Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-29-1990 Council PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE C\ CITV iCC CLONO ff &TJkJCp meeting date ^/^^/^<0 PLEASE FILi- OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR {from agenda) i.'iT? L'''/', 7)2*/./a .7^U'-n ^><J fh /(fCn?-^7 -' Co.CJ A 4 • L I'fi ill'iti •. <Ia f Si /* - C. 5. \bc\o/^:-\j£l.i>' »Li.. * 6.ITAi^v P'}J0 A' 7. vr4jtt^Vtiv\w\v^ -j.------ NVir ----------+^c; 8. /.A 1 •/'Tif ^vT^'p L i:#' 7----^ ^ ^— 9.\S'\,lJ % "T ’?C.’'i!) v^vLi — rA'a .,^Y 11.)6^i —2uc> /^r :ii^/0 1 ' 12.tV’A-’ Baliu-t...^/o T-n/i 13.i^^'^KiLA.RlU.L^Lti.l n / /»/i -! ' 7^ /'!, /^.’/L'> /*f ul >7 A , lsT\fVV0i^, C^-AV. (i.^'^')."X L-1 oifsT*/V d s7 »A .> \ Htii iw .■’..ir/fA'fV- 17. • 18. 19. 20. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, MAY 29,1990,7:00 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 CALL 1. 2. 3. CONSENT AGENDA* Recognition - Teri Naab, Deputy Clerk COUNCIL MEETING may 2 91990 CITY OF ORONO 7:00 P.M. Public Hearing - A.Northern States Power Company Franchise Adoption B.Wright Hennepin Co-Op Electric Association Franchise Adoption 4.7:10 P.M.Public Hearing - Consideration of Moratorium APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 5. Regular Meeting of May 14, 1990 PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦♦APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and denials. 6.#1467 Charles Hommeyer,4125 Oak Street -Variance - Resolution 7.#1483 Harry Vogt,1342 Rest Point Circle - Variance - Resolution 8.#1511 City of Orono - Conditional Use Permit - Pump Station -Variance 9.#1515 Jeff Johnson, 3825 Cherry Avenue - Variance 10.#1516 Whitney McMillan, 1560 Fox Street - Subdivision - Resolution 11.#1517 Whitney McMillan, 1560 Fox Street - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 12.#1522 James Nordlie, 2505 Dunwoody Avenue - Variance - Resoltuion 13.#1525 William Worblewski, 630 Park Lane - Variance - Resolution 14.#1529 John Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road - Variance - Resolution ENGINEER'S REPORT * 15. Change Order #__ Well #3 16.Plans and Specs for Pump House *17.Lift Station 10 and 43 Bid Award MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 18.Planning Commission Appointment 19.Administrator's Review AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1990, 7:00 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 20.Lake Use Management 21.Navarre/Livingston Avenue Storm Sewer 22.Highway 12 - Corridor Meeting 23.Transient Merchant 24.Resolution of Appreciation - Teri Naab 25.Golf Coarse Part Time Employment 26.Public Works Employment - Part Time 27.Facilities Citizen Review Committee 28.Water Resource Protection 28A.Loop Drivew^ Request - 220 Wakefield Road 29.Administrator*^ Information Stubbs Bay Sewer Spring Managers Conference 1972 Shadywood Road Public Works Director Leave Highway Safety Improvement Annexation Update 1355 Arbor Street CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (30*) BILLS (31*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 05/24 - 7:00 P.M. Citizens Advisory Committee 05/28 - Holiday - Memorial Day Observed (Monday Holiday) 05/29 - Council Meeting (Tuesday) 06/07 - 7:00 P.M. Citizens Advisory Committee 06/11 - Council Meeting 06/18 - Planning Commission Meeting 06/25 - Council Meeting NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAfUNQ OTVOFOnONO NoBm N hfby Qisfcn trial »irfCWy of Oto- iwiMtohakRngapulilchMrinfloiTuMday. 20.1000. m 7:00 p m In Itw Oiono Coun- id ChambV.1275 Brown Rood South The purpoM o(B5i puMc hearingis to consider the hwcMM tor WHOM Hennepin Co-op Elec- the Aeeoodon and Northern States Power CompanyIn theCRy of Orono. Al peiMno wlahino to provMa written and/or oraloommantoshalappearatthis time Writ­ tenoommentsmaybeaubmittedto theOrono CNy Omoa.P O.Box 60.CrystalBay.Mn 55323. By ontor of the Orono Olty CouncH. Ai/Dorothy M. HaNn Oty of Orono (ftobMhad In The LOkar and Ptoneer May 21. 1000) Affidavit of Publication State Of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he Is an authorized agent and employee of_fl]C publisher Tlf envoF )n^the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound, Mln- ____2^1^____I , Isota. and has full knowledge of the facts whic!. “r? ]^led below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require ­ ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspap er, as provided by Minnesota Statute MAY 2 5 1990 3C1A,02. 33IA.07. and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed tlOlX U- . [! Cc (hh-fd on , .a/cc^ ) which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspape week for. which IS atiacneo was cui num me ------ newspaper, and was printed and published once each /__________successive weeks: It was first published Monday, the 2!^day of __IUAU----- and was thereafter printed and ‘published every Monday, to and including Monday. the day of 19__; Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to rre on this day rif yy 1 t \Mntarv Pi ^_ Notary Public Rate Information (1)Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for compara­ ble space. *9.00 per Inch. (2)Maximum rate allowed by law fer above matter; $9.80 per Inch. |3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $5.20 per Inch. Each additional successive week; $3.38 per Inch ■ife-v‘-:V—■ 51690.3 3 TO; FROM: DATE: COUNCIL MEETINGMayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Admin is traMrjl^ WAY 29 1990 May 16, 1990 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: NSP and Wright Hennepin Franchises PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. NSP FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WRIGHT HENNEPIN FRANCHISE AGREEMENT Attachments: ISSUE - A.NSP Draft Franchise Agreement B.Wright Hennepin Draft Franchise Agreement C.Notice of Publication D.Summary Ordinances for Publication 1.Hold a public hearing for consideration of adoption of the two franchises. 2.Determine if the Council desires to adopt the franchise agreements for NSP and Wright Hennepin, 3.Determination as to what the Council desires to adopt for summary publication. INTRODUCTION - Utility companies in order to use the city's rights on right-of-ways enters into franchise ordinance agreements with the cities which generally spell out the terms of those arrangements. The City is a member of the Suburban Rate Authority who jointly negotiated the basic form of this electrical franchise with the two electrical utilities involved together with the involvement of the State's Public Utility Commission. Any significant deviation fron. the basic form that is desired should be negotiated between the City, the Electric Utilities and the State's Public Utility Commission. DISCUSSION - As mentioned the primary purpose of the franchise agreement is to spell out the terms under which the franchisee will be able to use the City's public right-of-ways for its electrical utility lines and other structures. This does not apply to right-of-ways with the County or the State and specifically the agreement references that any federally funded state trunk highway project has a reimbursement clause in the statute which is handled by the Commissioner of Transportation. Additionally if the City were to have any federally assisted redevelopment programs etc. that would require the relocation the terms of that cost for relocation would be determined through the Federal Rules. FRANCHISE FEE - The agreement does allow the City to impose up to a 5% francTilie fee on the utility. It is estimated that between the two utilities that if the City were to impose the 5% maximum it would generate at least $50,000 a year. The terms of the agreement are that it would have to be applied not only to the two electric utilities at the same rate but also to Gas Company s4^1es«: Th^'City has not imposed this fee in the past and if it desired to impose it as an additional revenue source would do so through a separate ordinance adoption. TERRITORIAL CONTROL - The ‘Public Utilities Commission governs territories for the franchises. Requests for such need to be submitted by those property owners interested. Staff will provide additional information to Council on the process and what role the City may play at the next meeting. RATE CONTROL - It was noted by the City Attorney at the last meeting the rate control for the utilities together with their territorial delineations arc* under the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission. While the City can not directly act on the rates, the City through the Suburban Rate Authority provides advocacy for the cities and its residents to keep the rates as low as possible. The Suburban Rate Authority enters on behalf of its member cities not only in electric utility rate cases but also for telephone, gas and has done some work for metro sewer rates imposed by Metro Waste Control. ALTERNATIVES - 1.Hold the hearing on the two franchises. 2.Adopt both franchises. 3.Amend and adopt. 4.Table. 5.Take no action. 6.Adopt summaries for publ.cation. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that absent any substantive objections to the franchis«s that the City adopt both together with the summaries for publication. If Council desires staff could explore the issue of the franchise fee, which would be seperately delineated on the electric bill as an additional source of revenue that v'ould be outside the property tax levy limits. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, the Council having held a public hearing adopts Ordinance No. , Second Series for a electrical franchise fcx Northern States Power and adopts Ordinance No. _, Second Series for uniform electric franchise ordinance for Wright Hennepin Electric utility. The City additionally adopts summaries for publication as set forth in Attachment E.Ayes _, Nays _. (i 4 (As Approved by the SRA Board 04/15/87) SRA UNIFORM ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF COUNTY MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF _ _ _ _ _ _ _, MINNESOTA AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBU­ TION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, LINES, FIXTURES AND APPUR­ TENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE CITY, ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS, AND TO USE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. The City Council of the City of SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS does ordain: 1.1 "City” In this Ordinance, "City" means the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, County of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, State of Minnesota. 1.2 "City Utility System" means the facilities used for providing sewer, water, or any other public utility service owned or operated by City or agency thereof. 1.3 "Company" means Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. 1.4 "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the Division General Manager thereof at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Notice to City shall be mailed to the City Clerk. 1.5 "Public Way" means any street, alley, or other public right-of-way within the City. 1.6 "Public Ground" means land owned by the City for park, open space or similar purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. 1.7 "Electric Facilities" means electric transmission and distribution towers, poles, lines, guys, anchors, ducts. fixtures, and necessary appurtenances owned or operated by the Company for the purpose of providing electric energy for public use SECTION 2.FRANCHISE 2.1 Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of twenty years from April 1, 1987, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light, heat, power and other purposes for public and private use v/ithin and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extend­ ed in the future. For these purposes. Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject, however, to zoning ordinances, other applica­ ble ordinances, permit procedures, and to the further provisions of this franchise. 2.2 Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and its acceptance by the Company, and its publication as required by law [and the City Charter) . An acceptance by the Company must be filed with the City Cleric within 90 days after publication. the 2.3 Service Rates and Area, rates _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The service to be provided and to be charged by Company for electric service in City currently are subject to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The area within the City in which the Company may provide electric service currently is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.40. 2.4 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this ordinance shall be paid by the Company. 2.5 Default. If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, either party may commence an action in District Court to inter­ pret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equity for breach of contract, or either party may take any other action permitted by law. SECTION 3.LOCATION, OTHER REGULATIONS 3.1 Location of Facilities. Electric Facilities shall be located and cc'^structed so as not to interfere with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over Public Ways and they shall be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City. The Company's construction, reconstruction, operation. repair, maintenance and location of Electric Facilities shall be subject to other reasonable regulations of the City. 3.2 Field Locations. The Company shall provide field locations for any of its underground Electric Facilities within a reasonable period of time on request by the City. The period of time will be considered reasonable if it compares favorably with the average time required by the cities in the same county to locate municipal underground facilities for the Company. 3.3 Street Openings. The Company shall not open or disturb the paved surface of any Public Way or Public Ground for any purpose without first having obtained permission from the City, for which the City may impose a reasonable fee. Permit condi­ tions imposed on the Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. The Company may, however, open and disturb the paved surface of any Public Way or Public Ground without permission from the City where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Electric Facilities. In such event the Company shall notify the City by telephone to the office designated by the City before opening or distributing a paved surface of a Public Way or Public Ground. Not later than the second working day thereafter, the Company shall obtain any required permits and pay any required fees. 3.4 Restoration. After undertaking any work requiring the opening of any Public Way or Public Ground, the Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to as good condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain the same in good condition for two years thereafter. The work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if the Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground in the said condition, the City shall have, after demand to the Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to make the restoration at the expense of the Company. The Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City, including its administrative expense and overhead, plus ten percent additional as liquidated damages. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City. 3.5 Shared Use of Poles. The Company shall make space available on its poles or towers for City fire, water utility, police or other City facilities whenever such use will not interfere with the use of such poles or towers by the Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable television company or other form of communication company. In addition, the City shall pay for any added cost incurred by the Company because of such use by City. SECTION 4.RELOCATIONS 4.1 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ways. Except as provided in Section 4.3, if the City determines to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct any City Utility System in any Public Way, it may order the Company to relocate its Electric Facilities located therein. The Company shall relocate its Electric Facilities at its own ex­ pense. The City shall give the Company reasonable notice of plans to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any City Utility System. If a relocation is ordered within five years of a prior relocation of the same Electrical Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the City shall reimburse Company for non-betterment expenses on a time and material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a City Utility System to a previously unserved area. Company may be required to make the subsequent relocation at its expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconnect at its own expense its facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the City and is not reasonably necessary for the construction or reconstruction of a Public Way or City Utility System or other City improvement. 4.2 Relocation Except as _ _ _ _ _ _Electric Facilities in Public Ground. _ ___ may be provided in Section 4.3, City may require the Company to relocate or remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by City that the Electric Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment of the publi»- Mse to which the Public Ground is or will be put. The relocation or removal shall be at the Company's expense. The provisions of 4.2 apply only to Electric Facilities constructed in reliance on a franchise and the Company does not waive its rights under an easement or prescriptive right. 4.3 Projects with State or Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company facilities made neces­ sary because of the extension into or through City of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provi­ sions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.46 as supplemented or amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to Company is a valuable right. City shall not order Company to remove, or relocate its facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or *\ny agency thereof, unless the reasonable non-betterment costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company, but the City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 4.4 Liability. Nothing in the Ordinance relieves any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care t:o avoid damaging Electric Facilities while performing any activity. SECTION 5.TREE TRIMMING The Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City interfering with the proper construc­ tion, operation, repair and maintenance of any Electric Facili­ ties installed hereunder, provided that the Company shall save the City harmless from any liability arising therefrom, and subject to permit or other reasonable regulation by the City. SECTION 6.INDEMNIFICATION 6.1. The Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the City free and harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance of permits, or the operation of the Electric Facilities located in the City. The City shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the City's negligence as to the issuance of permits for, or inspection of, the Company's plans or work. The City shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, and such performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by City after notice of Company's determina­ tion. 6.2 In the event a suit is brought against the City under circumstances where this agreement to indemnify applies, the Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the City in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to the Company within a period wherein the Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. If the Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but the Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City; and the Company, in defending any action on behalf of the City shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 7.VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS The City shall give the Company at least two weeks' prior written notice of a proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a City street or other improvement project, the vacation of any Public Way, after the installation of Electric Facilities, shall not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such Electrical Facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall City be liable to the Company for failure to specifically preserve a right-of-way, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29. SECTION 8.CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT Ai.> change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of the Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 9.FRANCHISE FEE 9.1 Separate Ordinance. During the term of the franchise hereby granted, and in lieu of any permit or other fees being imposed on the Company, the City may impose on the Company a franchise fee of not more than five percent of the Company's gross revenues as hereinafter defined. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a st parate ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least 60 days after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified mail. * The fee shall not become effective until at least 60 days after written notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been served upon the Company by certified mail. 9.2 Terms Defined. The term "gross revenues" means all sums, excluding any surcharge or similar add'<-lon to the Company's charges to customers for the purpose of reimbursing the Company for the cost resulting from the franchise fee, received by the Company from the sale of electricity to its retail custom­ ers within the corporate limits of the City. 9.3 Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable not less often than quarterly, and shall be based on the gross revenues of the Company during complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made. The percent fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time; however, each change shall meet the same notice requirements and the percentage may not be changed more often than annually. Such fee shall not exceed any amount which the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for electric service. The Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions tc account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The time and manner of collecting t-he fran­ chise fee is subject to the approval of the Public Utilities Commission, which the Company agrees to use best efforts to obtain. The Company agrees to make its gross revenues records available for inspection by ♦‘he City at reasonable times. r 9.4 Conditions on the Fee. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be effective against the Company unless it lawfully imposes and the City quarterly cr more often collects a fee or tax of the same or greater percentage on the receipts from sales of energy within the City by any other energy supplier, provided that, as to such a supplier, the City has the authority to require a franchise fee or to impose a tax. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to energy sales for any energy use related to heating, cooling, or lighting, as well as to the supply of energy needed to run machinery and appliances on premises located within or adjacent to the City, but shall not apply to energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. SECTION 10.SEVERABILITY If any portion of this franchise is found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, the validity of the remainder shall not be affected. SECTION 11.AMENDMENT This ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of the Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 90 days after the effective date of the amendatory ordinance. SECTION 12.PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED This franchise supersedes any previous electric franchise granted to the Company or its predecessor. Passed ana approved Mayor of the City of Minnesota ATTEST: Clerk of the City of , Minnesota 0060RE02.B18 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF ORONO Notice is hereby given that the City of Orono will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the Orono Council Chambers, 1275 Brown Road South. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the franchise for Wright Hennepin Co-Op Electric Association and Northern States Power Company in the City of Orono. All persons whishing to provide written and/or oral comments shall appear at this time. Written comments may be submitted to the Orono City Office, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323. By order of the Orono City Council /s/ Dorothy M. Hallin City of Orono (Publish in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of May 21, 1990.) ORDINANCE NUMBER , SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance a copy of whichNumberSecond Series" and is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. li OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER _____r SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM ELECTRIC FRANCHISE IN THE CITY OF ORONO. The following is the official summary of Ordinance , Second Series approved by the City Council of theNumber _ _ City of Orono on An Ordinance granting to Northern States Power Company and Wright He...iepin Co-Op Association, Minnesota Corporations, its successors and assigns/ permission to construct/ operate/ repair and maintain in the City of Orono, Minnesota an electiric distribution system and transmission lines, including necessary poles, lines, fixtures and appurtenances, for the furnishing of electric energy to the City, its inhabitants, and others, and to use public way and public grounds of the City for such purposes. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk. week of This Ordinance becomes effective upon publication, the nays Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this day of __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _# 1990, by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ OTY OF ORONO NMic« to hereby tfven that the City ot ^o- rio be holding a pub»c heartr)g on Tuwjday. May20 1900 at 7 10 pm In the Orono Coun­ cil Ch»T*efa, 1275 Brown Road South The purpoee of this public hearing to to Impoaing a moratorium aa it relatea to facMItlea of local unMa of government other than those of the City of Orono and school dtotricta. The City to to determine what appropriate zoning category and regulationa are approprate to such uae. If ony.All peraortowiahlng to provide written and/or oral conwnenta ahaH appear at this ttmo^rit- ten cornmenta may be submitted lo t^ City Office. P O. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN City Clerk (PuWtohed m The Laker and Pioneer May 21 . 1900) Affidavit of Publication Stale of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. aQ'SO Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is ^ an authorized agent and employee of the publisher ^ of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound, Min ­ nesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below; A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require­ ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07. and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printnrf P/“/ __H'lO which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for________J._________successive weeks: It was first published Monday, the day of __i-la otand was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday, the day of 19_; 1/ Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this day nf ) ) ) % . Notary Public Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for compara­ ble space; *9.80 per Inch (2) Maximum rale allowed by law for above matter $9 80 per Inch. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter $5 20 per Inch Each additional successive week $3 38 per Inch 51590.1 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato’i^^ May 15, 1990 TO; FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Moratorium - Facilities for Non City of Orono Municipalities meetog WAVS 91990 Cffy OF ORONO Attachment: A. Draft Ordinance No.Second Series b! Ordinance No. 10.20 - R-lA One Family Residential Zone C. Ordinance No. 10.40 D. City of Wayzata Letter Dated 5/23/90 ISSUE - 1. Hold the public hearing. 2. Determine if the City desires to impose a moratorium as it relates to facilities of other units of governemnt other than those of the City of Orono and the school districts outside the jurisdictional boundaries, to determine what zoning category and regulations are appropriate to such use. 3. If so, adopt Attachment A, effective _ _ _ _ _.. INTRODUCTION - In the past there has been one case^ of the location of“selected facilities of another municipality being located in the City of Orono. This has subsequently resulted an attempted annexation. As Council may be aware there has been interest expressed in another parcel by another municipality. While they have indicated that such municipality may not need to have it annexed into their jurisdiction at this ^ obviously sets up a possible basis for an i /I? In addition there are other land use issues related to such considerations that need study. DISCUSSION - Minnesota Statutes 462.351 et. .sq. give^ the municipalities the ability to adopt a moratorium in order to allow it an opportunity to explore selected land use issues. The City can adopt a moratorium for up to 18 months and can subsequently extend that moratorium subject to a public hearing for a period not to exceed an additional 12 months. AS you will note in Attachment B the City does allow location of municipal facilities as a permitted use in any of its zones^together with its commercial zones. (As noted in Attachment C they are only permitted in business usage is considered an office usage.) It is our pity Attorney s position that that applies only to city of Orono facilities, t municipality interested in the land indicates that there is a court interpretation that indicate that it may be broader than ?Sal" (Stiff asked for a legal citation of that but has not received a response from that community.) issue moot. A moratorium makes the The proposed moratorium wouJd not apply to any facilities the ’City; its'el'f was contemplating but only those of local "governmental units, apart from the School District which is already addressed in the code as a conditional use permit. (Local government facilities currently located in the community are the Hennepin County Public: Works garage, Noerenberg and Baker Parks .) It is anticipated that the consideration of this should take no more than six to nine months and the City staff will provide to the Planning Commission alternatives regarding possible changes to our ordinance. Once actec on by the Planning Commission it would be presented to the Council for a determination. If concluded earlier and policy adopted the Council could repeal the moratorium earlier. ALTERNATIVES - Policy for consideration during the term of the moratorium - 1. Clarify in ordinance that 10.20 applies only to City of Orono facilities. 2. Determine if the City desires to allow governmental facilities (apart from School Districts which are already a conditional use permit) as permitted or a conditional use permit and under what zoning categories they may be allowed. A. Any residential zone. B. Selected residential zones. C. Commercial. D. Industrial. 3. Allow no other local governmental entities or category of governmental entities to construct such ^ facilities in the City of Orono. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Enact a moratorium effective immediately. 2. Direct staff to undertake the necessary consideration and study of such facilities. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City adopt the necessary moratorium regarding the governmental facilities apart from its own and the school district. The moratorium puts other jurisdictions on notice that Orono is considering the moratorium and under what conditions the zoning code would permit such. seconded by that Council adoptPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __ _ Ordinance NO. _ _, Second Series establishing a moratorium on governmental facilities apart from its own and the school district as se‘* forth in the moratorium. Ayes , Nays ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE GRANTING OP BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISlOH/ZOHING APPLICATIONS, CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES OR EVERY OTHER AUTHORITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY FACILITIES OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT APART FROM THE CITY OP ORONO’S FACILITIES OR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITHIN THEIR OWN BOUNDRIES. The City of Orono ordains: The municipal Code of the City of Orono is amened by adding Ordinance No. _ _, Second Series. Section 1. Statement of Policy. - The City Council finds the City is faced with potential for applications for development of local government facilities which raise the potential issue as to the most appropriate land use, compatibility with residential development together with the potential threat for annexation of property so developed into that of another jurisdiction. The City is in the process of re-evaluating its official controls in order to determine what appropriate place, if any, there is to permit such facilities within its jurisdictional boundries. The Council finds that amending any other official controls can not be done until a study is completed and a hearing held. During this interim period it is desirable that Council establish criteria for those who wish to develop property in order to bring about savings in public and private expenditures and provide public guides to the future City action. The City determines there is an urgency involved because of the need to control development during the interim period so that the benefits of proper planning will not be lost, to preserve the status quo pending adoption of these measures so the City will not be impared in its ability to effectuate the purposes :*nd goals of these planning efforts. Since enactment of an ordinance will undoubtedly modify existing regulation concerning permitted land use and zoning performance standards, the granting of various zoning and permit applications during this interim period would be detrimental to the effectuation and contrary to the purpose of the zoning enabling act. The Council further finds that it would be unwise, improper and unjust to allow individual development to occur during this study period to avoid discrimination and unfair advantage to a few to the detriment of the entire City. Therefore, the Council and staff's authority to grant permits described herein shall not be exercised during the limited term of this ordinance, except as provided in Section 6. Section 2. Restrictions on the Granting of Permits and Applications. No building permit for construction or total replacement, land subdivision applications, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances or other authority for development of any local government facilities within the City shall be granted for any purpose that would be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance, including but not limited to any local government offices or other facility. Section 3. Exceptions. Exceptions or modifications of such facilities during the moratorium can grant variances on a case by case basis showing unique hardships on a 3/5 majority vote. Section 4. Area of Application. This ordinance shall apply to all land within the boundaries of the City. Section 5. Duration. This ordiance shall expire on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _, 1990, without Council action or it may be repealed earlier Tf the Council determines that the requisite studies have been completd and adopted and that the appropriate evaluation and action, including any necessary revisions of the Zoning Code, have been finalized. The duration of this ordinance may be extended by adoption of a subsequent ordinance. Section 6. Variances. Council may grant a variance to this section if it finds after careful review of all the facts the proposal is not contrary to the intent of its Comprehensive Community Management Plan and that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City and that it does not adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. Section 7. Separability. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part and if any section, provision or part thereof or action taken hereunder shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision or part. Section 8. This Ordinance shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers and shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the day of ______, 1990, by a vote of ______ ayes and _____ nays. ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor /I ttAO-H/U exsr S 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-lA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-lA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit; A. Schools. Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum sim.'lar to a public school provided no building shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R'' District and that a fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil. 3. Churches. Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes for parsons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an ”R" District. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private non­ profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an "R" District, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line. D. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within fifty feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of ORONO CC 279 (4-1-84) S 10.20 service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. E. Greenhouses. Commercial 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. F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, riding stables, ski slides, provided the ^*®a is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 100 ,>it from any lot line. G. Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the ccupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building. J. Apiaries. K. Animals. The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises, provided that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than 150 feet 'rom the nearest lot line. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal building, must be available for each animal unit, except as hereinafter set forth. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code. L. Farms (Crop). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 280 (4-1-84) • » .• V § 10.20 M. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attached theretr*, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Source: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date: 6-5-75 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no accessory structure or use of land shall be permitted except for one or more of the following uses: A. Garages. Private garages and parking space. B. Pools, etc. Private swimming pool, tennis courts, and paddocks. C. Home Occupations. Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling, when there is no employed assistant, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street, no signs other than those permitted in R Districts are oresent, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over"the counter retail sales are not involved, the entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure, and the use does not adversely affect the character of the uses permitted in the district in which it is located. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for general practice of his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. D. Signs. Signs as regulated in the Zoning Chapter. Temporary Structures. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of constructing on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. F. Gardens, etc. Gardening and other horticultural uses including aviaries and decorative landscape features. G. Roadside Stands. One roadside stand for sale only farm products produced on the premises g such stand does not exceed 200 square feet ^ located at least thirty feet back from the public right-of way. