked the Planning Commission to clarify their intent of the Lot Coverage Ordinance. Gaffron's concerns are that 15% is not a sufficient percentage if pools are included and whether the intent of the Ordinance was to limit visual encroachment of structures that stand above ground. The Planning Commission replied that was their intent. Gaffron noted that there are two different types of pools commonly built, and they should be treated differently. Gaffron said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. Kelley concurred with Gaffron and added, if there is a pool that is 8' abova ground and has an additional deck, that is a structure. Gaffron said that it is his understanding that the Planning Commission would like the Ordinance to remain the way it was written. The Planning Commission said that it was written the way they intended it to be. Mabusth asked if a fence is required around a pool and it is at least 5' high it should not be included in lot coverage? OP TBE COMMISSIOH HEPTIMG aBNOAPP U,'v?duif ptop«;fef CONTIW®,not, however, Uke the loc«lOT®of \"he‘Z; ‘hat hed located in the interior court and wouldinvolve coining back with a revised planf P^°iect whichmatter and the Publi|''he ‘^rlng"wL^J?o^ Public regardingIt w^s ir:ov0d bv Plants ^nin,^Co^issioner „ooe, jnconZONING AMENDMENTS 5CTION 10.52, SUBDIVISION 1 •BCTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(0 C HEARING 10:30 P.M TO in**^*; n w The Affidavit of ^ ^*^‘ noted. licatxon and Certificate of Mailing were 'labusth explained the changes being proposed. ipal "water sVrvi^e'to*'the"'o*'"d^°" *'’® nvailability of ability in the Highway 12 Corridor" aria wal 'he ether Planning Commissioners concurred. sion^llcolllno^atiln rl|a“rdlli'in ® Planning>9e. He asked the anclusion of all pools as ll? ■ of the Lot Covllagi"ordi®3ncT‘GVf7 '=°. ‘^hrlfy "^01°!5% IS not a sufficient CGrr^nf-=n-. * . ^^^Iron s concerns are 'k intent of the^ Ordinan Pools are included and ihmeot Of structures that^llaMd^lllve"" olld.“"'" >e Planning Commission replied that was their intent. types of pools ht he categorises an In-ground^lllf //«-n ;i-’'abTvl “7rl|uni ‘a"nd°ilra„""a1idftr're. an additional deck, that is a ^fron Said ^ i..' ion would like the Ord'!nll||"to""ril!i“tl "^hnnlngro remain the way it was ' Pi^nning Commission said -a. ended it to be. written the way ”'hMh"’'lt lhVul?"„“ ll ?„|“ii"d:l irrol lolTelig^e"/ ‘ = MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS CONTINUEDKelley said that the first point to consider is whether the pool is in the ground or above it. The next point is whether any part of it extends beyond 6' in height above grade.Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that the reason this matter has been brought forw;» -d is due to the questions raised in the Peterson application i.or a pool.It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend leaving the recently adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance as is. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed.#1457 ALAN CARLSON 3140 WATERTOWN ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONCONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:25 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M.Mr. Alan Carlson was present for this public hearing, as was Mr. Jerry Sunde and Mr. Gary Petersen. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application. Mabusth noted that Lot 2, Block 4, does not meet the required lot width at the 50' setback. Mabusth said that with the revised plan, there are no longer any flag lots and Lot 7 achieves access from the extension of the east corridor road. Mabusth recommended that there be a shared access for Lots 1 and 2. Mabusth said that drainage pertaining to off-site improvements is still in the review process. Mabusth said that should there be a change in a lot line due to something that had to be agreed to as part of final approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, it will come back to the Planning Commission. Brown asked how the drainage easements were designated on the plat? Mabusth explained that the conservation and flowage easements extend out everywhere to the 970' elevation. Mabusth said that the area where the berm is to be located, the conservation and flowage easement will be amended to go to the 968' elevation. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked why the cul-de-sac was being placed as indicated? Mr. Carlson replied that the cul-de-sac location was determined by the topography; the ground in that location is higher. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Carlson if he objected to any of the conditions of approval? Mr. Carlson indicated that he had no objections. Mabusth said that it should be noted that this is a 16 lot plat, not a 17 lot plat. Mabusth said the Outlot C is on the ■.".rrr SS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 19903D ZONING AMENDMENTS CONTINUEDslley said that the first point to consider is whether the s in the ground or above it. The next point is whether any E it extends beyond 6' in height above grade.abusth informed the Planning Commission that the reason atter has been brought forw-'-d is due to the questions in the Peterson application lor a pool.f. was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend g the recently adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance as is. , Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed.^LAN CARLSON ^TERTOHN ROAD [NARY SUBDIVISIONJATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:25 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. r. Alan Carlson was present for this public hearing, as was :ry Sunde and Mr. Gary Petersen. >ning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this ation. Mabusth noted that Lot 2, Block 4, does not meet quired lot width at the 50' setback. Mabusth said that ■\e revised plan, there are no longer any flag lots and Lot sves access from the extension of the east corridor road. 1 recommended that there be a shared access for Lots 1 and abusth said that drainage pertaining to off-site sments is still in the review process. Mabusth said that there be a change in a lot line due to something that had igreed to as part of final approval of the Minnehaha Creek led District, it will come back to the Planning Commission. rown asked how the drainage easements were designated on It? abusth explained that the conservation and flowage Its extend out everywhere to the 970' elevation. Mabusth hat the area where the berm is to be located, the vation and flowage easement will be amended to go to the Levation. Lanning Commissioner Hanson asked why the cul-de-sac was ilaced as indicated? r. Carlson replied that the cul-de-sac location was ined by the topography; the ground in that location is lairman Kelley asked Mr. Carlson if he objected to any of iditions of approval? •. Carlson indicated that he had no objections. ibusth said that it should be noted that this is a 16 lot not a 17 lot plat. Mabusth said the Outlot C is on the Si. . \ aasL MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1457-CARLSON CONTINUED north side of the railroad track.Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Carlson if he intended on building entrance monuments?Mr. Carlson replied that he did intend to have entrance monuments and showed the Planning Commission pictures of what he would like to do. He said that he would prefer to use stone rather than brick.There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend preliminary plat approval of application #1257, subject to staff recommendations 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Chairman Kelley asked about a condition creating a homeowners association? Mabusth advised that a homeowner's association must be established if outlets or private roads are created. Kelley added the creation of a homeowners' association as condition 11. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. Mr. Carlson took a brief moment to thank the staff and Planning Commission for their time and efforts involved with this application. #1469 CITY OP ORONO RIGHT-OP-WAY OP NORTH ARM DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 P.M. TO 7:23 P.M. Zoning Administrator Mabusth showed the Planning Commission and public the proposed location of the civil defense siren. Mabusth indicated that the City has received no direct calls from any of the adjacent property owners, however. Chief Kilbo had received 2 calls. Chief Kilbo said that he received a call from Grant Wenkstern, owner of the Lakeview Golf Course, concerned about the siren being located on the golf course property. Kilbo said that he also received a call from an adjacent property owner inquiring as to when the siren is activated. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the City of Orono to install a civil defense siren at the intersection of North Arm Drive and County Road 151. Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned whether the anodized aluminum pole or the galvanized steel pole was preferred by the Planning Commission? The general concensus is that the anodized aluminum pole is preferred. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion u. •> 1 ^ PIANNING COMMT«?CTn»v -ummISSION meeting«ting JANDAHY 16, 1990lumenti?®^ Carlson if he int,, °n buildingrison r*en 7 * ^ ^nioved bv Cha>;Hans \o//eS^,"Jene .57, subject to sfa f Plat' / ®' and 10 rh •^®*^°"'"’®n<^ations ofating a homeownerc Kellev ' i(b), «yes-5, Nays-0- son took a brio^ -e., -an. 3,^,, t® involved with this «ONO DKIVE .POBLIC HEARiNr v -»« inxstrator Mabusth^L^'*** ^ ^**23 P.M,Pi®Posed lo/'a.. • ®^owed the Plann' ■d that the cut civil d«7 Commission «"t Proper"t7oi« « ’ '’°''*''er- Hhief'Ki'/n/n™ ’C said that h -H tifrolr 0rant ® call from an adProperty. KilS« an -a« r„%^^-a‘ —• u*uf qoif from an ac ®" IS activated. 7T this matter ■y°ohz7i^^^^^ by ’ Of N^rtn V"“a“ a Se?«“°"al Vse^ ;°"er Hanson questY'"* and County Ro^a—." a‘ ■be galvanized^tt 'Whether ^ The general prefl ® f;"°dired preferred. tif-'i®"®®"®''® is that tn ^ ^be"otaon. ay„.3. Xs!’?,“rt%%^ MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1469-CITY OP ORONO CONTINUED passed.#1470 DAN 6 RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONCONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. TO 7:55 P.M.Mr. Parten was present for this application review.Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron briefly reviewed the information pertaining to this application for a preliminary subdivision. Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the applicant is now proposing a lot line rearrangement in lieu of a 3 lot subdivision.Mr. Parten said that he is trying to start over due to the frustration experienced in attempting to create the 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Parten felt that a lot of "neighborhood planning" was being included in this and reminded the Planning Commission that this is now a basic lot line rearrangement. Mr. Parten asked the Planning Commission for seme guidelines as to what is required with a lot line rearrangement. Kelley explained to Mr. Parten that the objective of the lot line rearrangement is to to provide enough land to make Lot 2 buildable, and to achieve access, via an easement from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Brown asked whether '.ccess would be achieved by way of an oUlot or easement? Kelley said that it could be done either way. Gaffron interjected that in order to be consistent with City Codes, it should be an outlet, since it will ultimately serve 3 lots, the 3rd lot being the Reiersgord property which has an easement for access. Kelley asked whether it would be possible for Mr. Parten to grant an easement for Lot 2 without the approval of the City? Pla ning Commissioner Cohen referred Kelley's question to CounciIme^nber Callahan. Callahan opined that to the best of his knowledge, because Mr. Parten owns both Lots 1 and 2, he could grant an easement to Lot 2 without City approval. Gaffron noted that the City’s subdivison regulations technically require that the creation of an access easement must have City approval. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, 985 '’'onkawa Road, said that after the last Planning Commission Meeting, *^r. Parten was going to drop his option on this property and he was going to pick it up. He •m mm U;'. mm mmM - m :mm ^.SSXOHCOM«XSSpartbh p „.A zoning tbis ^PV- ^IJ^Viner.”«‘r““”^ ■subdivi^'"'- ^ •«‘^S4~‘v.s:.™"”'' .. ..• ;• (■ "^inTw”'”‘^Vei«an9e"'®''’^- lo^,planning tea ^bnective ot 2 “ par«n ^''»'io% c» 1.°^ " »^"nsno*'Vo an eaae^n-'^ -n^Ae^eacceaa. oX an vjhetner ivVier >)»>* „<♦. .. conxd .e done nnat in order to^be^ ni^f^niob baa an on"'o-'Brie«^«^ ^fss! -.-bie £or »- \?r an outio^' iersgor^ t- ■ r^a the parten no jt being Ci^V"? ess. , , be of ^would he ^ appno'^®^ ^ion to ''^®^^ot 2 without ^el lev’s b for hot refet’^®'^ ^ . ner Cohen ret becaus* >Tnmissi®^®^ knowledge' ^nt t<Xlahan. -# bis P,asew« . ner cohen ret because ^inissio^ knowledge' bt to bhe test o^ ^/^,,fnt an easen ’infb Ste reguie^^^j;’^®'"^^ptoval. ..w^ivison f^^^^^ent rn^® -Uctsl-^^'"^^ teguiation®, "^“"ne CibV-a„^rat^-- .Mt’^bbe crearrb” “! ‘ . „„,d. aaid,b^’l„, to dro' ed b«f rtrcreatibb o. re that th to '• 985 -"''^rr %°a%ten -a 9^>!\ He "Son XeetlnH- ; ,oin9 bo P “^rpropb" ■ ''■'■■ r^fJv ^vi;5^.fc 3Sk -.. m • r:-.* 'U:‘i Aii-isimm mmmm mm M v\ Vvii4 Ipe MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUEDsaid that had he purchased the property from Mr. Parten, Mr. Parten could have granted him an easement to access that property without the City's involvement.Kelley noted that the Reiersgord property to the east has a 60' easement and that Outlet A is 40'.Gaffron said that the prelilminary plat drawings indicate the Reiersgord easement may be extinguished at some time in the future.Mr. Parten said that the future owners of the Reiersgord property would benefit from the vacation of the easement in that it will allow them enlarge their building site and build their residence in the location best suited to do so.Kelley asked Mr. Parten for his opinion regarding the width of the drainage easement, 15' versus 30'. Mr. Parten said that he preferred the 15' and felt that he "was getting the total weight of the municipal government" thrown on him. Parten said that this is just a lot line realignment not a subdivision. Mr. Phil Asao expressed concern about the previous discussions regarding accessing his property and the Deter property. Ms. Asao said that he had given a letter from his attorney to the staff. He said that his attorney's opinion is that he has legal access all the way to Turnham Road. Kelley informed Mr. Asao that access and his property are no longer an issue with this subdivision. Mr. Parten asked whether the Planning Commission thought that the road configuration set up the possibility of a future exchange that will be mutually beneficial to both property owners? Kelley replied, "I think you're awfully nice to do this; you don't have to do this. Reiersgord should be here to shake your hand, he's got a lot that he may or may not be able to build on, just like Lot 2." Brown questioned if Mr. Reiersgord was under the 5 acre requirement and that was his benefit for partaking in a future lot line rearrangement? Gaffron said the question is, if there is a future equal trade, then Mr. Reiersgord does not gain anything, except a more useful area, but no more acreage. Gaffron said that Reiersgord's property is between 3 and 5 acres now. Mabusth replied that the lot line rearrangement would open up the obvious buiding site. Contindbd^‘y s anvolvameatf to access th/t"®"' «r.■ ;-^-tHatttea...... *’« P^Perty^ accessley noted th=. ” Propertyrrol P^perty to t.e east ,a“rtron said tha^- 4-u ^ aiersoorr? the Dro7<T_.^?«r°n said .t t east haslersgord easeme«“ayT^“”^'’^ry Plat d'v eeld that tt. .^w^stned at some 11 -^"aj-cate '■• P»rte„ said tt ® ‘he•y would benefi>^f^^ futureJ^ey asked Mr t> ^ their’^®inage easement^/i®", opinion.^«‘en said th """ ''‘‘’‘h Asao ^®®fignme*t, °"°Ms^.* Asao^"^ e’o^eVsslng^'hl'^®'" about the to the staf/^^1 ‘hot hi ^a| P.‘°Perty and th'"®''‘""e - ^^-1 eoo “ss a"AVh^/ -et hp?Ao\„i-‘« tro “\\%‘ ■y Informed Mr » l^ernhain Road. °P‘"lon is issue wi-hh 4-u’ *®ao that ar>,, his subdivisio„.®=e and his property are arten asked wh ^ °hat rfi^r‘lon%%r:p^t""^"^ -“-lesion th-‘-lly beneffc7a1hlllty {f^%^-Pht ’ replied, -I th- le ° Property to do this. you're awfuijv ;r,f..‘°t that ^“P leestionod it Mr , ^ -Pll/oir ttangl^e" his h«%^7t"f|Tr%?/, -/er the 5 acre eell the gu • . replied that rK ^s^ord's ‘ holding site!"h '°‘ line rearrangement „ y Jnent would open MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING FILE «1470-PARTEN CONTINUEDBrown asked what the pluses and minuses are of easement versus outlet.Gaffron replied that for a subdivision, the code requires that when you are serving 3 or more lots, there must be an outlet, not an easement. Gaffron said that the question here is whether we are serving 2 lots or more than 2. Gaffron said at some point it will be likely that there will be 3 or more. Gaffron questioned whether this is classified as a subdivision, or a lot line rearrangement? He said that because it is a plat, it fits the definition of a subdivision, but in reality, all it does is change the lot line between 2 properties.Brown said that an outlot should not be required.Gaffron said that the City would take underlying utility and road easements for an outlot. Gaffron said that another question to consider is whether the out lot/easement continuing to the north should be subject to a City easement or should it stay as a private driveway without an easement, or should it be a separate outlot? Kelley suggested taking that question one step further and asked what would happen if Mr. Parten subdivides Lot 1 into 2 lots. Kelley said Mr. Parten will have to submit an application for a subdivision and the outlot question will have to be raised at that time. Kelley said if Reiersgord comes in for a build.ing permit to build a house, he will probably need a variance. Kelley said that due to the existing 60' easement, Reiersgord might get the area variance without anything else to do with the Parten property and have a sufficient access to that property. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission how they would feel about that. She said that issue of a private/public road is always raised by the Planning Commission. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that there is no difference between easements for access purposes or outlots - the areas of each are excluded from the dry buildable area. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement with the modification that Outlot A be 50' in width to the eastern property line, and Outlot A (extending north) be at a width of 20'. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wished to keep Outlot A a single outlot or split it into two. Brown asked what the advantage of having two outlots would be. Gaffron said that from a legal description standpoint, if a homeowners' association is to take cere of Outlot A, what does that mean? Kelley said that there should be two outlots and Outlot A should extend to east property line and the northern extension could remain a driveway, designated as Outlot B. Kelley further recommended approval of a 15' drainage p COHHISSION meeting GEHCm 16. 1«0f a*,\Krt?rpl’rs ana »inusen are d easeeentthe code requires that for a subdivision, . must be anr7„u “Le ”:rl tnirthe .g.eBtion here isot an - 2 lota or more than 2. ^ . tj- 3 or more.,t°it 1 this is“cla\''sVnea »» » I^pJa?',Tine'«frrV9*"ff,„SaVpe'thT'ToTune between 2 properties.,0 3sia that an outlet shouia not be Eron saia that the “Tfrtn“aid“thTt ements for out lot/easement |tay as a oTlVbe ^uTgt%'^a Ci.-Tr^h^ driveway without an j qi-pd further and .ley suggested taking that^question^^^^^^^ \ication hat «o"l%^^„PP®Pa^ter will have to .s^^"'j^^|"to^be raised (elley said ”f* Q^tlot question will have t j^^jiidlng abdivision and the_^ ^eiersqoxA comes in^f ^ ^^riance. time. Kelley . will probably PeiersQord to buiia a hou^uTe^isting 60' easement. ?*'-Yth the property and h would feel .husth ashed the P,Tt"^'s^^.^of rrivate/public roa-l^^ TaTUd\%^ JV-TsiJI frnfd^'fTetenrblfen easements TesTru^Po'sTs oTU*'foTs" the areas of eaoh are ne dry buildable area. regarding nere were no *“»Jr,eTrTng’'w»s "os^d. «tter and the publio hearing „commend :t was moved >>y jJf.TaJranTern/'it^ t*h Se S' i£f«*kt°aSdtTTfTo'^"«£f\a^^ r^^sion wished^to^ lit it into two. “ , said that from a lega rpViTTTf TeTlTy “sTid \-t'there should^be :o\?itfrnd^StTot h Should ^ 'TB^'SelTey SttheT recommended approval of • '"6 ■^♦.-*1MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED e<-3ement through the middle of the lot.Brown asked if the 10.6 acres included the 60' easement? Gaffron presumed that the 10.6 acre figure was exclusive of the 40* and 20' road outlots and the 15' drainage easement. Gaffron said that there is still adequate area for building since this is approximately 10 acres in a 5-acre zone. Brovn said that he is trying to preserve the possibility of having two 5 acre lots.Hanson commented that he was uncomfortable with a 15' easement for the drainageway and prefer to see 30*. He asked if 30' would have an impact on buildable area.Mr. Parten said that he would prefer to proceed with this as simply as possible. He would basically like a lot line rearrangement and access by an easement. He said that the plan shows a lot more than what is actually required. Parten also said that he heard the Planning Commission make the decision that the Feiersgord lot is buildable and it is being counted as a third lot. Parten said that all that should be taken into consideration are two buildable lots served by a road. Brown asked whether or not the buildability of the Reiersgord property is known. Mabusth replied that it has not been determined whether or not the Reiersgord property is buildable. Parten said that the less the Planning Commission does at this point, the better. He said they should just look at this at face value and forget about the outlot and buildability of Reiersgord property. Kelley said that if an error in planning is made, he would prefer to error on the side that provides for an outlot and easements to two properties. Kelley said that the probability is that Mr. Parten will trade land with the property to the east, and there will be third lot. Gaffron asked Kelley if he wished to include any of staff's recommendations in his motion? Parten requested that the Planning Commission consider removing the Outlot and just leave him the ability to serve Lot 2 with an easement. Kelley read the conditions of approval, 1-7, set forth in Gaffron's memo dated January 10, 1990. Kelley said that item #7 should not be included. Kelley said that he would amend his motion to include a 50* outlot from Bayside Road to the eastern property line and a 20' outlot, Outlot B, from the southern boundary of Outlot A to the northern location indicated on the map, Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion carried. tmioty 16, 1990the 60' easement? s exclusive of the easement. Gaffron Iding since this is I’.n said that he is wo 5 acre lots.rtable with a 15' e 30*. He asked ifroceed with this as like a lot line said that the plan Lred. Parten also e the decision that »eing counted as a aid be taken into a road. Ldability of the lermined whether or Commission does at ist look at this at 1 buildability of f is made, he would for an outlet and the probability is perty to the east. lude any of staff's mmission consider lity to serve Lot 2 1-7, set forth in said that item #7 le would amend his oad to the eastern from the southern n indicated on the Dtion carried. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990#1473 JACQUELYNN KELLY2056 SHAOYWOOD ROADAFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCESPUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:20 P.M.The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted.Jacquelynn Kelly was present for this application, as was Mr. James Klien and Mr. Stewart Bear, attorney for the applicants.Mabusth explained that this application involved approval of after-the-fact variances for a two-tiered deck that has been placed approximately 20' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Mabusth said the deck is 3' in front, f the 75' setback line and 9' from the side lot line ariu there is approximately 3.5% additional hardcover as compared to the deck area of the original deck.Mr. Bear said that only a 2'-3' portion of the deck encroaches the 75' setback line, which is 0.0007% of the hardcover in that zone. Kelley asked Mr. Bear if he was disagreeing with staff's calculations which indicated that hardcover in that area is 16 s. f. Mr. Bear acknowledged the fact that his clients did work without obtaining the necessary permits. He said that some changes did take place from what had existed, but that was primarily due to safety reasons. Mr. Bear said that the existing deck was in an unsafe condition and was a hazard. Mr. Bear said that the reason the applicants worked after a stop work order was issued was because they had the untreated lumber lying on the ground. They decided to put the deck up and "let the chips fall where they may", because winter was coming. Mr. Bear said that the applicants are intending to remove the rock gardens surrounding the deck to decrease the amount of hardcover on the property. Hanson referred to Mr. Bear's statement about the applicant's proceeding because winter was coming. Hanson noted that the citation was issued in September. Mr. Bear said that the work on the deck is not totally complete, the railings have not been installed. Kelley asked the applicants what their hardship to warrant the variance for the deck is? Mr. Klien explained that his original idea was to repair the deck and make some changes in the design of it. He said that once he began the project, he realized the condition of the deck and tore it down. Mr. Klien indicated that he had never lived on the lake before this and was unaware of the City's :a-. ■A/. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUAEY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 31473-KELLY CONTINUED regulations . Mr. Bear said that the house has four 8' sliding glass doors in that location and he could not have them opening onto nothing. Mr. Bear added that the applicants have talked with the neighboring property owners and they approve of the deck. Mr. Klien indicated that the site lines were cut down because the old deck had more of a "boxy" appearance and did not tier down the hill. Mr. Klien said that the railing on the old deck was thick wood. Kelley observed that the new deck does not have railings, which he added are needed, and it is difficult to tell what the site lines will be once they are installed. Mr. Klien informed the Planning Commission that he is proposing tubular railings rather than wood railings. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Kelley said, "We have been pretty consistent on decks, hardcover and hardships in Orono. From my point of view, you can replace what was there and stay within the ordinance. The increase in the 0-75' setback zone, even if it's minimal. objectionable in my opinion, as I have been a strong supporter of maintaining the lakeshore protective area. In regard to the 75- 250' zone, if you can delete other parts of the hardcover on the property within tnat zone to bring hardcover back to 57.2%, T don't have any problem with that. As to the average lakeshore setback, I think we have to stay within what we were before. We have, however, in the past dealt with grade level decks a little differently. However, this does not classify as a grade level deck." Kelley advised the applicants that the deck would have to be brought back to the site lines that existed with the previous deck. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to recommend denial of the average lakeshore setback variance of 19' to 20', the variances to increase hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas, as well as the sideyard setback variance. Kelley said that he would approve what pre-existed. Hanson asked what could be done in the interim period to make the existing situation safe. Cohen said that the deck should be removed. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1475 JOHN MCDOWELL 4045, 4105 & 4135 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. Mr. McDowell vas present for this public hearing, as was Mr, Thomas Owens, the Attorney for Robert White. 12 I 'i (: 1 » ; , I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINUED Gaffron provided a brief summary of this two part application involving a lot line rearrangement between the existing Hayssen and McDowell parcel and a subdivision. Gaffron explained the dilema involving access for the McDowell subdivision and said that a tentative agreement has been reached by the parties involved. Kelley said that the existing access is best to serve the properties and the proposed outlot to Bayside Road is absurd. Kelley compared this with the Wear Subdivision. Gaffron noted that this varied from Wear's subdivision in that there was a dedicated outlot going all the way to the Will property and the City had underlying road and utility easements. In this case, there is no outlot or existing easements. Gaffron said that the City would have to condemn land and look at the aspect of taking over a public road which would probably be very precedent setting. Kelley said that this is very unique and he has never run across anything like this. He said that it is absurd to give access to Bayside through the easement from Mr. White. Access to the McDowell property should come from the existing road. Cohen concurred with Kelley. Mabusth asked Mr. McDowell to identify the reason for the access being proposed. "win, win"McDowell said that the proposal would offer a w*.. situation for everyone. He explained that should the Council deny his application, he will go back to the Title Insurance Company and request access and the matter will go to Court. If Mr. White prevails and it is determined that Mr. McDowell cannot use the existing access, then the County will have to grant him access off of Bayside. Kelley said another option would be that the City steps in and takes over the road. Mr. McDowell said that the access being proposed onto Bayside is safer than the existing access onto Bayside. Gaffron confirmed that. Brown asked what the distance between the existing and proposed Bayside accesses will be. Mr. McDowell replied that is approximately 500'. McDowell added that he preferred this configuration, which will eliminate placing a cul-de-sac out in the middle of the field. Mr. McDowell asked the Planning Commission to vote on the lot line rearrangement portion of the application. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINUED There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend ^Ppi^oval of the Hayssen/McDowel 1 lot line rearrangement as proposed. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. It was moved by Kelley to deny access onto Bayside Road for the proposed 2-lot subdivision. Mr. Owens, expanded on the reason for the access proposal. He informed the Planning Commission that a motion to deny could have disastrous results for everybody involved, including the City. Mr. Owens said that he had talked with the County regarding this matter. He said that if Tract A is split into 2 lots and if Mr. VJhite prevails in litigation as to accessing those lots, then the Title Company will have to spend a lot of money to satisfy Mr. McDowell. Mr. Owens said that this access problem is due to an error made by the Title Company years ago. Mr. Owens said that the obvious access that Mr. McDowell will be entitled to is where his Tract A abuts Bayside Road. He said there is approximately 190' of property abutting Bayside. Mr. Owens indicated that Mr. White was not thrilled with the current proposal, but felt it was a compromise that would avoid the need to litigate the matter. Hanson said that he had reached the same conclusion that Kelley had. However, after listening to Mr. Owens, he was not sure. He asked Mr. McDowell what exactly he wanted. Mr. McDowell said that basically he wanted what currently exists. He said that everyone using the existing road loves the way things are now. McDowell said that the only problem is that he doesn't have access to his property. He said that what he wants is access to his property without the need to put in a cul- de-sac and destroy what now exists for the other residents. Cohen questioned why Mr. White would not give McDowell access to his property, since the road is already being used by Alt and Hayssen? Mr. Owens replied that Mr. White does not want the traffic that the two additional lots will create on his property. Mr. Owens also said that everyone involved agrees that they do not want the road upgraded, which would have to occur if the McDowell lots are added. Mr. Owens said that the road is enclosed on both sides by mature trees which would have to be removed. Mr. Owens added that he did not think approval of this proposal would set any precedent and furthermore, the County has approved the access being proposed onto Bayside. Brown indicated that he is compelled by a couple of things. One concern is that the City does not have an easement under the existing driveway so the City cannot do what it did in the Wear < rl » ; . , I.-,. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 31475-MCDOWELL CONTINUED subdivision. The other concern is that Mr. White might prevail in the lawsuit and the City would have an unsatisfactory access onto Bayside Road rather than the one the County approved. Kelley withdrew his motion. It :njs moved by Brown, seconded by Hanson, to recommend approval of Option A for access to Tract A across the White property, including staff recommendations 1 through 6 of Gaffron's memo dated 1/11/90. Mr. Owens asked that- the Outlot running north and south be labeled Outlot "B”, ler than Bayside Ridge Road. Brown incorporated that into . motion. Kelley asked whether Outlot A is still required? Gaftrcn said that with the proposed easement, there is direct access through the easement to Bayside. If you have Outlot A, then Lot 2 would have possible future access to Bayside via the existing White driveway. Brown agreed that they should keep Outlot A. Hanson seconded the amendments. Kelley asked whether the Outlets would have any impact on the dry buildable area of the newly created lots? Gaffron replied that the dry buildable will be sufficient. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Cohen, Nays. #1479 DOUG WILLIAMS 6 LECY CONSTRUCTION INC. 1020 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. Mr. Jurgen Stielow was present for this matter. Gaffron provided the Planning Commission with the information regarding the revised plan proposed by Mr. Williams. Mrs. Marge Gasch, 1030 Tonkawa Road, wanted to be sure that grading would occur to alleviate the runoff coming from this property onto her property. Mrs. Gasch said that all of the water coming from this property runs through her pumphouse. Kelley questioned whether it would be necessary to approve grading in the 0-75' setback zone? Gaffron said it is not clear whether that may be necessary, he has asked the applicants to supply additional grading plans for the City Engineer's review. Gaffron said after talking to Mrs. Gasch, he is questioning whether it may not be better to bring the drainage to the center of the property and allow it to disperse from there. Kelley noted that grading will have to occur once the existing house is removed. There were no comments from the public regarding this ir<;tter and the public hearing was closed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE il479-WILLIAMS/LECY CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED It was moved by Brown, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot width variance conditioned on a drainage plan being submitted which shows drainage being brought to the center of the lot. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. YER#1467 CHARLES & ANN HOI 4125 OAK STREET APTER-THE-PACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:56 P.M. TO 9:10 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Hommeyer were present for this review. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth explained that this application pertained to an after-the-fact variance for retaining walls and a deck located within 75' of the lake. Mabusth said that the applicants are also requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 6' privacy fence. Mr. Hommeyer referred to Mabusth's memo of 1/11/90 and clarified that he was the property owner that built the retaining walls. Kelley asked Mr. Hommeyer to respond to staff's statement pertaining to his lack of a hardship for the after-the-fact phase of the application. Mr. Hommeyer said that the retaining walls were put in because in 1980/81, the hill slid. Mr. Hommeyer said that he was unaware of the City's lakeshore regulations and took it upon himself to address the problem. He said that he constructed the retaining walls and they have stabilized the land and need to be there. Kelley asked Mr. Hommeyer to state a hardship for the size of the deck. Mr. Hommeyer said that the footings there tie-in with everything. He said that the size of the deck is not important, and, in fact he would have no objections to the stairs existing without it. Hanson said that he observed that removing the deck may make the situation of the sliding hill even worse because of the foundation structure for the deck. Kelley asked Mr. Hommeyer to state his hardship for the proposed 6' fence. Mr. Hommeyer said that the new residence to the north is considerably higher than his property. He said that the deck that has been built to load and unload the tram extends beyond the average lakeshore setback. Mr. Hommeyer said that 12* of the I MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUAHY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE fl467-HOMMEYER CONTINUED fence would give them privacy from that loading platform. He said that the remaining portion of fence will give them privacy from the persons riding up on the tram. Kelley asked whether plantings could be used to serve the same purpose. Mr. Hommeyer replied that he did not think there was enough sunlight in that area to grow vegetation. He said if the property to the north put in plantings there would be enough sunlight. Kelley asked whether the neighbor to the north (Mr. Morse) was present this evening. Mabusth informed Kelley that he was not. Mrs. Byrne Peter indicated that she had been the neighbor to the north at the time that the Hommeyer's home was built. She said there was a lot of emotion and anger involved when that home was built. She presented pictures showing the building site and indicated that it was due to "miscommunications" that the cut in the land and the deck were allowed. Mrs. Hommeyer said that she and her husband and the City had been sued over that matter 9 years ago and the lawsuit was withdrawn. She said that the cut that was made at that time is not an issue now. Mrs. Hommeyer said that the deck hat; withstood a 100 year storm and was constructed in such a way to be as unobtrusive as possible. Mrs. Hommeyer added that the neighbor to the south, who is the most affected by the deck, has been in support of their efforts. Mabusth clarified that the cuts being referred to were the major cuts taken in certain setback areas. She said at the time they were done, there were no rules or regulations giving the building inspector any guidelines as to what was unusual grading. Since that time, the codes have been amended to provide direction regarding allowed excavation with building permits for residential construction. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the application for an after~the“fact variance for the deck and retaining walls, the hardship being the undo damage that would be caused if they are removed, and to recommend approval of the current request for a setback variance for the fence. Motion, Ayes“3, Kelley, Cohen, Nay, Motion passed. Cohen indicated that he voted nay because he felt that the size of the deck should have been reduced and he questioned the privacy issue. Kelley concurred. 17 ® kl*»hihg commission meeting JENOAEY 16, 1„„ 467-HOMMBYER continuedIS riding up on the tram. Privacy•cea Whether pla„tl„,e coula he used to serve thehat area to^^grow^ vegetatio^^"^ there was enough e north put in plantings there wo^I^^^e iLu^Sh"to the north (Mr. Morse) 'ormed Kelley that he was not,e^me'^Jhat^ tht Homme^lr'fhor” "®ighbor to lot of emotion and anqer ®^e presented pictures shLino ^hi'"k • t was due to "miscommunicltions'^^^h deck were allowed. that the cut in th;?'ta\\\\""9%\”ars"aco^""T """ hadsaid that the cu^t that was m^a^dJ^^! lawsuit was Mrs. Hommeyer said that t-ho that time is ^ and was constructed withstood 2ssible. Mrs. Hommeyer addla^IlK® he as e«or\s! thi if «rr\1 ” sl^tlaS'tr^ers"’ t»e here were no rules or ;eau^L?"‘^ time •any guidelines as to wha? wac^ giving the ■he codes have been amended to grading, 'ea^^excpvshlop wish b^l : PuM\^"hs7rTn;"5=3^^°:s‘i'* reco^ena ning walls, the hardshin k • variance for ised if they are ^tmov^d damage Trent request f« a setback^- s-3, K®liey, Cohen, wlr MoM- ^he /oted nay because he fJit^thaf"^^®®®®^^' ^°hen been reduced and he ^^® bhe ■urred. ® questioned the privacy 17 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY IS, 1990#1483 HAROLD VOGT1342 REST POINT CIRCLECONDITIONAL USE PERMITPUBLIC HEARING 9:11 P.M. TO 9:25 P.M.Mr. Vogt was present for this matter.The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted.Mabusth provided a brief history and explanation of how this application was initiated.Mr. Vogt provided some pictures of the boathouse for the Planning Commission to review. Kelley asked Mr. Vogt if the beams and rafters shown in the pictures were new? old. Mr. Vogt replied that he estimated them to be 50 to 60 years Brown observed that the windows looked new. Mr. Vogt replied that the windows are not new. Hanson asked when the cantilevered deck with the treated lumber constructed? Mr. Vogt replied that the deck was existing when he purchased the property in June, 1989. He replaced the rotted timbers with treated lumber. Mr. Vogt said that he also replaced the entrance door and frome. Hanson asked when the sliding glass door on the front of the structure was installed? Mr. Vogt responded that the glass door existed when he purchased the property. Mr. Vogt noted that he did nail the lattice board around the bottom of the structure. He said that he and his wife bought this property because of this structure. He said that he had done a complete title search of the property and there was no mention of the boathouse. Mr. Vogt said that he would lose approximately 40% of his property value if the boathouse was removed. He further commented that if the boathouse were removed, that it would leave a sheer cliff that would have to be extensively landscaped. Mr. Vogt said that he had a structural engineer look at the boathouse and he determined that it is sound. Brown asked Mr. Vogt why he had not obtained a building permit prior to working on the deck of the boathouse? Mr. Vogt explained that he had only intended on replacing two of the rotten floor boards and the railing. Once he began the project, he decided to replace the entire deck. 1 R ANDARY 16, 1990cate of Mailing werelanation of how thise boathouse for therafters shown in the to be 50 to 60 years ew. t new. ck with the treated existing when he replaced the rotted hat he also replaced r on the front of the lor existed when he lat he did nail the :ture. He said that i of this structure, arch of the property Mr. Vogt said that >perty value if the lented that if the » a sheer cliff that •. Vogt said that he ise and he determined tbtained a building athouse? tended on replacing ing. Once he began deck. ZONING PILE #1483-VOGT CONTINOEDstructures'"arVton ’’ce‘ried.‘^^He stl/thVt'ThaccessoryPolnt'^trlct^rfrrlpiiV «r!^tTe^‘''bu^at Jbla structure should be torn downV"'®'^ iJaclde if suchreplac":d"r t?;j ’‘s%"ru?t-ur:r ‘ specifically identify „hat heOf the^strultuL*.'" tift‘h^ a lso\%“l"eV threat? "e‘’°drcrlnside"\"hTst%«\"uri.'" -Placed the flcor Joistsjoists."' he did not replace the Interior floorthe cantilevered ‘^decra^d%L^rrhey^look “^„?^"° =“PPCPPS for Mr. Vogt said that the floor Joists did not go back that certain po°int ordlr^o" off«" pr^o^c^ °s°pp °rt".“ a door.""' '‘'ac »a replaced a broken window and the rear and th™"p:bUc%«ri°rwa*sM"o°s'’ed"'’® regarding this matter St7u"c{i^”''\f° 'l’c"«?iona?"u\"e®Permi"t"/”"' *“ -commendMrbrs"trisk^s%h\\"^fh"e^s?is^f-^rr"^ii«nrai%Vdr^^^ applicant to apply for a bni i a ^ condition requirino bh#» deck Eelley Tls^ fugg’ested a®"- " "'’® work Tone thtthe boathouse and render a writtN»n ^.^^.'^ctural engineer look at Its condition. Brown amIndJd h!. regarding Items, Hanson seconded Mr u« * to include those ••■wo the City offices tomorrow ?o oh^°?- com^i^to that Mr. Vogt allow the City in<fn^" ^ Permit. Mabusth suggested to determine what had bei^'^dinl'^® A° the boaThouleMotion passed. Motion, Ayes-4, Cohen, Nay! #1484 ROXANNE STASIK ““ uhding PDBLIC hewing 9:30 P.M. TO 9:37 P m r. Stasik was present for this'matter The Affidavit Of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were 19 /here these accessory property owner has ructure, but at the must decide if suchy identify what herk around the bottom :ed the entire deck.the flcor joiststhe interior floorso the supports for 3 not go back that ts must extend to indow and the rear arding this matter 'on, to recommend or an accessory g already exists, ion requiring the e work done to the engineer look at he City regarding nclude those two f would come into Mabusth suggested at the boathouse s-4, Cohen, Nay of Mailing were ZONINGduly rreviewlakeshK'be pulMthe ex the ho applic contin meet t locate furthe: T1 and thi viable C Commis: M her tc incons same n [• f •m A « M approve because before hardsh *1487 I 2180 N< condit : PUBLIC Ml Th duly ni Condit propert ^ CC.-XSSXO,.. stusxK cowixjnn® _eviousiyth Vproy®^** *'“'■**” *'°“**fetMcK variance «,tieshcre serbacKX %X^° .tlsHirbeen ^ f ?. «"ied. he ;»” l^ail^ aa^^„ei9hho»nt r,/setbec1. r"o^it *”,^«i,crbe«"he^the^^^^,, ,aKe * a way it regarding ttvis matter e no cce.en« X«» the pn U a -Jlfc%Vin.;e ;; better tne str-h rarlnTtaV cXofea. ,„„cture U » ic hearing ,««tions vhether eaia rthXa r-h- ,te PXannin, cture at j^ot said that ques ^^ed ^PP'rtou\V'°ae«| a met Ki”- «hih"®J said that ^ is th asilt noted^ pioperW-^^riance redd I onto ali°^ recommend ”h he ^ bv MOOS. h°/;arian«e Motionr ay .»i*.'* ';;i. ••»"• ndavit of ynhlroa .cplioation iej,it MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1487-SCHNEIDER CONTINUEDtne Planning Commission Meeting back in March, there was considerable public outcry. He said that he decided to keep the structure available to the public.Kelley said that Mr. Schneider entered into a Developers Agreement as a result of the approval for single family use. The Developers Agreement sets forth several things that were to be done to the property.Mabusth clarified that it was the responsibility of the Art Center to perform those changes and provide appropriate security to assure those changes are made.Kelley asked if those chanf_es had been done?Mabusth replied that they have not.Kelley said that it seemed that the Planning Commission was being manipulated. Mr. Schneider replied that it was not his intention to manipulate anyone. He said that when time came to close on the property, it was discovered that the Art Center did not have a saleable piece of property. It was at that time that the Art Center submitted an application for a lot line rearrangement. Schneider said that it was his understanding that once the property changed ownership, the conditional use granted to that property was no longer in effect. Mr. Schneider said, "If I had my druthers, quite honestly, I'd like to see that as a two unit structure." Kelley asked Mr. Schneider if that was his intent for buying the property? Mr. Schneider replied that was his intent and that was why he came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schneider said that he does own the building. He said that there was no intention to get out of doing the improvements required in the Developers Agreement. Mr. Schneider said that he has been cooperative in every step of the various applications involving this property. Mabusth said that the Art Center should have a representative present, as they are the entity asking for the conditional use. Mr. Hanson indicated that he was thoroughly confused. Mabusth and Schneider briefly explained the various applications that had been submitted and reviewed for this property to date. Mabusth added that the City still had the $5,000.00 letter of credit received from the Art Center. She asked Mr. Schneider about the length of his lease with the Art Center. Mr. Schneider said that he had a two year lease with the Art iitr ■ "‘v • * •• .-'•rM:;mm V'-'' ■ v'J.'.,. ' . .V- MMm Ki .,' xr'..%Jr: ::*:m HIHOTBS OP THE PLAMMIHG COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 11487-SCHNEIDER CONTINUED Center. Kelley asked if the letter of credit would continue? Mabusth replied that the City has the ability to request an extension of the letter of credit. Kelley asked whether the City would do that? Mabusth responded that the Art Center feels that the Developers Agreement will no longer be in effect and they wish the City to return the letter of credit. Mr. Schneider said that Mabusth is suggesting that he provide a letter of credit continuining the spirit of the agreement entered into with the Art Center. Mr. Schneider said that he in turn would enter into a personal agreement with the Art Center, but he would provide the guarantee to the City that the improvements would be done. Schneider indicated that he would have no problem in meeting the requirements asked for in the Developers Agreement. Kelley asked Mabusth to identify the specific conditions of the subdivision approval. Mabusth said that all of the gravel parking area to the rear would be removed and a new parking area would be installed in the northern portion of the Art Center property. Mabusth said that a privacy fence was to be installed and some landscaping was to be done. Hanson asked about the tennis court. Mabusth replied that the tennis court is to remain in the domain of the Art Center. Brown asked about the sewer hookup. Mabusth said that the sale of the Hill School was to pay for the sewer assessments that the City had assessed. Mabusth said all that is remaining is for the structure to be connected to sewer. Mabusth said the only issues left to be resolved are th'^ existing Developers Agreement, the letter of credit and n. kx; sure that if the Art Center ceases to exist, the required improvements are made. Mabusth said that Mr. Schneider has offered a solution in that he has agreed to provide a letter of credit and would execute the Developers Agreement. Kelley suggested that once the conditional use permit expires it would trigger the requirements of the Developers Agreement. Kelley also suggested that the length of the conditional use permit coincide with the length of Mr. Schneider's lease. ¥ ■! f MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 11487-SCHNEIDER CONTIN1 Mabusth said conditional use permits usually are not written in that manner, but could be. Schneider said that he would prefer to have the conditional permit run as long as the Art Center leases the property. Mabusth suggested reviewing the property every two years. Cohen suggested tabling this matter until the next meeting to provide the opportunity to ascertain any limitations or options the City may have. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson, to table this matter until the February 20, 1990 meeting. It was the general concensus of the Planning Commission that provided the structure was hooked up to sewer, and there is a guarantee of the improvements being made should the Art Center cease to exist they would recommend approval. Schneider said that after speaking to an excavator, he was informed that a sewer hookup would not be possible until later. Hanson suggested June 15, 1990. Mabusth asked that a representative of the Art Center be present at the next meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1485 K-P PROPERTIES, INC. 340/350 NORTH ARM LANE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mabusth explained that this is a proposed lot line rearrangement of Lots 1 and 2 of the North Arms Estate, 2nd Addition. Mabusth said that lot width variances were approved with the subdivision of this property and the developers are now asking the Planning Commission to approve an additional lot width variance of 70*. Mabusth said that the purpose of this subdivision is to provide additional septic area for Lot 1. Mabusth said that if the City asks for 17' of right-of-way from this property that the right-of-way would encroach into the drainfield area. Brown and Hanson indicated that there seemed to be sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the lot width variance. Kelley said that he had some reservation. Mr. Don Peterson, one of the developers, clarified that he had no agreement with Mr. Olson, owner of 4590 North Arm Drive, at this time. He said that Mr. Olson is not interested in subdividing and therefore is unwilling to grant 17* of his property for the City right-of-way. Mr. Peterson said t^at* the two lots involved with this lot line rearrangement a.