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 (4-1-84) § 10.20 H Antenna. Any antenna or combination of antenna Section 10.75. Source: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date: 6-5-77 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Rear Adjacent to Yard Yard Street __ 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet SEC. 10.21. R-IB ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd 1 Purpose. The "R-lB" One Family Residential District is Intended to provide a district which will allow denser residentil! Lvelopment.' nned allowed ty conditional c permits. The district shall have immediate access to highways nd public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the One ^^mily Residential District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses; A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA” District. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IB" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for t e following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA" District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. subd. 4. Accessory Uses Within Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: District. A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA' ORONO CC 282 (4-1-84) Aj/ . j L ’S 10.40 SEC. 10.40. B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-1” Retail Sales Business is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Retail and Service Businesses. The following neighborhood retail sales and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Arts and school supplies store. Banks and insurance companies. Barber and beauty shops. Bicycle sales and repair. Books, magazines, record shop. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks. cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. 7. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair. 8. Garden supplies, florist shop. Gift or antique shops. Hardware store, paint store. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply 9. 10. 11. stores. repair stores. 12. 13. 14. 15. Jewelry shops and repair. Laundromats. Locksmith. Music, radio, TV, appliance sales and 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. furniture, carpet store. Newsstands. Office supply store, office machine store. Pet shop. Pipe and tobacco shops. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares. ORONO CC (4-1-84) • .'V'’ supplies. lots. the use conduc’ > 10.40 21. Postal substation. 22. Real estate sales. 23. Retail food of all varieties and home 24. Sewing center and yardgoods. 25. Sporting goods store. 26. Tailor shops. 27. Temporary sales such as Christmas tree 28. Travel bureau. 29. Variety store. 30. Wearing apparel store, shoe store. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where -s customarily considered to be an office use. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-1" Retail Sales Business District no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Garages. For the servicing and repair of automobiles provided repair functions are totally enclosed in a building. B. Motor Fuel Stations. Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 18. C. Restaurants (Class I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table. Cafeteria - Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Restaurants (Class I.) D. Restaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-in, and Liquor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. E. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and such other conditions as found necessary by the Council. F. Public Services. Public service st*ectures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission s and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster *■ "ssure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and elect ^wer substations. ORONO CC Ord. 67, 2nd Series 5/8/89 (4-1-84) S 10.40 G. Nurseries. Day nurseries provided not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. offices. Professional office and offices of a general nature. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 I. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the samp lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Source: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date: 6-5-75 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. E. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or 'no*. :< the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 H. Antenna. Any antenna or combination of antenna rigidly attached to the principal or accessory structure provided that none of the foregoing exceeds the total height allowed in Section 10.75. Source: Ordinance No. Ill Effective Date: 6-5-75 ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 10.40 Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. square feet. A.Area. The B.Lot Width. feet. C.Front Yards. feet. D.Rear Yards. The minimum lot width shall be 100 The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-l" Retail Sales Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to othf*r restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards; 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, ic) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or, (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 10.40 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SBC. 10.41. B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-2" Lakeshore Commercial District was originally intended to provide areas where limited commercial businesses could be located to service boats used for recreational purposes on Lake Minnetonka. However, many of the operators of the lakeshore commercial businesses have stripped the trees and vegetation from the shorelands and have expanded the operations so that now the "B-2" Lakeshore Commercial Districts adversely affect the lake water quality and the real estate values of adjoining properties. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for additional reasonable regulations that require partial restoration of the shoreland vegetation, that will serve to avoid pollution of the lake water and to insure protection of adjacent residential properties which have previously suffered from the unregulated expansion of commercial activities. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-2" Lakeshore Commercial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "B-2" Lakeshore Business District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Repairs. Repair and servicing of boats. B. Storage. Winter storage of boats. ORONO CC 336 (4-1-84) 600 RICE STREET. WAYZ.ATA. MINN. 553VI PHONE 473-0234 cm COUNCIL Robert D. Cisvold .Mayor Robert P. Ambroie Rkhard C. Hannon F. Peter Herfunh Gregory D. Rye Allan Orsen City Manager [iQ^a • TSTAY 2 4 1990 May 23, 1990 Mayor James Grabek City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jim: The City of Wayzata respectfully requests a visitor's presentation at the next Orono Council meeting on Tuesday, May 29th. The purpose of the presentation is to discuss and explore options in the best interest.3 of both cities in regard to property recently acquired by the City of Wayzata for the possible location of a new public works facility and a park and ride facility. We understand Orono is considering an ordinance that would prohibit Wayzata building a facility in your City. We would like the opportunity to info:rmally present and discuss our plans prior to any such action, as we feel both cities will benefit from what is proposed and we would like to share those plans with you to gain your input. James Grabeck Page 2 May 23, 1990 Your prompt consideration of our request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Robert D. Gisvold Mayor RDG/js cc: Council Men^bers Ed Callahan J. Diann Goetten Alan R. Nettles Barbara J. Peterson Mark Bernhardson r ^-yyr CITY COUNat Roben O. Cisvold Mtyor Robert R Ambrose Richud C. Harmon F. Peter Herfurth Gregory D. Rye Allan Orsen City Manager CITY OF WAYZAIA 600 RICE STREET. WAYZATA. MINN. 55391 PHONE 473-0224 To: Mayor and City Council of Orono From: The City of Wayzata Re: Visitor's Presentation May 29, 1990 Orono Council Mtg. Purpose: Review and discuss concept sketch plans and proposals of land use with respect to an 8+ acre site recently purchased by the City of Wayzata. Outline of points to be covered 1. Options considered by City of Wayzata for location of a new Public Works facility. 2. Location of the purchased site. 3. Site considerations A. City boundaries B. Adjacent land uses C. Topography and vegetative cover D. Transport.' cion related issues E. Soils and drainage issues F. Utilities (sewer, water, etc.) 4. Possible park and ride facility on the remainder of the site. CITY OF WAYZATA i COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING^AY 29 1990 HELD MAY 14, 1990 CITrOFOIIOKO The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten, Nettles, Peterson and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Police Chief Kilbo, City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* Councilmember Peterson asked that item #31 be removed from the Consent Agenda. City Administrator Bernhardson asked that items #8 and #15 be included on the consent agenda. The applicant involved with item #8 wished to prepare a definitive building plan prior to presentation. He requested tabling and referring this matter back to the Planning Commission. With regard to item #15, the applicants have requested that their application be withdrawn and will need to provide the City with a written verification of that request. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of item #31, which was removed and discussed in the order appearing on the Agenda. Agenda items #8 and #15 were added to the consent agenda. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. RECOGNITION-OFFICER JAMES CORNICK Mayor Grabek presented Officer Cornick with a Resolution of Recognition for his dedication and efforts regarding his participation in the D.A.R.E. Program. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the 1990 Board of Review Meeting held April 17, 1990. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held April 23, 1990. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* ^ ^ ^ It was moved by Councilmember Goett'-io, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes f '.he Reconvened 1990 Board of Review Meeting of May 3, 1990. Motion, Ayes-5, - 1 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 ^J»PROVAL OF MINUTES CONTINUED Nays-0, Motion passed. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT: PUBLIC REVIEW DISCUSSION JoEllen Hnrr was present to answer questions and discuss comments she had received regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Hurr said that access is a major concern. She indicated that the Plan will not change policies to where there is widespread increased lake usage. Hurr said, "I believe that local control is better There is a real threat of other agencies taking control over Lake Minnetonka." Hurr referred to information she had just received from the Met Council regarding the Systems Committee. The information included a recommendation that Met Council explore the possibility of preparing a Regional lake surface use plan in cooperation with the DNP. Hurr stated that local municipalities would lose control of Lake Minnetonka should the Metro Council step in. Councilmember Callahan commended JoEllen for her dedication to public service. Callahan acknowledged that a great deal of effort has be expended in the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan. He said, ": feel that the Plan as a whole is a good plan. However, the LMCD begins with the premise that Lake Minnetonka is a public park. The Plan ha?=-. been drafted to assure that will oe the case. The LMCD is providing for increased access of the lake and increased controls for those that do use it. The views expressed by the LMCD Plan, are those that have been taken by the Met Council, Hennepin Parks and DNR for quite some time. If in fact those views are to be implemented, I feel that the LMCD is a redundant entity and should not exist. I cannot see why we need another agency to assist the other existing agencies. Especially since he LMCD wishes to have broad taxing powers and increase its tec jlatory power and staff to accomplish that. I believe that the LMCD is mistaken about its function. My view of the LMCD has been that it serves as an intervening force between the lakeshore communities and the other existing agencies. I believed that the LMCD was established because of the difficulty that municipalities had in coordinating their efforts. If the LMCD is not going to oppose the views of the other agencies, then it is up to the ^ocal municipalities to get together. The LMCD should either focus on the preservation of the lake or it should act as a mediator for the local citizens. City Administrator Bernhardson has suggested that Council form a committee. I would propose that we do that so we can prepare a formal response for the upcoming Public Hearings." Hurr replied, "Lake Minnetonka is a Regional Resource. This Plan is attempting to preserve the integrity of Lake Minnetonka. Unlike many other communities, Orono already has many of the proposed regulations in place. We are hoping to bring the other - 2 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED conununities in line with Orono." Callahan believed that the LMCD should address the effect increased usage will have on the Lake rather than focusing on who and what kind of boats should use the Lake. Hurr stated that the Plan use of the lake in the form of watercraft ordinance. Hurr sa' be the main regulatory ag r. : unreasonable to think that \ feel local control is betue.. provide that. I be?ieve that also increase if the Met Council does address the regulations for speed limits, and a new personal *‘We are proposing that the LMCD of Lake Minnetonka. It is ^ .er agencies will disappear. I ' :i it may cost a bit more to ne cost to municipalities would were to take control." Callahan agreed that local control is better. He said, "I think the thrust of the Plan is to make the LMCD a creature of the DNR and Hennepin County Park Board." Ms. Hurr replied, "It wouldn't have ever my intent to roll over and let the DNR or other agency to .-trol the lake. We are currently at odds with the Watershed District because of the manner in which they issue dredging permits. They are not thorough in their investigation of the application prior to or after a permit is issued. The Watershed District charges no fees for the permits they issue. The money comes from the taxpayers. The LMCD does liave specific fees for services we provide." Councilmember Goetten asked whether it is realistic to assume that the LMCD will be the lead agency after the other agencies become more involved than they are currently. Hurr stated that the other agencies have been involved with the preparation of the Plan for che last two years. She believed it would be unlikely that they would come forward at this point and object to the Plan. Mayor Grabek questioned whether the lakeshore communities would not in fact be double taxed once the LMCD gained taxing authority in addition to Hennepin County. Ms. Hurr replied, "The area of taxation would be increased. The individual municipalities would not be asked to make a contribution." Bernhardson clarified that the Plan provides a tax levy for the 14 lakeshore communities in addition to taxes le .ed by Hennepin County. Hurr replied, "There would be no overlapping." - 3 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 LMCO REPORT CONTINUED Mayor Grabek asked how his taxes would be directly affected. Bernhardson replied that taxes could increase up to 1%. Mayor Grabek indicated Lhat he concurred with the comments made by Callahan. Grabek stated that his concerns stemmed from the way in which the LMCD is managed. He stated that the organization is weak. Grabek did approve of the attempt the Plan made to bring other communities into conformance with more strict standards. Councilmember Nettles concurred with the opinions expressed by Callahan and Grabek. He said, "I favor the idea in the Plan that 700 additional parking spots will be located off-site. I also believe it is a good concept to have better educated people involved with this. However, I view this Plan to be a method of encouraging more lake use rather than lake conservation. I agree that public waters should be accessible to the public. I don't know how the determination was made that this lake or the accesses are under utilized." Nettles read a statement within the report concerning the number of persons experiencing problems while on the lake. Hurr replied, "Lake Minnetonka may be used excessively on Sundays and holidays. However, it is under utilized on week days. Nothing can be done to decrease the usage that occurs on weekends." Nettles said, "That is not my point. If we already hav'^ a situation where over 50% of lake users are reporting problems with using the lake, why would we want to increase lake usage." Nettles referred to the table on page 26 showing the increase in boats in relation to the number of boats/acre allowed on the lake. He said, "The Plan states that once density reaches 5 to 7 boats per acre that conflicts occurring on the lake will be studied." Nettles believed that this approach was bacV ards. He said, "If the LMCD is our regional representative, way should they be promoting what the DNR and Hennepin County have identified as their goals? How does that help the residen* p; of this community preserve our resource?" Hurr replied, "The Plan att^^mpts to be realistic in what the DNR and other studies have indicated to be reasonable use. The people living on the lake may wish that number to be much less. Realistically, it is a public resource, and though people pay taxes to live on the lake, it does not give them the right to use the lake more than anyone else. There are national figures that would be used for lake usage. It may be necessary to zone portions of the lake. You cannot have water skiers and fisherman always using the same portion of the lake. We had attempted to Cistablish 'quiet water' areas on the lake. That was not - 4 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED successful." Nettles stated that the Plan did not clearly indicate from where the lake use numbers were coming. Nettles said, "I have no problem with the LMCD being the lead point position on this. I think that is appropriate and that local power should not be diluted. My pitch to the LMCD would be that the Plan has some good direction. However, the LMCD must examine whether the lakeshore communities really feel that the lake is under utilized. Who are we providing access to? Are we providing access to water skiers, pleasure boaters, fishermen, canoers? What is the directed w. "get of this? That issue is totally separate from the conservation issues which stand regardless of who uses the lake. I think the biggest problem with the Plan is the number of boats proposed. Parking is already a problem. I don't want to see promotion of lakeshore installations in the name of greater access." Hurr said, "I do like the goal of the Plan to provide places for boats to go rather than having them on the lake. I'm not sure that they will allow boats to access the new park." Callahan said, "The result of providing more places for people to go is that there will be more boats on the water." Ms. Hurr said, "I am hopeful that the zoning issues that will be retained by the individual cities will not allow a lot of bars, etc., on the lake." Mayor Grabek commented, "A person with a fishing boat would not be interested in having a destination point. A boat that is 25' or more usually has a cabin and allows people to get away from land to enjoy the lake. I believe that people that own watercraft do so to be on the lake. I don't see the need to provide places for boats to go. If we don't become a bit more liberal regarding lake usage, the LMCD may lose its hold and authority. The Council will have to consider that versus the option of taking a stand and saying that the lake is already too crowded. Lake Minnetonka is not wilderness area. It is a residential lake in one of the largest counties in the State. Allowing additional usage will have a great impact on the preservation of the lake. I believe that the additional usage will come from speed boats, net fishing boats." Hurr said, "Those boats are not often put on trailers and taken in and out of the lake. If there are no more marinas on the lake, then that type of use should not increase." Nettles and Callahan disagreed. - 5 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 LMCO REPORT CONTINUED Callahan commented that the LMCD Plan does not make any attempt to oppose the proposals of the DNR. Mayor Grabek suggested that Council work with staff to prepare a consensus to be presented at the June Public Hearing. Ms. Hurr indicated that she would be willing to participate. Councilmember Goetten indicated that she would like to involve persons that have participated in various lake management committees. Mayor Grabek noted that if more than two councilmembers wished to meet informally, it would be necessary to hold a public meeting. City Attorney Barrett confirmed that. Councilmembers Nettles, Callahan and Goetten expressed interest in the preparation of a statement to the LMCD. Bernhardson indicated that there would be scheduling and notification of a public meeting. no problem with It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to hold informal meetings to formulate a draft expressing the consensus of the Council regarding the LMCD Comprehensive Plan. The consensus should be drafted in a period of time to allow it to be reviewed at a Council meeting prior to the deadline date. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rosemary Scheuer stated that Long Lake had received an invitation from the Municipal Board to participate in settlement discussions of the Annexation Petition. It was her understanding that the City of Orono had received a similar invitation. She asked whether Council would be acting on hat issue this evening. Mayor Grabek informed Ms. Scheuei at the annexation topic was not on the agenda for this evening. He further stated that any discussions regarding that matter would be confidential because they relate to litigation strategy. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commission Representative Moos was not present. - 6 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT; #1467 CHARLES HOMMEYER 4125 OAK STREET VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Honuneyer were present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided the historical and current information regarding, this application. The applicants have withdrawn their request for a privacy fence. Mr. Hommeyer explained how the deck is utilized and its function in relation to the stairs and retaining wall. He asked that Council approve the variance as they have requested. Mr. Hommeyer noted that the deck has existed for 6 to 7 years and that nothing has changed since that time. He said that the structure has successfully stabilized the bank from further erosion. Mr. Hommeyer stated that the deck is not visible from the lake and that it is not used in the way most decks are used. He said that there is no picnic table or chairs on the deck. Mr. Hommeyer noted that the neighbors on either side have no objections and presented a letter from each (see attached letter dated 2/5/90 from Kenneth and Karen Holland, 4119 Oak Street, and R. Warstler's letter dated 5/11/90). Mr. Hommeyer suggested that bringing the deck into conformance with the City Code at the time future repairs become necessary be a condition of approval. Callahan asked what impact removal of the deck may have on the stability of the bank. City Engineer Cook said that it would be necessary to set new footings and construct a new header to make the connecting section of deck function. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the hardcover and a/erage lakeshore setback variances, conditioned upon the requirement that the deck be brought into conformance at the time structural repairs become necessary. Motion, Ayes-3, Goetten, Peterson, Nay. Motion passed. Councilmember Goetten opposed the deck due to past decisions she has made in this regard and the potential for setting a negative precedent. #1502 MICHAEL HILBELINK 2180 PROSPECT VARIANCE* ^ ^ This item was added to the consent agenda as requested by Bernhardson. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to refer this item back to Planning Commission as requested by the applicant. Motion, Ayes-5, - 7 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 ZONING FILE 11502-HILBELINK CONTINUED Nays-0, Motion passed. #1503 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Mark Albrecht, Woodhill Country Club Representative, Mr. Bob Mitchell, Attorney for Woodhill Country Club, Mr. Richard Sathre, Engineer/Surveyor, were all present. Bernhardson briefly explained the history of the property involved in this subdivision. He also informed Council of staff’s recommendation regarding access and the location of the cul-de-sac. ^ Councilmember Callahan asked what purpose the temporary cul- de-sac will serve in light of its proximity to the properties. Cook replied that the cul-de-sac around and terminus for the roadway. will serve as a turn- Mr. Mitchell stated that Woodhill was under the conception that it would not be necessary to upgrade the road until a fourth property was developed. He said that it is the desire of Woodhill not to disrupt the current roadway pattern at this time. Woodhill would be willing to do that at the time Outlot A is developed. Bernhardson stated that the City would be willing to explore the option of creating a road outlot and platting a cul-de- sac without requiring the upgrade to occur at this time. Mr. McNellis informed Council that there are currently t^ree residences served by this road. He stated that the caret ,'er house on the Prudden property is occupied and is generating traffic. He said that the neighbors have met and would like the road upgraded. Mr. McNellis proposed that if a cul-de-sac is necessary, it be located in Outlot A. Mr. McNellis informed Council that the portion of road serving his property was engineered in such a way that it acts as a functional drainageway. He stated chat the drainageway would be destroyed if the temporary cul-de-sac is located where staff is proposing. Mayor Grabek believed that more time is necessary to have the neighbors and Woodhill work with staff to determine where the cul-de-sac should be placed. Ms. Carpenter asked that further consideration be given to the necessity of the cul-de-sac. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this application until the May 29, 1990 Council - 8 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 ZONING FILE #1503-WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB CONTINUED Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1508 DONALD OLSON 4590 NORTH ARM DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2800 Mr. and Mrs. Olson were present. City Administrator Bernhardson gave a brief explanation of the Olson's application. Mr. Olson stated that he did not want to construct a shed until he obtained a permit for the horses. He said that he did fence the pasture area and does intend to construct a shed. Councilmember Goetten stated that she concurs with the concerns expressed by Planning Commissioner Bellows regarding the need for a proper structure for the horses. Goetten wanted a shelter constructed for the horses by a specific date and suggested that such a condition be incorporated into the Resolution approving this application. Mr. Olson explained that there are many shaded areas on the property to shelter the horses in the summer. Ms. Olsen added that they fully intend to provide a shelter for the horses this winter if they decide to keep them cn their property. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2800 as amended to include language requiring that a shelter be provided for the horses by October 31, 1990. If there is no shelter by that date, the horses must be boarded elsewhere. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1509 EARL FREEMAN 4545 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE Neither Mr. Freeman nor a representative was present. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the Planning Commission had raised a number of issues that need to be resolved. He suggested tabling the matter to allow time for the applicant to address these concerns. Mabusth asked for direction from Council to proceed, due to the Planning Commission's recommendation to give Mr. Freeman until June 15, 1990 to clean up the property. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember - 9 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 ZONING FILE #1509-FREEMAN CONTINUED Goetten, to direct staff to contact Mr. Freeman and inform him of the need to have the property cleaned up by June 15. Once Mr. Freeman has completed the clean up, staff is to bring the matter back to Council for further review. Bernhardson asked Council if they would allow the accessory structure to remain for a year once he has cleaned up the property. It was the consensus of Council that the accessory structure be removed on the one year anniversary date of the hazardous building proceeding. Mayor Grabek amended his motion to include the removal of the accessory structure by October 31, 1990. Councilmember Goetten seconded the amendment. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1514 RONALD MILLER 270 WILLOW DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2801 Mr. Miller was present. Bernhardson reviewed the information regarding Mr. Miller's application and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2801 granting a height variance to Mr. Miller for the barn that will be moved from the Panuska property. In the event that barn is not available, Mr. Miller will be referred back to the Planning Commission if he intends to construct a barn. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1515 JEFFREY JOHNSON 3825 CHERRY AVENUE VARIANCE Mr. Johnson was present. City Administrator Bernhardsc«n explained Mr. Johnson's proposal to construct a walkway for the purpose of achieving riparian access to Lake Minnetonka. Bernhardson noted that Mr. Johnson's neighbor has a similar structure. Mabusth showed Council where the neighboring wa.^^way is located and stated that the structure has existed since 1970. Mayor Grabek asked Johnson if it would be possible to combine his walkway with the neighbor's walkway. Mr. Johnson stated that he had asked his neighbor about doing that, but his neighbor objected. Councilmember Peterson asked if staff was aware of any other similar applications, and if so, how nany. Mabusth was certain that this sane type of situation exists - 10 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 ZONING FILE #1515-JOHNSON CONTINUED in other areas of the lake, but did not know the specific number of properties at this time. She recollected that Council had approved a similar application for a property on Tonkawa Road just last year. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmem er Nettles, to grant approval of the variances requested by Jeffrey Johnson to construct a walkway. Goetten did not approve of the configuration and length of the walkway for the purpose of providing lakeshore access. She said that she had opposed the application for Tonkawa Road for that same purpose. Goetten had concerns about public safety and thought that this type of structure is inappropriate. Mr. Johnson agreed that the configuration is not ideal, but it makes use of the lakeshore property which is otherwise unbuildable. Goetten was concerned about the precedent being •'et by approving these structures. Callahan expressed concern about the walkway crossing wetland area. Johnson did nor believe that this opportunity would be available to a large number of property owners. Goetten asked Johnson what hardship exists. Johnson replied that the hardship is the inability to access the lakeshore property. Mayor Grabek again asked if something could be arranged with the adjacent property owner. Johnson stated that his attempts to do so had failed. He added that it will be necessary for his neighbor to obtain Council approval for his existing walkway. Public Works Director Gerhardson noted that the neighbor did not obtain a permit from the City to cross the right-of-way. Mayor Grabek stated that it will be necessary for the City to resolve that situation. Councilmember Nettles asked what purpose would be served by preserving the right-of-way. Bernhardson replied that the land would revert back to the adjoining property owner if the easement were vacated and would hinder Mr. Johnson's efforts. He believed that it would be necessary to obtain DNR approval to vacate the easement. He added that the City has maintained a number of these right-of-ways for potential future accesses. Goetten asked whether crossing the right-of-way creates any liability on behalf of the City. Gerhardson said that it would be necessary to have Mr. Johnson enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement as well as an agreement to remove the structure should the City require use of the right-of-way. Gerhardson did not believe that the City could enter in those agreements with the owner of the existing walkway. Motion, Ayes-2, Callahan, Goetten and Peterson, Nay. Motion failed. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this item until the May 29, 1990 Council Meeting. Staff is directed to contact the property owner with the existing walkway to explore the option of combining use. Motion, Ayes-4, Goetten, Nay. Motion passed. - 11 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 #1518 BIG ISLAND VETERANS CAMP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2802 Mr. Larry Sharpe, a representative Governors, vas present. the Board of Bernhardson reviewed the information pertaining to this application. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2802, approving the Conditional Use Permit to construct 5 cabins. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1520 GARY CARLSON 3165 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE* This item was added to the consent agenda. The applicants verbally requested that this matter be withdrawn. Staff is awaiting written confirmation of that request and asked that to have the matter tabled. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this item. Motion, Ayes- 5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1428 OTTEN BROTHERS 2350 WAYZATA BOULEVARD VACATION OF PINE RIDGE LANE-RESOLUTION #2803* NEGOTIATION RESULTS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2803, approving the vacation of Pine Ridge Lane and to accept the information presented regarding the negotiation results with Mr. Walvatne. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1411 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT ROAD NAME APPROVAL* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the name "Sussex" as a road name for the Fox Bend plat. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: PAY REQUEST #3 - TEST DRILLING WELL #3* It was mo.<sd by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve Pay Request #3 for Keys Well Drilling Company in the amount of $10,260.00. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. - 12 - p MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 PAY REQUEST #1 - WELL #3 It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve Pay Request #1 for Keys Well Drilling Company in the amount of $21,456.70. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays~0, Motion passed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS Bernhardson informed Council that Ms. Candace Rowlette, Mr. Ralph Bagley and Mr. Ward Edwards and Mr. Randy Weestrand were interested in serving on the Planning Commission and were present. He noted that Mr. Edwards did not have the opportunity to submit anything in writing. Ms- Candace Rowlette was first to make a presentation. She stated that she has been an Orono resident for 16 years. She owns her own travel agency in Long Lake. Ms. Rowlette said that she has been active in the community and has been the President of the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce in 1988 and 1989. Councilmember Goetten asked Ms. Rowlette if there was anything in particular that sparked her interest in this position. Ms. Rowlette said that the article in the paper stated that there is currently no one on the Planning Commission that lives on Lake Minnetonka. Ms. Rowlette stated that she has lived on the lake for 16 years. She had just retired from the Chamber of Commerce and was seeking a way to become active in the community. Mr. Ralph Bagley was asKed to address the Council. Mayor Grabek observed that Mr. Bagley served on the Orono Council for 14 years. He asked Mr. Bagley why he decided at this time to again be involved in City politics. Mr. Bagley responded that he had been separated from Orono politics for some time and that conscientiously he needed to show interest in being involved in the community again. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Bagley what he did for a living and whether he continued to work or was retired. Mr. Bagley replied that he was involved with the Grain Exchange and is now retired. Councilmember Callahan asked Mr. Bagley if he resided in Minnesota for the entire year. Mr. Bagley replied that he does travel in the winter. - 13 - MINUTES OB ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT CONTINUED Mayor Grabek thanked Mr. Bagley for his in*-«rest and his 14 years of previous service. Randy Weestrand was called to next address wuncil. Mr. Weestrand stated that he has been associated with the construction and development business foi 10-12 years. He said that he would like to be involved with the other side of developing. He informed Council that he has resided in Orono nearly all of his life and that he felt he had an obligation to give something back to the community. Mr. Weestrand said that he grew up on Lake Minnetonka, but is not currently a lakeshore resident. He said that he had owned a 30' boat, but sold it due to the overcrowded conditions on Lake Minn.^tonka. Councilmember Nettles asked Mr. Weestrand if, from a builder's perspective, he believes the Council and Planning Commission are too restrictive. Mr. Weestrand replied that he has no problem with restrictions in general, but objects to arbitrary restrictions. He believed that it is the responsibility of the two bodies to uphold the City Code and public safety. Councilmember Callahan constructed homes in Orono. asked Mr. Weestrand if has Mr. Weestrand replied that his home is the only construction he has done in Orono. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Weestrand where he has done the majority of construction. Mr. Weestrand replied that he has constructed homes mainly in the Maple Grove area. Mr. Ward Edwards, was asked to come forward. Mr. Edwards stated that he had become interested in the planning aspect of the community after attending a seminar regarding the redevelopment of Navarre. Mr. Edwards stated that hr^^currently owns property on Lake Minnetonka and that property has belonged to his family for 55 years. He added that he has participated in various yacht clubs and has spent a great deal of time on the lake. Mr. Edwards informed Council that he has been involved with health care administration since 1951 in the Twin Cities area. He noted that he is retired, but continues to work as a consultant for North Memorial Hospital. Mr. Edwards said that he has been involved with hospital planning boards, as well as the Model City Planning program. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Edwards to submit something in writing to the City to provide a reference for Council to use in - 14 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT CONTINUED making their decision. Mayui: Grabek informed all applicants that Council would review the candidates and come to a decision by the May 29, 1990 Council Meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to appoint Charles Kelley as Planning Commission Chair and Maureen Bellows as Planning Commission Vice- Chair. Motion, Ayes-4, Mayor Grabek, Nay. Motion passed. PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENT It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to appoint Susan Wilson to serve on the Park Commission. Netties believed that Ms. Wilson was properly qualified and especially favored the fact that she is an avid bicyclist. Nettles indicated that the bike trail is a portion of the Park Commission program that is not receiving adequate attention. He also noted that seven of the eight Park Commissioners are men and felt it would oe good to appoint a woman. Motion, Ayes-3, Peterson, Nay, Goetten abstained. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S REVIEW* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, accept the memo from Mayor Grabek regarding this matter. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 POLICY COMMITTEE UPDATE Mayor Grabek updated Council and others in attendance of the recent meeting of the Highway 12 Policy Committee. He stated that Long Lake had not only it's appointed representative. Mayor Kunze, present, but City Attorney VandeVegte, the alternate, was also present. Mayor Grabek felt that it was inappropriate to have the representative and alternate present, especially since the alternate is the City Attorney. Mayor Grabek believed that the City is at a disadvantage for attending the various committee meetings. He said that the representatives were being asked to provide input as to where the best location for Highway 12 will be. Grabek believed it would be wise for the City to hire a consultant to assist the Council and City to look at alternatives for Highway 12 locations. He said, "The City is going to have to take a stand at some point. We have to understand why we are choosing one location over another. What makes one location more feasible than another. I believe that it is during these initial stages of input that we need to be most prepared. Once MNDOT takes over, the matter will be out of our hands. We are spending $100,000 on this study. It is going to be . -motional time. Someone is going to lose their home or bus> Orono needs the road, but we have to determine the best suV. M'DOT has put the onus on the representatives to come to an agreement as to where the road should go. The consequence of not coming to a - 15 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 MAYOR'S REPORT-HIGHWAY 12 POLICY COMMITTEE CONTINUED consensus at this $100,000 study phase is that the study will be discontinued." Councilmember Goetten stated that was not necessarily true. She said, "We were told that they have the right to continue the study even if there is no consensus.” Mayor Grabek replied, "I investigated further and Section 312 has been repealed and no longer exists.” Bernhardson commented that there are portions of Section 161 that may be applicable. He explained the two processes that MNDOT may follow in these cases. One pertains to interstate highways, the other to trunk highways. Grabek said that Steve Hay of MNDOT had indicated that there are many roads that need attention. If there is no consensus among the communities for this project, they will not waste their time, but will take on another project. Councilmember Goetten said, "I am going into this with an open mind. I have participated in the Highway 12 Task Force for 2 years and many of these concerns have been addressed. It is obvious that each of the Highway 12 committees are going to have to agree and reduce the number of alternatives to be reviewed. It was my understanding that MNDOT would provide a consultant to work with committees. I think it is up to each of us to do our homework and be prepared. It was my understanding that the cities involved were to work together to reach an agreement.” Mayor Grabek said tha** due to the emotional tension of this project, it is going to be olfficult for the cities t agree. Each city will wish to impact it's residents and businc'is owners the least. Grabek stated that the construction of 'xighway 12 will probably not occur for another 20 years. He asked Council to envision what the area will look like 20 years from now. Councilmember Nettles asked Bernhardson if the League of Minnesota Cities has staff or the expertise to assist in this process. Bernhardson replied that to the besL of his knowl-Jte, they do not. Callahan noted that many years ago a plan for Highway 12 was worked out and was ready to implement. Orono and Long Lake agreed on the location of the road. At the last minute, MNDOT decided not to proceed. City Engineer Cook stated that because his firm represented the City, they were very knowledgeable about the area. He said - 16 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 MAYOR'S REPORT - HIGHWAY 12 POLICY COMMITTEE CONTINUED that his staff has highway and transportation expertise. Cook believed that his firm could best serve the City in a consultant capacity rather than hiring an outside firm. Mayoi Grabek advised Cook that he would take his offer into consideration, but asked that staff look at other alternati es as well. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to direct staff to provide Council with information pertaining lo the hiring of a consultant. Goetten asked that the 1 forrtiation include the cost of the service. Nettles asked that information include what each firm will do specifically to address the corridor selection process. Callahan thought it would be necessary for Council and staff to determine exactly what information they want the consultant to provide. Mayor Grabek indicated that he would like to have the consultant attend all of the committee meetings to provide continuity. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. OTHER Councilmember Goetten asked Bernhardson if there have been any developments with the Wayzata Public Works situation. It was her understanding the City of Wayzata had purchased property from MNDOT. Bernhardson replied that he had asked tua City Manager if he would like to engage in further discussion of this matter and he had no interest. Bernhardson said that he would provide information to Council at their next meeting. CITY ADMINISTRATOV •<EPORT: LAKE MAT C ISouES Be.T on stated that all Information regarding this topic had been anted with the LMCD report earlier this evening. Gabriel Jabbour referred to the information from City staff containing Bernhardson's recommen/iations and comments to the LMCD. Mr. Jabbour agreed with t:--. "proactive" approach that the City was taking. Jabbour expressed concern regarding the increased lake usage. He was disappointed with the present enforcement of laws and the lack of appropriate penalties when the laws are violated. He encouraged the Council to establish a committee as suggested by City Administrator Bernhardson. Mr. Jabbour stated that the word "conservation" does not exist in the LMCD's Comprehensive Plan. He be ‘ *'ved that the major focus is increased use of the lake. - 17 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 19903779 CASCO AVENUE DRAINAGE PROBLEMMr. Dean Greimann was present. Public Works Director Gerhardson depicted the present drainage pattern existing in the area of Mr. Greimann's property. Gerhardson believed that a drainage ditch that had been in existence, had been covered over. Gerhardson explained that similar situations exist elsewhere in Orono where a drainage problem occurs, but the City has no easements that would allow access to the draintile to make repairs. Gerhardson said that the City has not accepted responsibility for these drainage areas because many of them are inadequate. Mr. Greiirann explained that the heavy rains in July, 1987 did exceed the capacity of the storm sewer and washed away the embankment dividing his property from his neighbors. He said that the area where the open tile is located is continually plugged with leaves. Mr. Greimann stated that he would like the portion of draintxle extending across lots 14, 15 and 16 repaired. Mayor Grabek informed Mr. Greimann that easements are necessary if the City is to make those repairs and asked Gerhardson what the process would be to accomplish that. Gerhardson replied that it will be necessary to have approval from the neighbors to provide an easement. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Greimann if he could initiate that process and bring the information back to the City. Bernhardson noted that in addition to the cost of the easement and repairs, there will also be approximately $1,500.00 for a feasibility study. Councilmemher Callahan suggested that Mr. Greimann and his neighbors undertake the project themselves. City Engineer Cook and Gerhardson confirmed that it would be less costly for the neighbors to do the project. Mayor Grabek asked if it would be possible to have the City Engineer provide some input for the benefit of the neighbors. Gerhardson suggested that he and Cook should meet Mr. Greimann on site to discuss alternatives and costs. Mr. Greimann agreed with Gerhardson's s ^gestion. - 18 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 LEGISLATIVE IMPACT* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information presented regarding the 1990 Legislative impact on municipalities. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. ANNEXATION ORGANIZATION MEETING DATE* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information provided on the annexation hearing. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. FACILITIES C1TIZEN,^REVIEW COMMITTEE* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information from the Architect and staff regarding the facility Citizen Advisory Committee. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. COMMENDATION OFFICER CORNICK-RESOLUTION #2799* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2799 commending Officer Cornick for his efforts and dedication as a participant in the D.A.R.E. progtam. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. SALARY ADJUSTMENT-LYLE OMAN* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve a salary adjustment for Lyle Oman at a Level 9, Step 3 at a rate of $15,897 per hour, effective as of October 6, 1990, as Senior Building Inspector, subject to probation through to October 9, 1990. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. SALARY ADJUSTMENT-BRUCE VANG* was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve a salary adjustment for Bruce Vang at Level 7, Step 3 at a rate of $13,694 per hour, effective as of October 23, 1990, subject to a probationary period to continue through October 23, 1990 with a salary review in that position scheduled for April 23, 1991. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PROGRAM Councilmember Peterson removed this from the Consent Agenda to discuss the fact that only one company has been asked to provide information and quotes. Councilmember Callahan asked why DCA Stanton was chosen by staff. Bernhardson explained that they have been involved with compensation structures for municipalities for a number of years. DCA is the consultant for LOGIS which provides the benefit package for Orono at this time. - 19 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 FLEXIBLE BENEFITS CONTINUED Mayor Grabek did not think there would be much difference from one company to another company that handles municipal benefits. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to direct staff to solicit additional proposals and/or bids to provide a flexible benefit program for Orono. Callahan suggested that staff be sure that the companies asked to submit a proposal are qualified in the area of municipal benefits. Motion, Ayes-4, Mayor Grabek, Nay. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding; Stubbs Bay Sewer, LOGO Contest, Teri Naab Recognition, Local Well Authority Status Report, Albrecht Contract, March Receipts & Disbursements, Wire Transfers, and Administrator's Goal Setting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion parsed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: NSP/WRIGHT-HENNEPIN FRANCHISE City Attorney Barrett presented the Franchise Agreement for an electric power utility franchise. The agreement will allow NSP to use the public right-of-ways for its lines and wires. Barrett stated that the previous Franchise Agreement had been in effect for 20 years and has expired. Gerhardson explained that a similar agreement will be provided from Wright-Hennepin. Mayor Grabek asked what the City could do to exclude Wright-Hennepin and provide all citizens in Orono with NSP, which is less expensive. Gerhardson replied that he is currently reviewing that. Councilmember Nettles asked if NSP could be required to bury their lines. Barrett replied that it would be necessary to first advise NSP that you wish them to do that. The City would then have to negotiate with the Public Utilities Commission. Barrett asked for an executive session to discuss pending litigation. - 20 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 14, 1990 LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the following license(s): Septic System Installers;Hayes Excavating Route 1, Box 202 Montrose, MN Volkeiant & Sons, Inc. 1030 County Road 82 Maple Plain Widmer, Inc. P. O. Box 219 St. Bonifacius Coppin Plumbing 2300 Chateau Lane Mound Garbage & Refuse Collectors;R & W Roll-Off & Sanitation 5525 County Road 50 Carver Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Motion, Ayes-5 Nay-0. Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION 10:35 P.M. Mayor Gr-.oek requested that Council adjourn to an Executive Session at .lvJ;35 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 10:39 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 10;39 p.m. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk - 21 - Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson COUNCIL MEETING 4 From: Date: Subject: MAY 2 9 1990 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building S Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONOMay 24, 1990 #1467 Charles & Ann Hommeyer, 4125 Oak Street - Variances - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Memo 1/11/90 Exhibit B - Council Minutes 2/12/90 Exhibit C - Plan for Deck/Staircase Exhibit D - Site Plan At the May 14th meeting of the Council, Council conceptually voted to recommend approval of the non-conforming lakeshore deck located in front of the average setback line and within the 0-75' lakeshore protected area. In addition. Council shall approve an existing retaining wall, approximately 33" high and an access staircase (portions of access located within the 0-75' and 75- 250' setback areas). The enclosed resolution hav been drafted subject to that conceputal direction. Please note conditions of approval, specifically cite prohibited structural repairs to the lakeshore deck. Council's recommendation also noted that if structural repair was required at some future date, the entire deck would have to be removed and brought into compliance with current code. The enclosed resolution has been presented for Council's review and action. t . »♦ A RBSOLOTION GRANTIliG AND AFTER-THE-PACT CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 AND AFTER-THE-PACT VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1*2 PILE #1467 WHEREAS, Charles W. Hommeyer (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4125 Oa)c Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lots 3 and 4, Block 5, Minnetonka Summit Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for an after-the-::act conditional use permit to permit a retaining wall, 33" high and 30’ long located 15' from the lakeshore where no such structure nor land alteration is permitted per Section 10.33, subdivision 19 and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1, and after-the-fact variances to Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit a deck and access stair structure within 75' of the lake where none is allowed, and hardcover equaling 287.35 square feet or 3.68% (stairs * 201.5 s.f. or 2.58%; deck and retaining wall = 85.8 s.f. or 1.10%). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1467 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residentiail Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 24,330 square feet or .55 acres in area. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the after- the-fact conditional use permit and variances based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 4 A) The 33" high, 30' long retaining wall located to the immediate land side of the sand blanket located within the lakeshore protected area appears a satisfactory method to deter future erosion of the lower lakeside bank. B) The access stairs at less than 3' in width meets the informal standards of the City for lake access stairs for lakeshore lots with steep banks. C) The 13'5"x5'42" lakeshore deck is conditionally acceptable as removal will create more of an impact on the steep lakeshore bank. At the time structural repairs are required, the deck will be removed. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zonir;^ Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the retaining wall to remain within the lakeshore yard will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would iioi ■’verse y affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or er danger to neighboring properties, nor will it deprecx.^'ie surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and an after- the-fact conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to allow the above referenced structures to remain without modification subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 4 1. Applicant shall obtain an after-the-fact building permit for the non-conforming lakeshore deck, access stairs and retaining walls. 2. Applicant shall obtain a building permit for any future repair of the non-conforming lakeshore deck. Applicant is further advised that any repairs to the structural members of this deck shall not be permitted and at such time, the structure shall be removed. Structural repair will Involve the following components of the deck: posts, beams, joists and footing*?. The City shall require the applicant to submit plans for the demolition of the deck to assure minimal impact from potentional erosion of steep lakeshore bank. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are peririssive only and must be exercised by application for an after-the-fact building permit within ten days of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (June 8, 1990). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 1990. ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 29th day of May, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 r To: Planning Commission Chairman KelleyOrono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Frca: 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, Subdivi»it?n 2 ~ A) Hardcover variance required within 0-75' setback area (review Exhibits G & N). Allowed s= 0% Proposed « 287.37 s.f. or 3.68% B) 75-250' se'ack 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. Zoning File #1467 January 11, 1990 Page 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 constructed 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. Applicants note that it was installed to prevent further erosion of the lower lakeshore banks. List of Exhibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A1 A2 - Application Variance for Fence - After-the-Fact Variarice/CUP Application • Property Owners List • Plat Map ■ DNR Letter DNR Application ■ Survey Submitted with Current Application • Survey Submitted with Application #632 ■ Survey Submitted with Application #731 • Staff Letter to DNR • Staff Letter to Hommeyer • Resolution #1475 • Site Plan Deck/Steps/Retaining Wall • Hardcover Fact Sheet 0-75' • Hardcover Fact Sheet 75-250' Review of After-the-Fact Phase of Application - As applicants' submittal information notes, the deck w^^s constructed prior to the issuance of a building permit Jtnd completed prior to the issuance of the Ce- ficate of Occu- y for the new residence. It should be note<^ -hat at no time survey submitted for the previous land use applications -.r the building permit, did the deck area appear on the survey, xcie deck and gazebo were discovered at the time the variance application for the d at the property to the north was reviewed by staff. At roximately that time, the DNR had contacted staff to seek . rmatlon regarding the sand blanket which was discovered by the DNR inspectors. The applicants have proceeded v»ith the required after-the-fact application with the DNR. Staff Vias received no final information as to the resolve of the sand . :et. Applicants may be able to advise at our meeting. Zoning File #1467 January 11, 1990 Page 3 of 4 At a meeting with the applicant, applicant advised of the need for the filing of the after-the-fact vfcsxance. An extension was granted to Nr. Hommeyer and the application rescheduled for the January meeting, but it should be noted that Mr. Hommeyer filed the application soon after be’ng 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 lakeshore banks of this property require a stair structure to assist 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 them 4'x4* safety landing stops. Options of Action - A) Retaining Wall - 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? B) Stair Structure - 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 required for lakeshore access stairs. C) Lakeshore Detached Deck - Approval or denial. If denied in its present location, would you approve a detached deck v, 'hin the lakeshore yard in front of the average lakeshorf ietback 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 « -.480 s.f. or 27.1% Proposed « 4,550.2 s.f. or 27.5% Additional Hardcover = 73.17 s.f.or .4% Zoning File #1467 January 11» 1990 Page 4 of 4 If the detached deck is to be relocated in the 75-250' setback area, it would be necessary to have an updated survey to determine what types of existing hardcover could be reduced within the 75-250' setback area to allow the addition of the deck structure. The Planning Commission may wish to table the application if this is the direction to be followed by the Planning Commission and ask for the updated survey. If the majority of the Planning Commission feel, because of the excessive hardcover, they would not permit the deck to be relocated in the 75-250' setback area, than make a recommendation for the removal of the deck - establish a deadline date. Review of Current Application - Applicants seek a setback variance to the average setback line for a privacy fence along the north property line. As applicants' application (Exhibit A-1) notes, the pii.-acy fence will help provide privacy due to variance allowed on adjoining property on ncrth side. Applicant may be referring to either the tram or the deck area approved within the lakeshore yard in front of the average lakeshore setback line. It is not clear.^ As of this writing, staff has heard nothing from the adjacent neighbor, but the neighbor may be nresent at the meeting to present his position. A privacy fence at that location may provide a visual Impact on the view of the lak'*. The City has received no elevations or photographs to determine the visual impact, i_ any. Options of Action - 1. Denial based on insufficient hardship or unacceptable hard­ ships. 2. Approval. Applicants may be able to cite additioi.ui acceptable hardships at your meeting. Information submitted for this review has failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship. 3. Table pending receipt of elevations/view impact of proposed privacy fence cn adjacent neighbor's view windows. Note the fencing will extend 30' beyond the average lakeshore setback line. Upon inspection of the p jperty, members may note ken? el structure on lot to east divided by platted right-of-way. St .ft would recommend that the applicants execute a special lot combination to allow credit for principal residence on homestead lot. Zoning File #1467 Feburary 6, 1990 Page 6 Please review Exhibit N, the hardcover facts between the 75- 250* zone submitted by applicant. Staff has reviewed the updated site plan (Exhibit Q) and has made an adjustment- for the gravel driveway area. Staff determined 1,630.7 s.f. of hardcover for the driveway area as opposed to 1,346 s.f. originally presented by applicant. Total hardcover within the 75-250* setback zone is adjusted now to 28.3% with an excess now of 3.3% hardcover within the 75-250* setback zone. The applicant l.as submitted photos for the Council*s review demonstrating the impact of the elevation of the 6' high privacy fence on the view windows of the residence to the north. Please review Exhibit P, Mr. Hommeyer has submitted an update on the sand blanket issue with the DNR confirming that an after-the-fact permit has been issued by the DNR as of November 30, 1989. Options of Action Available to the Council - A. Retaining wall (2*9" high, runs approx. 30+ lineal feet, located land side of lakeshore sand blanket). If denied Council must ask applicant for a more acceptable form of erosion control for lake side bank or, if approved, finding the method of erosion control to be acceptable and the existing height and materials to be of a design and color blending into the natural screening of lakeshore bank. B. Access stairs. Approval finding the existing lakeshore staircase to meet informal standards of City for lakeshore lots with steep access banks. C. 13.5x5.2* lakeshore deck within 0-75* setback area. Approval as proposed; or Denial based on the following findings: 1. Approval of such a structure within the lakeshore protected area would be inconsistent with previous Council actions. 2. Approval of this structure would provide a negative precedent 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 line and out of the 75* setback area. If so, applicant must be prepared to reduce existing hardcover within the 75- 250* setback area to allow the increase of 73.17 s.f. of additional hardcover. Applicant should be 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; or Approval 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). MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL M^ING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990 #1467 CHARLES & ANN HOMMBYER 4125 OAK STREET AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES Mr. and Mrs. Hommeyer were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson provided the Council with a brief explanation of this application. Mr. David Morse, builder of the home adjacent to the Hommeyers, said that he had just sold the home he built. The new owner has indicated that he objects to the privacy fence being built. The fence would interfere with the lakeview sight lines of the residence. Mr. Morse said that the purpose of the average lakeshore setback, is to protect the views of the lake. Mr. Morse said that there is no hardship to warrant granting the variance for the fence. He said that the Hommeyers have stated that the fence is needed to reduce the noise from the tram on his property. Mr. Morse said that the noise generated from the tram would be less than that of an air conditioner compressor. Mr. Morse said, "In regard to the lower deck, if the Council approves a variance for that, they will be setting a precedent. They will encourage people to construct something that is not allowed and then come into the City to get a variance." Mr. Hommeyer explained that the retaining wall was built in 1981 because the bank was sliding into the lake. He said that he was unaware of the need for City approval to do that work. Construction of the deck and stairs began in 1983, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in 1985. Mr. Hommeyer said that the stairs are needed because of the steep slope. He said that the deck is an integral part of the overall structure and is tied into the retaining wall. Mr. Hommeyer said that the entire system has worked to stabilize the bank. Mr. Hommeyer asked that the Council consider allowing the deck to remain unt?l such time that it needed to be repaired. Mr. Hommeyer showed the Council pictures of him holding a board above his head, standing on the neighboring deck. He said that the pictures are to show that a fence would not interefere with the sight lines of the neighbor. Mrs. Hommeyer said that there were a number of trees cut in error by Mr. Morse's tree cutters and that is another reason that they need the fence. She said that she has obtained the opinion of various landscapers in regard to what they could plant in that area. She said they were told that they would not be very successful in planting greenhouse kinds of trees in that area. Mr. Morse reiterated that there is no hardship to grant the variances being requested. CounciImember Goetten said that the stairs are needed, but she has a concern about the deck. She said that she would be Inclined to have the deck removed from its present location, and allow the Hommeyers to construct a deck closer to the house. Goetten understood that a portion of the deck could be removed 8 MIHUTBS OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP PBBRDARY 12, 1990 ZONING PILE #1467-HOMMBYBR CONTINUED without disturbing the footings connected to the retaining walls. Goetten said in regard to fences, she would prefer to see vegetation rather than structure. Goetten also asked whether it would be possible to remove any other hardcover existing further to the north on the property. Mrs. Hommeyer said that the deck was tied into the retaining walls. CounciImember Goetten asked City Engineer Cook to address some alternatives to the deck. Cook said that the 3-1/2' x 19' section between the stairways could remain. The decking could be removed from the section that is 3.8' x 12' and the timbers could be cut down to grade level and some of the structure could be placed underground so it could be grassed over. CounciImember Nettles indicated that he concurred with CounciImember Goetten. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Morse if he knew whether the new owner of the property may be willing to plant vegetation in lieu of the fence proposed by Hommeyers? Mr. Morse said that the Hommeyers are being compensated from his insurance company for the trees that were removed. He also noted that the area where the trees were removed is not the same area the Hommeyers are asking to have fenced. to the Grabek Mayor Grabek indicated that he had no objection entire deck remaining since it had existed for 7 years, said that he did oppose the fence. Mr. Hommeyer asked if the fence application could be tabled to allow them time to talk with their new neighbor. It was moved by Mayor Grabek to recommend approval of the variances for the decJc, stairs and retaining walls already existing, but deny the request for the 6' fence. There was no second. 4 It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Soetten, to table this application to provide time for the Hommeyers to work with the neighbor on the fence issue and a full Council can decide on the deck area. Nettles said that he was not partial to the deck one way or the other. He felt that since the deck passed with the certificate of occupancy he may approve it, yet it did set a precedent which may cause him to deny it. Mabusth noted that the certificate of occupancy did not approve the deck because it was not observed by the inspector. . Motion, Ayes-2, Mayor Grabek, Nay. Motion passed. ^OUHCli Aff To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson ^AV^qj ^ Prom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administr^f*^ Date: May 24, 1990 Subject: #1483 Harold & Merle Vogt, 1342 Rest Point Circle - Variances - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Council Minutes of 3/12/90 Exhibit B - Council Action Notice Exhibit C - Applicants' Engineer's Report Exhibit D - Inspection Notice of 5/23/90 Exhibit E - Amended Survey Designating Location of Boathouse Exhibit F - Survey Amended by Staff Designating Deck Addition Review of Application - The applicants have complied with the directives of the Council at their meeting of March 12th. Review Exhibit C, applicants' engineer, Mr. Duffy, confirms the structure is in sound condition noting possible need to make remedial repairs to masonry foundation at some future time. The question to be answered by the Council is will the remedial repair of the masonry wall be allowed? The Building Inspector has confirmed that all water supplies to the boathouse have been closed off. The sink has been removed, the stove was stored in the exterior yard waiting to be removed, the refrigerator remained in the structure. Applicants have asked for special consideration to allow refrigerator to remain for family and guest use of the three season porch area. Primary use shall remain as an accessory use of the principal residence serving as a three season porch in the upper level and storage area in the lower level. Please review Exhibit E, the existing boatliouse is located 2'4" from the west side lot line. The principal portion of the structure is 9'4" from the 929.4', the deck is 4'. As directed by the Council, the staff has prepared an approval resolution granting the variances that would allow the unapproved recent structural repairs to the structure and because of the unique history of this structure, the structure shall remain but no structural repairs will be allowed. The resolution provides a forewarning to the applicants and future owners of the limitations on the use of the structure. There may be no intensification of use and that any repairs to the structure will require a building permit and approval by the City. The applicants have asked to be allowed to have the refrigerator remain in the three season porch. Council should provide direction. Please note that the new deck added to the lake side of the structure requires not only a lakeshore setback variance, but a side setback variance (10' side setback required from side lot line). A RESOLOTIOM GRAMTING APTKR-THE-FACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 FILE #1483 & 2 WHEREAS, Harold and Merle Vogt (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1342 Rest Point Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lot 10, Rest Point Park together with the Southwesterly half of public right-of-way vacated adjoining said Lot 10, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow structural repairs to an accessory structure consisting cf a deck addition to the lakeside of the structure located 4* feet from the shoreline, and 6' from the west side lot line, and other structural and non-structura1 repairs to the accessory structure located within the 0-75’ lakeshore protecte area where no structures are allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1483. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, as such the property is subject to all pertinent lakeshore regulations that govern development within the zoning district. 3. The structure was constructed some time in the early 1950s serving as a boathouse and storage area. The current pattern of use of the structure is for storage in the lower area and as a three season porch in the upper level. 4. The structure serves as an accessory use to the principal residence as structure contains no plumbing or heating. Page 1 of 5 5. In 1975, a lot area variance was approved for the property to construct a residence. A condition of that approval required that the non-conforming accessory structure be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The City failed to enforce or implement the removal of the structure upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. 7. The structure received minimal repair and use from 1975 to the present. 8. The applicants purchased the property in 1989 unaware of the unique history of the structure nor of the City's policy regarding the repair of structures that are located within the lakeshore protected area (within 75' of the 929.4' elevation ). 9. The applicants performed major repairs to the structure including the construction of a lakeside deck, hard board siding to the upper level and the installation of windows. 10. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the after- the-fact variances based upon the following findings; A) The building has existed on the property for over 40 years. B) The structure appears to be in good condition and is used as a supportive/accessory use and not as a second residential unit. 11. On March 12, 1990 the Orono Council conceputally approved the after-the-fact variances based on the following findings ; A) The foundation of the structure provides stability and support of the lakeshore bank. B) The structure has existed undetected for over 15 years. on the property C) The applicants had no knowledge of the original requirement that the structure was to be removed nor that the City requires special approvals before structures within the lakeshore protected area can receive major or minor structural repair. Page 2 of 5 D) Terry W. Duffy, a professional engineer, in a reported dated April 18, 1990, found the structure to be in sound structural condition. 12. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 13. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Cod3 and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit certain structural repairs to a two-story detached accessory structure used as a three season porch and storage area and approves the installation of a lakeshore deck located 6* from the west side lot line and 4' from the lakeshore where no structures are allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall obtain a building permit for the remodel/structural work done to the detached accessory structure. 2. No structural repairs shall be approved for this structure. This shall include remedial or total repair to the masonry wall foundation, repair of rafters, posts beams or joists. Page 3 of 5 3. The detached lakeshore accessory structure shall not be provided with heating or plumbing facilities, nor shall the structure be allowed the use of a cooking stove. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within ten days of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 8, 1990). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall co’.stitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 29th day of May, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 5 minutes of orono council meeting held march 12, lj90 70NING FILE #1468-PILLSBURY CONTINUED . ^ uto the Pillsbury proposal since it was last reviewed by council? Callahan replied that he is not aware of any changes. He said that the only reason he had denied this application was because he had denied Mr. Pemberton’s application. Councilmember Goetten indicated that this project is placing new construction within the 0-75' setback zone. Goetten felt that the Pillsburys could have placed the greenhouse addition elsewhere as part of the recent remodeling project that was done to che house. Goetten indicated that she did not see a hardship ^ greenhouse to be located in the 0-75' zone. Goetten said that Council should be concerned about voting for this because of the precedent that will be set. Councilmember Peterson concurred Sith Goetten and added that she disagreed with the process of Council review that this application has undergone. Councilmember Nettles stated that Bracketts Point is oart of Orono, especially when viewed from Lake Minnetonka. Lttles did not feel that the Pillsburys' proposal would have any detrimental impact on the City, or the Lake Is his belief that reducing hardcover wherever important. Councilmember Goetten ^ Bracketts Point is a beautiful area. She said there are Ordinances in place, however, which must be upheld. Motion, Ayes-3, Peterson, Goetten, Nay. Motion passed. #1483 HAROLD VOGT 1342 REST POINT CIRCLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITMr. Vogt was present for the review of this application. Citv Administrator Bernhardson reviewed this application and informed'the cSiLil that an accurate -rvey of this P-p-ty has not been received. Bernhardson suggested that should this application be approved, it be done conceptually and that a new Purvey be submitted before final approval is given. Bernhardson noted that the Planning Commission had recommended ®P^^^ this application subject to the submittal of a structural engineer's report regarding the stability of this structure. Mr. Vogt stated that he had bought the property l^ft June. He said that this boat house structure a key reason they chose this particular piece of property. Mr. Vogt indicated that he had done^ an extensive title search of this property and found nothing pertaining to the boat house. Mr. Vogt informed the Counc2l thlre are eight similar "\„Ss2 neighborhood on Fagerness Point. One of ^ structures is being used as a rental unit. Mr. Vogt said that tearing down the swucture would create quite ®. *'«dship because it would devaluate his property. The structure is built i hillside so removal would not have an impact on hardcover> Councilmember Goetten said that it is important that the - 11 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1990 ZONING FILE #1483 -VOGT CONTINUED presence and condition of this structure will now be on record with the City. Goetten said that due to the fact that this structure is helping to support the lakeshore bank, it should not be removed. Goetten said that she would like to see a report from a structural engineer. Goetten asked Mr. Vogt to explain the water sources that are connected to this structure. Mr. Vogt said, "There are two water sources of water going into that beach house structure. At one time a lake pump was used, but it is now broken. There is also a cut-off for the well up at the house that feeds down to this system." Goetten said that Council should address the issue of lake pumping. Mr. Vogt said tnat he has no intention of repairing the lake pump. Goetten indicated that if this application is approved, there be no additional structural repairs allowed. Mayor Grabek said that alter-the-fact situations present a difficult dilemma. The structure is located on the shoreline and violates the int nt of the 0-75' setback Ordinances. Councilmember Goetten indicated that the structure has existed for approximate!’' 