*« very desireable, 4 to 5 acre lots which were created by a subd-Vision. Mr. Peterson said that he owns Lot 2 and has a purchase agreement for Lot 1 contingent on approval of the lot line rearrangement. Mr. Peterson said if the City takes the additional 17' of right- « —er. “iJ-- use pe.„Us u.„3ZI,Schneider said >"^ltten« long as "e flV°r P«f« to ha-ggested revleeinj"!wl3s="SS/ste<i tabling this ' ®''®'^5’ ‘«c years.* the Cltt mf^°5‘“"lty until the»......l •■ '■ •■' “■“■•■..r.v‘3was moved bv r u ®this•ents beinq thert^^-^ Provided ^ RBVlBff n>ent ^f^Lof”®*^ that this i ^iannino P^opertv =1.J®^^^"ces wer« . ®' of 70' ^ ^"“"■tssion to anr^ <^evelona>.^ approved •n is to ”®^usth said^^lu^® addition^?^® now « thaj i/"^^ a-Sdltlo^r ‘*’® Purpoti ^o°?rtv City septic °f this •n is to ”®^usth said *u^® addition^?^® ®^® nov id t*.at°l/"th:'^l%«dlt1o«?‘s'p"t*i '’“'^P^e ot “th'"^'’ that the rlgh^fl^f^iPt 17’ Of ?lgJt!ol°; i- ,«"ino‘--a-d that alley said that”h"h\”d‘so ‘’'’''°''a'i o ’f*t^®r‘’ to be 'a Jd "the%%^^iaf;«t.°“o ”l7o„“" iV i{“p"‘“hr^ said that h^°^® ’'^hich wer<i ^®®^^angement a ^^® tingent 1^® °*""® Lot 2 ®5®®f®<J by a J '® ^'®fy said if fu approval of Vl^ ® Purchaso the City take°s\li\^ot e ^‘^^^itional i7.^«®i ’9ement.of right- MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1485-R~P PROPERTIES CONTINUEDof—way, it will render Lot 1 uselessa Mr# Peterson noted that the property on the east side. North Arm Estates, and the Armstrongs, have already dedicated 33' of right-of-way. He felt that any additional right-of-way should be taken from the westside.Brown asked why the septic sites could not be moved 17' to the east?Gaffron replied that there are steep slopes in that location.Mr. Peterson said that he has had an on-site septic evaluator examine every possibility and in their opinion, if the sites are moved at all, there will be a problem. Kelley said that if the City requires the 17', nothing can be done with lot 1. Mabusth told Kelley that nothing more than a two bedroom home could be constructed on that lot. Mabusth said however, that Mr. Peterson's comment regarding 33' of right-of-way taken from the parcels on the east side of North Arm Lane was a fact that she had not known. Mr. Peterson said that he searched the chain of title on this property and the 33' was never owned by the owner of 4590 North Arm Drive. He said that he went approximately six deeds back and there is no indication that the 33' was ever owned by the people on the west side, it was taken out of the property on the east s: 3e. He said that if the City was to take another 17 of right-oi-way from the east side, that all of the right-of-way would come rom one side. Mr. Olson said that the reason the right-of-way was not taken from his property is because he does not use the road. He said that his access is off of North Arm Drive. He said that there is no reason for his land to be used for that road. Mabusth explained to Mr. Olson that if he ever does subdivide his property, the City will ask for a dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Olson said that he will deal with that when he decides to subdivide. Mabusth advised Mr. Olson that even though he does not use North Arm Lane, the City would still ask for 17' of right-of-way because the new lot created from his property would be served by North Arm Lane. Cohen asked if there was anything that could be done if the City decides to take the 17' with this subdivision? i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1485-K-P PROPERTIES CONTINUED Mabusth said that what Mr. Peterson has conveyed this evening, makes a great deal of difference. She said at the time the 33' was taken from the east properties, 66' was the desired right-of-way. She said that it is obvious that the 17', no longer 33', should come from the future subdivision on the west side of the road. Cohen asked what the result will be if the City stops maintaining the road? Mr. Petersen replied that it wou' ’ be up to the property owners to maintain the road. Cohen said if the property owners ; would be a private road. Cohen asked still need to take the 17' right-of-way? ixn the road, then it .ether the City would Mabusth said that she would have to go back and look at the plats to see if the 33' was dedicated as a public road right-of- way. She said if the City maintained that road, she is uncertain whether it can vacate its public interest. Mr. Peterson said that the 33' is still shown to b* the Armstrong's title and was never dedicated. .rt of Mabusth said that no matter how you look at it, the 17* wil 1 be required whether it is in the form of a dedicated public roadway or whether it is an outlot for a private road. Kelley summarized that if the City does not take the 17' it sounds as though the Planning Commission would recommend approval of the lot width variance for the property on the north side. Mabusth asked whether the issue of 50' outlot as noted in other recent subdivisions would not enter into this matter? She said that no matter how you look at it, the 17' will be required whether it is in the form of a dedicated private roadway or whether it is an outlot for a private road. APPROVAL OP NOVEMBER 20, 1989 MEETING It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to approve the Minutes of the November 20, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commissioner, Edward Cohen, would represent the Planning Commission at the February 12, 1990 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The January 17, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. January 25, 1989 Metropolitan Waste Control CommissionMcars Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street. St. ftul. Minnesota 55101To Elected Municipal Government Representatives:The Metropolitan Waste Control (MWCC) is seeking applicants for the General Advisory Committee to the Commission which was authorized by the MWCC in December 1989. We are seeking eight members who are elected municipal government representatives, one member from each MWCC precinct. We are contacting your city/township to inform you of the formation of this advisory committee. If you or someone from your elected body wish to apply please submit the enclosed application. An informational sheet explaining the duties of the advisory committee, and a map indicating MWCC Precincts are enclosed. Applications are to be submitted by March 15, 1990 to: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (6th Floor) Attn: Lurline Baker-Kent, Chair 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 If you need more information regarding this advisorv committee, call Pauline Langsdorf (229'-2102). Equal OppOMunify/Affirmativo Action Employer S, 0 25, 1989l.ct.d Municipal Gcv.rnn.nt R.pr.s.ntatlv..: -flfHr'S'iS tnt .WUcants tertownshiD to ir.fi precinct. we P^®®®”^atives, one ttee Tf you of the foi-ma*.*^* contacting your i submit the'^enclQ^"'^^”® from your elect^^ bod advisoryAC tne enclosed application. wish to appij ZlnlZl tTb b. aub„itt.d by March 15, x„o to: '• Paul, MN 55101 uU*n. Un;sdSr?'7||‘!Ji«9«din9 this advisory committ.., Equal Oppor,un.ty/A(f.rma,.ve Act,00 Empioyer Metropolitan Waste Control CommissionMears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street. St. Piul, Mmnesou 55101METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHAT IT IS: HOW TO APPLY 6i: 222-S423WHAT IS THE GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE?This is a new c .nmittee designed to serve a function somewhat simflar to the former Sewer Service Advisory Boards that existed metro-wide before legislation in 1987 did away with the six service areas to establish one sewer service area The job of this advisory committee Is to focus on the sewer service needs of the communities of the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area and to advise the Metropolitan Waste Controi Commission (MWCC) on issues related to these needs. This new advisory committee will be formed in the spring of 1990 and will consist of 25 members and a Chair appointed by the Chair of the MWCC. Citizens serving on this committee should have a strong interest In the effective and efficient collection and treatment of the metropolitan area ’s wastewater. ITS PURPOSE The purpose of this advisory committee Is to develop recommendations to the MWCC related to metropolitan area wastewater service and treatment with a focus on planning and managing for the future. The MWCC Commission will refer topics to be studied by the advisory group. These might include MWCC’s budget, toxics control, odors, residual solids management, water quality issues, communication and public education efforts. HOW THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FITS IN The MWCC is charged with collecting and treating the wastewater of the Twin Cities area, to preserve and protect the environment. The MWCC serves 105 communities in the seven counties and treats more than 275 million gallons of sewage per day. The MWCC owns and operates 11 wastewater treatment plants and provides a series of interceptor sewer pipes to link the communities to the MWCC wastewater treatment ^ants. The agency is governed by a board of Commissioners that sets the agency s policy and represents geographic precincts throughout the seven-county metro area. The MWCC obtains a majority of its funding through user service charges. The Metropolitan Councif. the chief planning and coordinating agency for the Metropolitan Area, determines which portions of the seven county metroi^ltan ares are to have sewer service. The MWCC provides the sewer service to the areas designated by the Metropolitan Council. HOW MEMBERS TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ARE SELECTED Advisory committee members are appointed by the MWCC Chair. The MWCC will ask for recommendations for committee members from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM). the Metropolitan Area Managers Association (MAMA), individual cities and townships, local Chambers of Commerce, and various environmental organizations. The MWCC Chair will serve as General Advisory Committee Chair or will appoint a MWCC Commissioner to Chair the committee. The Committee will consist of one elected official and one appointed oHicial from each MWCC precinct. There will be lour members representing environmental groups, and four members representing Indusity. One at-large senior citizen member will represent economically disadvantaged senior citizens. Members serve staggered three-year terms. (Initially members will be appointed to one. two. or three year terms to establish the rotation process.) Equal Opportuoity/Affirmalive Action Employe* 1 Metropolitan Waste Control CommissionWears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street. St. Paul. Minnesoa 55101METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTPpL COMMISSION nPMERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHAT IT IS: HOW TO APPLY 612 222-8423■ IS THE GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE?ssion (MWCC) on Issues related to these needs./mis newr\i 1QQO and will consist of 25 members and a Chair appointed by the Chair of the mWCC. u i ze Ion this committee should have a strong Interest in the e«ecth/e and efficient collection and treatmen metropolitan area’s wastewater. URPOSE THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FITS IN WCC is charged with collecting and treating the wastewater of the Twin Cities t the environment. The MWCC serves 105 communities in the seven counties and trwts iiiinn naiinns of sewaoe oer day. The MWCC owns and operates 11 wastewater treatment plants and es a series of interceptor sewer pipes to link the communities to the MWCC wastewater treatment oencv is qovemed by a board of Commissioners that sets the agency’s policy a"‘^/®P;®®®p*® aphic^prec?ncts throughout the seven-county metro area. The MWCC obtains a ma)onty of its funding |h user service charges. letropoWan Council, the chief planning and coordinating agency for portions of the seven county metropolitan area are to have ^er service. The MWCC provides the service to the areas designated by the Metropolitan Council. 1 MEMBERS TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ARE SELECTED ory committee members are appointed by the MWCC Chair. The MWCC wHI ask for immittee members from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM)^ the Metropolitan Area gers Association (MAMA), individual cities and townships, local Chambers of gf'cha^^ Omental oroanizations The MWCC Chair will serve as General Advisory Committee Cha^ ' ntTMWCC?or^miSner to Chair the committee. The Committee will consist of one elected official one appSt^ official from each MWCC precinct. There will be four mernbere '®P'®®®"*JJ9 JnmentS groups, and four members representing Industry. One senw sent economically disadvantaged senior citizens, “embers wrve stagger^ s. ( y bers will be appointed to one. two. or three year terms to establish the rotation process.) Equal Opponunily/Alfirmative Action Employef WHAT DO BOARD MEMBERS DO?Members attend meetings every month, the date or which is to be determined once the members have been appointed. Members are expected to read materials distributed prior to meetings. Members may also serve on a task force to study a public policy issue. In addition, members will listen to and consider comments from area citizens and interest groups on issues before the MWCC Board of Commissioners.COMPENSATION?General Advisory Committee members serve without compensation but are reimbursed for reasonable expenses as determined by section 15.059 of state law.INTERESTED?If you wish to be considered for appointment to this new advisory committee, please contact Pauline Langsdort. Acting Director of Public and Community Relations, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Mears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. MN 55101, or call 229-2921 for an application form. Applications must be received in our offices at Mears Park Centre by March 15. 1990. in order to be considered. 1 Due i MctnwoUtan Waste Control Comihrion Mcars Park Centra, 23k E. Fifth SL SL Paul, MN 55101 012 2224423 I NAME:first mirfrfla ADDRESS: gacec number 11 MI r cipality or township code MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address): street number PHONE: Home___ city state zip code Business METROPOLfTAN WASTE CONTOL COMMISSION PRECINCT (see enclosed map)------- CATEGORY OP MEMBERSHIP: NAME OP GROUP REPRESENTED: Elected Municipal Official olSuffMunic Enviroamental Group Representative Industsy Representative At'Lsree Senior Citizen EMPLOYMENT! Please be spfrifk* in providing beginning and ending dates for employment and membership in civic and similar organization. Employing firm, agency Position__________ Address Beginning date Years with agency Other wodc experience (optional): Employing firm, agetsy______ Employing firm, agency______ Employing firm, agency______ Begioinng, ending dues Beginning, ending dates Beginning, ending dates CIVIC. PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACnVITIES; Organization Position___ Beginning, ending dates Orginizatioo PtMBtioo___ Jig, ending dates Organizaliun Position___ ig. ending dates / urew^ > OTHER INFORMATION (Please give beginning, ending dates, if applicable.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The following infonnation is optional and is sought solely for the purpose of broadening citizen participation in the Metropolitan Waste Control Comnussion's decision-malung process. Sex Female Male Racc/National Origin Amencan Indian/Alaska Native Asian or Pacific Islander Black Hispaiuc Caucasian __ Other (specify) Check if the following applies to you; __60 year of age or older REFERENCES (optional): A. full name relationship B. mailing address full name phone number relationship mailing address phone number If you have any quesnons. call the Comimssion at 229-2102, Return to: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. MN 55'UI Attention: Pauline Langsdotf Metropolitan Waste Control Commission i •V LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 L.H.C.D. MEBTIIIG SCHEDULE February 1990 Wednesday 7 Advisory Comnittee, Management Plan 7:00 p.m.. Tonka Bay City Hall Saturday 10 Water Structures & Environment Committee 7:30 a.m.» LMCD office, Wayzata depot Thursday Friday 15 Annual Dinner 6:15/7:30 p.m., Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Spring Park 16 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 a.m., Freshwater Foundation, Navarre Monday Presidents* Dav Holiday - office closed Monday 26 Lake Use Committee 4:30 p.m., LMCD office, Wayzata depot Wednesday Public hearings: Bean’s Greenwood Marina, Inc. New Dock License, Dcwo4rty’ and Variance applications Excelsior Bay Yacht Club New Dock License. Density and Variance applications 7:00 p.m.. Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors* regular meeting 7:30 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall 2-2-90 lake MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT473-7033L*M«C*D*February 19907 Adviaory CcM«iltt€a» Managamant Plan 7.00 p.i.. Tonka Bay City Hall10 Watar Stnicturea A Envlron»ent Co«ittaa 7.30 a.«., LMCD office, Wayiata depot IS Annual Dinner“w/;.30 Lord FUtcher. of the Lake. Sprln, Park 16 Euraalan Water Milfoil Taak Force 8.30 a>n. • Freahwater Foundation, Mavarra 19 Prealdenta* Day Holiday - office cloaad 26 Lake Use Committee 4j30 p.m., LMCD office, Waytata depot ^ Bean’s Greenwood Marina, Inc. New Dock Llcenaa p,netty and Variance applications Excelsior Bay Yacht Club New Dock Llcenat., Density and Variance applications 7.00 p.«., Tonka Bay City Hall tMCD Board of Directors’ regular meeting 7.30 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall * V LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES 6 ENVIRONtffiNT COMMITTEEAGENDA7:30 a.ra., Saturday, February 10, 1990 LMCD Office, Wayzata --- - T1. City of Deephaven New Dock, Special Density License and Variance applications tabled 1-13-892. Excelsior Bay Yacht Club Special Density, New Dock License and Variance applications review for a commercial dock to allow overnight boat storageas an addition to its transient boat storage license. Increasing its boat density from 32 to 40 watercraft, and adding four slips beyond 100 , in preparation for a public hearing scheduled for 7:00 p.m. Wed., 2-28-90.3. Bean's Greenwood Marina New Dock License and Variance applications to relocate six slips from within 100’ to beyond 100’, In preparation for a public hearing scheduled for 7:00 p.m.. Wed., 2-28-90. 