40 years. Zoning Administrator Mabusth referred the Council to a March 7, 1990 memo from the Building Inspector regarding his inspection of the structure. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to allow the accessory structure to remain with no future structural repairs allowed. An updated survey must be submitted and the water supply should be entirely eliminated. Goetten said that the hardship is that the structure has gone undetected for approximately 40 years and though it cannot be structurally repaired, it would be unfair to ask the Vogts to remove it. Councilmember Callahan asked whether eliminating the water supply from the well was included in the motion? Goetten indicated that she had stated that all water sources be eliminated. Callahan suggested that the stove, refrigerator and sink be removed and that no additional facilities, bath or kitchen, be added. Callahan also suggested that a structural engineer's report be submitted. Councilmember Goetten agreed to include those additions in her motion, Peterson seconded. Motion, Ayes-4, Nettles, Nay, Motion passed. - 12 - CITY OP OPONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO.1483 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 3/20/90 TO:Mr. & Mrs. Harold Vogt 1342 Rest Point Circle Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: 3/12/90 VOTE: 4 For 1 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To conceptually approve your variance application to allow certain •after-the-fact" structural and non-structural repairs to the storage/3- season porch structure within your lakeshore yard. Staff will prepare the necessary approval resolution upon receipt of the following information for submittal to the Council for final action with that same approval resoltuion. 1. Applicant to submit an updated survey locating subject structure within lakeshore yard. Please note that the survey must locate the 929.4 elevation considered the ordinary high wcter mark for Lake Minnetonka. 2. Structural engineer's report to be provided with an analysis of structural stability of the subject structure. 3. Removal of stove, refrigerator, sink and that no additional bath or kitchen facilities can be added to this structure. 4. All water supply to this structure is to be eliminated. Applicant should be prepared to confirm this upon resubmlttal of information to the City. As this applicantion involves an after-the-fact review. Council will expect a response from you within 30 days. Please advise staff as to the status of your preparation for final submittals. Staff will expect to present the application no later than April 23, 1990. (The April 23rd, meeting is the final Council meeting for the month of April) t)uffy Engineering, Inc. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 14 N. 7TH AVE. ST. CLOUD. MINNESOTA 56303 (612) 259-4006 April 19, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Harold Vogt 1342 Rest Point Circle Mound, MN 55364 Re; Structural Review of Storage Shed/Three Season Porch At Said Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Vogt; Upon your request, I inspected the storage shed/three season porch for structural soundness as required by the city building inspector. The existing structure looks to have been build in the early fifties. It's comprised of a lower level storage area with the back and two side walls of masonry construction and the front or lake side is framed by a wood beam and column thus allowing access through the openings. The original floor framing was 8" X 8" timbers with wood decking. It has recently been repaired and strengthened with treated 2 x 12's which also frame a wood deck out the front. The upper level is used as a three season porch. It's framed with conventional wood framing. The wood roof over this porch is framed with rough sav^n 2 x 14's at 2'~0" on center (approximately) with wood decking. My analysis indicates the existing framing will support code required floor and roof loadings. The existing masonry foundation does show some signs of minor movement but this can be expected of a structure of this age. Over the course of the next few years, these walls may need some remedial attention. In conclusion, I feel the structure as it now stands is structurally sound and can be utilized for years to come provided minor problems are not let go and deteriorate. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. r Terry W. Duffy P.E President Td/sje 1 Vfivll'fi,; ... , -. .. ;V; .£■•;• ’;:-v ■ ': *.'h* j ...•V.-rv-r:v-.-.->vw:«: 1 «•* <..^<* :>.%:i.<!-. V.- •. f '•^ *.i; ■--*.“• ■*- . .■-.'{..■'•-•I.-,>'*i, v^'. > «_ '. v «..». ■•. .' »i- -’-■■**^ T''.» ■'T-".:’ • CITYOFORONO DATE CALLED IN TIME INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED 's5‘ “C^ • 70 3 •• oO PERMIT NO.COMPLETED S~~ Z 3'^^o?i ADDRESS / 3 P(SuuJio i OWNER l/ft-fOt CONTR.i TELEPHONE N( c footing C FRAMING Z INSULATION Z WALL BO. z final Z DEMO - SITE Z DEMO - FINAL COMMENTS; 5:»>« i £ •u 1 •>j 20 § g <J:2 Ui /^^A>aioz ^2 1 Uj ttso Uj<c Uj Q8 C PLUMBING fli Z PLUMBING FINAL z mechanical Rl Z MECHANICAL final Z FIRE PREV. Z FIRE SUPRESSION SYS. Z EXCAV/GRAOING-FILLING Z LAKESHOREWETLANDS Z FIREPLACBWOOO BURNER Z TREE REMOVAL C WATER HOOK-UP Z METER SET/rURN ON Z SEWER HOOK UP Z SEPTIC MAINT. Z SEPTIC INSTALL Z SEPTIC FINAL Z SITEWEU Z WELL TEST PUMP Z KENNEL LICENSE ^aPSiTE INSPECTION Z PROGRESS Z COMPLAINT Z FOLLOW-UP / p. {/ I \M /n i- A^€r>’-0’ i /y Gjaja^ C PHOTO TAKEN C CITATION ISSUED C ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ________TEMPORARY ________PERMANENT ^TQ l HC LO iI^ bjg. — -+0 /bLOA^ -/^e tefTt'On^/v-Tts/C Z WORK SATISFACTORY PROCEED Z CORRECT WORK & PROCEED Z CORRECT WORK, CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING C CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN_____HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN O STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR Z INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. Call for the next inspection 24 hours In advance. 473*7357 Owner/Contractor on sitj Inspector actor on sltp:_____ WMI« Copy/lntp«ctor'i File Canary Copy/SHa Notica • ••. r-L-v;:.n;;v^y?.:^V“ TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator May 24, 1990 ^OUltCIL MEETIHO '^^''29 1990 cm OF SUBJECT: #1511 City of Orono - Conditional Use Perrait/Variance Additional Conunents and Planning Commission Recommendation Additional Exhibits Exhibit G ~ Pump House Elevations The Planning Commission unanimously approved the conditional use permit for the pump house to be located on Outlot B of the East Willow Woods plat. Staff has been advised that there have been some last minute design revisions in the proposed elevations of the pump house and the pump house is to be realigned on the Outlot. Unfortunately, as of this writing the plans have not been submitted for inclusion in your packet. John Gerhardson will review the final design and site plans for the development of Outlot B by the City at your meeting. Council need only make a recommendation of approval (or denial??) of the final plans for the pump house and other associated improvements of Outiot d, East Willow Woods. A formal resolution for filing aganlst the chain of title is not required. I: To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Counci 1 Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson VTomi Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April 12, 1190 Subject: #1511 City of Orono - Conditional Use Pennit/Variance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22, Subdivision 3 (D) - Public service structures. The City proposes installation of a well, pump house, and 2 temporary pressure tanks within Outlot B of East Willow Woods plat (formerly Outlot A, Ringerswood currently under PUD review for Otten Brothers Nursery). The proposed improvement is required as part of the sewer and water improvement project for the Highway 12 area. A setback variance is required to that same section, as follows: A) Pumphouse to east lot line: Required = 50' Proposed = 43' Variance « 7' or 14% B) Pressure tanks have no required setback, setback standard in code applies to buildings only. The temporary pressure tanks will meet the required 50'+ setback from all lot lines except the north lot line and will be located 34' from north lot line. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Cook's Letter Exhibit B - Outlot B Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D “ Location Map Exhibit E - Access Drive Plan Exhibit F - Site Plan Review of Application - Future Outlot B shall house the municipal well, the 25'x27' pumphouse, and 2 temporary pressure tanks to be removed sometime within 10 years. The pressure tanks are needed to provide the necessary pressure for the fire suppression system for the Otten building and for the water needs of residential buildings within Sugar Woods. At the time the Orono water tower is installed somewhere along Highway 12, the pressure tanks will be removed. The pertinent code section requires 50' setback for all buildings. The permanent pumphouse structure will require a setback variance of 7' from the east lot line. L Zoning File #1511 April 12, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Access to the site shall be temporarily provided via an existing driveway off Highway 12. Permanent access shall be provided via Outlet C or future east/west frontage road. As of this writing, staff has not received the elevations of the structure to determine visual impact upon the adjacent residential properties. These elevations will be presented at your meeting or included in the latter packets that go out on Friday afternoon. In any event, in your recommendation to approve, it would be appropriate to ask for evergreen type plantings along north and west lot line. The east lot line already has mature plantings. The Planning Commission may wish to include other conditions for the approval of this conditional use permit and variance application for the City of Orono. Bonestroo RDsene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Otto G Bon«t>oa PE (tooen W Boiene. P£ JO»(yi C ATKjfrtik PE Picti^ E Tumef PE Jamej C Own. PE Gicnn R Coo*. PE Thomij E Noyw. PE Rooen G ScfHjmcnt. PE Mkwi L Sorv<iu. PE •CMft A Godon. PE RKn«d W Poser. PE Dorv»<J C B u »9»OL PE Jerry A Bourdon. PE Mjrn A KUnwn. PE 1M K F«U. PE Mjcnier T Rjutrrunn. PE Booert R P(Hler»e P£ O^vid O Lotiiou. PE Thorru* W l^terwn. PE Mcruer C Lynch. PE J«mes R MjUna P£ Kenneth P Anderjon. PE Mjrt R RORV PE ROOert C RuiM. AIA Thorrui E Angui PE HOM'jrd A Sjnitord. PE Djmer J Edgertoa PE Mn A Se« PE Ph*p J PE MM O \MH. PE Thomis R Andmoa AiA. G*ry P RyUnder. PE KWei B Jenjen PE L Phrifi Gravel Rl PE Chariei A Enckwn Leo M Pawersiy Hartan M Own Sujan M Ebenei C PA March 15, 1990 #1511 iCity of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re; Otten Subdivision File No. 139A9 Dear Jeanne; Enclosed please find a copy of Outlot B on the Otten property where the new well & pumphouse will be constructed. The proposed location of the pumphouse will require a variance for a 45* setback from the east line for the permanent structure. It will also be necessary to obtain a variance for a 40* setback from the east line and a 30* setback from the north line for the pressure tank. The pressure tank will extend outside the building and will remain in place for 10 years or less. We should start the process with the Planning Commission for obtaining the appropriate variances on the pump house. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC;dh cc; John Gerhardson GRC/16 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 Property Owners List for the City of Orono, application #1511 34-118-23 21 0020/21/22 Sidney Rebers 3525 Webster Ave Minneapolis, MN 55416 34-118-23 21 0002 William Wear P.O. Box 306 Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 22 0013 Clifford Otten Box 249 Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 22 0003 Stoddard & Robyn Lawrence 720 Dickey Lake Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 22 0012 Clifford Otten Box 249 Long Lake, MN 55356 34-118-23 22 0013 Clifford Otten P.O. Box 249 Long Lake, MN 55356 ACCE-e^S DFilVgUAV PuAKi "•yo'-o" I Mnr anrr «mi ns lun ms pmmo tr« • mb w OHn SKMOi M BUI I MM Mr BfB) mcu/A«MKa MB N IMS or M SMR m mmamK t*w MM To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members ^City Administrator Bernhardson ulAv ^9 /5Q')Fron: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning AdminlsJ^^^orDate: May 25, 1990 ' ^ffOfiQ Subject: #1511 City of Orono - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Addendum to Original Packet - Review of Final Building Design/Site Plan - As previously noted, John Gerhardson % '.1 review the to- scale drawings at the Council meeting. The t^ians submitted for the Zoning staff are not to-scale and cannot be determined if a setback variance is still required or if additional setback variances are to be noted. Council should ask foy confirmation of the height of the structure. The final building size is proposed at 27'x28'. Access to site is now provided on east side where original design had access from the south side. There appears to be no other changes from the original design plans. Staff would once again call attention to the condition of approval of the original Planning Commission recommendation that would require appropriate evergreen type screening along the north and possibly west boundaries of Outlot B. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administra Date: May 25, 1990 Subject: #1515 Jeffrey Johnson, 3825 Cherry Avenue - Variances - Resolution I^AYg •errYoe ^^990 List of Exhibits Exhibit F - Enlarged Plat Map Designating Applicant's Multiple Lot Ownership & Adjacent Neighbor's Exhibit I - Site Plan Locating Existing Cat Walk & Proposed Cat Walk on Applicant's Property Exhibit L - Original Approval Resolution Proposed at 5/14/90 Meeting of the Council At the May 14th meeting of the Council, staff was directed to contact the adjacent neighbor to determine if there was any willingness on the part of the neighbor to consider a shared use of the catwalk. It was clear from the very beginning in discussing the City's concerns with Paula Johnson that she and her husband are more concerned with protecting their existing riparian rights. In further discussions with Mrs. P. Johnson staff advised that her current dock was a non-conforming structure as the properties were not legally combined and if the dock sections were to be structurally repaired, the City would require not only the legal combination of the multiple lots but variance approval. In addition, staff called attention to the fact that portions of the dock were located within the unimproved public right-of-way. Mrs. P. Johnson was completely on the defensive at that point. Staff should add that original contact was not initiated by staff, but rather by Mrs. P. Johnson, obviously as follow up to earlier exchanges with Jeff Johnson, the applicant. Mrs. P. Johnson then alluded to the vacation of Cherry Avenue and that she would no longer need the approval of the Public Works Department. Staff then advised her that this was one of the issues raised with Jeff Johnson's application, and there was a definite need to use the unimproved right-of-way of Cherry Avenue to provide access to dock on lakeshore lot, and that an application to vacate Cherry Avenue would be opposed by the applicant or a future owner of applicant's property. The public right-of-way defined within Cherry Avenue provides the only legal access to the lakeshore portion of Johnson's property. Staff has discussed the potential vacation of Cherry Avenue with a representative of the DNR, Ceil Strauss, and she also confirmed that it would be most appropriate to vacate the right- of-way of a roadbed that was apparently located within the lake- bed of Lake Minnetonka. Please remember, the majority of the wetland area to the east of applicant's property is below the 929.4' elevation. Zoning File #1515 May 25, 1990 Page 2 of 3 The‘issue for the City is that although we agree that the liabilities of the '*lty are released with a vacation, the applicant's only legal access to his property is through an existing dedicated right-of-way. The neighbor with the existing dock has refused to share the catwalk structure providing access to the main lake because of the increased liabilities on their part. As to Mrs. Johnson's willingness to either sell portions of a vacated right-of-way to the applicant or to grant an easement for access over the vacated right-of-way was not at all expressed. You should also be aware that the neighbor's dock is in a deteriorated condition and will require structural repair. Such repair will require variance approvals by the City similar to this current application. The City will confirm this writing so that the P. Johnsons are fully aware of their rights in this matter. It may be appropriate to review exactly what the current variance application involves; 1. Although legally combined, the division of the lakeshore portion of the property by the platted right-of-way from the interior land port^ requires approval per Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 and Ion 10.03, Subdivision 6 (B)(3). 2. As already confirmed, the catwalk stru*' .jre is predominately located below the 929.4' elevation. It functions as a dock at that point. The City's jurisdiction involves the portions of the catwalk that are located above the 929.4' elevation within the 0-75' lakeshore protected area and requires approval per Section 10.22, Subdivision 1. The City's review does not cover questions raised by the catwalk's encroachment of the dedicated right-of-way which would be covered under the issuance of a permit by the Public Works Department. Options of Action - A) Denial finding the proposal in complete conflict with the intent of the lakeshore residential district and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. B) Approval based on the findings set forth in the approval resolution, enclosed in your packets (Exhibit L), and to recommend to applicant that he continue to work with adjacent land owner to east in order to effect the vacation of the unimproved portions of Cherry Avenue where structures are located and to resolve access to applicant's dock through the appropriate granting of access easements. Zoning File #1515 May 25r 1990 Page 3 of 3 Council Action ~ To provide conceptual direction so that staff may prepare the appropriate resolution for formal action at their June 11th meeting. If Council considers granting approval of the application as proposed. Council may adopt the enclosed resolution. PROPERTY INCLUDED (3 P.I.D.'s) 15 lakeshore lot 23 j 24 i 25 ' 26 ' 27 2 b/29 f(es. A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 6 (3)(B), SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (A) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 FILE #1515 WHEREAS, Jeffrey Johnson (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3825 Cherry Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The West half of Lot 2, all of Lot 3, and the North 45' of Lots 28 and 29, Block 7, Crystal Bay View, Lot 2, Block 3, Crystal Bay View, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (3; (B) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) to permit the construction of a 200' long cat walk, an accessory structure, on a property consisting of multiple lots divided by an unimproved road. Cherry Avenue, that divides a lakeshore lot from the remaining interior lots requiring a variance that would seek credit for the principal residence on the interior lot for the accessory structure on the lakeshore lot, and hardcover and setback variances within the 0-75' setback area for the 200'x3' cat walk structure. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1515. 2. The property is located i^ the LR-IC Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 1/2 acre in area. The interior lots within the jointly owned properties consist of 22,183 square feet. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 16, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 A) The portion of Cherry Avenue that the proposed cat walk structure would cross is totally within the wetland/lakeshore and is not used for roadway purposes and is currently unimproved. B) The legal combination of the substandard lot will now be tied to an adjacent homestead parcel and will never be the subject of a land use independent of any homestead. C) The proposed dock structure meets the LMCD criteria for authorized dock use area for a dock with one slip (1 slip per 50 lineal feet of shoreline). D) The property consists of predominately wetlands and lakeshore. E) There is no adverse impact on adjoining property owners or the public generally as a similar dock and cat walk structure has existed on the property to the immediate east without any record of accidents or apparent hazard to the public who use the adjacent main lake and roadway. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, r.*jports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effr.ct of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property? would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant? and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 CONCLDblONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections noted above to permit the construction of a 200'x3* cat walk, portions of which are to be located within the unimproved right-of-way of Cherry Avenue and within riparian Lot 2, Block 3, Crystal Bay View, to serve the residence located at 3825 Cherry Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to filing the variance resolution by the City, applicant must apply for the legal combination of three parcels, P.I.D. #08-117-23 33 0041, 08-117-23 33 0037, 08- 117-23 33 0058. 2. Upon application for a building permit for the cat walk/dock structure on Lot 2, Block 3, Crystal Bay View and unimproved Cherry Avenue, applicant must submit the following; A) Survey showing any encroachments of property and location of proposed structure within subject lot and right-of-way of Cherry Avenue. The accessory structure must meet the required 10' side setback from the west side lot line. B) Approval permits from Corp of Engineers, DNR and Orono Public Works Department. Applicant to provide fully executed Hold Harmless agreement with the building permit application. 3. Posting of cat walk/dock structure with "No Trespassing/Private Property" signage. 4. Based on standards of LMCD and this variance approval, the dock shall be limited to 1 slip. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 29, 1991). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby aarees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 29th day of May, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 29th day of May, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator lO May 24, 1990 #1516 Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, 1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A “ Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/24/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 5/16/90 Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Drawings ony Discussion - This is a request for lot line rearrangements and property trades between the various parcels and ownerships of the MacMillan properties. The goal is to create one new building site for Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan on which to construct a home. Please review the staff memos of April 13, 1990 and May 16, 1990. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their April 16th meeting, ana discussed a number of significant issues including: Private road dedications Private road improvements Future development outlets Lot line/setback concerns Disposition of existing structures The request was tabled at the April 16th meeting pending resolution of the issue of an existing residence structure which was proposed to be bisected by a lot line. The issue was whether settlement of the estate for that property would allow removal of that house in a timely manner. Other minor issues were also considered, regarding the need for a setback variance for an existing tennis court, disposition of other accessory structures on the proposed building lot, and a technical variance for front setback for an existing garage on Lot 3. The City Engineer had early on recommended that the required private road outlot also contain a platted cul-de-sac, and that the road should be paved to City standards up to the cul-de-sac. He also recommended a realignment of the road outlot at the northwest end to conform with t» e neighboring property line rather than with the existing drivew ys. Regarding these road issues. Planning Commission agreed with platting of the cul-de-sac, disagreed with the realignment at the northwest end and disagreed with the need to upgrade this road, since more than half of its length will serve only two existing houses. Zoning File #1516 May 24, 1990 Page 2 Reaardinq the issue of the two proposed outlets for future developLnt, Planning Commission agreed with this concept, ?hat the revised proposal leaves Outlet B with enough "^^th ":o ^o'd^ chrmld the Drooerty owner someday apply lor Counciripprlval to'.ake^^ bLldable site. . Also, Planning Commission recommended that upgrading of the existing private system should occur at such time that Outlet B is developed. Regarding the house and tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1, tabling^at the April meeting, the revised their lot liM^ to place the existing house on this lot totally within boundaries “""dTnrtr bf tor^dowf ve"“^ton w\%"%"liStna«T °^he"‘'rianning ^^:arn"ed^:rih%°:^pr%“lrty^^ Tl^^o\“ i^°7ot\s^^o^co^\?n^u\ t^o^use existing driveway from Fox Street. Staff Recommendation In staff’s view, the main issues with this subdivision have to do K.“»*. • rei°i'c=S. of upgrading of small segments of roadway. The Planning Commission at their May 21st meeting recommended 3, 1990. 2. No upgrading of t'le existing private i” Outlet C will be required nor will construction of , df-i°a\^b: required, until such time that Outlet B is approved by the City Council for development. 3. Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the existing westerly driveway access to Fox Stre<^t. 4. Standard format road and utlity easement shall be granted to the City over Outlet C. Zoning File #1516 May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 3 5. Applicants shall execute the standard covenant for Liaintenance of this private roadway. 6. Planning Commission strongly recommends that a homeowners' association of property owners using the roadway be formed. (Planning Commission noted that this recommendation is not to be construed as a formal requirement of the plat, only an advisory to the applicants.) 7. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted. 8. Outlets A and B are designated for future development, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable by this or a future City Council before any development may occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage & Conservation easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future development occurs). 9. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 10. Granting of Conservation & Flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 11. Granting of variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 12. Accessory buildings including 2 garages and a small house within Lot 2, Block 1 must be removed within 6 months of the date of filing of the final plat, unless permits are xssued for construction of a principal residence on that property within that time period. 13. Tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1 may remain in its existing location until such time that the principal residence on that lot is removed, at which time the tennis court must also be removed. Staff would note the further standard plat conditions will include the $200.00 Park Fee under the old schedule, since this application was made before May 1, 1990. A Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval is attached for Council review. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 1560/1580/1620 POX STREET FILE NO. 1516 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal (hereinafter "the applicants") on March 23, 19^0 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a re: i :^ntial plat of property legally described as follows: PID;02-117-23 02-117-23 02- 117-23 03- 117-23 03-117-23 03-117-23 23 32 32 14 41 41 0001 0004 0005 0003 0001 0002 (See legal descriptions attached as Exhibit A) Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereii _t>r "the property") and; WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on April 16th and May 21st, 1990 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on May 29, 1990, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, noting the following findings of fact; 1. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 49.67 acres, including lake and wetljnd areas. 3. The proposed plat contains 4 lots, each exceeding the 2.0 acre minimum lot area requirement. 4. Each of the lots contains in excess of the required width as measured at the rear of the defined front yard. 200' lot 5. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, require a variance because they do not have frontage on a public roadway. Page 1 of 4 6. Lot Ir Block 1 is proposed to continue its existing shared driveway access directly to Fox Street. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 are intended to be served by the existing private road within proposed Outlot C. 7. The private road outlot is proposed to be shown Outlot C on tne platr but, because the portion of that road which serves three or more houses has been recently paved, no upgrading of that road surface, nor construction of the actual cul-de-sac, is required until such time that Outlot B is proposed for development. At the time Outlot B is developed, the City Council shall determine the standards for road construction. 8. It is intended that the existing private road be privately owned and maintained. The City will require that the applicant execute the standard Road and Utility Easement over Outlot C, and shall execute the standard Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration for Maintenance of same. 9. The wetland within Lot 1, Block 1 shall be subject to a Conservation and Flowage Easement. 10. Right-of-way of 33' shall be dedicated on the plat for existing City street known as Fox Street. 11. Outlets A and B each contain approximately 5 acres of dry buildable land in addition to wetlands, and are designated for future development, requiring that access, lot standards and septic testing all be found acceptable by this or a future City Council before any development may occur on these two outlot Flowage and Conservation Easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future evelopment occurs. 12. A variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sect^>>r. > r.03. Subdivision 9 (D) is required for the garage to remain in the front yard of Lot 3, Block 1. 13. Buildings including two garages and a small house within Lot 2, Block 1 are intended to be removed to accomodate the principal residence structure to be constructed on that property. 14. The existing tennis court within Lot 1, Block 1 does not meet the 50' setback required by Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 14 (D). The rear lot line in question is not being revised as part of this plat, hence it is appropriate to grant variances to allow this tennis court to remain within that substandard setback until such time that the principal residence structure on this property is removed, at which time the tennis court would have to be removed. Page 2 of 5 15. The three proposed lots between 2 and 5 acres in area have been demonstrated to contain suitable sites for primary and/or alternate drainfield sites to serve the proposed or existing single family residences. Lot 1, Block 1 exceeds 5 acres in area, contains an existing house, and is not required to be tested for alternate drainfield sites. Outlets A and B are not required to be tested for drainfield 's until such time that those outlets are proposed for development. 16. A single family residence can be constructed on the new lot. Lot 2, Block 1, without the need for further variances. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal at 1560/1580/1620 Fox Street per the survey dated August 6,1989, revised May 3, 1990, by Schoell and Madson, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of lot lines and outlet configurations and locations as shown on the revised preliminary plat dated May 3, 1990. 2. No upgrading of the existing private roadways within Outlet C will be required nor will construction of the cul- de-sac be required, until such time that Outlet B is approved by the City Council for development. 3. Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the existing westerly driveway access to Fox Street. 4. Standard format road and utility easement shall be granted to the City over Outlet C. 5. Applicants shall execute the standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. 6. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted. 7. Outlets A and B are designated for future development, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable by this or a future City Council before any development may occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage & Conservation easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future development occurs). Page 3 of 5 8. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 9. Granting of Conservation & Flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 10. Granting of variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 11. Accessory buildings including 2 garages and a small house within Lot 2, Block 1 must be removed within 6 months of the date of filing of the final plat, unless permits are issued for construction of a principal residence on that property within that time period. 12. Tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1 may remain in its existing location until such time that the principal residence on that lot is removed, at which time the tennis court must also be removed. 13. Payment of standard Park Fee of $200.00 for Lot 2, Block 1. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and forrth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include; a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Schoell and Madson, Inc. dated May 3, 1990. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. Sue;. asements need not be shown within the proposed Outlets A, B ano C. c) Designation and dedication of a "drainage easement" within Lot 1, Block 1 on the plat drawings, to be used as the legal description for the Conservation and Flowage Easement noted below. ^ B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required; a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Page 4 of 5 c) Signed and executed Flowage & Conservation Easement document for the wetland located within Lot 1, Block 1. d) Signed and executed Road and Utilities Easement over the private road outlot, Outlot C. e) Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration for Maintenance of Same". C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $ 500.00 a) Park dedication fee of $ 200.00 for Lot 2, Block 1, the only lot in the plat which does not contain an existing residence. Total Due $ 200.00. b) Final plat fee = $ 150.00 c) Legal review and filing fees of $ 150.00 (Note: The applicant is advised that applicant will be billed for all legal and engineering review fees that may be incurred by the City in excess of the original application fee, final plat fee, and legal review and filing fees.) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held May 29, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _r 19_ _ _» by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, HN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1516 NOTICE OP PIANNIHG COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: May 24, 1990 TO: Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan COPIES TO: Herb Baldwin 1560 Fox St. 4196 West 185th St. Wayzata, MN 55391 Jordan, MN 55354 Larry Hanson SchoellS Madson, Inc. 10550 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: May 21, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 1 Against Planning Conission reconnends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of lot lines and outlet configurations and locations as shown on the revised preliminary plat dated May 3, 1990. 2. No upgrading of the existing private roadways within Outlet C will be required nor will construction of the cul- de-sac be required, until such time that Outlet B is approved by the City Council for development. 3. Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the existing westerly driveway access to Fox Street. 4. Standard format road and utility easement shall be granted to the City over Outlet C. 5. Applicants shall execute the standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. ' 6. Planning Commission strongly recommends that a homeowners' association of property owners using the roadway be formed. 7. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted. Zoning File 11516 May 24, 1990 Page 2 8. Outlets A and B are designated for future development, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable by this or a future City Council before any development may occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage & Conservation easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future development occurs). 9. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 10. Granting of Conservation & Flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 11. Granting of variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 12. Accessory buildings including 2 garages and a small house within Lot 2, Block 1 must be removed within 6 months of the date of filing of the final plat, unless permits are issued for construction of a principal residence on that property within that time period. 13. Tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1 may reamin in its exisring location until such time that the principal residence on that lot is removed, at which time the tennis court must also be removed. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Tuesday, May 29, 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. -n. Fron: Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 16, 1990 Subject: #1516 Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, 1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Proposal (large plan) Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/26/90 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes 4/16/90 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 4/13/90 Discussion - At the April meeting. Planning Commission made the following general comments about this application: 1. No requirement to build the cul-de-sac, but it should be platted. 2. No need to realign Outlet C (road) at the point it abuts the Norton property. 3. Road upgrade not required until Outlet B is developed. 4. Lot 1, Bloclc 1 if developed must use existing westerly driveway off of Fox Street. 5. Tennis court on Lot 1, Bloclc 1 must be removed if house on that lot is removed. 6. If house on Lot 1, Block 1 is bisected by the proposed lot line, it would have to be removed before a building permit could be issued for Lot 2, Block 1. Applicants have revised their proposal (Exhibit A) to leave the existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 entirely within that lot and meeting the necessary 50' rear setback. Further, the applicants have platted a cul-de-sac near the northwest property boundary as recommended, and have left Outlet B with enough frontage and lot width to be considered as a future building site without variances upon Council approval. Zoning File #1516 May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 3 The applicants have verified the location of the tennis court in Lot 1, Block 1 to be 19.6' from the lot line at the northeast corner and 21.5' at the northwest corner. Will Planning Commission accept the existing setback given that this is an existing tennis court rather than a new structure?