4. Dock llcmse renewals for 1990 approved by the cities or deadline for city approval having passed, per attached summary. 5. District Mooring Area renewals for 1990 licenses per attached summary. 6. Deicing application renewal for Reid MacDonald, Lafayette Bay, received late, recommended for approval. 7. Amenity type and value study for Special Density dock license applications, preliminary recommendations introduced by subcommittee chair JoEllen Hurr, per attached summary. 8. Proposed ordinance relating to boat storage density In wetlsnd treas, ^ndlag Sec. 1.02, 2.02, and 2.05, as originally Introduced to the Dock Committee by Attorney LeFevere with detailed wetland background, proposed amendment attached for committee discussion and direction. 9. Future priority review items for Dock Committee consideration, per the attached outline as introduced by Committee Chair Grathwol. 10. Comprehensive Management Plan guidelines for board member presentation to their respective city councils, presentation by Dave Arndorfer. 11. Additional dock/mooring business recommended by the committee. ENVIRONMENT: 1. Eurasian Water Milfoil weed control program update, Taak Force Chair Tom Reese. 2. Additional environmental business recommended by the committee. 2-5-90 •••=• *’T"UKE MINNETONKA CONSEBVATION DISTRICT WATER STRBCniRES A ERVIROHMEHI COItirtlEE 1Z2 . Tagenda ,•. Cr«iwood lOo'!^‘pSUMtlo» '« •5: !:rTr.c^x".irT i~oo—• 1. for 1990 .pptoved by th. cltl.i or do»JUiio for b« ^ „fcr Hoorfo. at.. r«....U for 1,90 Xd=«..o. P-T 1 for Reid MacDonald, Lafayette Bay, ' ottochod oo—ry. ^ ordi^nc. «th.^ c. 1.02, 2.02. and 2.05. ao or s ^ j background, propoaod a-on ;ra:s.5~us.T.‘s:cr«dVs^^^ . ; hu«lne8S tecotnoended by the coimittee.dditlonal dock/mooring bueines U . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT2/5/90 Excelsior B.iy IIiiUHiip, Comp,my dba - Excelsior Bay Yacht Club» Inc.New Dockg Special Density License & Variance ApplicationBACKGROUND:The Excelsior Bay Yacht Club, a private club located in Excelsior, occupies the site on Excelsior Bay formerly operated as a public restaurant. It has been licensed for 32 BSU's since the 1986 boating season, the same docks which were previously licensed to Stonewings, the public restaurant. These docks were originallv licensed for transient use and have been so licensed sinceThe site on the SE corner of Excglsior Bay was prepared for development in the mid-1970*s. Due to an almost 90 turn in the shoreline at the easterly edge of the property, adjacent to the present Mai Tai licensed facility, the developer divided the dock use area between the Yacht Club and Mai Tai proper-* ties. That condition is noted on the site plan and is illustrated in an aerial photo provided by the applicant. The 32 slips serving the Yacht Club membership are receiving very limited use according to the applicant. The few exceptions are major summer holidays, the 4th of July the best example, the applicant reports. Since the club is private, the general public is basically not accommodated at the transient slips. FACTORS TO CONSIDER: 1. The present site consists of: 11 slips at 5,070 sq.ft. 21 ” at 7,890 " TOTALS — 12,960 sq.ft. 2. The proposed site consists of: 15 slips at 7,280 sq.ft. 25 ” at 10,400 TOTALS — 33 WSU extending 101* to 200’ 52 ’• within 100’ NET INCREASE 17,680 sq.ft. 4,720 sq.ft. 85 WSU for 37.5 WSU extending 101’ to 200* '• 62.5 ’• within 100’ WSU100 WSU 'J 3. Dredging is not necessary or planned according to the application. 4. The applicant proposes to convert use of slips from 32 transient to 30 rental and 10 transient, changing operation to a ccinmercial dock. 5. A length variance to 200* is requested in order to locate the 40 slips the applicant proposes to apply against its 397 feet of shoreline. It should be considered that the existing site does have dockage extending to approximately 200'. 6. Slip sides on the north, south and east ends of the dock will require definite provisions so that the ends cannot be used for temporary boat storage. 7. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet will be required since the entire dock area used for slips, and maneuvering of boats exceeds 20,000 sq.ft environment: EutMUn M.ter MllfoU Tom Reese. Additional environmental business control program update. Task Force Chair recoiwnended by the conolttee. ihflf S-90 K E ''' 'tVv^ B aCBLSIOK bat yacht clob SUHVIY fu*« OlSCilPtlON: MARULO f fARtltS • M . . - . . - I >1 < TranflUnt facilUy> no ovarnlght boat parking.ia aa Z3»' 1^ I* 4 ? 4 { Jlow«»* 7^ f^tr^nr 1 / • _ ‘ 41 ^ r • ^3AT f Ml Mi^i r:> r.': A ^ •“^ rlJ^ i£tw :ki;i kL.v>^'It,^ vv V#^ P ■^r-: / V..r w ro>r^ >. ^ » ‘ r •• f ^ .«. •I •r^sr • .%>• •• • A»-••• * • • N N« X •.f •r 2/5/90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BEiVN’S CREEiWOOD ^L\RINA New Dock License & Variance Application BACKGROUND: Bean's Greenwood Marins is located on Solberg's Point, now an island Just east of Minnetonka Blvd on St. Alban's Lay in Greenwood. James Bean purchased the marina and undertook its operation in the 1975 boating season. At this time boats were allowed for a dock use area, without regard to number in the DUA, according to Attorney LeFevere. The num.^r of slips was not actually determined until 1977 v>en the Board approved 100 slips and ten tie-on positions which were in uso -everal years prior to Bean's purchase of the marina according to the public hearing record. The City of Greenwood also approved. A violation notice and complaint by UlCU in July and August, 1980, reported 118 and 115 boats stored against a license authorized for 100 sJips and ten tie-ons. As a result of that complaint. Bean applied for an increase from 110 to 120 boat storage units (BSU's) and a public hearing was held for that purpose January 14, 1981. On June 24, 1981, the Board approved the additional 10 slips recognizina that there had been ten additional slips in place for two seasons. It further^approved the cen tie-ons for repairs which had been previously authorized. It also grandfathered slips 102 and 108 as allowed beyond 100' and stipulated that tie-on 118 be relocated within the 100 foot zone per the site plan of 6-23-81. The City of Greenwood amended its 1977 allowance for an increase to 100 slips plus ten tie-ons to allow that *hny boat which is brought to said property for maintenance or repair work to be performed by Declarant may be moored at said docks and shall not be counted in determining, from time to time, the number of boats then moored at said docks . . . provided, however, that — a) b) No more than 10 boats w or repair wo* *"^ll be Each such t at all time thereto bear. **ing or in the pr^^cess of maintenance moored at any time, )ore or maintenance or repair purposes shall cifically identified bv a repair order affixed .e date when such boat was received at said property, c) No such boat s?..c.li remain so moored for a period in excess of seven days. Any such boat which fails to meet each of the foregoing conditions shall not be exempt from being, and shall he, counted purposes of determining the number of boats then moored at said darks." The above Greenwood amendment to its Declaration was made May 5, 1981. During the annual dock inspection of Greenwood Marina, six new slip structures were reported on 7/14/89. A certified mail notice was sent to James Bean on 7/21/89. Subsequent exchanges in August and Sep’ *nber brought forth a revised site plan showing the six new slips, accom^ ... by an Amended new dock license on 9/5/89, without the required fees. . site plan was not to scale and the application and site plan was detci: not acceptable. The applicant was advised 9/9/89 following a brief rev .. v;ith the Dock Committee that no slips were to be stored at the new slips. A personal inspection, that day confirmed all slips were vacant, and remained that way for the balance of the season. Bean advised at chat time that he would arrange for a formal scale survey of the marina which had not been done since its inception. 5/90 . Vati»nce ApplU”!"" Se» Dock tlccnoo A Votl n i_sX3nd, „„ SoXbe-^s'* *'°^"'".”°“ja«s Bean putchesedGreenwood >u.plne U Ucnred;^,^ "“atlnk “in rhe; Minnetonka Blvd°n^^ operation ^^out regard i°marina ^nd undett ^ n^u...r of tie-on positions2 boats were LeFevere. 100 slips and ten, according t, Board PP ^ tg purchase ° o approved.Umined until 1977 p,ior to Bea Greenwood als■=" ''“\'"rhe pubUe bearing record.,„rdlns to the P end An oet. „1 wcr^ hlic hearing record. reportedrdln* to the public *rst. Mf • canoletion notice and^pU- ^a^rnee --pS- ^r ^in Jnee^t-^- ^and 115 boats st nublic faring was 10 slips“a?orrge en“s (BSD'e) -d a PubUc '“.fttr two seasons.-»• thrre^rd re;n"“f f//ret»"->' -Irwed're;^ ognizlns ' “ the ton 1?;*"°^Ups 102 and ^08 as a the '“oruei.'it sUo^srandCathered^s the '’plan^r£*8-23-8l- increase to stipulated ibat slips PlL o£ 6-23-81. - ‘roTald propert, for “t^n turortclirtSt^^y^b- be,^°-t “U'er of r£:o3;u n) do nore than 10 bosts^^ ”P°''e^f„nS or repair P“tP°f ’ jji,ed or repair wc pt bv a repair °tfr aft Each such 1 ci£ically idenc received a seven days at all time „hen such boat w ^^^^gs of thereto bear ^ remain so mooted .a.ions shall not be No such boa • foregoing non aetermining thereto bear „,,,ed for a c) '"■ each of the aetermining such boat which ''^‘‘®_‘nnd shall be- coonte ^ „ exempt fro 8^^ „„ute the number „„,,aration w- "ade HayrbrSbero^ boats the., moore above Greenwood amendment to Its « ’“yrear “ - rd^rer^bra"--"1,ri/°89 S°bse,uent excbanoes in^ ^ ac«„, .., plan ”« ilsed site Pl^p.j'jlu."without the '*0“ '“ jetui ' thrSock Committee rk license on 9/5/° ’ ^ gtte plan re^' ^’^i^b t” mspectiorw and the sPOit'ero/O/SO fP^f^ "new'sUps. A b/”rt f"'S^rsliPS “were -inurs'eer “e%acant and re^ir^^^^^ t^ a nnt^rt'hit-Sverof "" LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT2/5/9CBean's Greenwod Marina New Dock License & VAriance Application, P. 2FACTS TO CONSIDER:1. A new dock license and variance applications were received Jan. 30, 1990.2.3.4. 5. Six slips in relocated positions beyond the 100' distance from 929.4' shoreline consisting of five 12'x32' and one 15'x36' slips have been proposed and accompanied by a variance application.Hardship for exctending beyond the 100' distance has been cited by the applicant as due to the shape of the property, a unique gas dock configuration. Building docks to comply with existing ordinances within the 100' zone would interfere with access to the gas dock, head pump out and public restroom facilities, all of which serve the public. Saving three of the slips would require extensive dredging in order to make them useable, and two slips had to be moved in order to rebuild existing slips along the shore with adequate walkway widths.The applicant is otherwise not increasing the slip size within the existing marina configuration. A sli-by-slip re-measurement will be conducted with tlie applicant to verify tlie accuracy of the new site survey and resolve any minor discrepancies which are said to exist among the present slip dimensions on record in the applicant's LMCD file. The dock extension does not appear to be a hazard to navigation, although it is adjacent to the channel which provides ingress and egress to St. Alban's Bay. Additional water space is occupied with the expansion 6. The additional water space occupied by the docks will require an Environ mental Assessment Worksheet. ■ ■ ■' \.i U •» '-* ' • -1^^-W . * BEAN ’S GREENWOOD MARINA ti V’--*- *0Hi^^i- DEAN'S GREENWOOD MARINA. Inc: Subject Co Order of 4-26-7Z, iz)3M O-teKoMev RECCIv.. NOV 2 7190S «^.c.u "31"/ rGv MAUS G RE0UWPOV flAniNA ~)lo * oc ^ tXO I ,2,cJ: )• r* LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: TO: "Dock" Commlctee FROM:Gene Stronmen DATE:February 5, 1990 SUBJ:1990 Dock Licenses ir»’ dV' The following dock licensees are requesting renewals for 1990, Including orders, stipulations and temporary extensions. Village certificates have been received, or time has expired for responses. A1 & Alma's Supper Club, Inc., Cooks Bay Bayshore Manor Condominium Association, Excelsior Bay Baycliffe Property Owners Association, South Upper Lake Bayview Condominium, Spring Park Bay Berman, Lyle, Wayzata Bay Big Island Veterans Camp, Veterans Bay Cardinal Cove Beach Association, Cooks Bay Cedarhurst Association, Robinsons Bay Chapman Place Homeowners Association, Cooks Bay Minor Change: change in operator/manager Chimo Association, Carsons Bay Cochranes Boatyard, Inc., St. Albans and Excelsior Bays Crane Island Association, West Upper Lake Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Inc., Lower Lake South Deephaven, City of, St. Louis and Carsons Bays (application for expansion still under review) Driftwood Shores Association, Harrisons Bay Excelsior, City of. Excelsior Bay Foxhill Association, Smiths Bay Gideon's Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay Grandview Point Association, Carsons Bay Minor Change: from 6 BSU, 10 WSU to 5 BSU, 9 WSU Gray's Landing Co., Grays Bay Greenwood, City of, St. Albans Bay and Lower Lake South Hennepin County, Spring Park Bay Herzog Acres Association, Wayzata Bay Kreslins, Har> X., St. Albans Bay Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association, Lafayette Bay Reinstate 8 BSU: from 8 BSU, 19*i WSU to 16 BSU, 39?i WSU for 1988, 1989, 1990, within required frontage Libbs Bay Boat Club, Libbs Lake Lord Fletcher Apartments, West Arm Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Coffee Cove Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay Minnetonka Beach, City of. East Crystal Bay, Lafayette Bay, and Lower Lake North (continued) 9ti LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT iT Dock Committee February 5, 1990 Minnetonka Boat Rentals & Edgewater Marina, Harrisons Bay Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments, Spring Park Bay Minnetonka Power Squadron, Big Island Passage Minnetonka Yacht Club/Lake Minnetonka Sailing School, Bay St. Louis, Carsons Bay, and Lower Lake North Mound, City of: Priests, Cooks, West Upper Lake, Phelps, Black Lake, Emerald Lake, Seton Lake, Harrisons, Jennings, and West Arm Bays Navarre Cove Homeowners Association, Carmans Bay Neslund, Richard, Wayzata Bay North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Ridgewood Cove Property Owners Association, Jennings Bay Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc., Site 1, Coffee Cove Rockvara Boat Yards, Inc., Sice 2, Coffee Cove Sandy Beach Place, West Arm Schmitt's Marina, Excelsior Bay Seahorse Condo Association, Jennings Bay Seton View, Seton Lake Seton Village Association, West Arm Tonka Bay, City of. Lower Lake South Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club/RDP Partners, Spring Park Bay Victoria Estates, North Arm Walden Tract X Owners Association, Bay St. Louis Walter's Port Improvement & Maintenance Association, Carman's Bay Wayzata, City of, Wayzata Bay (application for expandsion still under review) Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 1, Wayzata Bay Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay West Beach Apartments, Coffee Cove Willow Woods Corporation, Gideons Bay Woodend Shores Beach Association, West Upper Lake The following have chosen to waive renewal by submitting a $25 administrative registration: Mai Tai, Excelsior Bay for 1989 and 1990 Park Hill, Park Island, Park Island West Apartments, Black Lake for 1990 Seton Twinhomes, Seton Lake Minor Change: name, from Seton Place Development for 1990 ERS:Jlm TO:DOCK COWIITTEEFROM:Gene StrommenDATE:February 5, 1990SUBJ:1990 DMA Applications I TO: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dock Committee 7. FROM: JoEllen Hurr DATE: February 5, 1990 SUBJ: Amenity Value Study, Preliminary Recommendations Code Sec. 2.05, Subd 4: b) The amenities proposed by the applicant shall be categorized as follows, and may be from any ALL groups, but at least one must be from Group A: 1. oup A - Public Access with Handicapped Access and Adequate General Public Parking Mandatory Requirements: a) Public fishing dock b) Public launching ramp with car-trailer parking c) Boat and outboard motor rental c) Public svimming beach (identify Che % of total shoreline) e) Winter access f) Additional amenities unique to the application 2.Group B - Environmental Protection (Not in Mitigation for the Development) a) Runoff water quality improvement b) Vegetative screening or cover c) Shoreline protection, enhancement and/or riprap d) Additional amenities unique Co the application 3* Group C - Public Service a) Water safety education programs (formal program with qualified instructors) b) Public marine towing service c) Public marine emergency repair service, in dock and/or on the Lake d) Boating safety literature distribution e) Food service in a seated restaurant facility f) Sanitary pump-out facilities g) Public toilet facilities h) Public telephone i) Additional amenities unique to the application Amenity values suggested are to assign 10 points to each of Group A, 3 points to each of Group B, and 1 point to each of Group C. It is further suggested that as a greater number of slips are requested, a higher value of amenities would be required along Che following proposed scale: I to 10 slips - 20 points 11 to 20 ** 30 21 to 3C *' 35 (continuing with 5 point increments for each additional ten slips) PLEASE REVIEW THE AlIEMITY ITEMS, YOUR SUGGESTIONS INVITED, AND COMMEl PROPOSED POINT SCALE RELATING TO NUMBER OF SLIPS REQUESTED. ON THE 1 IV^IM L-/IOi niv^lDock Committee3M: JoEllen Hurr[E: February 5, 1990IJ: Amenity Value Study, Preliminary Reconunendations OllUlNANCli NO.S’.e Sec. 2.05, Subd 4:b) The amenities proposed by the applicant shall be categorized aslows, and may be from any ALL groups, but at least one must be from up A:1. '' oup A - Public Access with Handicapped Access ana AdequateGeneral Public Parking Mandatory Requirements:a) Public fishing dockb) Public launching ramp with car-trailer parkingc) Boat and outboard motor rentalc) Public shimming beach (identify the 7. of total shoreline)e) Winter access f) A(dditional amenities unique to tlie application 2. Group B - Environmental Protection (Not in Mitigation for the Development) a) Runoff water quality improvement b) Vegetative screening or cover c) Shoreline protection, enhancement and/or riprap d) Additional amenities unique to the application 3. Group C - Public Service a) Water safety education programs (formal program with qualified instructors) b) Public marine towing service c) Public marine emergency repair service, in dock and/or on the Lake d) Boating safety literature distribution e) Food service in a seated restaurant facility f) Sanitary pump-out facilities g) Public toilet facilities h) Public teleplionc i) Additional amenities unique to the application .ty values suggested are to assign 10 points to each of Group A, 3 points ich of Group B, and 1 point to each of Group C. It is further suggested as a greater number of slips are requested, a higher value of amenities I be required along tlie following proposed scale: 1 to 10 slips - 20 points 11 to 20 " 30 " 21 to 30 " 35 (continuing with 5 point Increments for each additional ten slips) E REVIEW THE AMENITY ITEMS, YOUR SUGGESTIONS INVITED, AND COMMEI ON THE SED POINT SCALE RELATING TO NUMBER OF SLIPS REQUESTED. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOAT STORAGE DENSITY IN WETLAND AREAS; AMENDING U\1CD CODE SECTIONS 1.02, 2.1? ' AND 2.05The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains:Section 1. LMCD Code Section 1.02 is ametidcd by adding new Subdivision 61 as follows:Subd. 61. "Wetlands protection area” tiieans an area of the Lake, or an area adjacent to the Lake, which is deteriniiied bv the Board to be predominantly occupied by emergent wetland vegetation including grasses, bulrushes, cattails, arrowheads, reeds_________________________________________________ and which is either a) 2 1/2 acres or more in size, or b) one acre or more in size and covering more than 500 feet of shoreline. Section 2. LMCD Code Section 2.02, Subd. 1 is amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. General Rule. No now docks or mooring areas shall be constructed or established which provide space for or are used for mooring or docking a greater number of restricted watercrait than one for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978, unless authorized to do so by special density license pursuant to Section 2.05. For sites with continuous shoreline greater than 100 feet, when measurements determining the number of restricted watercraft allowed result in the provision of a fractional restricted watercraft, any fraction up to and including one-half (1/2) ehnll be disregarded, and fractions over one-half (1/2) shall be counted as one additional restricted watercraft. For purposes of this subdivision, shoreline which is in. or adjacent to. a wetlands protection area (as defined in Section 1.02) shall not be counted; provided, however, that the elimination of such shoreline froin consideration shall not reduce the number of restricted watercraft allowed below one vvatercraft. Section 3. LMCD Code '.ection 2.05, Subd. 1 is amended to read as follows: Subd. 1. Maximum Boat Storage Density. The District has determined that the intensity of use of Lake Minnetonka and the density of storage on the Lake has reached a level which necessitates the limitation on the construction of new docks and mooring facilities provided for herein. It is the purpose of this section to reduce environmental degradation of the Lake, avoid an increase in boat storage on the Lake without a corresponding increase in available amenities and services for the boating public, and encourage facilities which enhance the use and enjoyment of the Lake by the general public. The District has recognized that the impact on the Lake of a given facility will vary depending on such factors as the compatibility of nearby uses, the type of watercraft being stored, whether the watercraft storage is transient or pertnanent, the degree of watercraft storage and »i»rirtra^mam LtliLsXtHtI[fVJMN rtsfirtaiirt]r§Tu:v«i•IslUf:[•■ttliBilFsi^wom ^ij IsStl c»i I (•] RKnri F:liIlllKtJ ^uirc^ LtllUtJ If I •raiKfs^ MiMuira RIMi nvnnniiiiaiK 'r:.A V ■^•‘: / * - .•■ ' ■.■■•♦'>1.V. ■ ■’.•• •• V," , M: . MiCsKIt6UUiH»J•IMtJ r*i«EiiO]M C*1 rtHlllTi raiaiT: hiVsIilt ♦ J ill H i . \ -■ \ is?- - 7 “ ^gl.f metonka Cable Communications Commission«3 OAK STREET ♦ EXCEISIOR, MINNESOTA 56331 • 16121474-6538January 30. 1990 LMCCC MEMBER CITIESJennifer Warts, Cable Administrator notice of public hearing sed is a NOTICE OF PUBLIC system tonka Cable <^°"'"*^®®^°JJ^3"notice"in publ.ic view at ation. Please bearing. More information prior to the date of monthly meeting packets ,ation will be coming to you m t »ut February 12. ,u h.v. RU„tion=. please contact .e at 474-5538- c you. Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-5539NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGCONCERNING CABLE TELEVISION COMMUNICATIONSNotice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission onFebruary 20, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. or as seen thereaftei as can reasonably be heard at the Village of Tonka Bay Council Chambers, 4901 Manitou Road, Tonka Bay, Minnesota, 55331. The Cummission consists of the Minnesota cities of Minnetrista, Spring Park, Shorewood, Medina, St. Bonifacius, Excelsior, Deephaven, Woodland, Victoria, Tonka Bay, Minnetonka Beach, Orono, Greenwood and Long Lake. The hearing is called pursuant to the requirements of th<s Cable Television Franchise Ordinance for conducting periodic evaluatio. ^ of the cable system. Topics to be discussed include, but are not limited to: system performance, services provided, commu:iity access, customer complaints, and line extension policies. Anyonu h^v-vrig an interest in cable teJ*^*-iiion communica tions is invited to attend. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON JANUARY 8, 1990The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, January 8, 1990.Present: Dave McKown Don AndersonAbsent: Lucie TaylorJohn Maresh Kitty Crosby James Franklin Thomas Mich William FenholtUPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the consent agenda was approved as follows:- approved the minutes of the December 11, 1989 regular meeting;- approved the following variance requests:Anjanette Cornelius, grade 4, to complete the 1989-90 school year at Orono Schools,Jennifer Mauer, grade 7, and Beverly Mauer, grade 8, to attend Chaska School District beginning January 22, 1990, Damon Coyne, grade 10, to continue attendance in the Hopkins School District; - accepted the resignation of Marvel Bongart, Schumann Elementary principal, effective at the end of the 1989-90 school year; - accepted the resignation of Patricia Headley, high school business educa tion teacher, effective at the end of the 1989-90 school year; - approved the Treasurer's Report for November, 1989; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 064313 through 065003. Dr. Mich reported that students from the high school raised 17,000 items for the homeless and that he wanted to express appreciation to those students and Doug Erickson who worked with them; that congratulations are in order to stu dents and staff of the intermediate school as they raised over $6,000, by means of a "Read-A-Thon", for the American Red Cross to aid victims of Hurricane Hugo and the San Francisco earthquake under the direction of Martha Klein, inter mediate school teacher; that the Board had approved tonight the retirements of two long time employees - Marvel Bongart, who has been on the Orono School District staff since 1955 when she began as a teacher and now serves as principal of Schumann Elementary School, and Pat Headley, high school business education teacher, who has been on staff since 1961. Dr. Mich expressed appreciation to both Mrs. Bongart and Mrs. Headley for their many years of dedicated/faithful service to the District and stated that, on behalf of the Board, he will send letters of appreciation/congratulations to each of them. I I► I i ■ * Or. Mich stated that the MSBA Convention will take place on January 18, 19 and 20; that the Board is invited to attend the annual Faculty/Staff Luncheon which will be held on January 19 at which time Sharon Chmielarz, George Johnson and Kurt Ross will be honored for their 25 years of service to the District; that he wanted to bring to their attention the Orono Mathaletes consisting of 28 stu dent? ranging from grade 8-12 who participate in five season meets during the year through school district membership in the Tri-Metro Oivison of the Minnesota State High School Mathematics League. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the Board of Education approved the Sexual Harassment Policy as follows: I stated that the MSBA Convention will take place on January 18, 19 and the Board is invited to attend the annual Faculty/Staff Luncheon which held on January 19 at which time Sharon Chmielarz, George Johnson and s will be honored for their 25 years of service to the District; that he Lo bring to their attention the Orono Mathaletes consisting of 28 stu- inging from grade 8-12 who participate in five season meets during the rough school district membership in the Tri-Metro Oivison of the a State High School Mathematics League.riON by Jim Franklin, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the Board of Education 1 the Sexual Harassment Policy as follows;Approved by the Orono Board of Education - January 8, 1990INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICYI. General Statement of PolicySexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination which is a violation of Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 363, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.Independent School District No. 278 strongly disapproves of any form of sexual harassment. It will deal swiftly and severely with employees found guilty of sexually harassing other employees or students.II. Sexual Harassment DefinedUnwelcome sexual advan-*es, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when: 1. Submission to that conduct or communication is made a term or condition, either explicitly or implicitly, of obtaining or retaining employment, or of obtaining an education. 2. Submission to or rejection of that conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor in decisions affecting that individual's employment or education; or 3. That conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially or unreasonably interfering with an individual's employment or education, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive employment or educational environment. Ill. Reporting Procedure A. Victims of alleged sexual harassment and third persons with knowledge or belief of conduct constituting sexual harassment are encouraged to report to School District officials, as designated herein. Sucii reports shall be in writing. At the building level: The building principal or supervisor is the responsible authority for receiving reports of sexual harassment at the building level. The building principal or supervisor, upon receiving any such report, must forward the same in confidence to the Human Rights Officer within 72 hours. The building principal or supervisor is to perform no screening or investigation function. the Orono Board of Education - January 8, 1990TMnPPeMDEHT SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 278 SElSS. HAFASSMEHT POUCYI. General Stateaent of Policywal ®7o5”f®Title'*vh^orthe^Civil\i9ht^.elation of of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 363,JillU/HuJ^rwIhtrAct^ «3 Tltl. IX Of th. Eduction »nts of 1972.]«p«nd«nt It’wiU dUl'’li?ftiy*«nd'”*"[; S‘itrSplo5Jc fS35lS‘guilty of ..xually Cr.clng other ees or students.II, Se>mal Harasaaent Defined iweIcoae »e>~«^1 *contact*or*oSer*verbal^or**physicalrsi;sii“n.?srconstitut.. ..xu.i (aent when: ibnisslon to '°2mlicitly°or“inpllcit^ Sf'*obtalning ^ “f"obt.in!ng an eduction. nf that conduct or communication ‘*"’^®!i3ividu1l u’Slld Ss i factor in decisions effecting Lrindfiidc!^sispl3%ent or education: or rstrn&“«ss;“e;^33i£?; " •nvironment. III. Reporting Procedure *.4me rtf aileaed sexual harassment and third persons ^knowlelge or bsli** °| ?S"lcci‘S!s??i3? ImT. ardcilclll h«ein! Sucu reports shall be in ing. At the building level: The building Ptl"=iP»l ” !SIi^^^?3l"'Ti^b|lld!n, principal ^ Sffilir SithiS 72 hours. The building 5?pT“ si|3“i3“ i“t3 Perfoc no screening or sstigation function. If any other employee of the District receives complaints, orally or in writino, from a victim of alleged sexual harassment, the employee must immediately forward these complaints to the buildino principal or to the Human Rights Officer, or direct the alleged victims to those persons.Failure of the supervisor or other staff to forward any report of alleged sexual harassment to the appropriate person will result in discipline consistent with the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement, individual contract, or statute.District Hide:The Human Rights Officer is the responsible authority for receiving reports of sexual harassment directly from any student, employee, or other victim of sexual harassment and also from the building princinal, supervisor and/or staff as outlined above.The Human Rights Officer for Independent School District No. 278 is Dr. Steven Greenfield He/she is located Orono Hlah School.795 Old Crystal Bay Road No., Long Lake, MN 55356 . ------------------- IV. Investigation and Recommendation By authority of the School Board, the Human Rights Officer shall, upon receiving any report alleging sexual harassment, conduct an investigation and make a written recommendation within thirty (30) days to the Superintendent. In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the Human Rights Officer should look at the record as a whole and the totality of circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. V. Reprisal Consistent with the terms of any applicable collective bargaining aareement and any applicable statutes, the School District will discipline any individual who retaliates against any person who objects to or reports alleged sexual harassment, or any individual who retaliates against any person who testifies, assists or participates in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing relating to the report alleging sexual harassment. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to, any form of intimidation, reprisal or harassment. VI. District Action A. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the Human Rights Officer that probable cause exists to credit the allegations of sexual harassment, the School Board may take action based on the report and recommendation of the Superintendent or it may conduct its own investigation into the charges. B. Such investigation mc'st be completed within thirty (30) days of receipt by the School board of the recommendation from the Superintendent or the School Bo=ird will establish a later date. -2- I C. P«ndin9 such investigation, the School Board say, in its discretion, take any action necessary to protect the alleged victis, other esployees or students consistent with requirements of applicable School District policies, collective bargaining agreements and statutes, if any. D. Consistent with requirements of applicable School District policies, collective bargaining agreements and statutes, if any, the School Board will take such action as it deems necessary and appropriate, including termination, to end sexual harassment found to exist. E. Consistent with requirements of applicable School District policies, collective bargaining agreements and statutes, if any, the School Board will notify an alleged victim and reporting party of the disposition of a complaint, once that becomes public. -3- I Dr. Mich Informed the Board that on January 19, workshop day for the teachers, he has called an all faculty meeting at which time Dennis O'Brien, attorney engaged by the Organization of Intervening School Districts, will outline issues of the equity lawsuit and the significant impact the lawsuit can have on our district. According to Dr. Mich, final plans for construction of the new building will be reviewed by the Facilities Committee on January 16. He Informed the Board that January 19 has been scheduled as a completion date for all plans by the archi tect and the consultants with legal publication notice to bidders on January 22 and January 29 and the project bids to be taken on February 15. Mr. Fenholt provided the Board with background information on the handicapped access survey stating that the District engaged in September the services of a consultant to ensure compliance with current handicapped access requirements. He stated that the survey provides a comprehensive and prioritized list of defi ciencies and that the intent of the District would be to complete items listed as "priority one" within a year with optional items to be completed as necessary. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the contractual agreement with the Superintendent for the 1989-91 period. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the Board of Education approved the changes for the social studies curriculum as recommended by the social studies faculty. A listing of the previous social studies requirements and the newly approved requirements follow: 1•4 : ! J- ’-1 Ik4li SOCIAL STUDIES Current Requirements Recommended Requirements* Grade Grade 5th American History to 1870 5 th American History to 1870 6 th World History to Renaissance 6 th American History 1870 to present & Minnesota History 7 th World Studies 7 th World Studies Geography History Culture History (increase historical focus) Geography Culture 8 th World Studies 8th World Studies Geography History Culture History (increase historical focus) Geography Culture 9 th American Government (1 semester) Introduction to Social Studies (1 semester) 9 th American Government (1 semester) Introduction to Social Studies (1 semester) 10 th American History (1 year)10th American History (1 year) nth nothing required 11th World History (1 year) 12 th Contemporary Issues (1 semester) 1 elective required (1 semester) 12th 2 semester elective course required Elective Course Offerings Contemporary World Issues Economics Humanities Psychology Sociology World Area Studies — (to concentrate on 1 or 2 areas of the world each semester with areas changing in alternate semesters. Areas of study to include Latin America, Asia, Europe, Soviet Union and Middle East & Africa. ♦Grades 9-12 reflect a 4th year social studies requirement. tf it ii Dr. Greenfield, administrative representative to the social studies curriculum review, was present and answered questions from the Board for clarification pur poses. Dr. Mich expressed appreciation to Or. Greenfield and to the members of the social studies faculty for their work/efforts in evaluating the social studies program and stated that these changes represent a signified't improve ment in the social studies curriculum as well as a serious effort at cufriculun coordination, grades 5 - 12. A report was heard from Ron Gilbert on the analysis of the ESV Regional struc ture. Mr. Gilbert stated that the 1989 legislature directed the ESV Computer Council, in conjunction with the Information Policy Office of the Department of Administration, to evaluate the current structure of the ESV Regional Management Information Centers and that the management consulting firm of Grant Thornton was employed to assist with this project. Mr. Gilbert provided the Board with a summary of the findings of this study and the recommendations. Ron Gilbert provided information on the various activities/programs at the intermediate school this year. He commended the staff for their work/efforts and he cc..mended the students for their work/participation in studies as well as activities that are taking place. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, adjourned.seconded by Don Anderson, the meeting was Approved: Dave McKown, Chairman ■ H ; was present and answered qSeltioJrfJotn the Boa'd'V curriculumDr Mich expressed appreciation to 0^ Pur-ial studies faculty for thei°"program and stated that thoco evaluating the socialthe social studies curricuUw as weVl* ’ slgnifica .t improve-tion, grades 5 - 12. “ » “’'ious effort at curriculaf^Gu'^rt n°"ted°"tha't''?hV W89 ‘'’feg7su\'uVe"dV’’^ "'S'ondl struc-in conjunction with the Information Polirv Computer•ation. to evaluate the current struct^^^^^^ Department ofon Centers and that the management consult/^n *^®9’0”al Management yed to assist with this project Mr rnhlrl^ ^ f Grant Thornton f the fiodings of this sLSf^Ji tUe^-r^^X^Kff-' »»-d with aiu sc7oo?1hil" «ti,ities/prograa,s at the""■ended the students for their^oJk/Mi^tfciMVi^ “tk/efforts5 that are taking place. ^/participation m studies as well as by Jitn Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the meeting was ^V7/4{Z' I. Chairman I NEWSLETTERORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278INnFPFNDENCf IONG LAKF MAPLE PLAIN MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH ORONO 68S OLD CRYSTAL HAY ROADLONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 55356 4 73 7313FEBRUARY, 1990 ISSUE NO. 6 ORONO SCHOOL BOARDDavid McKown, Chairman 479-1692 Don Anderson. Vice Chairman 479-1810 Lucic Taylor. Treasurer 473-1189Killy Crosby. Clerk 478-6037Jim Franklin. Director 479-2130John Maresh, Director 475-3197‘ D ^ iSupcriiitcmient's Notes On a recent Saturday I found myself addressing a gathering of principals for The Missouri Synod Lutheran Schools in Minnesota. The topic was effective instruction and the audience was affable. At a morning coffee break, one of the principals approached me and with considerable pride remarked that he was a graduate of the Orono Schools. My conversation with the principal was predictable. He would raise the name of a teacher and 1 would respond by telling him whether the teacher was retired or still on campus. Each teacher ’s name also drew predictable comments from this alumnus. ”Boy, did he make you work." "Her class was always interesting." "He’s only 55 years old! 1 thought he w^as 60 when 1 was in high school." Then this graduate asked after a teacher who had been very special to him. I had to respond that he had retired a few years before I had come to Orono. He went on to extol the virtues and strengths of this teacher. He told me that the day before he had quoted this teacher to students in his own school. He told me that this teacher taught beyond his subject matter; he taught lessons for life. Following our conversation I could not help but reflect on the influence this teacher had. A lesson taught twenty years ago still lives and is repeated for another generation. But, of course, who among us can not recall special teachers and their lessons? This is the power of teaching. This is the influence of the personal factor in the classroom. This is what Christa McAuliffe meant when she said: "I touch the future. I teach." This powerful influence, this impact on the future, is not the exclusive domain of the classroom teacher. It belongs ♦n all who teach young people, i.e., community coaches, scout leaders, jAisiors, and especially parents. ConL on page 3 1 \ y < • .-2 *=>.. Orono High School Gymnastics Team Recently won the 12 Team Glencoe Invitational scoring 135 points. Rated 2nd in State Oass A ORONO P.T.A. Mid Winter Fun Fest Carnival The Orono School District F.T.A. will hold its annual Mid-Winter Fun Fest Carnival on Saturday, February 3, 1990 from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. at the Orono Middle School, Hwy. 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road, Long Lake This is the P.T.A.'s major fund with proceeds used to fund field trips and i»ther sctioui ^’ated activities. In conjunction w'ith the carnival will be a raffle featuring many wonderful prizes donated by area merchants. Raffle tickets may be purchased from any Orono student, K thru 5th grade, or at the carnival. Bring the whole family for an afternoon of food, prizes and fun. ONO SCHOOL ChainnanK m —L'rWi/Apendent SCNOOL^OiSTBlC^278CNCt OBONO»^,NNElONKA «r • 1990 csuE NO. 6 Noti’? \ ^ -a <t-' nus. ®^y'. .. ••^c's oviy 55 avs inicrcsung. school" fjQ vshcn I '^•as» been j afver a lea^ retired a to respond on to extoi ^c to Orooo_ me ii«i of this 'cache . ^^^dents m his .ted this tea*c ^^^^d his Yat this teacher ta b lessons for bfe. ^^onect on tion I couid J'° taught twenty I ^pcated teachers .ng orcan not ^a'is^ is the is (he (W"'® dassroow. A, scoring 0 ‘”"° rifn-rcam ac"Coa ^ •">' om'-' °'; Sr^no M^dlc IMid-t'^'t'^®' -.-00 - 5-.00 p tt'- ® . ^ay Road, Long]3, 1990 from i^^d Crystal Ba> Uchooi, Hwy. is the r.T-A.’s major fn^ c ’.a Ci* used to furrd fmm - . ,viU be a ralHe ‘1 activities- the cat"'' donated by area ^ In conjunct derfui pr>z .^sed from any Guidance at a GlanceUpcoming Test Dates:SAT; Mar. 31,1990 Registration Deadline 2/23/1990 ACT: April 7,1990 Registration Deadline 3/9/1990In addition to the regular registration deadlines for the listed tests, there are late registration deadlines. An extra fee is involved and no guarantee of getting your requested test center. The practice is not encouraged except in an emergency. See your counselor or consult the registration packets for further information.Financial Aid FormsSeniors and their parents are reminded to file cither the FFS (Family Financial Statement) or FAF (Financial Aid Form) if they wish to be considered for financial aid. Aid may come from a variety of sources such as federal agencies, state agencies, the colleges or schools themselves, and private corporations and organizations. The one constant is that they all want to see one of the above mentioned forms. Application packets are available in the guidance office. February College Representatives Feb. 6 Bemidji State 12:(X) Feb. 14 Normandale Community College 9:15 a.m Scholarship Opportunities The guidance office continues to receive a wide variety of private sector, college, and public scholarship applications. We encourage seniors to check the file we have and to apply for those they qualify for. Career Education Night The six schools of the Western Suburbs have coordinated a Career Education Night to be held on Tuesday, March 6, 1990, at Hopkins High School. The program for the evening is diversified to accommodate the many interests of both students and adults. The presenters are of the highest caliber and will discuss not only career opportunities, but also the paths that lead to these opportunities. It is our goal to have ali students and adults in transition avail themselves of this excellent information. High Sdiool Counselors 473-5472 CALL WITH YOUR QUESTIONS Ms. Woyteke - all students with last names A-K Ml. Wasbotten - all students with last names L-Z Npw Class for ParentsCREATIVE STRATEGIES FOR COLLEGE FINANCING John Tapsak, InstructorIf you find yourself wondering where the money is going to come from to pay those upcoming college tuition bills, there ’s some help.This 2-part course will cover all aspects of financing a college location ranging from: ways to fore cast what you'll have to pay for college; how to tell if you’ll have to borrow money to cover the cost; learning the best and the worst ways to pay for that education; and an overview of the various federal and state financial aid programs including information on what they are, how much is available, and how to apply. Included is how to tell if your student will qualify for financial aid,, making your money and taxes work for you, not the IRS.This course is taught by a Certified Financial Planner/Registcred Investment Advisor and a Bank Student Loan Officer. NO. 400 DAY: Tuesday's, March 6 & 13 TIME: 7:00 - 9:00 pm PLACE: Orono High School FEE: $10 To register, fill out the form below and return to Orono High School, Community Ed, Office Name. Address. Phone.eve. Class #400 $10 fee enclosed M«IM •? MU '^i^,:M(L0VBT0ReAD Orono Student on Director's List Mike Diehl, an Orono Student attending Hennepin Technical College as part of the Vocational Technical Program in the Commercial Greenhouse Program, has been name to the Director's List. Students named to the Director’s List are nominated by their instructor, because of their manipulative skill, attendance/responsibility/attitude, theoretical understanding, and technical competence. This list is compiled quarterly. A certificate is given to each student commending them on their accomplishments, and a copy is placed in their file. Notes from the Ni^h School » . . M Sculptor and Author Visit Elementary Schools Students in Mrs. Shoop’s art class had the privilege of working under the guidance of Peter Lupori, nationally acclaimed artist from the College of St. Catherine. He was with us during the week of January 22-26 working in clay. Each student was able tc do a clay sculpture under the guidance of Mr. Lupori and Mrs. Shoop. January 29-February 1 we have with us Juanita Havill working with students in g'^ides 1-3. She is a famous author of children’s books. Among the books she has written are “Jamaica Find", “Jamaica TagAlong", ’Leroy 4c the Dock*’ and “It Always Happens to Leona.’’ These residencies were funded by your donations to the Orono Education Fund. Superintendents Notes conL from page 1 Whether by vocation, avocation or parenthood, the quality of the influences we have on young people may well detemnine the quality of the future. As my day with the principals was coming to an end I made a special point to say good-by to the principal who had graduated from the C^no Schools. I wished I knew more about his special teacher so I could have given him up to date information. All I could think to say was that he was not alone in respecting that teacher. The school district and the community also thought highly of this teacher. In fact, they named the school stadium after him, IKE PESONEN STADIUM. Dr. Thomas B. Mich Superintendent Parents: A Parent Council has been formed at the high school. All parents are invited to participate. The meetings will be held on the 2nd Tuesday of the month in the school cafeteria at 7:00 p.m. The meetings for the rest of the school year are: February 13 March 13 April 10 May 8 The topic for our discussion at the February 13 meeting will be how changes in state educational requirements are likely to affect the high school. Registration: Registration for the 1990-91 school year will begin in February. Students and parents will be involved in a more extensive process developed to help students make appropriate plans for their high school course work and post high school careers. Information about registration will be sent home in early February. I hope your child has cxpcTicnced a successful first semester. Midway through the year is a good time to assess progress. A time to praise accomplishments achieved and attempted. A time for planning for continued success or improvement. We invite you to work with teachers, counselors, and administrators when there is a need for assistance. Dr. Steven Greenfield Principal vec*f (LOVE TORS AD UF- To Read 'Lo I To Read I.S. PAC Meeting The Intermediate School Parents Advisory Committee will meet in the IS/MS hbrary at 7:30 on Monday, February 5,1990. The presentors will be Ms. Karen Orcutt, Director of Special Education and Ms. Kay Sause, Coordinator of Gifted and Talented Education. Their topics will be special education/gifted and handicapped and enrichment activities for children not identifed as "gifted". 4 Activity Calendar DISTRICT ACn\TnES 2/5 Early Childhood He.Uth & Developmental Screening all week at Oront Primaiy 2/6 ECFE Guest Speaker ai Aud........................7:00 pm 2/12 School Board Meeting, MS..........................7:00 pm 2/19 NO SCHOOL PRESIDENTS BIRTHDAY 2/'*^ School Board Meeting, MS...........................7:00 pm 2/2/ Precinct Caucus Day 2/28 Continuing Ed. Mlg. MS.............................3:20 pm ELEMENTARY ACTIVTTTFS 2/1 Author in Residence Grade 1-3 2/3 Winter Fun Fest at MS...................................1:00pm 2/8 PTA Family FunlSIighl at Chccpskale........6:00 pm 1/13 SE k OPS BD Parly 2/5 IS PAC Mlg., IS/MS Library........................7:30 pm 2/15 8th Grade Career Day 7th Grade Career Fair 2/20 MS PAC Mtg., MS........................................7:30 pm 2/22 IS/MS Bal’d Concert, Aud...........................7:30 pm HIGH SCHOOL ACTrvrTIES 2/1 Girls Basketball - Minnehaha......................7:00 pm Gymnastics at Delano 2/2 Boys Basketball - St. Agnes..........................7:30 pm Ski Mc-ct - JV 2/3 Hockey at Blake...........................................7:30 pm 2/5 Boys Basketball at Delano............................7:45 pm 2/6 Hockey - Breck.............................................7:30 p»m Girls Basketball - Tri Metro..........................7:30 pm Wrestling at DeLaSalle................................7:30 pm Ski Racing Section Meet 2/S Boys Basketball at Minnehaha....................7:30 pm Gymnastics Conference at Br(>oklyn Center Ski Racing Section Meet 2/9 Hockey at St. Bernards.................................8:CX) pm Girls Basketball - Tri Metro..........................7:30 pm 2/10 Wrestling - Conference at Farmington 2/12 Math Team at Brooklyn Center..................4:00 pm 2/13 Hockey - Mound.........................................7:30 pm Girls Basketball - Tri Metro..........................7:30 pm 2/15 Wrestling 6AA (15 & 17) Girls Basketball at Mound..........................7:30 pm 2/16 Ski Racing - State Hockey - Farmington..................................7:30 pm Boys Basketball - Tri Metro..........................7:30 pm 2/17 Gymnastics - District 5A 2/19 Presidents Day NOSCH(X)L 2/20 Hockey - 6AA Boys Basketball - Tri Metro..........................7:30 pm 2/22 Wmslling 6AA (22 & 24) Girls Basketball District 17A at ’^at^'rtowTi (22 &24) 2/23 Stale Gymnastics (23 & 24) Board Reivew Regular meeting - Decgmbgr 11.1989 • Approved the following variance requests: Angela Haugen, grade 1, to Orono; Tara Grande, grade 7, and Scan Grande, grade 8, to continue at Orono; Wesley Pogue, grad'; 7, to continue at Orono; Edward Hcnrich, grade4, and David Henrich, grade 6, to continue at Ore no; Jessica Humphrey, grade 2 to continue at Wayzata. • Accepted the resignation of Marsha Noll, middle school cashier. • Approved the new winter Early Childhood Family Education class offerings. • Approved the construction plans as proposed by the Facilities Committee. • Amended the motion to grant the Facilities.... Committee the authority to approve the final design and order the bidding. • Ratified the Teacher's Master Contract for 1909-91. • Engaged the services of Christensen Building Corporation as construction manager for the classroom and pool addition construction project. • Adopted the final property tax levy for 1989. • Accepted the audit of school district records for 1988-89 from Froehling, Anderson, Plowman and Egnell, Ltd. Regular Meeting. December 11.1989 • Approved the following variance requests: Anjanette Cornelius, grade 4, to Orono; Jennifer Mauer, grade 7, Beverly Maucr, grade 8, to Chask^; Damon Covnc, grade 10, to Hopkins. • Accepted the resignation of Marvel Bongart, Schumann Elementary Principal effective at the end of the 198^-90 school vear. • A Tceptc'd the resignation of Palriaa Headley, high school business education teacher, effective the end of the 1989-90 school year. • Approved the Sexual Harassment Policy as presented. • Approved the contractual agreement with the Superintendent for the 1989-91 period. • Approved the changes for the social studies curriculum as recommended by the social studies faculty. ■ (ti iu«ift •:•) lit ■ I tTO^i (•(M rOiT:1 tj Olt4 r.l:«i ir« 11 r«i (*•;• ■ tj• «i 4.1 h .r. 4cfj T.