_ Now that the lot will contain a principal structure, there is specific requirement that the tennis court be removed. (Mrs. MacMillan indicates they will remove the tennic court rather than revise the lot line.) It appears that all issues addressed at the last meeting have been resolved. Staff RecooDBendation - Following is w list of recommended approval conditions based on Planning Commission's previous discussion and the current revisions: 1. Approval of lot lines and outlet configurations and locations as shown on the revised preliminary plat dated May 3, 1990. 2. No upgrading of the existing private roadways within Out lot C will be required nor will construction of the cul- de-sac be required, until such time that Outlet B is approved by the City Council for development. 3. Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the existing westerly driveway access to Fox Street. 4. Standard format road and utility easement shall be granted to the City over Outlet C. 5. Applicants shall execute the standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. 6. Planning Commission strongly recommends homeowners- association of property owners using -he roadway be formed. 7. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted. 8. Outlots A and B are designated for ^"^ure development, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be^found acceptable by this or a future f any development may occur on these 2 outlots S Conservation easements will not be required over ^^e or wetlands in these outlots until future development occurs). Zoning File #1516 May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 3 9. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 10. Granting of Conservation & Flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 11. Granting of variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 12. Accessory buildings including 2 garages and a small house within Lot 2, Block 1 must be removed within 6 months of the date of filing of the final plat, unless permits are issued for construction of a principal residence on that property within that time period. 1 - Planning Commission to deternrineTT TTTe ^^ehnis court" on" Lo£ 1, -BJ^^ 1 be xernoved--^4lvin-€ months3-f the date of fin*al plat_apipxoLvaX-because it does noir~meet the required 50'-reSr^setback. T" N -J fe<^ /w I 2. ^ s CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILB NO. 1516 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 4/26/90 TO:Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan COPIES TO: 1560 Fox Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Herb Baldwin 4196 West 185th Street Jordan, MN 55352 Larry Hanson, Schoell & Madson TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING:4/16/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Conmlssion recommends the following: Table for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order for applicants to consider options for dealing with the existing house that would be bise'-ted by the lot line. (Option other than removal would be to move lot line to keep that house within Lot 1, Block 1.) Planning Commission made the following general comments but did not yet incorporate them into a formal recommendation: 1. No requirement to build cul-de-sac, but it should be platted. 2. No need to realign Outlot C (road) at the point it abuts the Norton property. 3. Road upgrade not required until Outlot B is developed. 4. Lot 1, Block 1, if developed, must use existing westerly driveway off of Fox Street. 5. Tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1 must be removed if house on that lot is removed. 6. If house on Lot 1, Block 1 is bisected by the proposed lot line, it would have to be removed before a building permit could be issued for Lot 2, Block 1. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, May 21, 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. .u 'MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 1990 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING '^K^ner anl® pjannin| r/-Zo„L1 Mabusth, Assistant . * and Zoning and City Recorder ler. Council also pjreseniiF as was Councilrnember following Administrator Administrator Gaffron Representative Peterson Callahan. #1516 MR- * MRS- WHITNEY MACI4ILLAN 1560r 1580 and 1620 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION *’°°“xhe^fida3it^of'public!tiL’’an^ Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Mac.Millan were present for this matter. Also oresent were Mr. Larry Hanson of Schoell s Macson, Mr. Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, and Mr. Jack Taylor, Attorney. Gaffron explained the MacMillan’s subdivision proposal. Mr. Baldwin stated that the main objective of this entire orocedure is to build a house for the MacMillan s, not ^o subdivide property. Mr. Baldwin indicated the approximate location of the new residence. He stated that the subdivision is necessary to facilitate the sale of the MacMillan s existing hlm^ Mr. Baldwin said, "The MacMillan’s wish to maintain as much of the existing character as possible. The intent is preserve the land." Larry Hanson stated that they would prefer t° “se the existing driveway alignment for Outlot C. He said, IlignmeL proposed by the Orono City Engineer may cause P>^°blems ^ +-h#a arade. If the road were constructed as we are proposing, a two-acre parcel Jher side °to ""beoutlot It would allow extra land on tne other side b° combined and added with another site if that were t^he o?,ttino of this property will help to simplify the legal descriptions of the parcels. The site contains 50 a<=res which is fairly'^ low density for the number of houses located in thi. area." Gaffron noted that each of the new proposed lots that are less than 5 acres do have tested drainfield sites. Gaffron also noted that the existing house that is shown with the - • T1 and 2 Block 1/ through the center will . e removed. Gaffron asked if the MacMillan's intended to remove the other structures (the caretaker homes). Larry Hanson replied that is correct. - 1 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED Gaffron located an existing tennis court and stated that it is between 15' and 25' from the lot line. Bellows observed that once the house (1620 Fox Street) is removed there will be no principle structure as required if the tennis court is to remain. In regard to the proposed alignment for Outlot C, Gaffron said, "The City Engineer prefers not to have the Outlot dead end in the middle of someone's lot. However, the proposed outlot follows the logical progression along the existing driveway and from a topography standpoint, it may be the best location. The City Engineer did not like the idea of ending the road against a property line of a fully developed lot. The point is well taken that further development of that lot could occur if it is combined with property to the north." Kelley asked Gaffron what the City Engineer is recommending to address the slopes if his alignment is used. Gaffron replied that the City Engineer has not commented about the feasibility of putting the road in that location. Mr. Taylor said, "The MacMillans and the property owners to the rear are concerned about upgrading the road between the MacMillan's driveway and the back end. This plat is not increasing any use at all in that area. They would like the gravel road to remain as is." Kelley asked how many houses will ex^st on the road when this proposal is completed. Gaffron counted 6 houses that will be served by this road. Bellows asked Gaffron what the is the status of the existing driveway from Fox Street to the entrance of the MacMillan subdivision. Gaffron replied that the entire private road system within private easements rather than on a platted outlot. Bellows said, "Given that the proposed subdivision does abut a public roadway, the subdivision could achieve access from a public road. Why is the driveway being used as an alternative. I think that should be clarified for the record." Baldwin explained that the use of the private road is only being increased by the addition house. He said, 'The MacMillan's have a strong desir - \:>tain the high degree of privacy. Also, with the wetlan.. slopes and the limited area we have for on-site septic sys«-»aM(0*/ we would make a mess of - 2 - MINDTES of APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED the existing maple woods if we tried to put a road through to the nnblic road. There is also the fact that other parties, other than the MacMillans are involved with the ownership of these properties." Bellows asked how access to Outlot A will be achieved. Larry Hanson stated that Outlot A does not meet standards for a buildable lot at this time, which is why it has been designated as an outlot. Johnson observed that Lot 1, Block 1, appears to be a buildable lot and asked what purpose it will serve. Larry Hanson replied, "Though that lot is large enough, there is ^no intention to build there. That parcel was brought into the subdivision because part of it was needed to enlarge Lot 2. " Bellows asked why it could not be combined with Lot 2. Mr. Taylor explained that there are different entities involved. Kelley stated that though the City Engineer may have good reasons for his alignment of Outlot C, it did not make sense. Caffron asked for the Planning Commission's opinion regarding the cul-de-sac. Kelley stated that the cul-de-sac will run by the front of the Norton house. Bellows asked if it would be possible to locate the cul- de-sac further south where the grade is more flat. Baldwin state * that the MacMillans have a large garden in that area. Mrs. MacMillan asked why the cul-de-sac could not be located in Outlot B. Kelley stated that there are steep slope*"that area. Gaffron informed Bellows that placing tne cul-de-sac more to the south may interfere with drainfield sites. Kelley asked if it would be sensible to take half of the cul- de-sac from the Nortons and the other half from the MacMillans. Bellows interpreted the City Engineer's recommendation to - 3 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUEDinclude only the dedication of the cul-de-sac at this time. Gaffron's interpretation is that the cul-de-sac be constructed at this-time. Caffron stated that clarification will be necessary. Larry Hanson said, "I have a strong suspicion that no matter where the cul-de-sac is located, once future development occurs, it will be in thr> wrong place." Kelley stated that it would not make sense to move the cul- de-sac down toward to Fox Street. Bellows stated that perhaps the cul-de-sac does not make sense. Gaffron stated that from a safety aspect and the requirements of the Building Code, a cul-de-sac should be included. Gaffron asked Larry Hanson how wide the gravel portion the road is. Larry Hanson replied that the gravel portion is 16' wide. Kelley quickly reviewed the issues involved with this application. The Planning Commission agri^ed that the grade is too steep to realign the Outlot as proposed by the City Engineer. Kelley observed that the existing 16' paved portion of the drivew'* will serve more houses than the gravel portion of the road. - City is asking that the gravel portion be constructed mee ity standards which require a 24' or 26' paved width. In regard to the tennis court, Kelley stated that it should ^ removed. Moos, Cohen, Kelley, Bellows and Johnson agreed that the cul- de-sac is not necessaryi Kelley stated that Outlot C should be aligned along the existing driveway. As far as the upgrading of Outlot C, Kelley stated that the portion to be upgraded is beyond the driveway entrance of the new lot. Johnson suggested that Outlot C not r>e upgraded until Outlot B is developed. Bellows, Kelley Cohen favored upgradi. .ition, and Moos agreed with Johnson. ;<tlot C to a 24 foot width. Johnson stated that Lot 1, Block 1, still presented a problem because of the fact tiiat it is a buildable Ir t . - 4 - .-“r >• -• W ‘• MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED Bellows said, "The access to that lot is achieved from the west, rather than being served by a road within this subdivision. If it is the intention not to use this lot as a buildable site, then why cannot the lot be designated as an outlot?" Mr. Taylor stated that there are other parties involved with Lot 1, Block 1. That party is amenable to what is being presented this evening, but any variation of that would require their approval. Kelley stated that Lot 1 is already served by a driveway from the west. He suggested that a condition of approval be that in the event Lot 1, Block 1, is developed that it continue to be served from the existing driveway to the west. Mabusth asked what purpose Outlot A serves. Taylor explained that by agreement between the two parties, the property line for Lot 2 runs along the lakeshore. The owners of Outlot A kept the lakeshore and the portion to the west of the lake. Gaffron reviewed the proposed conditions fo^, Outlot A (page 4, A through D, of Gaffron's memo dated 4/13/90). With respect to Lot B, Gaffron asked whether it could be combined with the adjacent property to the west since there is common ownership. Larry Hanson said that there is really no need to do that. He state.i that Outlot B is a residual piece created so MacMillans could take title to the property with the caretaker structure. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the tennis court be removed. Johnson suggested allowing a specific time period for the structure tc be removed, a realignment of the lot line, or the construction of a principal structure. Larry Hanson stated that actual measurements were not taken to determine its location on the property. He suggested that he be given the opportunity to measure. Gaffron explained that the is5"’,e is not the location of the tennis court, but rather that it wr,:..d be an accessory strucvure with no principal structure. Bellows suggested allowing one structure to conform or be removed. year the accessory Kelley indicated that the other accessory structures and the principal structure should be removed prior to the issuance of a - 5 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGZONING FILE 11516-NACMILLAN CONTINUED building permit for MacMillans' new reside ce. Baldwin asked if it would be possible to overlap that schedule to allow construction to begiri while the estate of the applicant's mother is being settled. Taylor stated that it he cannot be certain that the existing house will be torn down. He said that the lot line may have to be realigned to preserve the house and the tennis court. Cohen said that Mr. Taylor's statement put new light on the information presented this evening. Mr. MacMillan explainec^ that there are other heirs involved and the decision to remove the house is not solely his to make. Bellows suggested tabling this application because the information presented at this point is incorrect. Bellows said that the Planning Commission would probably be amenable to recommending an extension of time to remove the principal structure. Johnson preferred to see the house removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. He indicated that such a requirement is a consistent policy of the City and there should be no exception. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1517 WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560 FOX STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:07 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining to the MacMillans' application to enlarge an existing pond. There were no comments from the public regarding th-i.? .aatter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for reconstruction of an existing artificial pond, subject to staff's conditions 1 through 6. - 6 - OlPlanning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates April 13, 1990 Subject: #1516 Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, 1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB, Single family rural residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Four lot residential subdivision to replat property located at 1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street, resulting in 1 additional buildable lot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - 1. 2. 3. Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Proposed Plat Drawing (1 large sheet) Staff S)cetches: Existing Lot Lines Private roads/driveways Proposed Lot Lines Scale Drawing of Prop>osed New Residence Orientation from File #1517 Letter from City Engineer 4/12/90 with Recommended Cul-de-sac Location Pertinent Facts - 1. Proposed lot areas are as follows (per preliminary plat drawing): Total number of lots 4 lots 3 outlots Areas: Block 1, Lot 1 513,210+s. f.or 11.78+acres Lot 2 523,444+s.f.or 12.02+acres Lot 3 139,810+s.f.or 3.21 +acres Block 2, Lot 1 93,650+s.f.or 2.15+acres Outlot A 512,400+s.f.or 11.76+acres Outlot B 326,815+s.f.or 7.50+acres Outlot C 54,315+s.f.or 1.25+acres Road 24,585+s.f.or 0.56+acres Gross 2,188,229+s.f.or 50.23+acres Net 2,163,644+s.f.or 49.67+acres r Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 2 of 7 2.The property within the proposed subdivision consists of 6 separate tax parcels owned by 4 different persons or groups. In the current Hennepin County tax books these are listed as: 1. Longridge Associates 2. Cargill MacMillan 3. Edna C. MacMillan 4. Whitney MacMillan The applicants have provided copies of a number of signed consent forms for the various apparent ownerships. Of course, the final plat drawings will need to be signed by all parties. 3.Three of the existing 6 tax parcels contain existing residence structures. The other 3 parcels are vacant. Two of the developed parcels and 2 of the vacant parcels do not abut a public right-of-way or a platted private road outlot. Discussion - The intent of primary applicants Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan is to create 1 new building site upon which to construct 1 new single family residence. Staff has determined that a plat is required. While it may appear that this could be accomplished by merely rearranging lot lines, a simple metes bounds rearrangement to accomplish the applicants* layout would result in extremely complex legal descriptions w;i\ch the County Surveyor's office likely would reject. Also, only platting allows the dedication of private road outlots and easements, which the City will require in this application. A. Existing Roads/Driveways All of the existing houses are served by private easement roads or shared driveways (see staff sketch E-2). A separate shared driveway serves 1620 Fox Street and 1700 Pox Street, plus the tennis building and caretaker house adjacent to it. Further east, a private easement road serves 2 existing residences within the subdivision plus an additional 3 residences outside the boundaries of the subdivision. This private road also connects through Orono Orchard Road to the Hamm property to the east. The new building site is proposed to be approximately midway between the houses at 1560 and 1620 Fox Street. This building site is intended to be served with a driveway shown as a dashed line on Sketch E-2. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 3 of 7 In early discussions with the applicants' representative Herb Baldwin, staff indicated that within the boundaries of the subdivision, the City would require that a 50' outlot be platted and the standard private road and utility easements be granted over the existing main private roadway. The applicants have shown this outlot within their proposed plat, Mr. Baldwin was advised that the City would likely also request that a cul-de-sac be platted and that it was not predictable whether the City would require actual construction of the cul-de-sac and upgrading of the road to private road standards, given the history of similar situations and the City's growing awareness of private road issues. In discussions with staff, the City Engineer initially, although somewhat reservedly, recommended that the cul-de-sac be constructed and the entire road within the subdivision be upgaded. His reluctance again relates to the City's private road policies being currently under scrutiny. In later discussions with the Engineer, and per his letter received today, he has revised his recommendation to include the following: 1. Re-alignment of the road outlot for a future westerly continuation. 2. Upgrade of the currently gravelled portion of the private road outlot and the cul-de-sac to City private road standards, allowing the existing recently paved portions of private road to remain as is. A developer's agreement and letter of credit would be required. B. Septic System Considerations The new building site is proposed as Lot 2, Block 1. Both primary and alternate drainfield sites, meeting all City criteria, have been tested and found to be suitable for sewage treatment needs of the proposed new house. On Lot 1, Block 1, the existing house is intended to be removed, which is appropriate since the new lot line will bisect it. This property has an existing functional mound drainfield, and has possible alternate sites to the east near the open tennis court, just west of the Morrison residence. Septic test reports for these sites have not been submitted, tj^t these are not required since this lot exceeds 5 dry acres. Lot 3, Block 1 has an existing functional septic system and has a tested alternate drainfield site north of the house. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 4 of 7 Lot 1, Block 2 containing an existing caretakers house (which was reconstructed approximately 2 years ago) has a new septic system and a tested alternate site adjacent to it. In summary, each of the 4 lots contain the required primary and alternate drainfield sites. C. Proposed Outlets The subdivision proposes 2 outlets for future development, these being Outlet A west of the artificial lake, and Outlet B to the north. The Orono Subdivision Code requires that any outlets created within a subdivision be documented as to specific purpose and future intended use and conditions must be defined under which those outlets can be developed. Outlet A will not abut any public or private roadway, and contains a significant portion of the artificial lake area. Absent any specific restrictions intended by the applicant except that this outlet would be for "future development", staff would suggest the following restrictions on Outlet A: A. Future development or construction of any sort within Outlet A requires City Council approval. B. Subject to future septic testing to verify drainfield sites. C. Subject to future provision of suitable road access per City requirements. D. At the time of future development. City will require Flowage and Conservation Easement over the artificial lake. ^ Outlet B to the north under the current scheme would abut the road outlet but net have the required lot width at the 50' setback line to be considered buildable without a width variance. This area is also intended for no current development and staff would recommend similar conditions as for Outlet A. land Each of these outlets has about 5 acres of dry buildable D. Wetlands, Ponds, Etc. The proposed building site within Lot 2 is centrally located within that lot, and the proposed site plan (Exhibit G) indicates that a 75' setback from the artificial lake area will be maintained. This lake is approximately 8 acres in area, and is not "meandered", hence property ownership continues through the bed of the pond. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 5 of 7 staff has advised the applicants that easements would not be requested for the wetlands or pond area within the outlets, and that those easements would be requested when future development occurs. The Citv will require granting of a flowage and conservation easement over the wetlands in Lot 1, Block 1 abutting Fox Street. Discussion of an easement for the smaller pond within Lot Block 1 will be found in application #1517, the conditional use permit for work in that non-designated pond area. E. Disposition of Existing Structures A number of buildings and structures on the property apparently are intended to be removed as a result of this replat. In proposed Lot 1, Block 1, the existing residence, which will have a new lot line bisectijigit, is apparently intended for , removal tot illy. That lot wil'l'^tl^l contain a tennis court that is shown to be approximately 12' fi?om the northerly lot This is one of the few lot lines^tfiat has previously existed and is not changing, hence Planning Commission could justify not requiring that line to move due to its pre-existing status. Other options would be to require 30' setback for the tennis court, o^r alternatively Planning Commission could request a 50 setback if it is determined that the adjacent lot line is a "rear" lot 3 ine. tT'*^/'Jfc' In Lot 2, Block 1, there are two detached gara-.es and a caretaker residence which staff presumes will be removed. Applicants should confirm that this is the case. exists. Lot 1, Block 2 has no detached accessory structures. There are also no apparent structures on either of the two future development outlets. Applicants should be requested to provide a schedule for removal of the accessory buildings that are to be removed, and such a schedule should be incorporated into the preliminary and final plat approval resolutions. ^-/rr ■' I^’IO Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 6 of 7 F, Lot Standards Each of the 4 building lots has the required 200* of lot width as measured 50* back from the roadway. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 all require variances because they do not abut a public road. The outlets are not required to meet lot standards since they are intended for future development. Summary of Issues 1. Realignment of proposed Outlet C, the road outlet. «if rOoT* Provision of a cul-de-sac dedication in that outlet.2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Extent of required upgrading/development of existing road and recommended cul-de-sac. Designation of future development outlets, conditions of approval. Lot line near tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1. V Disposition of existing house ending up on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Disposition of 2 garages and caretaker house on Lot 2, Block 1. 8. Variance for existing garage on Lot 3, Block 1. Staff Recommendation - Planning Commission should review the above items with the applicant and make a recommendation on each issue as part of your recommendation to Council. Staff would recommend the following laundry list of approval conditions; 1. Revise private oad Outlet C to conform to City Engineer’s proposed rketch. 2. Recommend that the road in Outlot C between the end of the newer pavement and the cul-de-sac be constructed to City private road standards. 3. Grant standard road and utility easements over Outlot C. 4. Require execution of standard covenant for maintenance of this private roadway. 5. Developer's agreement to be executed between the City and the developers for upgrading of the road. Zoning File #1516 April 13, 1990 Page 7 of 7 6. Strongly recommend that a homeowners' association of all property owners using the roadway be formed. 7. Granting of the standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines. 8. Define Outlets A and B as designated for future develop­ ment, requiring that access, lot standards, and septic testing all be found acceptable by this or a future City Council before any development may occur on these 2 outlets (Flowage and Conservation Easements not required until future development occurs). 9. Ex sting house bisected by the proposed let line between Lots JL and 2, Block 1, shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1. 10. Lot line north of tennis courts to be moved northward to meet the required 30' minimum setback for such a structure (Does Planning Commission wis..i to confirm this as a rear yard, and require a 50' setback?). 11. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street. 12. Granting of Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. 13. Grant variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APF .’CATION1. Completed Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. lertification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is ::omplete. 'oning Official's Sicrnature ___________________________ Date________________ Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. :ertification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. 3oning Official's Signature_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ .^EES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 informatiori required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to prcpcess this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature 't<Date I ' -yPate dM "'t'/XG (? 0 Owner's Signature Applicant murt have all si *tals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meetin^ 'lanning Commission Meetings are held on t^e third Monday of each month. ,.plicants must be present at all scheduled review meetii.gs of the Planning Commission and Council. If an app . unable to atv.end a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agti.t attend in your place and to advise the Bui^cing & Zoni g Office of this <. prior to the meeting. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICA PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1560 Fox Street Property Identification Number (P.I.D, ) As listed ti. right... Please check one - Property X abstract or _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application. 117 23 23 0001 03 117 23 14 0003 03 117 23 41 0002 03 117 23 41 0001 02 117 23 32 0005 02 117 23 32 0004] APPLICANT Schoell & Madson, Inc. Name c/o Larry L. Hanson Phone (home) 937-1462 Phone (work) 546-7601 Address: 10550 Wayzata Boulevard City: Minnetonka Zip: 55343 OWNERS(if different than applicant) Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan Name Estate of Pauline W. MacMillan Lung Ridge Associates Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) City:_Zip:_ _ EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) 2.49 47.74 Acres Dry Land Acres V7et Land CITY OF DR&Q f OFFICE 13502000(^ 50.23 Ol'TEir 32^00 C}EK^ . 1L._, 320,00 Acres Total, all ParoelSj^/^iff Residential? no. v f units 3______ Other (specify)_____________________ Present Zoning District RR-IB PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for Nr-' isuilding Sites Number of Building Sites: _ Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lo+* Size: Proposed Use: (check) 1 93,650 Existing Units New Units Total Units (Home on parcel 2600 to be razed) Units per Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r ? 0 1 i.'>S3>®6:«gdS°5Ki o > u a u ae < M X H in in «n fH O lU UJ Xr * = o in S S M S kS o uj ui b> «^ o o 2 X aO Z UJ < t/•- §|55CM -I -J O KI V) -I -i O O SS^SSI 2 338i °is8£2CO o < < ui a KI o u u o £ II UJ g islX > N, “II< z %•&gl m <n X X X N ^ UI Ui UJ o Sg|££S igiSB” T*°“8jCM K* K- M £ ^ in Si uj o </)O CD tt o SS CM a ~ ^ lu o I a u < A o :;52uii» r ^SSgz Sa ^Suc S^ O S Z A O ^ * o u -J .>: a Si x^ SO 3 X Qo2|u3 sixoz«; X < UJipi ill r-r- f*'(■ !.; §s I o z w o inK0U|S$ KI U U A S 2 Ihizil ’ X si # 1 I M <«I s»l » s M a: 5 ^ f!} K > 5 tti 3 IS “•**55* SoSS‘"5 N oe oe o N sSSSSgo u u ■-• z e P M SS 3 '»»-gg a M M -i -I S‘^ "'-'x*A iiis “s^Soa sissli o 5 H ae 0! Is •H Ife X X »H ° a ^ !j uj iQ >o _J ^ <0 >•asggiss N S(a|a 0^ M o a lb m '»“^-«<Aa ;» -".is ^ (D X O > a§-,^?s 5ag^ Ui UJ O a a K iil^l o O > UJ o < 1^ H A “Si^KZ&3SS ^Slg i:£iiM Ui a h- (A Ui K Ui X >• Ui X >- Z U XUi U. lb M K O O (M ® -s » ».Si a Tslhi n:i ® S ^ S o N 3 ^ 9 >asisss ii xi Si? Si X UJ s “g §W** 51 5.0 p » M Z H M Z M vt a MOP M Ui X S=i-| p P ~ X M *5 m o UJ X <«' Z I Ui z O «t M X Ui K H X - - “ 9 3^5* g| 3. Ill ° S a s®ss^ N g X X P Z s ‘"5Sx; K» X X £ jr asiiSI X si r''-- I !• ^ (Sid 0 ^1* 6* . I . ■ 1 i p/eopse-T/^S SiAe£>tviP/c>A) (Cfi TAX PMcei-^ fiisto fOft IMUCtST^S ADW2CSS .'; *" U?cAT?0/O :‘pj f.;'jj or hc »»^c - [ |: j | r . *' h.> ? :..*5H; • - /fjbicAreS Cor>» <3uJM>keXHl^ f ! i ... I ! ' ; 'ii:. f* ! • ! ; /ZoAxype-iv/ewiAf SVSTVM.V::: l5tO fof( fiobicAres ADW^ess ^ APP<ePXJir^#VTe UCJCATTO/O j Ojr ^ISnKJG HC>^^- r'-----> - /^jblCATtS feXA/. ^-3 f’V \ 350 y/\c. P/Zokof^ VAC-. I oiafe/Mt>6C /AsC.OC . Z' \ ^HO BfiouJH*no\ taouf*^ -NfatH»^ J / /SftO ££iL g ,C •^ O.L. >4"^ a^0K)O Golf Coy^izst tofl6<*»oG€ Ai.'ioc.^.H. Mac vv»»ulaa » |‘^B7 t \ CJZAlfcBAem ASSOC. T£AVOtS et-\Xi. IftHO 18Z0ISL_E21. sTTCfe e=-"T=- p»<uAi_ uc>r f^OuM Ar^l E5» {7 -r/IX PA^CtLS^ 1560 fo/r in »hcat €S Aw>«ess /Wb ~ APP^PPOi^ATC. tCJCATlO/J Of eXtiTltJC* ----------- - /MLlCATtS >" V] %/ ov. n; W, .. . h' ■ d:/i^ • Cs1/i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ^1 Associates Engineers & Architects April 12. 1990 Oao 0 ■O'^uma K »«OM w PIjmttn C Artccf.i». PS I Vnrt. t»t C Oior. ft CtiiM N ceo». Pt tPvni\ P Ngyri PI Becm a pc Mvwi I i«vju. Ph KrvnA OnosA PetifuM roitrf. PC0«n4«> CX»7 A lewoorv »»f W»n A ««m«\ P£ ttc« sue. Pi r Ktuinwnn. Pt MCOCtl P Pftfl4nt. PI U0M 0 Loueu. PI rflomji w Pwtnon. P| M<n*ei C tyn«n Al Mmn • MMna PI KtrPttn P AMmon »i MvK I Ml PC ■soenC liAwk aia Thonut r Argut P| HowM a bnfb« Pi 0«AW i Mgfwm H MM A Sec Pf PM« / CvilMM Pf Q|( J mjii t; vu.A)\ Ptthuitm\K Anrtwion AIA (i«fy r l^inufi Pf Mpt» S Pfl PtaIi (P4VC1 a Pt I r>«r» A Pitkton imhA P.tvwMtiv Kirun M OiWA V<w» M I uerir. C PA City of Orono Box 66 CrystAl Bay, MN 55323 Attxi: Mike Gaffrar Ret 139-1516 Macmillan Addition APR 1 3 1990 Dear Miket Ve !iave reviewed the plans submitted on the Macmillan Addition. The following modifications to the plat are recommended. The roadway alignment, should be adjusted so it can be extended westerly in the future. The dedication of a cul-de-sac near the end of the road is recommended. The roadway from the end of the existing blacktop to the cul-se-sac should be constucted in accordance with city standards. Drawing easements should be provided along with lot lines. The street grading and drainage plan should be submitted and a bond provided prior to beginning work. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIX k ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook CRCilp ^‘9'iC kV/nr*r* o—.i ppt —- ri*««* m m ^ I V \ .------ M mi M ji lJ£i / r. /.•■ .......^ . •«••*•' •• ,! 1^—w n X /I t| \l4« P / s^apo.oo-'- ***^v t>; __-I •^\^^ r>5xlsir'f«0*««.’4-«"f riim • .*v>* _ ■«• Ur^^/4 4^'-/ P T.' M-7, N n.O «P' Co if. ir o rt. mornTTiL ■................-•'>:::»•-------:~-\\v \ I \ H ; \»*r A M A \V'N. \ ■X . y' Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson MClTIHof/Wfly 2 0 ;ggQ Fron: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 24, 1990 Subject: #1517 Whitney , ’.Millan - 1560 Fox Street Conditional Use ♦ ^rmit - Resolution Zoning District - RR-IB Application - Permit for Reconstruction of Existing Artificial Pond List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/25/90 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 4/16/90 Exhibit C - Resolution Exhibit D - Memo and Exhibits of 4/13/90 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of April 13th. Briefly, the applicant is requesting approval for excavating within an existing small pond area. The conditional use permit is required because the amount to be excavated exceeds 100 cubic yards. At their April 16th meeting, recommended approval, and recommendation that the nature comparison to the much larger significant public benefit would over this pond, hence Planning that no easement need be taken. Planning Commission unanimously agreed with the City Engineer's of this pond is relataively minor in 8-acre lake on the property. No be protected by requiring an easement Commission agreed with the Engineer Recommended conditions of approval are as Commission Action Notice of April 25th. Staff RecoxBendations shown on the Planning Staff recommends approval per the recommendations of the City Engineer and Planning Commission. A resolution for Council review is attached. CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN ZONING FILE NO. 1517 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice; 4/25/90 TO:Whitney MacMillan 1560 Fox Street Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Herb Baldwin 4196 West 185th Street Jordan, MN 55352 TYPE OP APPLICATION; Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETING: 4/16/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval of the conditional use permit for reconstruction of the existing artificial pond, as proposed. Planning Commission recommended that no Conservation and Flowage Easement be required. Approval would be conditioned on the following: 1. All dredged spoils to be trucked off site. 2. Proposed stone wall to be at least 75' back from the shoreline of the adjacent artificial lake. 3. Adhere to indicated plan, with 5' maximum depth at center of pond, 1'-1'6" depth at pond border. 4. Stone platform patio area extending into pond is approved as a part of the project. 5. Applicant or applicant's agent shall obtain the required land alteration permit prior to commencement of work on the pond. 6. Applicant and applicant's contractor shall place and maintain appropriate erosion control methods (silt fence, etc.) to keep any of the disturbed areas or temporarily dredged spoils from moving into the adjacent lake. Upon final grading, the disturbed shall be immediately seeded or sodded to minimize erosion. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; City Council Monday, May 14, 1990; meeting starts at 7;00 p.m. NOTE: If you wish, we could postpone Council review of this application until the meeting at which your preliminary plat would be J^eviewed, to avoid your having to attend an extra meeting (call Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 to verify). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission ?.:.inutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. /I £■ iC w..-- - - - - -- *-Structure. Johnson preferred to see the house removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. He indicated that s^ch a requirement is a consistent policy of the City and there should be no exception. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1517 WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560 FOX STREET CONDITIONAL QSE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:07 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining to the MacMillans' application to enlarge an existing pond. 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 Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for reconstruction of an existing artificial pond, subject to staff's conditions 1 through 6. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1502 MICHAEL HILBELINK 2180 PROSPECT AVENUE VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate ol Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Hilbelink was present for this matter. Mr. and Mrs. Jentilucci and their Attorney, Neil Heikkila, were also present. Mabusth briefly reviewed the information and recommendations from the City Engineer resulting from the March 19 Hearing. Mabusth referred to a letter that she had sent the Jentiluccis. Mr. Jentilucci had not received the letter due to an incorrect address. Mr. Heikkila explained the specific concerns of his clients. These concerns are also addressed in Mr. Heikkila's April 12, 1990 letter to the City of Orono. Mrs. Jentilucci stated that Mr. Hilbelink is going to build the new house and sell it. She questioned how the new property owners will be notified of their drainage concerns. Mabusth stated that if the lot area variance Is granted, it would be subject to certain conditions. Mabusth said that a permit is required for any type of land alteration. The City will now be aware of the drainage concerns and will carefully review any land alteration applications to assure that those concerns are addressed. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1517 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan (hereinafter "the applicants") have an interest in and intend to become the future owners of the property located adjacent to 1560 Fox Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit as required by Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, to permit the excavation of a pond area involving removal cf approximately 1700 cubic yards of material. Minnesota : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1517. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. On April 16th, 1990 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval, finding that the proposed excavation will have no significant effect on the quantity or quality of run-off reaching Lake Minnetonka, and will not provide a significant public benefit that would require granting of a conservation and flowage easement. The Planning Commission further found that all dredged spoils will be trucked off the site, and that the use of the pond is decorative in nature. The Planning Commission further noted that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and had no problems with the proposal. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 1 of 4 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the excavation of this pond area will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plcn of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the excavation of approximately 1700 cubic yards of fill to expand an existing small pond, subject to the following conditions: 1. 1 dredged spoils to be trucked off site. 2. Proposed stone wall to be at least 75* back from the shoreline of the adjacent artificial lake. 3. Adhere to indicated plan, with 5* maximum depth at center of pond, l'-l*6" depth at pond border. 4. Stone platform patio area extending into pond is approved as a part of the project. 5. Applicant or applicant's agent shall obtain the required land alteration permit prior to commencement of work on the pond. 6. Applicant and applicant's contractor shall place and maintain appropriate erosion control methods (silt fence, etc.) to keep any of the disturbed areas or temporarily dredged spoils moving into the adjacent lake. Upon final grading, the disturbed areas shall be immediately seeded or sodded to minimize erosion. 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 1990. ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 29th day of May, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 I h.Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: April 13, 1990 Subject: #1517 Whitney MacMillan, 1560 Fox Street - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Application - Request for conditional use permit for reconstruction of existing artificial pond. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Discussion ■* Application Plat Map (see application #1516) Property Owners List (see application #1516) Survey (see application #1516) Proposed Site/Grading Plan As part of their proposed new residence construction after the subdivision is approved, applicants wish to reconstruct and slightly enlarge a small existing pond within proposed Lot 2, Bloc)c 1. The existing pond is approximately 200' long and ranges in width from 40'-90', with a total water surface area of about 1/4 acre. Applicants propose to rebuild this pond by dredging it slightly deeper and increasing it to an average width of about 70'. They would be constructing a stone wall approximately 2' high along the outlet as a dam, and propose to continue maintaining the elevation of the pond about 2' above the artificial lake level by using their private well. The proposed stone wall will be approximately 77' back from the shoreline of the 8 acre Hake. The applicants' proposal does not indicate how much dredge spoil will be obtained, but staff would estimate that an area approximately 70'x220'x3' deep will be excavated, resulting in approximately 1,700 cubic yards of dredge spoil. Absent any proposal to use that dredge spoil in some other location on the property, staff would expect that this material will be trucked off the property. The City Engineer reviewed this application and had no specific comments. Applicants are proposing a granite field stone border and the pond will be underlined with a 30 mil poly liner to miminize seepage and help maintain water in the pond. Zoning File #1517 April 13, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Based on the designated wetland air photo maps at City Hall, this small pond is not a designated wetland, and has existed as an artificial pond since prior to 1970. A site inspection and review of the topography suggests that this area was probably a low wet area but probably not a significant wetland prior to the pond's original construction. In response to the question whether the City should require a Conservation and Flowage Easement ever this artificial pond, the City Engineer indicated that the value to the public of this pond is relatively insignificant as compared to the 8 acre artificial lake adjacent to it, and that the watershed feeding the pond is only about 3 acres, almost all of which will be within Lot 2, Block 1. Glenn suggested that it is probably not necessary to require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over this pond, especially since its water level will be artificially maintained. Staff Reconmendation - Based on the above comments, staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit for reconstruction of this artificial pond under the following conditions; 1. All dredged spoils to be trucked off site. 2. Proposed stone wall to be at least 75' back from the shoreline of the adjacent artificial lake. 3. Adhere to indicated plan, with 5’ maximum depth at center of pond, 1'-1'6" depth at pond border. 4. Stone platform patio area extending into pond is approved as a part of the project. 5. Applicant or applicant's agent shall obtain the required land alteration permit prior to commencement of work on the pond. 6. Applicant and applicant's contractor shall place and maintain appropriate erosion control methods (silt fence, etc.) to keep any of the disturbed areas or temporarily dredged spoils from moving into the adjacent lake. Upon final grading, the disturbed shall be immediately seeded or sodded to minimize erosion. I CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address \^(oO ^ \ ^ U i ^^APPLJCA ) • TIQN T • o^cy^O ■ MH Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) CITY QF Df:(W cmx^n^ .#55 Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Address Phone (work) 40Z*2.180 _ _ _ _ City Zip Phone (home)OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Vv:H>-nOBt^gVfr /WMM\ N Phone 4-T^-g»6g»]_________ Address _________ City VVi^~fXAT/^ Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee X $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $150.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration ^ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250-00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision __ $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) __ $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USB OP PROPERTY ^ IP--«Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify)^ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail:Describe request in ae ACT Fig AU > SBQOIRED SUBMITTALS 1, Completed Application Form Certified Property /S^t 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. _ __ Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed .surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE time not covered by original fee^ayment) in review of this applicat^to^^^i%d^^^^c^£yif.^s is true and correct to /heledge. Applicant's signature ^ ^- - - - - --- - - - -- ONNERS SIGNATURE ^ f\ The owner hereby acknowled^esIWnd agrees to this authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council investigation and verifica^on of thi^ request Owner's sianature W\ VA information required or __ _pay additional fees (staff and/or unusual expenses incurred that the information supplied members for purposes of Al Date ^^0 PlaiiinrcoJJ^ission Seetingr^Vlanni^g°Co^!^lssiL are held on the unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zonin May 24, 1990 1990 #1522 James and JoAnn Nordlie, 2505 Dunwoody Avenue - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct room addition to the existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 5/24/90 Exhibit B - Sketch cf Possible Removals Exhibit C - Resolution Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 5/16/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of May 16th. Briefly, the applicants are requesting a slight hardcover increase from 38.07% to 38.74% in the 75-250' zone, to construct a 16'xl9' entryway addition and kitchen expansion plus a 5'xl8' covered stoop. At their May 21st meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval subject to concurrent removals of hardcover to reduce the 75-250' zone to 35%. Staff has met with the applicants' builder, and he has indicated a portion of driveway which could be removed to result in the 35% standard being met (see Exhibit B). This would appear to leave a relatively functional driveway, although the applicants did note that they have problems in the winter if there is even a slight glaze on the driveway, hence they were hesitant to remove either of the 2 driveway legs. Staff Recommendation - Based on the Planning Commission recommendation to reduce hardcover to 35%, staff would recommend approval per the attached resolution. CITY OF.ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE NO. 1522 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice; 5/24/90 TO:James & JoAnn Nordlie COPIES TO: Gerald Roelofs 2505 Dunwoody Avenue 1650 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 5/21/90 Planning Conmission recomends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: VOTE: 5 For 1 Against 1 AbSTain Planning Commission recommended approval conditioned on concurrent removals of hardcover in the 75-250' zone to yield no more than 35% final hardcover in that zone. Staff has met with Mr. Roelofs to discuss the hardcover removals. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Tuesday, May 29, 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 Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. r-v.j* sillii111•iiiiijh, , 41 . . i' ' - . illiili -'ffBaiiS ■ 4 V;U ‘ ■i-:i >! »rirji|isill . «'■ •• r r* ’ l. iptiv jjii i^V' - ;■ /rj • '^^ F ziiH'M iifmn Ml# :5®i- ill PiP IPI# liiw'M§M A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO HUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE #1522 WHEREAS, James and JoAnn Nordlie (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2505 Dunwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City ) and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of additions to the existing such additions constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250 zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1522. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 21, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The proposed addition meets all standards of the Orono Zoning Code except for the hardcover limitation. B) A significant portion of hardcover on the property is in blacktop driveway areas, of which portions could be removed in order to decrease hardcover on the property to the 35% level, as compared to the existing 38.07% in the 75-250' zone. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 1 of 4 5, The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code ana Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing residence which would constitute an increase in hardcover on the property where hardcover already exceeds the 25% limit in the 75-250' setback zone, subject to the following conditions; 1. Prior to inspection of the footing forms for the new addition, an amount of hardcover shall be removed the driveway area as shown on Exhibit A attached, such that hardcover in the 75-250' zone will not exceed 7,656 square feet (35.0%). The applicants are advised that future hardcover additions in the 75-250' zone will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting in no net increase in hardcover above the 35% limit imposed by this resolution. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 29, 1991). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 4 4. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 29th day of May, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 29th day of May, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 'TO OL< 5'^‘=^-‘vo Planning Cornmission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 16, 1990 Subject: #1522 James and JoAn Nordlie - 2505 Dunwoody Avenue ■ Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct room addition to existing residence List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgement Forms Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Property Owners List Exhibit F - Survey Exhibit G - Plan and Elevation Views Exhibit H - Hardcover Worksheets Pertinent Facts - 1.The applicants propose to construct a 16' x 19' entryway addition and kitchen expansion, plus a 5' x 18' covered stoop. About half of this addition will be over existing concrete sidewalk hardcover. The result is a request for a 129 s.f. (0.48%) increase in hardcover. 2.Hardcover is as follows: Existing Proposed Allowed 0-75' 230 s.f.(2.45%) 75-250' 8328 s.f.(38.07%) 250-500' 1314 s.f.(15.564%) No Change (0%) 8475 s f.(J8.74%)* 5469 s.f.(25%) No Change (30%) ♦Staff calculation of hardcover trade-offs varies slightly from applicants calculation. Net 75-250' hardcover increase appears to be 147 s.f. or 0.67%. 3. The proposed addition meets all pertinent setback requirements. Zoning File May 16, 19‘> Page 2 of *22 Discussion Please review the applicants Letter of Request. They are requesting a hardcover variance to construct a minor addition to the residence. Hardcover is proposed to increase slightly after removals of excess sidewalk area. With all setback and "lot coverage by buildings" requirements being met, the issue is whether additional hardcover removals should occur to result in no net increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. It would appeaFThat the most likely candidate areas would be within the fairly substantial blacktop driveway and parking area. The major portions of driveway are wjthin the 75-250' zone. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should consider whether additional hardcover removals are necessary in any recommendation for approval. Options are as follows; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as requested. Recommend approval with additional removals to yield no net hardcover increase. , . Recommend approval based on reduction of hardcover to some specific percentage. Recommend denial, list specific reasons. Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this applicatiPlease remember that your variance application is not complete i. he above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. KJdApplicant's Signature Date n iC OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date ’1 ic I -10 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. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #15^2 CITY SF OiiSiQ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Z 5*0 S’ "^•4uujco/}Y A\ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) t-t- oo>~> Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name ftuC Vt'ou^u^ Address:_____ZS'OS" Aotuui^ City: Phone (home) ^7/ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wor)c) _ _ _ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name —. Phone (home) Phone (worJc) Address:City:,Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $^z^oco. Describe request in detail: ^-r>n>c.w*-o VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances (^ Other Lot Width Front X/^)^ Hardcover Side Rear) MM V ^S^KEN ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION INC. 1650SHADYWOODROAD / WAYZATA.MN55391 / PHONE:471-8390 PROJECT SUMMARY Jim and JoAnn Norcyilj& 2505 Dunwoody Avenue Way'-^ta, MN 55391 " '<✓* The design problem in this project is to eliminate confusion and improve the sense of arrival for the Nordlie home. Two doors in the same elevation, with two large concrete stairways provide the public face for the home. The design solution is a aJdition within the existing footprint of the building providi single entry that will serve both family and guests. The addition .'ovides for much~needed foyer space and entry closet storage. The primary entry area is approximately 24 inches lower than the existing main floor to lessen the massive concrete stairway while maintaining the existing roof Some sidewalk revision will be made to accommodate the new entry. Unnecessary pavers and concrete will be removed yielding as much green area as is possible. This request is for an increase in the hard cover allowance in the *75' - 250' zone. Although the addition has about 320 sq. ft. of floor space and 100 sq. ft. of concrete step, existing hard cover in the area of the addition and proposed sidewalk revisions yield a net increase of hard cover in the amount of approximately 105 sq. ft. Based upon surve^ data, this would increase the hard cov^r in the zone from the existing 8328 sq. ft. (38.07%) to 8457 sq. ft. (38.55%). We would further '^equest that this matter be considered at the earliest possible date by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Contracts and Specifications were drawn and work was proposed to begin on or about April 1, 1990 without the knowledge that this process needed to be worked through. Several special older items are in process and will need to be warehoused at some expense as this process unfolds. Timely consideration and action that would grant a start date one or two weeks earlier would be a great help. Mr. and Mrs. Noi'dlie and our firm are ready to do whatever we can to this end. Thank you for your consideration on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Nordlie. Sincerely, Gerald L. Roelofs KEN ROELOFS CONSTRUCTION, INC. GLR/mr VS!jsaxsk Aw II. j 4. . . Adjacent Property Oimera• ^Acknowlidseaeirtf I (we) ^ f ^ Lf A^Of [print name(s)T [print address)7 have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at QUNiAJCOa'f. also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____• I (we) understand that in executing this acJcnowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. tv.-s:yyD Property Owne^^^Date / -r V_ _ Property Owner Date ^/ If you have any information that may assist the City in the •'«vi<»*-v of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Builuing & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. i V jAdjacent Property Oiraer^ ^cknoniladge^en’t Foii»>^(we) T^z/iksf^s of 2^*fSs^ l:>i{K\u)MT>y [print name (s)J [print address] / have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use / Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this aclcnowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asJced to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. perty'Twner Vl/L Date / / ' y/'Ji >. '•yh---’ > Property Owner Date I ' cJ / ip If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. L 't-- vcf iL. 7 0I U) J 5r 0 w ft •5 *0) v-> h 2 0 §;? - l?i ^0€ioff c^i^ff-HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ’ONE) 75-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing H ardcover in Zone A. ■ H ouse B. Garage . c. D riveway E. Patio / D eck *^TZ fic5 F.Landscape AREAS UN PgR UU M w- ■ , , PLACT -fe GlICCTmO ' I^IPEa P G. Other LENGTH D.. Sidewalk _ . X . X . X X X X X X X . X . X . )67 LF X __________ X __________ X 1 ______ X WIDTH 0.7 L. P. X 5 S.F. //7 ___ S.F. :_s.fV ___ S.F. ___ S.F. __ S.F. __ S.F, __ S.F. __ S.F. _ S.F, __ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. % ______Qou*^r(D AS (o7^; S.F. 723 S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone '130 S.F. A Total Property Area in Zone S.F. B !230 : -;-[TI ^^7^ x 100 = 2.9S__% I • • •• •••.* HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' ^5-25^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone 6.4- |0 A.' House X 3Z.£,a VS/a. 5 s .fT^ ••LENGTH /.7 X WIDTH 17. r" &s 1 1 S.F. ; zz.c^X Zo.z,= j . S.F. > ICIS •X a ^8Z.9 ■ 1\ i S.F. i /6 X 3on =4‘i4-.4-%nj B.Garage i^o.z iip X ^4-. 2 /z.z 3 ^7i 8 s .f.T C.Driveway X s 3/Tfi •m0-^ S.F, X S S.F. D..Sidewalk S-Z X IS. i S.F. X C.8>2L S.F. X s H. 7 S.F. E.^ATIO/ Deck 2-3 X 3.S^3 < /4.7) F. UlflDCGAPE X =3Z.4^S.F. LI Z9.4 LF.55,5X=S.F. PLA STI'*• SH&W^G on X L..F.3 S.F. X S.F. 6. Other X 3 S.F. N. Total Hardcover IN Zone 773277 S.F. A Total Property Area in Zone S.F.B S32S 4 B X 100 SS.0 7 % g^ZSUZPl * 6V5 ‘7 7 2-/97r =r 30.6.(p Vo .»« •••• :* - HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET _____ SETBACK ZONE! (CIRCLE'ONE) 0-75' 75-250 (^50-5CI^ 500-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage . c. Driveway E. Patio/ Deck F. Landscape AREAS underlain BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other d..Sidewalk . LENGTH WIDTH ’ X _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - --;3/4- ss . Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 1314^ S,F, S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. - S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. S.F. B 15/4^B o S.F. %‘ioO_ X 100 = /.T/ % iiiiili ■ .".I (! •■• v;.- ■=: ii•-Miii Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson "'"'291990 WoarroF, From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 22, 1990 Subject: #1525 William and Joan Wroblewski - 630 Park Lane Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct concrete slab porch 1' above grade List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/22/90 Exhibit B - Proposed Resolution Exhibit C - Memo and Exhibits of 5/15/90 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of 5/15/90. Briefly, the applicants propose to construct a '•'^ade level concrete patio extension to their existing opeii front porch. This concrete will be considered as a non-encroachment because it does not need railings nor extend above the main floor level of the house, hence it does not need to meet the normal setback. However, it does constitute a change in the nature of hardcover on the property, which required the variance. The Planning Commission at their May 21st meeting recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 1. The applicants propose to remove an area of rock and plastic near the garage, which will result in a total reduction of hardcover on the property from 49% down to 45.6%. Planning Commissioner Cohen did not give any specific reason for his denial vote. The other Planning Commissioners generally felt that the proposal was an improvement to the property, but noted that any future enclosure of this porch slab would require a separate variance application for encroachment into the required 35' street setback. Staff Reconmieiidation - Staff recommends approval as submitted with the proposed hardcover reduction, per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached tor your review. CITY OF OROHO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MH 473-7357 55323 ZONING FILE #1525 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: May 22, 1990 TO: William & Joan Wroblewski 630 Park Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: May 21, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 1 Against Planning Consd-ssion reconmends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: (Hardcover decrease from 49% to 45.6%) Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Tuesday, May 29, 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. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1525 WHEREAS, William and ooan Wroblewski (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 630 Park Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a grade level concrete porch which constitutes additional hardcover in the 75-250' hardcover zone where existing hardcover already exceeds the 25% allowable hardcover. Minnesota : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1525. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Oro' .. Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 21, 19S-J, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: a) Existing hardcover on the property is 49%, all of which is in the 75-250' zone. The applicant proposes to, in conjunction with the porch construction, remove an area of landscape rock and plastic within the property boundaries, resulting in a net reduction of hardcover from 49% to 45.6% on the property. Page 1 of 4 b) The proposed grade level concrete patio is considered a non-encroachment in the front yard, and is not required to meet the normal 35' setback from the street. No structure above the concrete patio is proposed. c) Total lot area is 10,001 s.f., or 0.23 acres. The majority of the hard surface on the property including house, garage, driveway, and sidewalks, are all generally necessary tor usage of the property, hence the opportunity for further hardcover reductions is limited. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a grade level concrete patio of dimensions 3.5' X 23' which constitutes additional structural hardcover in the 75-250' zone where existing hardcover already exceeds the 25% allowed hardcover, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover on the property shall not exceed 4561 s.f. or 45.6%. Allowed hardcover shall be as shown in the site plan and calculation attached as Exhibit B. Applicants are advised that any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase of hardcover on the property. Page 2 of 4 1990. 2. Applicants are advised that any future proposal to roof or enclose the porch area in question will require a separate variance application because such an enclosure would be less than the required 35' from the front lot line. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 29, 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 29th day of May, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 199__, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC^ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FroB: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 15, 1990 Subject: #1525 William and Joan Wroblewski - 630 Park Lane Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct concrete slab porch 1* above grade List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B “ Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Letter of Request Exhibit P - Construction Plans Exhibit G - Photographs Exhibit H - Hardship/Unusual Property Conditions Exhibit I - Applicants Hardcover Calculation Exhibit J - Staff Hardcover Calculation and Sketch Pertinent Facts - 1. Hardcover is as follows: (All 75-250' Zone) Existing: 4897 s.f. (49%) Proposed: 4561 s.f. (45.6%) Allowed; 2500 s.f. (25%) 2. The proposed grade level concrete patio is considered a non-encroachment in the front yard, and does not need to meet the normal 35* setback for the LR-IB Zone. The applicants indicate that there will be no structure above the concrete slab. No railing is proposed. 3. The proposed slab is above an area of existing rock and plastic hardcover and existing sidewalk, hence the porch slab will not increase hardcover on the property, although it is a change in nature of hardcover on the property. Note that the applicant proposes to remove 336 s.f. of hardcover west of the garage, result:* ig in a net decrease of hardcover on the property. f.C. S'-/ L Zoning File #1525 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion Please review the applicants photographs and statement of hardship and unusual property conditions. This is an extremely small lot. The proposed porch slab in conjunction with removal of other hardcover on the property, would appear to yield a positive result and a decrease in hardcover on the property. It would seem possible that there are other areas of rock and plastic that could similarily be removed. Other than the rock and plastic areas, the o^ly other areas of hardcover which could be removed i..^rly easily are the brick sidewalks. However, the sidewalks appear to be necessary and would not reduce hardcover significantly if they were narrowed from 4' to 3'. Staff Reconendation - If Planning Commission feels that the proposed hardcover reduction and the small size of the lot justify the hardcover variance to allow addition of a permanent concrete slab porch, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. r CITY OF ORONO - VMOANCE APPLICA Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional v Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address (2)30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) AA GO I 1cimoF oum cm“% m Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) "473-3/9^ Name Clji I ^ Phone (wor)c) _ _ _ Address; La/Jc^* City; Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Ncime Phone (home) Phone (work) Address;City; Date Property Acquired June.1933.(month/year) I (do) C^o notj also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property j^JRe^denb^ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ ^XDO •-U _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances (^ Other _ _ _ Lot Width Front X_ _ Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliarce with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ & REQUIRED SUBMITTALS l.j Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade *re proposed. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. If YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the bpst of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this req^ie^t. Owner's Signature ion of this re^e^t. 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 to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. A''—JiiiiJ X-14 !v^. i W 10^.2 a '•" f pt MI9.06 / jL- • 16 (96) few V i<?.64 _ oTj^ U §a ^ aI2S K I66.\ >a _Ii2 __ ’A y 40 1 40 "iiio's ’2 a 6 (96) S a ^ a125 ^ K tS “ \ 2^6 J6.J3 ■?6 Z —T *■[90 M Lja 33 33 \<^ / \/ \/ \/ 1 - --CpZo p.A^cy /\/i j Survtil r pft«ar A.Vi^I^rd Minn«tonlca Hlchlands Eati-tea Hennepin Coxmty, Minnesota Cartiflrate of Survey: I horeby certify that Uiia is a tr.. i correct repress station of a survey of tlie bou:idar. ^a of: ^ That part of Outlet 3j Minnetonka Highlands Estates; lying uithln the follovdng-described tract: That part of Goven.ir*nt Lot 1, Section 6, Township 117 north, Hang^ 2? West of tlio 5th Principal Meridian, describee as follows: Cocioeneing at a pcint in the Essterl/ Line of Park Avenue as platted in "Minnetonka SuE^ti Park" distant 63 feat Southeasterly, meastirod alcr.-;^ said Line, from the Southwest comer of Lot 12,. Block 9, said Addition, which point is marked by a judicial landmark; thence East 59,2 feet on a line at ri^t angles with the East line of said Lot 1 tr a p-int niarked by judicial land- nark; thence South at right angles 142.9 feet to a point niarked by judicial landmark; thence South ?2®32**VJest a distance of 4.38 feet to a point marked by judicial lundirjirk; thence deflecting to the right 46°43' a distance of 98 feet to a point In the Easterly line of said street, which is narked by judicial landmark; theric^' fleeting to the right 78®30' along rly line of said Park Avenue a diatanr., . 'eet point of bertnning. which point la ob ' Judicial landmark; ^ ‘Hiat part of Outlet 3, Minnetonka ..«^iiian<is Estates, lying within the following described tract: That part of Govarnment Lot 1, Section b, Tc. nship 117, P^nge 23, deacrilwd as commencing at a point on the East line of said Covemiaent Lot 1, distant 1312 feet South from the Northeast comer of said Government Lot 1; thence West, at right angles to said East line, 611 feet to the East­ erly line of Park Avenue, as said avenue la shown on the plet of "Minnetonka Summit ?ark"j thence Southwesterly along the Easterly line of said Park Avenue a distance of 63 feet tq the actual point of beg.inr.im/, which Point is marked by u Judicial LsndSo^k • set pursuant to Torrens Case No. ' . thence East along a line perpendicular to the East line of said Govemms.it Lot 1 « distanco of 59.2 feet, which po«nt is marked by a Judicial Landifiark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 11977; thence North at a right angla 10 feet; thenc^^ Vast at a right angle to the Easterlr line of said Park Avenue; thence Soutbwe.oterly along .said Easterly line to the point of beginning, ^ location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show *ovements or encroachments. Seal*. 1" = 40* Data I 8-10-76 c : Iron marker C * Judicial landnavk Gordon R. Coffin flogL^Ko, 6064 Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota # -n f' L> \ Afril 23^/99<3 of Oro/io "XsaStfoyi'-ort 'Y 6 1^ ^ o 60,8- iG3o 'p<^< 6a) ' ^»15 /-oAfe, yWo Pnrt> oG-il'j^'z^ -44 <)0 /4 77te durreA: p^rck CXreo^. L^neath / C J a . ^ / We -6d act/ a. ^1 “’^ '-'^^ icx- Ovi ex.iuKX'V't ■/o ^/e. T*a oc 1</'.V.o/,^ ste^-s- cxi.ll rc^la<i£j Scvtafi ^ f;^ ^ ^ se^«/ ~t> 'fve pore/, ^-lenor "C, tr^n fl^ fLe. pcjoiA CAj.ll fVo/ ^ n=cfe/ cu^ <s al^'^ cxLov/e ^rojU -fe pO'cA (ecef. HuL^xytA cJill r^lo4e f^'/ f K^rJcie^ ^•See CA^e^f- ^ /tocese^. p*"^ "to reiitA.' "f^e lv<r<l cud '^ca - eiree. 32.6 ^ go<z>^ i- a. pUoJen / Ofe^ l.f f^H (loii^^lJk. cA3e_ co;£l rejUaeji h^ i^-eo- le;a^ fkAM -4ooo -s.^ Ay fiiJL,P(il/A/ V,^/o. ll). r /7 ^ 2> ^4^00/4 <^30 La*^6 W-' ■ " jf-^.J:. ■jr‘- . *~r m QuS'l'vJ doyJiX- tAjC^^ t»<r rr^(a^J u/t^' c^r*^ ^ .1 t Jt/^lli' if-''-- -.....F 'JiBt:-,-—.' Spr, siSE^ fe ®f •! ,. VV tv /i^vJ oovKu y io t'h'f C.c/idtr.'f-e siah-^ ]?r ',c< ->'»,l','r-r- •?If v ’ & -•I ...I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEI SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0 Existing H ardcover in Zone <a3>a WUKK5i1ty_^ -75'Q5-25^ 250-500' 500-1000' A. H ouse D. Sidewalk E.Patio / D eck 6. Other LENGTH |4 B. Garage ^4 c. D riveway F.Landscape I 4 AREAS underlain > BY , _______^ plastic SHEETING WIDTH X ^ X ________ X X X X X » 7 X _______ X _______ X _Z± X 3D X ________ X X J3±Z 2.30 t:zo o&-tl7-zs^ oo 6.24 //ss~ S.F, S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F.J\ S.F. S.F. S.F.Q1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, ■S^O S.F.TW) ____________ S.F. ____________ S.F. ____________ S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone - Total Property A rea in Zone ^ 4-ZoT -fin 85=94 X 100 A2-07 S.F. ~T[ g^44 S.F. B ^9 ^ O F e?^ -31 ^So La/js^- ~ ^e^J•n<«^ ^^'7“ /-s T’r^'i-so'r * ^T“ /vteA ST??/="/= C4'O^L4no^ =r /o^oa^ ^y(./zr7f^o. /^A^ca^l?*- • /4o^J:^ /7.3>r^,r' - /<9/^. (£) /s- ^ y 7 • 7or ^ x/f:3 3SS (D t, > -2.12, p) I 6>Arj^ 2_' 62.*} 'D T>I^( (/6>UiA-/ 2 2. K SS'. //SS" 0 S’l^ew&v^ir,= /SO <(/x2C,-. 10^ 0 - 6^ '0 • j/^ocM-^fusnc. /ypc^*/J S34, ?• r ^0 .0 ! r 3c.Ci 0 : ^2>^iy/o,o^i fc>7</ s.r7/« C* - y>f2.3=ouc^ ex/Sr7A»G (‘fvC- _________- _33C=. J&ci^-^Pi^snc .4«)aia <?»6«A€ie' ^ _ - /L3*rr <2^ult-- - . ? .'y-^4_% - - . - ---------------------;• -.—r---------------- ‘.. . - . -• - :---- fieset>s^ — ___________. 0 ■.'■............rr— ■ >■:* . '-. . ■■- ■ - •—■■^--- kP.'.’i* . ii ■ •.j .s^Aa To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fron: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Ad Dates May 24, 1990 St^ject: #1529 John Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback, street setback, and hardcover variance for construction of an attached 2-car garage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/23/90 Exhibit B -- Proposed Resolution Exhibit C - Applicant’s Letter of Clarification & Sketches 5/24/90 Exhibit D - Memo and Exhibits of 4/15/9C Discussion - The applicant is proposing to construct an attached 2-car garage on this very small lot on Stubb's Bay. Please review the memo and exhibits of May 15th. Briefly, applicant is requesting a hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone from 44% to 50.4%, and setback variances to be within 6.7' of the right-of-way of Bayside Road, 9.3' from the south lot line, and 24' from tha north side lot line. In this zoning district, the normally required street setback would be 50', and side setbacks would be 30'. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their May 21st meeting and unanimously approval of the variances as proposed by the applicant based on the following findings; 1. This is the only feasible location for a garage on the property. 2. Hennepin County has given the applicant a verbal approval of the driveway layout proposed. 3. The proposed garage and driveway location will leave adequate room for parking vehicles off the traveled roadway. 4. Other possible garage configurations would require additional variances but provide less functional acc ss to the gaiage. /Zoning Pile #1529 May 24, 1990 Page 2 of 2 5, Because the adjacent property to the northeast is an outlet required to be maintained for lake access purposes for properties within the plat of Bayside Landing, this area which the applicant currently maintains appears visually a part of applicant's yard area and reduces the impact of the additional structure of visual density in the neighborhood. 6. There is no excess hardcover on the property which can be feasibly removed to reduce the hardcover percentage on the property. There is no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The extremely small size of the lot (approximately 8,000 square feet) and the fact that there is no additional land available to be purchased, are hardships to the property which help justify granting of the variances. In his letter of May 24th, applicant is noting he would like to install 8/12 pitch roof storage trusses rather than the 5/12 trusses used on the existing house. The Planning Commission did not specify a maximum height for the garage, and this is not nece. arily an issue since the garage is attached, and therefore becomes a part of the house. No height variance is necessary. The peak height ends up being 3' above the existing roof of the house. Does the Council have any concerns regarding the proposed 2' overhangs? The drip line will be well within the property boundaries. Staff Recounendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation, with the 8/12 truss design. A resolution for approval is attached. Note that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of sewering this property. They noted that the septic system is in the lakeshore yard and at or below normal lake level, hence this property definitely needs municipal sewer or eventually it will be forced to go to a holding tank situation. However, Planning Commission agreed with staff that the sewer is a separate issue and the proposed garage does not increase the living space nor increase the potential use of the septic system. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NO. 1529 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice; 5/23/90 TO:John Thiesse 3845 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 5/21/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Conaission recommends the following: Approval at submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Citv Council Tuesday, May 29, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m- If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Comrr‘*ssion minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) PILE #1529 WHEREAS, John Thiesse (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3845 Bayside Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 62, Auditors Subdivision #203, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of an attached garage located 24' from the north side lot line, and 9.3' from the south side lot line, where 30' side setbacks are normally required, and located 6.7' from the street lot line where a 50'* setback is normally required, and increasing the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone to 50.4%, where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1529. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family LaKeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 21, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following f”* ings; a) This is the only feasible the property. t-ooe 1 of 4 ion for a garage on b) Hennepin Courty has given the applicant a verbal approval of the driveway layout proposed. c) The proposed garage and driveway location will leave adequate room for parking vehicles off the traveled roadway. d) Other possible garage configurations would require additional variances but provide less functions’ access to the garage. e) Because the adjacent property to rhe northeast is an outlot required to be maintained for lake access purposes for properties within the plat of Bayside Landing, this area which the applicant currently maintains aopears visually a pair of applicant's yard area and reduces the impact of the additional structure on visual density in the neighborhood. f) There is no excess hardcover on the property which can be feasibly removed to reduce the hardcover percentage on the property. There is no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The extremely small size of the lot (approximately 8,000 square feet) and the fact that there is no additional land available to be purchased, are hardships to the property which help justify granting of the variances. 4. The City Council has considered rhiS application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning ComiTiission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. ? The City Council finds that the conditions existing on r property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally ther property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fite hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to aliaviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial pi :rty right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with t.ic spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow 50.4% hardcover in tna 75-250' setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally alio**»ed, and grants variances to Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) low construction of the proposed attached garage located *om the south side line, 24' from the north side lot line, .7' from the street lot line, subject to the following ’■Jr ions; 1. Hardcover on the property shall be limited to 2,230 square feet or 50.4%, in the areas shown on the attached survey (Exhibit A). The applicant is advised that any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resulting In no net hardcover increase. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 29, 1991). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shn 11 automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punish=»ble as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and ht-eby agrees to the terms cf this resolution and on behalf nimself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to ♦•^e recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 29th day .jf Moy, 1990. iVTTE;-*:cs Dorothy M. Ka.liin, City Clerk James R. (Srabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 was inadvertently not included when placing the documentation on Mylar May 24,1990 aTYOFORONO P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE; LAND USE APPUCATION NO. 1529 Dear City Planners: As stated in my letter of May 10, 19^, the size of the proposed garage was reduced to minimize hard cover. In mv application for variance, only the footprint of the proposed garage was submitted. No plans or elevations were included. The existing house has a roof pitch of about jIVL I would request that the garage roof have pitch of 8/12. This would make the peak of the garage about three feet higher than the house peak. My reasons for this are: 8/12 roof trusses are standard stock trusses. At the place I called, I was informed that 5/12 trusses are not. 2.I minimized the square foot area of the garage because of my hard cover condition. This makes for less storage space in the garage. A 5/12 pitched roof docs not allow for much storage, and the low roof profile makes access to the attic difficult. I request that you consider my proposal for a garage with an 8/12 pitched roof. I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience caused by this request. Sincerely,. john B. Thicsse I k Tds Planning Conmiission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Pros: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 15, 1990 Subject: #1529 John Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback, street setback, and hardcover variance for construction of an attached 2-car garage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Application Letter of Request Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Plat Map Property Owners List Survey & Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan 1989 Air Photo Hardcover Calculations Staff Review of Alternatives Pertinent Facts - 1. This house was constructed in 1958, prior to the current zoning standards. The property has never contained a garage. The lot is about 8,000 s.f. in total area (0.18 acre). 2. After consultation with staff, applicant has proposed an attached 20'x24' garage, located so as to take maximum advantage of the extremely limited lot area available. Setbacks are as follows: South Side Lot Line West (Road) Lot Line Traveled Pavement North Site Lot Line 3. Hardcover is as follows: Proposed Setback 9.3' 6.7' 28'-36' 24' Required 3TT 50' 0-75' Zone 75-250' Zone Existing 1,951 s.f. (44%) Proposed 2,230 s.f. (50.4%) Allowed(Hi 1,107 s.f (25%) Zoning File #1529 May 15, 1990 Page 2 of 3 4.The proposed garage leaves an average driveway depth from the paved portion of Bayside Road, of 34', ample depth to park 2 cars side-by-side without affecting traffic. Note that any functional backup apron would likely be mostly in the County right-of-way. The County Highway Department in the past has indicated they would prefer that extremely wide, undefined driveway entrances such as on applicant's property and the neighboring Peterson property, be reduced in width. The applicant's 20' width driveway will reduce by almost half the existing access width. Staff would recommend that the applicant check with Hennepin County as to whether they have other specific conditions. Certainly, the County would have to approve a backup apron within their right-of-way. On the "proposed" drawing, staff has sketched an expanded parking area should Planning Commission wish to consider allowing for additional parking within the property boundaries. 5.The proposed garage maintains more than 20' neighboring residence structure to the south. to the 6.It appears that 2 of the 3 large pine trees in the front yard probably will have to be removed in order to accommodate this garage. A decreased south side lot line setback might allow for a second pine tree to be saved. Discussion - This lot is extremely limited, although the existing house and deck are outside the 75' lakeshore protected area. The remainder of the property is so small that the hardcover allotment is eaten up merely by the house and deck, before side­ walks, driveway and garage are considered. The neighboring property owner to the south, who is most affected, has indicated approval of the proposal. Staff would note that this neighbor's detached garage is approximately as close to the traveled roadway as applicant's attached garage will be. Applicant's residence has entry doors on either side, and it would seem that the northerly door may have much less use than the southerly door. Applicant should indicate what sidewalks if any could be reduced or eliminated, and should indicate where doorways are intended for this garage. Will there be direct access to the house from inside the garage, and will there be 2 outside access doors? Zoning File #1529 May 15, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff has sketched some alternate configurations, including a side-loading attached garage with doors facing north. Such a plan would require removal of all the pine trees while making that garage much harder to enter and exit. Staff sees no benefit in such a plan. A similar layout but with southerly facing doors, would similarly wipe out all the trees, could not be as large, and would have poor accessibility. Staff feels that the only way a side-loading attached garage might be feasible on this lot is if it had north facing doors and was allowed to be within 5' of the south side lot line. Given the adequate sight distance at this location, and the lack of ability to create a backup apron with any of the potential alternate configurations, it would seem that applicant's proposal may be the best solution. Staff Recomiendation Planning Commission should review the proposal in the context of its impact on the neighborhood, and the impact of the increased hardcover and minimal side and street setbacks. The applicant has noted past problems with security of his vehicles, and construction of a garage should help to eliminate break-ins. Planning Commission's options would be as follows: 1. Recommend approval as proposed, granting variances for street setback, side setbacks, and hardcover. 2. Recommend conditional approval, subject to specified conditions. 3. Ask for a revised proposal, indicate criteria for applicant to meet. 4. Recommend denial. 5. Other. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) r/77 cf n OFFICE ^ ijstoom # 01 GDI 27^,00iW n 275.00 REiElFr-TmK YOU ifi 7ESC0 cool kOl 709: U u4/2i/90 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ____________ APPLICANT Name ////<gC>S^_ Phone (home ) <ilCS ’^4Cj<p2 *^ _ Phone (work) 'C2C2I C? Address:City: 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 PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property -- - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - - Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^OCC^ Describe request in detai^: VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( X- Other _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Lot Width Front )( Hardcover / / Side _ _ _ Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; A/bT' ro _ __^ __ _ ___ _ ___ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; t^c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of sur^’ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. A/o ^ 6. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yoor vari2uice application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date —^42 - - - OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ ^ ^ The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and rurtner authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agentsf Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date TIZ. 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. May 10.1990 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: LAND USE APPLICATION NO. 1529 Dear City Planners; areBecause I believe it very necessary that my property have a garage, and because there quite a number of extenuating circumstances, I am compelled to write you a brief history of my pursuit of this variance and why I believe it should be granted. My wife, Sherri, and I purchased 3845 Bayside Road in June of 1988. It was only afte: much discussion that we placed lakeshore ownership above a garage on our list of priorities. After the first wmtcr, the priority list quickly changed. In June of 1989, I first approached the city staff about a variance application. The original proposal was for a garage in front of and aligned with the house. During the first discussions, it was suggested that I try to purchase some of Outlet A next door and put the garage on the side of the house. I talked to the developer, Paul Swanson, and sent letters to the owners of Outlot A that summer. I got no response from Evan Austin. Lee Harren seemed receptive, but had several conditions to the sale. One of those conditions was that the house on the Austin lot be staked. This lot is now up for resale which makes the conditions impossible to meet. In October, while our car and truck were parked in front of the house, vandals broke into both vehicles. We reported this to the Orono police on October 13, 1989. We have now lived through a second winter and we have determined that a garage is a necessity for us. It has also become evident that attaching the garage to the side of the house on Outlot A would encroach the 75 foot setback area. After a second discussion with the city staff, 1 have submitted a survey with the proposed garage located in front of the house, but offset to allow for additional parking on the property. I have reduced the size of the garage to minimize hardcover. For that same reason I have not requested a turn around in the driveway. I have discussed the garage with the most immediate neighbor, Mrs. Peggy Peterson, and she has written a letter of approval. I understand your concerns for maintaining the hardcover standard as set forth, but I believe that there is substantial hardship that can be demonstrated and that I am not asking for more than is typical on other properties. Thank you for considering this proposal. Sincerely, "0 John B. Thiessc Enclosure April 24, 1990 John Thi«m«« 384S Baysid* Rd. Long Laks, MN 993S6 Dsar John: Thank you -for rsviSMing th« propossd garags plans and location nith us. W« havs no problaas Hith tha proposad siza or location that Ha talkad about. Bast Wishas, Paggy Patarson 3899 BaysIda Rd. Long Laka, NN 99396 L u cu H C/2 wI w & oo zM 04 U1 w X 0 o\ 1srCNIsro s oo (30ooo en CM fO CM I Imo <30m r>» O Oo cn CM § z z Sz z o o U b] O Q J- §-8 ?= O ^ M O H • H U OS Pu bl Cd Cd OS Pu M O .J OS H OS bJ cn < CJ Q M Cu, Z Z td M <2 H Q Up ■' V. i^Ji^ h;;--..?'*1 ,' ■ ■.!_ W^t'P *'sd3 wmJ^i J JS*T‘;4SS.\,5||c^5«€ Mmm^ .■-v4x<i;V-iv;?fefs mmm ' ■';'-^RMK' .,; l -f ' - .. ■ ; ',-.v. ••> .• »‘V . :v • . . ^-548!f . “'■V.l *5 ®E5 HAi^COVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'250-500' 500-1000' Existing H ardcover in Zone X =A. House - S/<^r S.F. LENGTH B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk 79 E. Patio / Deck /< X X F. Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other WIDTH S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - S.F. __________ S.F. 3/ S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, X'./ Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property A rea in Zone fX] ^^24 -ffn X100 /9p4 S.F. fX} y/ ^9 S.F. I b I % l>D ([ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (ZS“^0^- 250-300' 500-1000' -faiSTtfto Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , _ PLASTIC SHEETING 6. Other 34 LENGTH 30 X X X X c. Driveway x D. Sidewalk cf?0 A X X X X X . 24 WIDTH ^4 za ’ S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. 4 So S.F. 240 S.F. _________ S.F. ^ZO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Total Hardcove .r in Zone - __s .f. Total Property Area in Zone - _444^, s .f. ^ X 100 > 49 W>^’ T . ..T^rf.-' "".■; ____\.. . -------------- - ' -,. ....................-V -• Iv -msm fe.® /•'rTo: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorFrom: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: May 25, 1990 Subject: Change Order #1 - Well #3 MEETING ^AY2g,ggQ ^^^oforono The contractor for Well #3 on the Highway 12 Sewer and Water Project is now ready to develop Well #3. It was our intent to have Albrecht Construction Company to place any erosion control (silt fence) as test pumping could amount to one million gallons per day for up to ten days. However, because Albrecht Construction has not completed his project and it appears he will not, it is necessary to have Keys Well Drilling place the silt fence as needed. Recouendatlon - To approve Change Order #1 for Keys Well drilling for $975.00 for placing silt fence erosion control as needed. Proposed Notion - Moved by seconded by to approve Change Order #1 for Keys Well Drilling for $975.00 for placing silt fencing erosion control as needed. Ayes _ _, nays Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratb|^^j'\^ Forwarded recommending approval. IP. .•4»v. rwai^'r?»a^.vv iksiJw • -r CHANGE ORDER DAXEi . 1990 PLACE! Orono, Hinnesota PROJECTt ■ Municipal Well No. 3 16' Production Well CONTRACTORS Keys Well Drilling, 413 N. Lexington Pkvy., St. Paul, MN 55104 BOND CO.I (Capitol Indemnity Corp.) W.A. Lang Co., P.O. Box 64215, St. Paul, MN .. ^ FILE NOI 13949 55164 (AttnI Joan K. Lehmann CHANGE ORDER NO.: 1 DESCRIPTION OF WORKs ITEM NO. 1 .. .. .... Provide silt fence along the north side of Highway 12. Silt fence as detailed on Standard Plate Number SP-8". Is to be Installed at six locations across the ditch as directed by the engineer. Silt fence Is to remain In place at the completion of the well project. Chanee Order Item Item No. 1 Unit L.S. Unit Price $975.00 Est'd Quantity TOTAL ITEM NO. 1 - ADD TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - ADD ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS THIS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - ADD $975.00 $70,155.00 0.00 975.00 Total Amount 975.00 $975.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $71,130.00 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC, Kr r- : .v.i - , Approved byt By_ Approved; bys ;- CITY OF ORONp,*'MINNESOTA rt' K i -» .. Keys Well Drilling Company ■:;vrr.«ni . . . . ..— Date^"— :• 1^:-: Clerk 1 - city “ ^ i. , .-•-i. ^ \ - ‘ ■' , . -V- ■:•;'*•Mayor - ■ ' .. j • V* < * _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ VlV-TBondlng^Co ■^N^l^^^Con t r ac tQX^fi /652590.IHDMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Hnnu John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director May 25, 1990 Subject:: Plans and Specifications - Pump Rouse Well i3^fTY Qp To: Fron: Date: Attached for review and approval are plans for the pump house for Well #3. Specifications will be available for review on Tuesday evening, May 29, 1990. Recouendation - to approve the plans for the pump house for Well #3 with the mansard type roof, metal/wood options, and to direct the Engineer to advertise for bids with a bid opening. OlfOHo Proposed Motion ~ Moved by ___, seconded by to approve the plans and specifications as presented for the pump house for Well #3 with the mansard type roof metal/wood option. Ayes , nays To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. See Item #8 for copy of plans. Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects May 25, 1990 Ono G Booeuroa PE. «o6«rt W Rojene. PE. JoMpn C. AiHierWt, PE. Brtorord A lembfrg, PE RKtvm E Turner. PE James C. Olson. PE Glenn «. Cook. PE Thomas E Noyes. PE Robert G ScnurKht PE. Marvin L Sorvaia. PE Keith A Gordon. PE Richard W. Foster. PE. Donald C. Burgardt. PE. Jerry A. Bourdon. PE Mark A Hanson. PE Ted K. Field. PE Michael T. Rautmana PE. Robert R. Pfefferie. PE. David O Loskou. PE Thomas W hrterson. PE Michael C. Lynch. PE James R. Maland. PE Kenneth P Anderson, PE. Keith A. Bachmann. P.E. Mark R Rolfs. P.E Robert C. Russek. A I.A. Thomas E Angus. P.E Howard A. Sanford. PE. Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Paweitky Harlan M Olson Susan M Eberlin Mark A. Seip /? %City of Orono Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Lift Station 10 & 43 - Contractor Award Dear John: The bonding company has not responded as requested on the Lift Stations #10 & 43 construction project. The estimated cost to complete the project is $77,465.75 and the retainage plus construction amount remaining is $77,723.82. There appears to be minimal risk relative additional expenditures by the City if we have the work completed. We would recommend that this issue be reviewed by the City Attorney. If he concurs, then we would recommend that the City have Latour Construction proceed with the work. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:tln 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 - ii Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Ono G. Boneoroa PE ft30m W RDiene. PE. Joiepn C. Andertk. PE. Bcnjrt E. Hxner. PE J*m« C. aton. PE. Gieon R Cook. PE. TNjtnn E IMoy«. PE. Booen G Scnurvcnt PE. Mkrwi L Soivau. PE. Kwn A. Goioon. PE. Ricwi W Foiar. PE. Ooo« C. BW9K01 PE. Jeny A SoKdon. PE. Mjrti A. Hinton. PE. fed K. PE M<n*« r Riuoninn. PE (tooert R. PfWiffit PE. Oivid O lotkou. PE. Thon-il W Pftefton. PE. MchJrt C. lyncK PE Jinwt E Milana PE KenrMi P Andmoa PE MirtiR IkAPE Room c Ruum . aja . nxjfTui E Anguv. PE hOMviia A. SirOoKt PE OiTM i Edgmon. PE MM A Seia PE. Phkp i CiM««. PE MirkQ VM«.PE Tbonus E Anderton. AiA. G«y F RyMnder. PE Mina JeramPE L PnAp Gnvcf R PE CKidn A Endcton Leo M. PiMcHky HiOan M O«on Sutin M. E6e»*n. CPA Engineers & Architects Maj 11, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 'May 1 4 29SC Attn: Hr. John Gerhacdson Re: Lift Station 10 & 43 Replacement Our File No. 13940 Dear John, We have received three (3) quotes to complete the above referenced Listed below are the contractors and their total quotation: project. Contractor Latour Construction B & D Underground Northdale Constr. Lift Station #10 Prig. Bid Quotation $7,978.55 $14,796.00 7,978.55 18,969.00 7,978.55 21,105.00 Lift Station #43 Prig. Bid Quotation $55,456.25 $62,669.75 55,456.25 70,477.00 55,456.25 77,429.00 We recommend Latour Construction be authorized to complete the project for Albrecht Excavating. The above costs do not include bituminous and sod completed that does not meet project specifications. restoration previously If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BQNESTRQQ, RQSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSQCIATES, INC. Glenn 2. Cook GRC:li CCS Tom Barrett, Atty. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 ( I * • ' May 23, 1990 City of Orono ATTN: Teri Naab, Deputy Clerk P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 01 m MAY 2 9 1990 Re: Planning Commission Appointment Dear Ms. Naab, Thank - you for your letter of May 18, 1990 regarding my appearance on May 29, 1990 to be interviewed for the vacant position on the Planning Commission. I regret to inform you that we have purchased a home in Minnetrista as of last week and as a result, I will be moving from my present house in the next couple of months. This will of course make it impossible for me to serve on the Planning Commission. I had really looked forward to serving on the Commission and it isytoo bad that things worked out the way they did considerati' Thank - you however, for you President RMM/mn Marlin Financial Serv ices. Inc. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 955 Minneaix)lis. Minnesota 55411) Telephone (dlH) 514-5150 I 51690/5 A TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratd DATE: May 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments Attachments: oryof A. Planning Commission Appointments Memo Dated 5/1/90 B. Petition Dated 5/23/90 C. Ordinance #31, Second Series D. Use Letter Dated 5/23/90 ^ f990 OfiOHo ISSUE 1. Discussion of appointment process 2. Determine if Council desires to appoint two vacancies on the Planning Commission. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's March 26, 1990 meeting Council directed staff to solicits additional applicants to see if there were persons, primarily lakeshore residents, who might be interested in serving on the Planning Commission. As a result of that, the City received 5 additional applicants, most of whom were interviewed at the May 14, 1990 Council meeting. On May 16, 1990 the staff r ived a call from Mr. Rollie Martin that he had not received the notice, but would be availabV for the May 29th meeting. Staff requested he be present. In a conversation on May 24, 1990, CounciImember Goetten requested that the issue of appointment process be placed on the agenda in advance of the discussion of the appointments. DISCUSSION Issue 1. Appointment process. The Council has not had a formal appointment process adopted. In the past an informal process was used establishing application "deadlines" for the purpose of being able to send out letters of application in the packet to Council. Interviews were set for a meeting and generally the decision made at the following Council meeting. In the past Council has allowed applicants who could not be at an initial meeting to do so later and also applicants for one position to be included with selection process for vacancies on other Boards after the "deadlines" for those other Boards where vacancies had occurred. The only effective deadline was the actual appointments with Council being aware of which were late applicants and which appeared for interviews. Some cities have formal processes established where others do it on an ad hoc basis. Issue 2. The following individuals have expressed their interest in serving on the Planning Commission: , v\» »Rural/Urban Jeff Johnson Steve Johnston Candy Rowlette Rollie Martin Ralph Bagley Randy Weestrand - Lakeshore Resident Lakeshore Resident Lakeshore Resident Lakeshore Resident U R R U U R (Subsequent to the meeting of May 14, 1990 Ward Edwards requested his name be withdrawn. On May 15, 1990 at a visit to City Hall regarding the Park Commission appointment Sherokee Use indicated a possible interest in applying for the Planning Commission. In a follow-up phone conversation this week staff asked if she was interested in applying. As she indicated in her letter she felt it inappropriate to apply after the dealine.) The designations established for the Planning Commission are 2 urban, 2 Rural, 2 At Large and 1 Lakeshore. The Council guidelines on the matter allow them diversions as they see fit. Designations of current Planning Commission members are; Charles Kelly Maureen Bellows Ed Cohen James Hanson Sara Moos At Large At Large At Large R ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. 1. Continue an informal process on a vacancy by vacancy basis for advisory Boards. 2. Request staff develop a formal process for presentation to Council at the 6/11/90 meeting for advisory boards. 3. Table for further consideration. 4. Take no action. Issue 2. 1. Appoint persons to fill the vacancy 2. Table for further consideration. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council appoint and as members to serve three year terms on the Planning Commission, these terms will expire March 31, 1993. Ayes _, Nays _. cc; Applicants (Memo only) 5190 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: May 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Interviews Attachment:A. Planning Commission Appointments Memo Dated 4/6/90 Letters From Applicants: Candace Rowlette Rollie Martin Ralph Bagley Randy Weestrand ISSUE - 1. Interview persons for Planning Commission. 2. Selection of person. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 9, 1990 Council meeting Council requested that additional persons be solicited for Planning Commission. a response staff placed additional ads in the newspaper to determine if there were persons interested particularly those who were lakeshore residents. DISCUSSION - In addition to the two individuals Jeff Johnson, who is currently an incumbent on the Planning Commission and who may soon become a lakeshore owner together with Steve Johnston, who had applied last year for a position, the City has received the following as applicants; Candace E. Rowlette (Unable to attend 5/14 because of previous commitment) Rollie M. Martin Ralph C. Bagley Randy Weestrand As you will recall you will be appointing two persons from the 6 interested of which Jeff Johnson is an incumbent. In addition the Planning Commission has not had t*^ Commission Chair and Vice Chair officially appointed < April, 1990 so they request the following persons be Chair - Charles Kelley Vice Chair - Maureen Bellows ALTERNATIVES - 1. Interview the candidates. Planning tive 1 •ed : 2. Determine if other candidates should be solicited. 3. Appoint two Planning Commissioners. 4. Appoint a Chair and Vice Chair. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following interviews that the Council table the selection of additional Planning Commission members until its May 29th Council meeting, at which time it might have the chance to interview those not able to attend this Council meeting, but that it select ___ and ___ as the Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission for 1 April, 1990 to 31 March, 1991. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by the Council table the selection of additional Planning Commission members until the May 29, 1990 Council meeting. Council appoints _ _ and _ _ and Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 1 April, 1990 to 31 March, 1991. Ayes _, Nays _. To; Mayor and Council From: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Date; April 6, 1990 Subj; Planning Commission Appointments Attachments: a.) Johnston Itr dtd 3/21/90 - ■ The Planning Commission has to positions whose term expired the end of March. Of the two current commisionners, Jeff Johnson has expressed interest in continuing. In a Phone convernation this week, Ed Brown indicated that because of a changing employment situation that he would not be requesting reappointment. In response to the news announcement in the paper, u . . one person expressed interest in appointment. He is Steve Johnston who applied last year. His resume is attached. Alternatives 1. Interview those interested 2. Select one or two appointees 3. Table for further consideration 4. Direct staff to solicate further applicants. May 23, 1990 2 4 3830 To: Mark Bernhardson and Orono City Council Members Re: Park Commission appointment o-f Hay 14, 1990 As citizens o-f this community, we are distraught and disappointed at the recent actions of the City Council in its -filling of the Park Commission opening. We appeal to your personal sense of integrity and the duty of accountability you owe all the citizens of Orono. We, respectfully, ask you to include the Park Commission appointment as an agenda item at the next City Council meeting, Tuesday, May 29. The process by which the appointment was made is counter to that publicized by the City of Orono and, thus, deserves citizenry comment. City administration posted March 30, 1990 as the final day citizens could make application for the Park Commission opening. Applications were to have been received by 4:00pm on that evening. The .notice of this vacancy was published in the Pioneer. Subsequent to the application process, candidates were notified in writing by John Gerhardson that they were to be interviewed by the City Council. Two applicants were present for City Council interviewing; Susan Wilson was not among them. Following the interviews, the candidates (two persons) were informed that an appointment would be made at the May 14 meeting of tlie City Council. The rest, of course, is history. Neither of the two applicants who fairly and conscientious followed the process were appointed. Rather, a new candidate surfaced who neither applied by the deadline nor was part of formal interviews. We are quite confused and concerned about the Council's total disregard for process and lack of accountabi1ity to its constituents. How can you appoint someone to the Park Commission whose application came in si;: weeks after the deadline? Does the City Council believe that there are no rules it must follow? Deadlines and process mean something to the citizens of this community. By placing the Park Commission opening on the next agenda, an open dialogue about the nomination process can ensue and, hopefully, mutual understanding can be fostered. f / I) hs h^.f omroFflwio 21 March, 1990 i 900 North Shore Drive West Mound, MN 55364 mar 2 3 1990 Ms. Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin, Please accept my application for Planning Commissioner. As I have stated on two previous occasions, I have the educational background, experience and desire to serve on the City of Orono's Planning Commission. I have a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Minnesota. My course work included Transportation and Land Use Planning. I am a Registered Engineer in the State of Minnesota. After college I was employed by the City of Maple Grove. Ihis gave me experience in working with city staffs and residents of the community. Some of my duties which would relevant to this position were review of site plans and development proposals for the City Council and Planning Commission and coordination with state, county, metropolitan and local governing bodies, such as Hennepin County Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Natural Resourc«!S, Watershed Boards and various lake Homeowners Associations. (Maple Grove has eight lakes). For the past four years, I have been on the other side of the fence. My current position is that of Consulting Engineer for private developers and cities. This position allows me to design and then present developments to Planning Commissions, City Councils and other government agencies for their approval. These projects have been in over twenty different metropolitan communities, each with their individual zoning and subdivision ordinances. I would bring this diverse and related background to the commission. I want to assure you and the City Council that despite my background, I am not necessarily pro-development. My wife and I moved to Orono because of its spacious country feel and natural amenities. I will review proposals based on their conformance with City ordinance and environmental soundness. I will be fair and consistent. Thank you for considering me for the Planning Commission opening. SIncerely, Stephen M. Johnston O Q ORDINANCE NUMBER 31, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE SECTION 2.50 ENTITLED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS GENERALLY AND SECTION 2.51, ENTITLED PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBD. 1. The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 2.50 and entitled Boards and Commissions Generally is amended to read: All Board and Commission appointments authorized by ordinance shall be made by the Council at the first regular meeting in January of each year unless another appointment date is established elsewhere in ordinance. The term of each appointee shall be established and stated at the time of his appointment, and terms of present Board and Commission members may be re-established and changed so as to give effect to this Section. New appointees shall assume office immediately. Provided, however, that all appointees to Boards and Commissions shall hold office until their successor is appointed and qualifier.. All vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as for an expired term, but the appointment shall be only for the unexpirec term. No appointed Board or Commission member shall be an employee of the City, but an ex officio member may be so employed. All appointed Board and Commission members shall serve without remuneration, but may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their duties when such expenses have been authorized by the Council before they were incurred. The officers shall be appointed by the Council annually. Any Board or Commission member may be removed by the Council for any reason and his position filled as any other vacancy. Each Board and Commission shall hold its regular meetings at a time established and approved by the Council. Boards and Commissions created by resolution shall terminate when the purpose for which they were created has been accomplished or upon the expiration of the terms stated in the resolution. Except -as otherwise provided, this Section shall apply to all Boards and Commissions. read: Section 2.51 and entitled Planning Commission is amended to r. •*1- Subd. 1. A Planning Commission composed of seven members, who serve staggered 3 year terms is hereby established. The period of these terms is from 1 April to 31 March and shall be appointed by the 2nd business meeting in March. It is the policy of the Council to appoint persons to the Planning Commission as follows: Two of the members shall reside in and be appointed to represent the Rural Service Area of the City as defined in the Comprehensive Management Plan, two members residing in and appointed to represent the Urban Service fey • .* /Area, one appointed that resides on Lake Minnetonka lake shore property and two shall be appointed to represent the City At Large. The Council by majority vote may deviate from this policy to appoint persons without specific designation. The Zoning Administrator and one Council member shall be members of the Commission ex officio and without vote. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication on March 30, 1987. Passed by the Council this 17th day of March, 1987. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor ^crfothy M.^llin,^Ci ty CierK published in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of March 30, 1987. © 1/t vua 7700^^- 1390 May 23.1990 Mark Bemhardson City of Orono Dear Mr. Bemhardson. Thank you for rjilling yesterday to ask if I wished to submit my name for the Planning Commission opening. It is my understanding that the deadline was the first we^ of May. that applicants have been interviewed and that the Council will be appointing someone at their upcoming meeting. Tuesday. May 29. Since I believe in plaj^g by the rules an^followdng the proems I m^t decline^, ^ h play by those same fair rules. Sincerely. Sherokee Use cc: City Council Members May 23,1990 TO: Mayor Grabek, Council Members CaiUahan, Goetten, Nettles and Peterson FROM: SherokeeUse RE: Park Commission Appointment, Coimcil Meeting May 14,1990 I am very disappointed and dismayed with your decision to nominate and appoint a Park Commission candidate whose application was submitted 6 weeks past the published deadline of March 30 and 4 days before the Coiincil meeting . She did not participate in the scheduled interview by the Council on May 14. This lack of regard on your part for a fair process is very msturbu^. I believe this communiWliolds you accountable to uphold high stan^rds and opera 0? in a manner tnat builds public trust. I fear that trust has been violated. I am requesting that you reconsider the appointment decision at your next Council meeting. Please put this issue on the agenda. calendar for the next lew years ana neia on on maia commitments awaiting the outcome of this decision. iicix deadline for applying was March 30,1 made an extra effort to get my application in on time although I was leaving town for two weeks. I spent an evening at the Council meeting waiting to be interviewed. Then I chose to stay home me night of the vote out of respect for each of you, so you might discuss this and mak e your decision. I expected that no matter who you elected, you too, would be respectful and proceed followLig the standard and pubhshed policy to fill this position. Sadly, this did not occur. I am further distressed that this appear? to be an ongoing state of affmrs. Yesterday Mr. Bemhardson called me t. ask if I wanted my name on the Coimdl agenda for the Planning Commission opemng. I am venr awme that this is weU past the published deadline, which was the first week in^y. I respect rules and processes. As you will see in the attached letter I have declined this invitation. In all good conscience I cannot so blatantly violate the rules of the selection process. -2- decision-making. Whether it is the process for determining land use, selecting citizens to positions within dty government or anything else - everything is built on the strong base of trust in a democratic process. We have every right to expect this of you. If I have come to erroneous conclusions, I do hope you will help me understand, since I am struggling very hard to comprehend how this type of thing could happen. Sincerely, Shero>ee Dse 3630 Eileen St. Orono, MN 55359 P.S. As of this date, no one has had the courtesy to officially notify me regarding t^e status of the appointment as a result of the Council vote or to thank me for volimteering for this position. I do hope you treat other willing and giving volunteers better than this. — o — TO: Orono Councilmembers RROM: James R. Grabek, Mayor DATE: May 22, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Review 51690.6 Wfnite ’'‘^^291990 OF OROfiQ Attachment: A. Administrator’?? Annual Review Memo Dated 5/1/90 ISSUE - 1. Conduct performance review of the Administrator for period 1 May 1989 to period 30 June 1990. 2. Determine any adjustments in the Administr2r ,5 contract. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 9, o.:#90 I requested Councilmembers do individual reviews of the Administrator and give to me the results of those reviews. I have received those from Councilmembers interested in commenting and based on the results of those performance reviews I conclude that the Administrator's performance has been above what is expected. In light of that I would recommend that the following adjustments be made to the Administrator's contract. A. Salary - That his salary starting 1 May 1990 be increased 5%. B. Car A1 lowance - Given that he has had the came car allowance for the past 5 years at $250 per month, I recommend that be increased to $350.00 per month. C. Contract Length - The original contract was for 4 years and last year "ouncil voted a one year extension. It is my recommendation that this contract be extended at least 2 years. This extension would still allow the Administrator to resrgh^n 60 day notice. If you have any questions^or comments in advance of the meeting, please feel free to give me a call. cJO'nJr*- 3IU m Orono City Council Members FROMi Mayor James Grabek ORTBi May 1, 1990 SOSJBCTs Adminlstrabor*8 Annual Reivew 5190 At the April 9/ 1990 Council meeting I gave you an outline for the Adnlnlstrator's review for 1990 and asked that you return those to me. If you have any commenta^ questions or concerns with any of these IsautBr please feel free to contact me prior to the Ccunell meeting on the 29th. I'd request that you return those to me this week. IP o To:Mayor and Council From: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Subj: Lake Use Management Date May 25,1990 ^^^^9,990 Introduction On Thursday, '^y 24, 1990, the meeting regarding Lake Use Management, was held with Councilmembers Callahan, Goetten, and Nettles, Jo Ellen Hurr, and mysel present. It is hoped that a draft statement of position will be available for review at the Council's May 29, 1990 meeting. i CITY OF ORONO RESPONSE TO LMCD LONG TERM MANAGERIAL PLAN m A. The City of Orono opposoa the LMCD plan as 1) falling to focus on the purposes for which the LMCD was formed; 2) being inadequate in its concerns for environmental protection and conservation of the lake as a finite natural resource; 3) misdirected in focusing upon promoting and encouraging increased boat densities and additional access points; 4) unrealistically seeking to remove land use regulations from local control; 5) seeking to raise taxes, and lessen local control over them; 6) dilute or eliminate local control over the LMCD and surrender it to state and county agencies. 