%p:1<TOlV.]hti tT4.i r.W.l #7:1 W [•Mtf.nr.iiraor.•imr.iiiitj iTfTi nr.Tti v*.r« r« II i ra i« c r«ir»>iii* FTItmr.VT:^rm •nn r. inTtc hlfMiTOlV.I.J hi •!• ■! iV •I.7I ra « hriT.atirt iinr:. •jc.vjr. p:l lT:T*^4 f iI411 V:l |T« H.rilf Cl V«l» •Zm iZQ r* ■ II tiVm KH •} r: 1 P.U».r«TfBiT;7:r4.VJt.7lTt] rtr.TiT«riT.B>jt:^ •T4:¥?:T1 M *7 WI.I.7CT.[•LI r:)lT.BI|.r.h ^icTi [•HtTilf'. 9^1 I I'll, f; ESTERN HENNEPIN COUNTY PIONEERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (FOUNCED 1907) P.O. Box 332 Long Lake. NN 55356 February 7, 1990 The City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay^ *^0. 55323 Dear Sirs; Thank you very much for your recent annual donation of 5500.00 per year to the Western Hennepin County Pioneers Association, Inc. In view of the major repairs to the oiumbing system and kitchen, the funds will be put to good use Be assured we appreciate this annual donation. Sincerely yours. ^is. Cherry C.Stubbs Secretary 5E. - p j tm ’ ' '^•0. i«r W uw, UI,. „ ^IT of Orono (6■•y# "h. 55323•t robruory 7, 199o«t, .uel, tor your we*,, don.tj« „ SSOO.OO «w<S« ppppir. t. .k. * "«Ptlo". Ipp. i„ ,4^*PP^P Pnd kitehM m““• »««< upp. ... ' “* "* " •»«iPtP tot. pn««,x SincpTPly yput.. "»•. Chorey C.stubbo Soerotary )••'<• •, >•■-ir-:Westonko Connon: AciioD Nehvor!Jmi2 » iP-* CMEMENCV AffISTANCE ♦ MEALE OM WHEBI.S A AEEEARAL*Dac ember 1*?B9Dearmm «We need your help. Have you ever Mondered what it would be like if you loot your Jebt eliminated your financial resourceo and still hart to provide for yourself , .ts well oo those who are depcmient upon your support? What would you do? ANIUCII You would call Westonka Community Action Network (WeCAN). UeCAN was established to address the human service needs of people of all ages. WeCAN is a commvmity based service provider, and facilitator of emergency fundLi^g for rent, house payments, food, eaiergency shelter, clothing, utility services and other emergency needs. The fact is Hennepin County is cutt'ng back and our needs are increasing. We need your hel?- -to establish on-going financial support from businesses, and individuals who live and work in our service area. Pli“a*..e help us. fienij your gift today, so we may continue providing help to those in need. Thank You! Sincerely, The WeCAN Board of Directors I --i Please send your tan deductible gift toi WeCAN S600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, MN SS364 VPS, 1 will help. Please accept my gi ft of I Name Address. Ph tt S13 S2S sso _ _ _SI 00 _ _ _S500 .Other 5*00 LVNWOOD BLVO.. MOUNOi SB364 Weslonka Communpa^Action Network;assistance * MSALS OH WHEELS * REFEBBALS19B‘»our lieJP- lost e. wondrr^P what it ^ ^r^ourceo ond r.tiU •ovidc What would VO^J . '-n--r/roL...........— ’ , .«,an service need* , estahnohed rVr^V"" ivmentGf L«,riencv I'eeds*, clhcr CO,r,.nCV Hent.opi" CooP'v '« esteblis" oi'-bO'"* Iro. businesses, anO .-,1 sonce’'!; area. ,, ..ark in uur s ..ontinue . c.,„u vou. Qi't todav. - :';‘heib‘iO -n.o in need. r^l VOU’ ) i r bc t ^ ,p your ta. d.dUCUt>l Qi<t to: 5;oo\ynwnod Boulevard hound, MN 5536fl yrs, 1 ML 1 i •■'dip* FI ease accept my qM t 04 ! h 5600 LVHWOOD iwoi. HOUHO. «» ««“ VESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORKWeCAN 3600 Lynwood Blvd Mound. MN 55364 Phone 472-3181 estonka communityACTION NETWORK WeCAN 5600 Lynvood Blvd Mound. MN 55364 Phone 472-3161 BACKGROUNDWestonka Community Action Network {WeCan ) is a community based, non-profit action Qroup. It was formed as a prassroots effort to brinQ needed human services to our area. Our board is comprised of people from a variety of organizations: schoois. city government, police departments, churches, volunteer groups, emergency services and businesses. Our service area includes the communities of:OronoSt. Bonifacius Greenfield Spring Park Minnetrista Tonka Bay Maple Plain Minnetonka Beach Mound Navane LorettoIndependenceOVERVIEW The commonly accepted stereotype of the Westonka area is one of an affluent enclave. When parts of our service area are viewed from Lake Minnetonka it is plain that ihere is tremendous wealth in the area. What is not so obvious is that there is also abject pov erty. For example: The percentage of households in poverty is 2S$ in theWestonka area This compares to a rate of 4% in Suburban Hennepin County as a whole. 45% of these households in poverty are households with children. In the Westonka School District (which encompasses Mound. Minnetrista. Spring Park, Navarre and portions of Orono ) 1134 of children enrolled in all grades qualify for subsidized lunches. By denying existing, chronic poverty, our stereotype of wealth has left theWestonka area with a history of few accessible services to help the poor. Available services do not reach into the community. Most county services are centered and accessed in downtown Minneapolis, a distance of 25 miles. There Is a sense of isolation and aban donment by the agencies whose purpose is to provide services to low income people. WeCan is concerned by the disturbing disparity between the human service needs of Westonka residents and the availability of services to meet those needs. our area. Our tolrw ^ ®« « 0rassr^ts^i. f ® ®®"’">unjty based rv»«. ^St. Sonifacius ^^‘rmetrista oojj"'“0'*'«sof; 0®”cy servicesGreeofleW Bay J^nd® Wrnnetonka Beach independence * %■ rrj B '"“'•""ar. households Wimchwren Mound, -^^KsSSrcSpS THE PROJECTWeC/Ws main goat is to see that low income individuals ar>d families who are in crisis will have access to the resources they need. We believe that no person orfamily who needs help ....social, medical, educational, employment-related .......should fall through the cracks' or remain isolated from those who can provide appropriate services.We have secured office space at the Westonka Community Center where clients are being served by trained volunteer advocates. In this space we expect to establish a mini-service center for use by non-profit, public and private agencies whose aims fit our mission. WeCAN currently provides emergency services as both private and public funds are available. Tl^ Meats on Wheels program is also an important part of the work of WeCAN. HOW WE SERVE THOSE IN NEED The following 'case study' will give an idea of the kinds of problems and emergencies we are currently trying to address with limited funds. Mary Ann, Bob and Katie their 3 yr. old child came from a small toupn to the big city looking for employment. Until recently, both had Jobs, but Bob lost his due to alcohol related problems. He took out his frustration by physi cally abusing Mary Ann and eventually left his family with no support. Mary Ann is trying to hold her life together, but she hasn't finished high school, has no family to fall back on, and can only find a minimum uiage Job. She is one of the “working poor." She has resisted asking for help, but a crisis has happened. Her 10 yr. old cor needs repair so that she can get to work and there is no money. She is alone and fearful .......her self-esteem and motlua- tion is shrinking. Where can she turn? A friend directs her to the WeCAN office where she finds a compassionate, listening ear. After substantiating her story the WeCAN volunteer negotiates with a local mechanic for a reasonable repair Job. She also interests Mary bnn in the adult basic education program located in our building mhere she can work toward receiving her high school diploma. Rware that she hes been physically abused, the volunteer links Mary Rnn up with a volunteer from the Ulestonke Interventton Project where she re ceives needed support ond counsel.UleCRN has helped Mary Rnn back on the rood to self-sufficiency.An ancioni proverb reads: "CHARITY WELL REGULATED BEGINS AT HOME." It is in that spirit that the Westonka Community Action Network is attempting to reach out to those in need in our communities. Wont you join as 'a neighbor helpir^ neighbors' with a tax-deductible gift which can bring hope to people with emergency needs? Your support is urgently needed if we are to continue this outreach in our communities. Yes. I want to help. Please accept my gift of: ___$15 ___ $100 ___$ 25 ____$ 500 ____$ !>0 ____S Other Please -nake checks payable to WeCAN and send to; Westonka Community Action Network 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound. MN 55364 Name; Address Phone Number: THANK YOin 1 1loRONcJ CITY of ORONO Po«t Offic* Boa fi6«Cry«Ul Bay. MwoMota S5323«Maaidpal On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 25, 1990 Senator Gen Olson 6750 County Road 110 West Mound, MN 55364. ^ Dear Senator^oison. Enclosed is the City's Legislative Policies document for 1990. A key concern is the recently enacted changes in the area of ground water protection. These statute revisions have effectively removed the City's control of well drilling, which plays a significant role in Orono's land use management plan. The City has a good program which has now been preempted by the State as of January l, 1990. While preempting the City, the Health Department has little, if any, program or inspection ability in place to handle this important area. While the legislation does provide a means for delegating «.ell regulation authority to the Counties and in turn to the Cities, this can only be done where a Board of Health exists. Hennepin County has shown little interest in entering this field. We will be contacting you on this and other significant items as they progress. C.J • Uf-tt') ^ Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator MBB/dh Enclosure / AUlA^',. -a cc: Mayor and City Council Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. Bl lUHNG « ZONIN(; ■ AitSESSINr. AOMIMSTRATION A HXAMt - 4T3-7351 MX-47^0510 PI BLH.' y^oMcs - CITY of ORONOP».««» to. es-Ctoi to,. Mito— «»-On the North Shore of tohe Minnetonka1990 John Bur9®^ le Road MN 55356 (\a\^ jentativeyBurger, ^ ^ pftlicies document cor ed is the City’s ^^®Vntl? eMCted changes in the area By concern is »hese statute revisions havewater protection. These s drilling, which y removed the City ® ® »g xand use Lgnificant role ^as now been preempted by the as a good J^^'L^Jle preempting the City, the of January ®prSgram or Inspection n this and other significant items Li be contacting you on this ana irogress* rely. E. Bernhardson Administrator and City Council joning Administrator Asst! lunnln, * Jonin, C-473-7J57 ,dministiution a finance *n.iy» fAX-473Nt5lO PtBtlC VlitMiKS • l7>-735f 1'homas L. Johniomrutwvr arYosktv 141 ]09|u aAlO^t^a'Ni i\ 0<io ftoMBVKA*Office Of The Hennepin County A ttorney2000 Government C enter Minneapolis , Minnesota S5487January 22, 1990 RE; CHIEF KILEO, OROl.'O POLICE DEPT.BEVERLY J. BEHSONassistai:t he!:mepth cou!:tv attop.!:ev STATE OF MINNESOTA V. RONALD EGON DITTER For your infornation, on January 12, 1990, Ronald Egon Ditter pled guilty to Count I: Controlled Substance Crime Fifth Degree-Possession and Count II: Failure to Possess Tax Stamps, pursuant to the following settlement agreement: Defendant plead guilty to an amended Count I: Controlled Substance Crime Fifth Degree-Possession and Count II: Failure to Possess Tax Stamps. Stay of imposition. Merge for sentencing: 90 day jail cap. Defendant agrees to forfeit the $3700 seized in the search of defendant's home and to pay an additional $1500 in exchange for the return of his real property. State will not request additional monetary penalties i.i the criminal case since deftr.dr.rt '.’iU cay "rEIOO in the forfeiture l3v;suit. On March 1, 1990, at 8:30 a.n., the Defendant will return to Court for sentencing. Thanks for a thoroughly investigated case! If sincerely, TH01-*AS L. JOHNSON Hennepin County Attorney BEVERLY ji BEMSO’: Assistant County Attorney HKNNHMN » OI NTV IS ,AS Al t IK.MA I IVt. .AC TU)'' t.Ml’LOA tK HOMAI L. JOHMWM rvvuTV «rro«MtfOffice Of The Hennepin G)unty Attorney2000 GovniKiiiKT Ctirrm Minniam >us, Minnuota SS487January 22, 1990CHIEF KILBO, ORONO POLICE DEPT. OH:BEVERLY J. BENSON ASSISTANT HENNEPIN COUIITY ATTORNEY STATE OF MINNESOTA V. RONALD EGON DITTER information, on January 12, 1990, Ronald Egon tter pled guilty to Count I: Controlled Substance Crime Fifth gree-Possession and Count II: Failure to Possess Tax Stamps, rsuant to the following settlement agreement: Defendant plead guilty to an amended Count I: Controlled Substance Crime Fifth Degree-Possession and Count II: Failure to Possess Tax Stamps. Stay of imposition. Merge for sentencing: 90 day jail cap. Defendant agrees to forfeit the $3700 seized in the search of defendant's home and to pay an additional $1500 in exchange for the return of his real property, state will not request additional monetary penalties iii the criminal case since defendant vilJ pay «52CO in the forfeiture lawsuit. On March 1, 1990, at 8:30 a.m., the Defendant will turn to Court for sentencing. Thanks for a thoroughly investigated case! sincerely. lloo THOl'iAS L. JOHNSON Hennepin County Attorney BEVERLY jI BENSON Assistant County Attorney hi:nm :pin l orsiY is an akhkmai ive action kmployek \>,o. .,1Qi' yS » »•.* OlcrytC' i'B A^i.[ n/ UH/J- , t r, \ ./mtnji CIM' d>f^A. > ^ * « « T L > S V ) V E ) r J < i i > ? ) * • J CRONO POLICE DEPARTMENT itos ngv COWim NUMKR lOCAl CQWT/>CtNCv«ClCC€WT lO>G- I E . C . 1 I / I X^. V I 0.0,6^^ I I M , N i 0 , 2 , 7 I f,Kr> T3~l /V Vv OATEnmmBXWDi ITI / I ^.Ha.olsy I / I 1.91 ~1 II OCATIONGfOONBAlGN) PUCE r ej ^r c^jej LiOR »•«) SQUAD OR MDQE#(S8N) TMEASIGfrAS) TMEARR(TAR. TRIE ClR aa)MOM< i3i/»^i/i \i\ .s-\i\ /,-y, 3c ii j,->, y,~> 1 P.^Mflf X R-RaRo X A-AImw \ LNW gw CU/lo /!/[ uen SN m/r”]yj orriMKC QBXTMICOMPUWTJ /^cc Q_J OFFICER ^PRMCIPALCOOE SUSPECT SUS VCTIM VC iSST REPORT PARTY WP ADIMN ADM OFFENDER OFF OTHER OTH l-l T-oew D(:i0r M€STC CITATION D WAINiZ P£ IMCOAST.PieT.MOOlE) _ i_ i DOB .SEX Aoons / /?3c?/9 r^K! IMI€<UST f«$T.MDOL£j PM(W) PM(R» OTNCR REPORTS BCIUDED irP 7*-Voy'*’P^« Piflplwwiwyl AOORESS “Sty NWOAit.RRST.ISXXib PHtWj RwlC PmmC Tagil PH(R) OoMt vanAmtD OiiRM^D RoiCgD PH(W) PM(R) ei fif^r /ciH ^pc/t/o»*/~ '4^c. a Lc <-e. - /^6T 'fur'fL^r-1. C iV.5^ <-e. f 5fi»'/g. A.Cn.\ Jr-^ . f r */A. *1^ 4 ’.^ » COPYTO 000(1] CO PTTwv r: crvi-nff: oxrtt CMJ£f IP* CONS OT>€R DISPOSrnOAi Untotindsd Qeired By Arrest M. Oner Agency Inactive Qg>e^ OFFICERS r/7 SUPERVISOR 5 S'SNiTURE I i : : : ^1. s;: i I N i I 1 City of Long Lake P.O. Box 606LOiWG LAKLy MN 55356 DATE:Janauary 2ft,1990 TO:Orono Police Department PROM;Donald Laakkonen The Lonq Lake Park Boar<^ and I would like to Thank the Orono Police Department, especially Officers knderson and Palmer. On January 9, 1990 they noticed a City Employee consuming alcohol while on duty at the Holbrook Park Warming House, and immediately notified me of this incident. Because of their notification. I was able to handle the situation immediately, before it got out of control. Their discoyery and handling of the situation are greatly appreciately. TJranks agaii^ oOffi O V\ p SHERIPC DON OMODT tff 6 COURTHOUSE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 (612)34B 3'44 February 1, 1990 Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT 445 Willow Drive Long Lake MN 55356 Dear Chief Kilbo: On January 13, 1990 the Water Patrol received a call of suspicious activity on I^ke Minnetonka. Our Water Patrol Deputies were not in a position to stop a vehicle as it was leaving Spring Park Bay. Officer Kurt Erickson was in the area of Water Patrol and inunediately came to our assistance and made the traffic stop of this suspect vehicle as it left Spring Park Bay. Officer Erickson, as well as a Hound Police Officer, quickly separated the two adult males that were in the vehicle and put there into separate squad cars. Thanks to Officer Erickson's assistance and investigative techniques, we were able to make two arrests, clear up several fish house break-ins, and return property to the rightful owners. I would like to commend Officer Erickson's work on behalf of the Sheriff's Department. He not only assisted with the traffic stop, but also assisted our deputies during investigations and inter\'iews. Without his direct involvement, our deputies may not have been able to locate and stop this vehicle. i would also like to thank you for the cooperation sh^wn between our agencies once again. Sincerely, DON OMODT, SHERIFF By: Captain Douglas Eidem Sheriff's Patrol Division WJC:DE/now THK-U.WTR c t • r '■ ■■ ■ ••i;. •• ‘^ . ■ ■ • • ;'*, ^* * * i • S •♦ .. ..•. . • ; ,• •, •• >.•’ • • V* * * ?■■•••• , V. • ■..?.' .>,.. ... :. - • •■ •— • ............................................................. -■4. •••*. * » i"r*^• .** .Vr• w*K*j» -V-* ^ " > • ‘( • 5 PEIBENA LOVIHIAN *• :. * . >r: . i.- A ./» ✓ LWWini«'i t';r /I4 /? <=^ ’ .V •'• ' :• = •• V . I • C»AJ^ •o- '•*. ,%v ,' •51... r *^** .i ^ c-TA & ToV/uXd^ ij.Lf.iT l/yiiL.t,Ot^ O/lt i/T" CO'^C /V/V 5T3r5 • :•'X. * ; "• f •i*- ? :• • C'^/dO "^<yv-Vv Co KnC J C ^ -"i Cl,« '-'^•1 Trf^^ ■V ' ^ • .•• • •. ;*: . ..-: '% .: • . • r DATE :TO: FROM; SUBJECT: February 7, 1990 Officer Jim Morowczynski Chief Mel Kilbo Letter of appreciation I wish to conunent on your brief two moni-h • Communications with the officers who originated the case file* the victims, was done in a very positive way. Lieutenant Cheswick and Moran commented on how you keot then. L'5.nr srf£ Ffsss El““ :™'S.srs:j.s.s Thanks for your work. Bi', ■ ■)./- I '-"W i ■ ■' . . rrw M ::m bSEsmssrsa ^ ‘■ ■i j-.m 'i £'^[ ammmr «WHn u •• fna wr»«ii ~y O VW -7 v t«» S’ * 5^*” !■ fact ■■ tta piipart y *«■ that ••j :::::rr«‘:r.i*: ^4^ , s«r . ca::.1.r^r/. :_ -vsr - | —r- fthr.#. ^ t«V- ’ v |ll ■ IS- _■; :av IHH tM. (f >* to fllM Ui. MHrrtotoa «to ^x3f /oa @ iyso * ISO - /Ot ^ ^.s-x/5 e (3 ly^vi/z^-.lm, (J) l•7^x2.r»^^o 3An3 ioxfc s/*-« fr^ «X^o »- &0 ®‘’’-'‘'-*'/?,^ -n. iK) hy<\( 5) IZxW Tl M9 »n T2- ‘'•« ' *5" * M y*» /t ■=^ ”2*1 '7X«l/-»- = *'SHOwm ARC ASSUMCO. 10» NO R ♦