1. Tho LMCD was created to be the agency iimnediately concerned with the protection of the lake, as a natural resource, from environmental deterioration including aesthetic deterioration, and the preventing of pollution. This plan focuses on increasing recreational activities, rectifying past Inequities in access growth and intends to implimant environmental protection only after it accomplishes these goals. 2. Tho LMCD plan is inadequate in its concerns for conservation because it fails to recognize; a. That existing usage of the lake has already reached the average density of 10 acres per boat established by the DNR and other agencies (8 usable acres per boat); b. That peak density is nearly twice that; c. That planned \ >r increases, e.g. Hennepin County Park at 16? "0 new boats - Minnetonka Boat works 42-48 new bou.s, etc., plus unplanned others will bring tho average density to between 7 usable acres and 6 usable acres per boat by 1991 if it is not there now; d* That the reports of current users indicate serious and dangerous conditions of near missaes, dangerous acts of intoxicated boaters, high wakes, ignoring of navigational rules, etc.; e. The numerical majority of the bays are already drastically overused (Tables 6 and 8); f. That there are indicators sailing may be being crowded off tho lake, etc.; FftOtl bftciv F'U mmT Ik nouTv g. Some boata ara mora onvisronmantally harmful than othars - e.g. larga powar boata va. aailfish; yet tha LMCD plan doea not consider the environmental affect of these conditions or establish a standard for density or even consider the possible necessity for numerical limitations on particular types of boats. 3* The plan is misdirected in focusing on the promotion of increased use of the lake and the establishment of new access points and recreational land destinations for boaters particulary as a first priority« and as a precondition for future regulations. a. These matters have bean tha subject of several previous reports as stated in tha plan, are the special concern of other agencies, and are not part of the mandate of the LMCD; b. While tha implementation of those plans will have an effect upon tha environment, an environmental plan la needed now, not, afterwards; c. The environmental question is not who should have access or pay for it, but how many and what types of watercraft are being or will be used, and how this affects the lake; d. So far as the environment is concerned, the LMCD should immodiatelyt 1. Establish the permissable density standards for optimum environmental protection and for purposes of boating safety; 2. Seek increased enforcement of existing regulations with emphasis on additional use of the water patrol, and consider methods of increased cooperation with and use of local police agencies (drunken boating, littering); 3. Require and encourage boat users education in right of way rulesr etc., and in safe operation of their boats through licensing of boaters and certification requirements - e.g. power squadron cerfcifIcation is available; 4. Adopt appropriate rules relating to noise pollution, "quiet waters," speed, wakes, etc., and ensure enforcement; 5. Give parallel consideration and regulation to the effects of wintertime use - ice houses, snowmobiles, cross country skiers, etc.; 1825X -2- FkOn GkAv ^lunt ir nooT^a . 7 . 1 9 9t) ly £rom public. Encourago parking in araaa accaaa points by the users. Safety, a pollution free lake, an enjoyable usor experience, and aestlietic consideratiun affecting the lakeshore, and its roads, and the watershed are basic considerations. Milfoil is a distinct IiMCD problem and LMCD should have control of it on the lake. 4. Land use regulation should remain under local control. Orono's land use controls are the most protective and restrictive ordinances on the lake. While it might be desireable to have all communities agree with our standards, we are not willing to part with local control of our lakeshore. Neither is it acceptable to us for the LMCD to make decisions regarding dockage or other lake utilization which in effect force Orono to depart from its land use standards to accommodate parking, tree removal or hardcover limitations. 5. As a city, we oppose creation of an additional tax or taxing authority as we believe that regulation and education/licensure can be implemented through assessments shared by the lakeshore cities and the county and through existing organizations already providing the training programs. 6. While the present makeup of the LMCD bo^d has inequities built into it which are readix/ apparent to the different communities, all members are essentially concerned with "preserving the lake, *' and that is the sole reason for LMCD. The suggestions that other agencies which are not directly and immediately affected by the lake and which have other purposes and priorities, plans for its future be given positions on this board, is unacceptable to Orono. 1625X •3- O' To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: May 25, 1990 Subject: Drainage Problem ~ 3572 Livingston Avenue Mark and Karen Cuff 52590.5HD In 1989, the City of Orono received a request from Mark and 3572 Livingston Avenue, to assist them in correcting a drainage problem so that they may construct an addition to their home. After several meetings and feasibility study, the matter was tabled to allow the Cuffs additional time to perform soil testing to determine contamination to the soil as a result of the run-off from the neighborhood to the Cuff's property. The Cuffs have performed the testing which is inconclusive regarding contamination and have now hired an attorney to help them convince the City to perform a storm sewer project as proposed in the feasibility study. Mr. Tony Gleckel, attorney, and Mark and Karen Cuff will be in attendance on May 29, 1990 to discuss the matter. To; Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forward recommending the Council continue with the offer as originally proposed. This is in part based on the Council's action regarding drainage issues in other areas of the City. The Cuff's are not precluded from constructing a detached garage by using a private solution of either a swale or piping. If they desire to initiate a lawsuit, such would be referred to the City's insurer. LAW orriccs MICHAHO SIKOeU JOSIAH C. ■niLU JH. JAMCS m. OMCUPNCW acnALO s. Durrv WOOD m. rosTKR. jn. THOMAS H. OOOOMAN R. CRAIO WILOrANO JOHN S. WATSON WM. CHNISTO^HCN PCNWCLL MURNAY R. KUANK SUSAN M. VOIGT BRUCC HCOOCOCM KATHLEKN a . CONNCLLT STCVCN L. SCHECHTMA n’ ANTHONY J. OLEEKEL SHERRI k SRICK BRIAN E. WEISBERO 16793-JW SIEGEL. BRILL. GREUPNER S DUFFY. P.A. FORMERLY OROSSMAN. KARLINS. SIEGEL S BRILL SUITE I3SO lOO WASHINGTON SQUARE MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55AOI TELERHONE 16121 33B<7I3I TELECOPIER (612) 339-6SBI May 21, 1990 HAND DELIVERED RCTIRCO M. L. GROSSMAN. P.A. SHELDON O. KARLINS. P.A. yashinoton only The Honorable Mayor Grabek and Members of the City Council City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 Re: City Council Agenda Items for Tuesday, May 29, 1990: Mark and Karen Cuff Drainage Problems The Honorable Mayor Grabek and Members of the City Council: Our firm represents Mark and Karen Cuff of 3572 Livingston Avenue, legally described as Lot 16 and 17, Block 3, Navarre Heights (collectively referred to as "Property”). The purpose of this letter is to set forth the facts supporting the Cuff's request that the City commence assessments to fund the construction of storm sewer improvements, which will alleviate wat.^> drainage problems on the Property and adjacent properties. In 1982, at the suggestion of JoAnne Ellen Herr of the Orono City Council, Tom Jacobson former Orono City employee, and members of the City planning staff, Karen Cuff purchased Lot 17 from Hennepin County. Councilwoman JoAnne Herr, the planning staff and Orono City employees made representations that Lot 17 was buildable and that there would be no problem in obtaining a building permit. Hennepin County was placing Lot 17 up for auction and it was the City's desire to have the Cuff's purchase the lot instead of a prospective developer. The lot was undersized and any development would have required a variance. In order to avoid a variance application the City suggested that Ms. Cuff purchase Lot 17. The Honorable Mayor Grabek and Members of the City Council May 21, 1990 Page 2 Ms. Cuff decided to buy Lot 17, in part, because of the City*s representations that the lot would be perfect for an addition to the homestead or for a garage, and that obtaining a building permit would not be a problem. At the time the City made its representations. City records regarding Lot 17 did not indicate that the Property was a drainage site for water run-off. However, the City has since taken the position that the Property has always been considered a drainage area or natural waterway. The Cuff's Property has become the site for excess water run-off from city streets, thus seriously impairing the Cuff's use of the Property. Moreover, the City has informed the Cuff's that a building permit will not be issued for the Property until the water drainage problem is cured. The water drainage problem and the City's refusal to issue building permits have prevented the Cuff's from improving their existing homestead. Had Ms. Cuff been aware of the drainage problem and the possibility of not obtaining a building permit, she would not have purchased Lot 17. The Cuff's have made a valiant effort to work with the City to solve these problems. Pursuant to City procedure, the Cuff's submitted a written request seeking assistance in correcting the Property's drainage problem. At City Council meetings of February 27, March 27, April 24, and May 22, of 1989, the Cuff's request came before the City Council. During the time period between February and May 1989, the City completed a feasibility study to determine the manner and costs associated with solving the drainage problem. The City's consulting engineers and architects completed a study, and proposed a storm sewer improvement project with a price tag of $j0,250.00. The Cuff's were then directed to obtain at least thirty-five percent (35%) of all property owners within the designated drainage district to consent to an assessment for the project. It was the City's position, that without the consent of the thirty-five percent (35%) of the Property owners, the City could not proceed assessments for the .sewer system project. Due to the high cost of the proposed assessments, the Cuff's were unable to obtain the required number of signatures. Prior to the time the final vote was made on the storm sewer project, the Cuff's informed the City that their two dogs had developed cancer, and that the cancer may have been caused by contaminants contained in the street water run­ off. Accordingly, prior to the time the City Council made a The Honorable Mayor Grabek and Members of the City Council May 21, 1990 Page 3 final vote on the sewer system project, the Cuff*s decided to have tests completed to determine whether the Property wan contaminated. The Cuff's have expended considerable amounts of time and money in having the tests completed, and have provided the results of the tests to the City. The tests, thus far completed, establish that there are no unsafe contaminants on the Property. However, the testing company has suggested that further tests must be completed in order to provide conclusive evidence that the Property is not contaminated. The Cuff's have attempted to work with the City to come up with a less expensive solution to the drainage problem. The City has steadfastly refused to build a storm drain at its expense, or to alleviate the drainage problem on the Property by some other, less expensive alternative. The City's position lies in the face of its knowledge that the proposed storm sewer system will alleviate the drainage problem for the Cuff's Property as well as other properties West of County Road 19 and North of County Road 15. Because the cost of the City's proposed sewer system is exorbitant, and beyond the Cuff's means to pursue themselves, the Cuff's feel that their only hope lies in the hands of the members of the City Council. At this time, the Cuff's request that the City Council vote tc assess all property owners within the drainage district and construct the proposed storm sewer system. We are aware that the City's historical position is that all Property owner's must take care of individual flooding problems themselves. However, the City Council's decision in this case must take into account the unique facts surrounding the Cuff's purchase of Lot 17, as well as the fact that the City added to the drainage problem. The Cuff's problem warrants an affirmative vote to their request. Finally, our client has further advised us that if the City refuses to commence assessment procedures and construction of the storm sewer system, that a lawsuit may be imminent. It is our position that the Cuff's have claims against the City which include but are not limited to negligent misrepresentation and fraud surrounding the City's representations and admissions made to the Cuffs in regard to their purchase of Lot 17; and, liability for creation of a nuisance, trespass, and the taking of the Cuff's Property. We ask the City Council to vote in favor of proceeding with the storm sewer project as it will not only prevent The Honorable Mayor Greibek and Meinbers of the City Council May 21, 1990 Page 4 further problems for the Cuffs, but will alleviate a drainage problem in the entire drainage area set forth by the City's engineers and architects. We appreciate your consideration. Respectfully yours. Anthony J. Gleekel V AJG/tmt cc: Mark and Karen Cuff HIMUTBS OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP MAY 22« 1989 POLICE SUPERVISORY IMPLEMENTATION CONTINUED more rapidly, he would be happy to adjust ace,..--'- CounciImember Nettles questioned whether option 2 would utilize the same process used for selecting the second supervisory position? Kilbo replied that the process would be very similar. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember M«+.t:les» to accept the information from the Police Chief regarding his implementation plan for the third supervisor. Motion, Ayes=3, Peterson, Nay due to the further delay. Mayor Grabek took this opportunity to commend the Police Department for their efforts regarding a medical emergency involving Ms. Charlotte Hill. She wrote a letter to the City indicating that the responding Police Officers had saved her life. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MORATORIUM . . City Administrator Dernhardson presented an interim ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. Eernhardson said that the recommendation is for a 90-day duration period. Councilmember Goetten asked if a moratorium was required with every ordinance amendment. She expressed her dislike of morator^L and questioned whether this particular one was necessary? Zoning Administrator Mabusth interjected that the moratorium should have been placed on accessory structures two years ago. Goetten concurred with Mabusth adding that Hnseless to propose a moratorium when the amendment was only weeks from adoption. City Attorney Barrett explained that the reason for oroDOsinq a moratorium would be in the event an applicant had lights under the existing ordinance, the City application. He said that the City did not have the r^g.^t to delay an applicant merely on the premise of an upcoming ordinance amendment. A moratorium allows the ^^^rrett \ulthe/elcplained action pending an ordinance amendment. Barrett further p . thit if the City delayed an application which in some form resulted in dfmag'e to tL applicint, the City could be sued if a moratorium did not exist. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this matter t° the June 12, 1989 Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. LITIHGSTOH AVBHUB DRAINAGE , brief review ofCity Administrator Bernhardson this »PP “”^i°"-^_^^®l'//"i^9l9°Counci^^^ Ms! Cuff ?ece!fefinlorm"a%io"n“to tlke“a=k to her neighbors. Since^that irai;agra%%^rutt®lesserc%s\"1fnd%S"bm^^^^^^ a°p“et’ition to the AxhOTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP MAY 22, 1989 LIVINGSTON AVENUE DRAINAGE CONTINUED City. The Cuffs are concerned about above-ground drainage due to the possibility that the runoff may be contaminated. Ms. Cuff said that she would be more comfortable if she knew that the runoff was clean. She said that the majority of the neighbors preferred the over-ground drainage and were concerned about cost and the required easements involved with the underground project. Mayor Grabek asked about the agreement regarding payment of the feasibility study? Bernhardson informed him that should the storm sewer project be abandoned, the Cuff's would pay for half of the study. Mayor Grabek suggested tabling this matter until the Cuff's and the City obtained more information regarding each proposal. Mr. Curt Thostenson said that he was concerned about the impact that either proposal would have on residents at the end of the Giainage area. City Engineer Cook replied that the wdLer would run across the track and down into a ditch on the north side of the tracks. Mr. Robert Paige asked where the storm sewer would be located between Livingston and Navarre Avenues? Cook replied that it would run north to Crystal Place and then west across the railroad tracks. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to table this matter. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING NAVARRE* This was a reminder of the upcoming joint meeting on June 1, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. BOARD OP REVIEW RECONVENE MEETING MAY 24, 1989, 7:00 P.M.* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to accept the information regarding the Board of Review reconvening date at r , May 24, 1989. Ayes»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Highway 12-Safety Improvement; 1972 Shadywood Road; Spring Managers Conference; Highwood Storm Sewer; Ferndale Marsh Fire; Camp Teko; Spring Clean Up; Metro WasteA^eekend Construction; and 4460 North Shore Drive. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. MW tCv^ 9 < w *r ^ ! V^ J *■ . . -..-Xv ■■ •> '.'/.v; Vr f-r-.vv:' ■ V . > ■••' •';- •iv,^ ■ ^ V -•r*--. . . ai w.'JiiWt..!ii- s' gjfe !liUilU 85'^ r',;,'•?# f'M ty'§Si m 't ^ i City of Orono Council Members Th« follovlng people petition the City of Orono to evaluate the purchaee of a aurface drainage easement from the owners of Lot 17, Bk 3 Navarre Heights, to provide a means of removing excess water from Livingston Avenue. He feel the relatively small volume of water does not justify such a large expense of over S30.000. Me feel that a small surface easement for a much smaller amount of money would be adequate. He also feel that the expense of providing for removal of water from the street should be paid for by the city, just as the cost of snow removal is paid for by the city. Let's Keep it simple and less expensive. 17. ti mm mA m ;«a mnk-i 1 ■ 4.^ . **'•'*“* V MW 3533 Onr%tAl Plac Orano, ‘W 55391 21 mj 1989 Orano Cltr Co»«cll NBoboro Orano City Hkll Crratal Bfcy R» Orono, ^•l 55391 Tb thm City Ctowwll It hu CO* to mr attention that on 1\jeadar, 23rd, ther^ will bo a public hoarifw to decide wtiothor or not to have a atom a«a«r drainapo rrmtmt placwl In the Itevmrro Heighu ,lddltl«3n. I aa latablo W> attend TVjnday'a oeotln*, and aa plj^lnt thla letter vith the Oowll to ilvo or 1 mteratanl that the Cltv'e etudy ahowa tnat the preferred location for an utility eaaeaent for the etora ae*ar to alleviate «ator probleaafw our neighborhood le through my property. The current natoff situation d» not affect m odx-ersely, but bv laproving the neighborhood. It will only help ua all. 1 e alleviate property budget fov Therefore haoeateeded 1. 2 ^ - • of the itora eever syatea built If It will on Li «ton Avenue. But I Juat recwitly |wrchaoed thla ent lot, and I as not in favor of nor do X have the eetUated aaaeaasenU to my parr-* in axseaa of 12,000. a utility eaaeaent over the eatterly 15 fbet of my , provided that: theie shall be no asseasaents placed agalnat my property, aM the property will be -etumed to Ite current condition (InclvsUng sceoing or aodding). Theae are the teraa under which I will grant the eaai.arr.t Thla Is ey stance on the issue and although I the problea cm ^ resolved for the Cuffa and their adjacent property oMiera. I d« t It *s to mr benefit aisl therefore would only grant the eaasaent provioed there »aa no coot to ee. Sincerely, ^ 1I*! !&1 ‘ '.■ > ■'...vi^pr.' 'i r ■ \i ? ■••' -N:,' fcSl Jl^ -5?%/ s ■*’T<iAiiim %I ’-i ■■G id TOi Mark B. Barnhardaon, City Adnlnistrator FBOMt John B. Garhardaen, Public Worka Director DATSI May 19, 1909 SOBJt Llvlngaton Avanua Stora Sawar On April 24, 1999, Council accaptad a faaalbillty report froB tha City Knqlnaar ragardl.^? a atora water runoff problaa at 3972 Uwlnqaton Avanua. Tha faaalbillty report waa tha raault of a patltlon froa Mark and Karan Cuff of tha above addraaa raquaatlnq a aolutloa to tha flooding problaaa they have axparlanead aftar noraal to heavy ralnfalla. Pellowlnq tha April 24. 1999, Council Naatinq. ataff auppliad Inforaatlon to Karan Cuff to exhibit to tha affected property ownara regarding location of a atora aawar and coata par lot. Since that tlaa, nalghbora of tha Cuff'a have aubalttad prallalnary akatch plana of an altamatlva to tha atora aawar by dlraotlng tha atora water above ground to tha oulaart lalat on Cryatal Place. Ragardlaaa of which option la taken, aaaeaenta froa tha Cuffa, aa well aa all propartiaa affected downatraaa, will have to obtained. Cuffa have alao aubalttad Information objecting to an abova^ ground dralnagaway aid wiah to proceed with an underground atora eewar ayatea. The Inforaatlon praaantad by tha Cuffa on Friday tha 19th la additional inforaatlon that ataff and Council haa not had tlaa to review. Weeoaaendationi To accept the inforaatlon from tha Cufffa an table any action on thia natter until ataff haa had tlaa t review and report to Council tha affect, if any, ragardin chealcala being diaeharged onto tha Cuffa' or nalghborln propartiaa. Propoa^ Motion! It waa aoved by aaconded by to table any action on thla natter until there haa bean furthei ataff rvvlaw regarding chealcala being diaeharged onto tha Cuffa or neighboring propartiaa. TOi rnoMi Mayor and City Council Nark B. Sernhardaon. Cl^y Adminiatratf^ forwarded recorrriending tabling aa propoaad. ' .'i ’.'I ■- _ 'dX ■ ■ ! X: - S •M ^ JJj m 9 Hay l«, 1999 City of Oro-.o Attn I Cn'jnctl M«!ib«ri 9ux 6€ Cryatal Bay, HN 55123 Ronorabla Mayor k Council Maabari; Na orlolnally caita to you for atslstanca In tha dcalnaqa probla. «« .r# having. Aa .tatad 1 tha past, off of out neighborhood . our proparty block 3. lota U and 17 has baan usad for a drainage site. At this tl«a «a ara unabla tr obtain a building panalt to furthy Ail the run off has caueed property daitaga to our driveway, ground arroalon, and atcess flooding In our basaaant. Na have tinea found another pottlbla hatyd. settles in tha ba-v of our property carries as road sa'c froa che winter aonths, lawn fartarlliar and weed control cha«lc-it. Novaabar ^ developed tumors at tha same tlaa. In , through surgery. One had four tumors '®^;*^.***^ * biopsy on a vary fast growing tumor th^ cancaious. Our pats ace different breads and ' but they have lived at our peasant address length of time. In April of this year tha one that had cancer died. This caused graut concern to ua in that ^ may cumulative chemical build up from tha run-off and poor drainage on our property. !!• feel that a potential health hatard may aiist for ua or for future children at some point in time if this drainage problem la not corrected. w.r fln.l ,ot. of 00 IM lr..t.ll.tloi. -- Nay 22nd la necessary to ual TTil# ^uld )ur concerns and clean-up of the soil Our property should MOT be the main drainage rlghborhood'a water, road aalt, and la»« id pictures In the past showing the escesslve va through both of our lots and the ^unt of ids in the street. 1 have attached Inform^lon Is on lawn chemical hasarda, chemical Ingredienta hardware and garden shop, our prelUlnary ■ojf Lab results of our dogs tumors. 1 hope you wl*i ‘o read then and understand our concerns. ff Ave 391 t i m •• ’ . *V>' ■ ■..^.r<:,y.---^. ortho Wfd B* gong; Actlv* lnqt*d*nts»DlnothylMln* Mlt of 2,4 oichlocoph«no*y«c«tic Acid DlMthylMln* aalt of 2,(2-M«thyl 4 Chloroph*no*y) Propionic Add inort li»qr«d«nti» Bqull to 9.04 2,4 01cfilocoph«noJiy8C*tlc Add Xioo«r Spodflc by AOAC Method 6,Dol-5 Bqull to 9.61 MCPD 2,(2 M»thyl-4-Chlocoph«no*y) Propionic Add OAnqori Corrotlv* to «y«s, haraful If •wallowod, avoid atln and clothinq contact. Do Mot induct voalttlnq. Conault Doctor. Ortho Blttn-upt XsopropyLaaint salt of Glyphosatt 51 M-(phoaphonoatthyl) Glydnt 95% Round-up I laopropyiamint aalt of Clyphoaatt 18% M-(Phoaphonoatthiy) Glydnt Ortho iruth-B-Gonti . . ..............Triclopyf M,5.<> Trichloro 2-Pyr id inyloxyacttlc Add) Tr Itthylaalnt Salt 8% Intft Inqrtdanta 92.0% tquil to 5.7% Add Ort?>o Vtqttatlon Killtri Prcaoton 1.2-Ntthoay-4,«-bla(laopropylaalno)-3-Traiint praaltol wttd • Pttd by Grttnthuabi Actlva inqrtdtntaiOiatthylaaint aalt of 2,4-0ichlorophtno*yacttlc Add Diaathylaaint aalt of 2(2-Mathyl-4-Chlorophano*y) Propionic Acid Oiatthylaalnt aalt 2-{2.4-Oichlocophtnoay) mart inqrtdtntaj 2,4-Olchlopophtnoayacatic Acid 2-(Mtthyl-4-Chlorophtno«y) Proponlc Add 2-(2,4-Olchlofophtnoiy) Propionic Acid By laonar Tciaalnt rn undtrgolnq ay rtatatch I havt found that t^tat havt auch controvtray In rtftrtnct to pottntlal health On# of the chtalcala, 2,4-Dlchlrophanoayacatic Acid haa bttn w bi . ..oel; c«.4n, eh«lc.l In ..c.l.. .ipo..,., rt etuatd aoft tiaaut aareoaa, hodgkina dlaaaaa and iin^USSTkl* *‘bro.arc«ia. a fora of aoft tiaaut aareoaa. our toll teat froa tha Onlvaralty of Nlnnaaota JijSlntItvtla of add, pboaphorua and potaaalua ailat. Purthar taati^ nttda to b# dona to know which chaa^ala art eontaainawa In out aoll that would cauaa a haalth haaard. ©IS' li--. -ijy-5s 'wm ■r. ^ V* '4 • , \\ >4 ,'> 'Vi' y'-^y ^ .T,^ * - ..»., ,«. ■■. ??i;X w •nd Jl.OOO.OO (wr Twin Clty^TtJfi^J*^ *** 5100.00 flbroaareaaa eancvr. Indicating a wAlignant tuacr/ for ua to find out if tha dog that .. —i,, . contMlnatad by paaticidaa tha r-nm*. ha»a ia «uld bo for cirbLataa7”rqiroS^i«’^“^‘* *** «l«-00. Thia Tha taat for harbicidaa Mould brSi?!...cuic c.„.ci.. “‘j:„. taatad (thia Mould IndlcHa if '*•»• our dog tt.tin, dona. TT»i. !Si!i ^ri H! *«* to-a 2il any advaraa affacta that aay ba JraaantT^^®" »«»«raa I: ‘ ^ %•:'■■ K-.' Ev' F.\: ■ ' ^ ‘i ':-l ■ '-Civ'.-^‘r'J..: r^>1 SOIL TEST REPORT UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SOIL TESTING LABORATORY t.\»Vwl» t.jff JaT- liv|n «2T'.:. AVt SAT^AfAt -f« Si^n So-I Miwf.cwitu'ii «(r^wit«ir(i (jtpntHXi S*<X« *p'<uituf»i tiO*nf*****« 1(at<OM CiMM'alint Bpport NO; 1)4 7 Laboratory NO; 1 26jb Data R*e*iv«l; Oi/O^/J'f Data Raportad: J3/i0/t!) Soil Tost Rssuits Samofa Oaiifnaoo" ‘oil Taatura Soil OH BuMar Indaa Orfanic Matter P Pfioiohorui rib/A) K ^asjium (Ib/A) Soluble Sant fmmbot)| t.-AH /. ! II HeJiUH UJaa 3V3 C.i a OLSEN - P INTERFRETATION OF SOIL TESTS T Nwtrtwt Laa**t '■*.7-;(. F»WM*WU»(F)...,. Mgtoiaium (K), ,,,,, Sotobia Salt Madiu.Ti !^»»»»»»»»>* ^ »*»»*»»* High im l-;:| P'r,;;i ."'S p» V , ‘. • *' *' v' WtCOMMENOATIONS pn»i Hnjig LkiMS, Lt.^c nrL.iri.iC.NOATlL.Ni ..CNE AECC.^HE n C c U r.ij XltlUNT JF EALH FlANT NUTAiSNT fU APPLYI 41 TA lv>c •« IM PNISRHATE (F2JS) ♦ -AENTUCKY SLUECMASS F;;rASH (A2ul 3.)J LUS/I’.'CJ SJ»FT. ♦ 0«0 lttS/lO')d iWaFT. ♦ 0.0 Lwi/iOOU S»i«FT» AAAty A F:-T;LUe^. fMAr SUPPLItS the reccnpenucu a.^cxints uf r*l.A.«r N c T/. un T^. IKiJS'r'’'of5'!5i ‘-ii5i".5o5W''1255fi?li i»tS'’5 {"5^"il!fs SHJu!!i)'‘5E''Jl*?Lie5*'u?f-lert l<«» 15 AM JAY ’•1^1 /w SI isftiis sffjiis 2«y i5 HiduU L dftO AUG GCr AFFUCJ ANO NUI7 .♦..Tb: -iCr Hi ke Itl i-Nw AKrt *1,* i lurt wibcjd .» ------------- ir u ..lwJh H c .ijC u rkAf fHt FcAriLUEA S€ THOFUUGMLf NAfEPfcO INTU THE iOlL. THt iLlJokC >AlfS TEST INOICATESI NO SAkT PkCULfcA EAlSTS* mTVv-^ iCM jlPI.i ‘•radditiariai information contact your !«»MyCatanan>nAtant:^^.j al2 Saj-l-..:? Paeaiat; Tkia «la a»iM»iaaii lacMt ai aaymarn m taa amount at I jj.jq CUSTOMM COPT -M __ i i96iCfir« 5-3i*.7 r 4i^0 iPl pv'^ f^: '•'.V ’Jir-V.^>-^ . -^i; -r- -*=• •'■'' -v> V; i *; mm^ ♦ ^» isn UNJVERSmr OF MINNESOTA THWNWT*? MMwwn V«iw«ia«y OagnoMK LaBWMDMM Co««Q« o< V««finar|r MMCM i9A3C«w*««nu« SL PM. MNMM M10S (V>er: ltar«n Cuff W«yzct«, NN U.)rv^‘ Long Ltitt Vettr1n«r/ Uintc 1854 M. Mtjriato 81»<J. 80* 10 Long Lake, fn 55356 (StatciMTir Data: Oac«ab«r 22, 1988 Ucctsilon Ho.: 088>33028 Rectived: 12-20-88 .5otclts: canint Breed : S«a : M Age: 6 yr, 8 yr ytIgHt: 90#, 75# Nerd/riock Slit: Clinical Signs: Speclmon; Gross: Ntstopath: c /• Si^ary: Ont fiMtd skin aass and sms 11 fraj^tnts of a sacond aait wara ratalvtd. Th# largar aass was bro«*n1sh-«ft1ta, flm. s»ooW. spharlcal, and acasurad 1 oa In dl awe tar. The fra^ts odro dark rad to brwn. Thd first aass Is partially encapsulated and consists of sntfts and islands of watura fat calls stparatad by wodarata to abundant aatura fibrous connactlea tissua. Fat calls ara datactad at all warglns of tha aass. Tha sacond laass is an unancapsulatad naoplastic prolfaratlon of various sliad spindlad or stallata calls oftan fo»»lng vascular channels filled with rad blood calls. In xcaslonal araas, thasa calls ara closaly spacad and for* larM shaats of straying calls. \Tha various sited and spindled to stallata calls hava a aMarata wiount of finely vesicular to fibrillar awphophlllc cytopla*. one or two oval to fuslfona hyperciiraiatlc nuclei with unifowly staining chroaatln and aultlpla proalnsnt nucleoli. HI tot1e figures are rare. A few neutrophils are diffusely scattered throughout tha wass. Thera are occasional swali foci of bright yalow fine gr4«u- lar plgwentad watarlal and xcaslonel •acrophagas which contain various sited golden brown intracytoplasaic granules. Thera ara two to four wltotlc figures par i#f (t 4Q0). Neoplastic fat cells eitend to tha aarglns of tha one wass. 1. Llpona 2. FIbrosareva Rodney K . Frank, DVH i.^S" i“- ■- r T, •./•Vi’,:; Xi»X#5>- '•V ■ay;' .:£‘it';S.'?-',., L WIMI Af« Lawn e«r« Ch«mle«ta and Naw Ara THay UaadT OamoM u«o w' lawnt aa gai ftoJw tnd Aardrai Lawn cara paattcidM w« «uOsanca< u«ad by man to ua a ui paaa. pima rty oaa ruqw«a itaacta. timgiand waaife. Mbit tartatari art piant numanta to nao iba giai i tns try atm plants praaa w—to grow Moadanearapasttobasaia 'ganaduso' ortx^xta — ra doad Emwonmanm Ptotaction Agancy (EFd) cor*. ad«i *wn Mfa tor uaa by snyona «no tallows labal tfwBona Hewa«ac soma typas oMa«m produciB ara ‘raaacMuaa* auQaaneaa Thay aia orty sold to and uaad by‘oarddd aoccaws.'pa»«na «no saas^ EPA and —a sawng laguraman a . Pgr ‘fawtaduaa* I ralaoai tan ucnora dona art norconiK» IB oaaura aaia and propar uaa I ara uaad to kd waada ar d ara u'* data of I moai oitan appaad 10 lawna. \^«ads ara 'piwai grewme am of piaca'—wnara nay ara not wonBd. Bhjagraaa growing m a bantgraas gaM graan woudbaconaddadawaad. Convarsaf ybamgraa a n a biuagBM IBM • a mod obisesonabfa »aad. aacn graoi a antar* tar as pamcmar pmpoaa. HarbiefdBs oar ba safaeiMa. kdng ona lypa 3f plant tw( rei tdjftnganonat Tha «Mddy uaad lawn hartwida ?>0 eoraefs oroadaai waada hha dandai<on and plan, ivt bui doaa not harm moai aatabianad paranmd ^tMas. Nonaaiacttva barbcBaa Mia (^ypnoaaia hd al parat n a lawn, ae nay can ba usa^'batara taaaadng lawn araaa not nava baan ovarrun by mdaarsbia pan arindgtaaaai. WBneaybarb cidaaaf piartnormonaanaioongoi biaadad waada by ddrupnngna plana normal grown pfaoaaaaa. Sprayktg. f dona propartyt usuofy proMdaa banar waad control nan tpraad<ng dry nart>. oda. so diraymg a oltan na maawd pratarrad by com. maroal tawn cara comoanma. twaacticidaa control nuaarva inaacs wncn damaga lurtgraaa or onarwaa daropt a lawn Gnroa arana larvoa of baaaas aucn as Jaoanata baaaat. May baa. MS (Jmw ougsi. cnatan and bacuga mat damaga lawnabytaatangongraasroota. Tha damaga a moai •vOara n ra tpr^^g and 'a* wban gfut>.*'*a«ad tun can aaaty ba pmag uo cacauia na roots nav« baan cut by (p>a crnwng naacta Utaaa nacorrvnon narocidaa. soma naacToda tarmu. lanons (ganaiaty na nignar concantrarorv) ara daa». had »»raar ciao uio onty by car Mad aopicaiort. Bacauaa nunans and nsacta tnars conam botoyca l amiardaa . cnamcati lamai ta maacts can afao ba ram*. oua B numna < na latiar ara avooaad B auifidani amowaa* ninglEfdaa ara usad to control timgus dsaaaaa of tart II. Alta Lasim Car* Chwfileala Safat Eantitars ara not paai gdas and nay ganaraOy ara not cor>aBarad tone aubaiancoa. This aopratsai a prooabfy accuraia. but uaars of tadfoara tnomd aid uaa cara B nanaing nam. lor inaianca. Bavodayaaspoauraondi B pr*«*nt aocasa by cfifdran. Oaarty tarSkfors ara not ^ arMsfy nak-rraa subatancaa. Maia maia iA raesn oorv cams hasa baan ra*ad about paaigr daa. rBitartfdara. so na ramandsr 01 n« boowat wd taeua on naat ma tanala. Un*4m tr oai onar subatancaa usao by man, oaa ao dai ara daagnao to kJ pass and muoi ba laac B na paaa B ordar B worn. A law awn cara pa rodaa ara Bne B naarty ai arwnai and piaif hfa. auen as luiTkoana uaod B aiitTwBB ramatodaa pner B rapBn a ng grass b an BtasBd araa. Moat tawn cara paaacMlaa. nowasar. ara raainraiy ipaeille baeauaa naa pranary Ba« aftacB ara dtraesd onty 10 largat spaaaa. For asampia. unoar non rrmi cortdiiBns of ua* pnanosy naroodaa kd mooi broadaal pianta but 00 not adworaafy afiaci graaaaak •ntacts. or rodanta. Toicity B arwnati. pianta. or humans can ba acuB or cnrone. Acuta Bik. ly rafart B na damaga a auD> sianoa can do as a raauk of a angfaaapoama B ram t'vaiy mga amounts of na maianaL Owonc Bncay onenbaa na abary oi a aubstanca to cauaa damaga aa a raaui of many rappaMdaiposuraa t^mng a pm wgad panodoftimaBtaiattwafytawiayataofnatfBm r<al tarexy can roaui from darmai (skB) ooniaa Bga* t«n (oraO. or nnaianon TaoB t prasan ta na Bur catagerrsauaadBoaacnoamoacuB :omoty of paa* cdaa. E/« aspoaura to aomo cnamcaia <m«y ba pobtv haify n«wdoua but ty« damaga is usuaty dv« to na BcaiBnant ompariiaa of na auoaianca ran* nan Si systame B»eity Acuta tosory of any givan patcoda oaoanoa upon na aharani torcty of na tuboanca ts «*■ at na amous (ooaa) and na imt organam ra ca»vBg 4 Th# oral or oai.mai ooaa cf a auba*nea cioabB of cau»ng datfi ram* doaai b Miy parcant (S0H| of a group of labora. fcry anm-'s « caMd na LO^. For BiBiaiBn leunorv tan* oofc* maaturarrarat aiamww»«B units of aai - centratBn such St .mrtigrama y iaaOk\ na da*gnai«r> lC» Aitnougn *d lC«, ara CAjOamaasuratcfacutaBBCit, Venttoaoaa of arwnBs may nava dftarani auacagi b»*aa to • sub> nanca. tnay provtda a acalt by wn<n .ha .scuta human Bioiyofan>oaBncacanbarougfwya*..-Bvaiad. Tha L0« * uauaify aiprasMd aa an amount of aubatanca aorrsnetarad diwdad by na waigntof na anmai futu. aiv rai. rrBuaa or rabbB laaiad; tar aaampia. m*grama of auoatanoa oar kBgram of body *gni (mg^. Tha BwarnaLO«arLC« vaiua. na mora Bnc na masanai •s B na laai organism. Whan may ara dfutad w«* «aiar tar aopkcanon accordBg to tab* diractena ana appaad to turf rrmai tawn cara pasBodas woMd fai b na laaai tatne catagory IV and poaa wduaty no hAtard Chtone taaoty ar*aa from long ta»m or tapaat adaiB o. lura to a aubaiartca arw agaB oapartM on na amme* and laai organam. but a aiao daoandi on na «rt«n or aoDst^ to naioxagaru Chrome aitacti can langa from raiairwaty mao rrsawn to atrimrs Ma-mraai. •rwgdaaaaa ' -»s I i . 1 i V . 1 ! 4 1 •1 /I A» r' .- ^ ■ ■'! •!D * . 'i«' >/-3' >7" ‘ %r,.i . V ■• •<« . . V i-' ,• Sgndldyd Cal*QOr«t d Acul* To»CrtV uc> Cat*oor«* P*<x^*don ti.*Lab*t Oti mofKg 0*rm*l mgfko inr alaton mg* |.HtgNy%"C qangea - ShUI and crottbon** POISON OtfwuSO odwuaoo 0»*ru02 n - Medtddy VdONtNO from so VwuSOO IremSOO Bwu 2.000 from 0.2 dru2 * - SSo^•y Hwte CAimoN ImmSOO 8WUS.000 Irom 2.000 tfwu 20.000 tram 20 »wu20 iv-n*iaiMdir CAimoN or**i*t»*an 5.000 gtaaMrMn 20.000 graMrdan 20 d*i*w »• •'••d » •» Oi«f» o» roo ■ tony N*W Wi god eolrt*. T>»* ••»"• P«wd* rwxiQOyeauMorwwon awow « on ooof<"^« ^ UMrtWilHOn U% tX^ C9MM M ifVtgrtCO# 6y««60*^ Ml* l^W0. EPA D«»0^ f ^ firm uM o* >ns*ctc*o* Chifthalowi Th* iu«i ruogcot cNowater*- (OacofM i*rtjov*»y b**n-nkod • >« SKXomOwl 982 * 30-y**M>id N*vy h*ulon*nt H* •*• p**nx»«>n'" , ■* ♦ . • -' •, <• 1 S«4^ T1 IIMIII Hr^--------^ A^irtufiwinnoo. e«y«*e teu (2>0) u^laSiMoaooom««on E«»^v —>ft>o^ 8.000 n*« NMC c**M W9 '*5'^ cauM o» NML d noi y*i ow*«d. Mne* t^*( • • «v« ««0*^ * iMid onih* f«i4l o« on* »«•"« «W<^* EPdno^ il f*n«rw*i o( 2.* 0 o»o^<e» 'con««lO|]nO ’*y^ iKsJwoceoxf M«F!EnA r*gi4Mnn* («0 C0rt» y>. Th**q*neyi**1g^w«*>yioPoyq ^ **«cn*<? «nO gi**!«*.■» Mo»»*w*t on* d #*• oonew*0"i STiS NSyn?^Steidy 2>0.-v^^co». SSIgi»»on» «!*>*« 0*^7^^ ■* «nitff<>ddd*»»OOryWr*n0i^OuyenO< rt««*4** nol 2.« 0 WOtKAem At »n» .»d.yy jbiw**a.*^uo»**»»^d*°*^^y^y**?^■**»*. »f^t* iMMtdn. *non tO*C**Md 0»O* _ J982d**d*ol *T-OW n*»y iwmw '■ ■• p«*l>An*tlH> *» ocao n**w>. Oui*«o»»»ot«y*o»o*«v^oed**« court* n**f n« Artmgion. Viroini* non**A*P*y** t*tt Jh*n N»o «■•*<«* i«*r •"••""0 ^ ®" o!«n**rt«IKA. H* aflioon w** o«edd>dd •• io«< «Pdd***^. o«:rotyM(tcatO*a tion iynqnjrti*'.« **nou* »■—-w.mtyrwoion»i*l*mei*<0*l*con0O*0f**bd«;«W •rw>g *no p**Mog d (•fO* •«•« ot If^ •M' *rx3 #«tr*»n* i*na*>n*», Afiod 20 B*»C*ni 0» 0M*»*i o« from tfi* da****, but *< c*«* 0* *Pdd*irt» out (D»o0*0fv t»00id»O orgm fii**50 0*n5*n».* Tn« ^Jnoc«J* cNOfo9»iloni b*d bi*n on M otffcoufi>*no.*ccon>ng»otf<*N*vvr*w^*»o»«n* gorttMt Th*N*vvodho*og*rtf*oofteone«ud*d»« in*funQC^w*tf*WOn*«*)oring0d'n0»»®«"“ Vtr«ut or**cnc«)n dnjgi n*v* o**n K^v*u*d a* c*o»ng i»» <»•••• 0*4 *no on* n«t 0»wnd*d^ (3ir«ci mmunotoo* r»^*ne* tor On^ idotVy8*ci*n«i niocnon*. r****» d**n Otug*. *r* r*‘*»*dio mott cat** of tote *o*>**wM< n*erotyt*. and o*«oda marqv Mo nw 0**n ixB0*d*n Odor* at a cau** d ir>* oaaat*. TO* 0«»m 2787> Md not** m*i MproOwci may‘proArc* tditporary ***rg« *f»*e» in *oowaio.A Out »** »«4d*ar» »or nw tm^ A dwouon-*v«i«iOon d M ^ wO* ntormahon to conftrm or rdut* in* ima lo »**N^ c<s* todcaion: ne«>*^ • “•ron^td d**in i**am By n* *g»n*l *** country cluo *nd »** •uno'^ mtnutactur^ r**t mad* *utf* an ti**dga"on dmoA ,nt«C«* Cnt«t tr^ dd*nd*r* dM *g*** ^ **V«* *-mry unu*u*t on*. Out O*r*m»n*'0 "ndn*r tno^ •0 rwwtn*tunociO*cau**Oione*od*rmt(rwcrotr»* •odO 1*11* tom* con*o*f*oi*t»rn* and d»ort.rn*__ manuiaciurtr a*n**tnyconn*e w)nO*tW*ntn*nav .*«, . -. .ri u :&a f:nfe._' . *. -4/‘ J i* :.• >:• L —J cx)» ww • <3mmm. ooirinng »o "xy« ’ 5 >««r» o» iM wotfCCT lh« chsmcjl and A •«oo»ur« ro (T^ont of goffori «««inout ar»y *miiar raact<on« Crmcs. V* ra ol^ar ntr<d. u«a mia cata lo a«norauf rf'# na^ vda 0* a* >awn cara o»oowm, avao tf'ouflf' ‘u%c Oa* Uw cfworoffia>oo< ara f'anSV avaf u»ad ori f>o€«a •awf't. Lr:, a m ■urranary for aaeti of iria l^raa pastc'daa 0<scvna<1 aoo^a. V>a *c«rniAc «suaa naag carafvji cor'tioaraiior^ Daw aiian»va aaoanaoca ar«o toaonfc stuoaa on cnaj»g»a<orw and 2.4-0. crhu* acianfifc crformaton ■opavt 10 oa rraaang or mcomotata ai craaara nma. loMapaMmoiaofamaiorcauM'or alarm? Aratha 0(M ■ MTioua nih bacauaa ia«m cara en«ncifcando<r»aroaatiCidaaraquira>virtnargaiaie dW carfn asoaca of (haa aafaty tor humani and tna ar*^»aarwT1ar4?T^aooa^^af■laagt)yl^a t9MGovarrv mar* AdooubKmg Offca (GAO) raoom on oastodai. ‘ ' ■ ,• ,, r* ;v-J* -»• • '- •' vv* .• iS. , ^ri-. ■>:.■ ' Comihon hobidde ^ linked to cmcer JSvMWi jNMtMvSv SSTSiffS^^iwi^—^***» miipHA ■* SSSSIsSSs iw ii fl» aM M* ----------»i4-n SEr£E?EtSS? r«>» nr Hr SCISNCS MKWS VoliUM 130 S«ptMb«r 13* 198( MW W piHH M tWMMfWMWtllMMMW WMWMUlrtilWIM NNLan TiwiwMr*i«—«<"*»*■*«* *>**^ 7****y.*'***^ — >»» wpaiaM w MW O7 —• * *r>klilii.MWwWM<^WWiWWyflM «WUWwWt »alWt»^>Ml|iyw^ ^ —MwawMWiwiw l»0iW w • n W WJIIW im •M mtm mm M»«t>afiss^asas ssagjgjgrwgg'isr>vri»«iy<g5gi.^ (WMMW W • Wmm AWMMMM i0m -r-i•y-.-lB-mm -' > I ' ^ V > .• ^' :,v":^ fei- ?S^':S'.>‘4-;;';V *96!;.^/' fti- :u.',• -'/I:' ^ •■’■Vi :^..y c 5l. Ill111C 3 a iv;;---s:i4P£>:-?l ^ C3^ g' 3 |i iij :i? )f4 - ii.iliil;! UMiilis ‘‘iiiliii iiiiJliiil 1^ sc ■ '■■' . * j a ' * *o %-1 . J •• .'-» V • ■• ^ -■ -4 '•* i • V V •r •'^ . * ^ ^ , r:. I ”0 •• '-':?=^'i.V mmi&£sSi^ ■JswcsA I* .-M*‘ ‘v"; ; ■ ■* --------3. - t ___________•-1 '.V.- i».‘a^qg--avy.N^ ■•- -r- ■' • Y-yT|irjM|j|g^M|^MHBM ii*tlf!pipjH a f^i! 1? lliJI ijllJll J P! iljli II 8l liili lliisi ilii ^•.-n« - •■?:S;Ar.-•V;'^.••...•••• ' j^Sasi'ii-V. e) i ifi :p^>iea>gi fi i If. !8j ‘’Sdll V..M.i.—i 51690.7 TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato' DATE: May 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Highway 12 - Corridor Meeting \ COUNCIL MESTIN6 OF oifQifQ ISSUE - Presentation to the Council of an update of the upcoming Corridor Selection Policy meeting. INTRODUCTION - The meeting that was originally slated for the Policy meeting on May 23, 1990 has been subsequently changed given the fact that the consultant Larry Dallam is not officially on board and prepared to have that initial meeting. It should also be noted that the Technical Committee meeting originally slated for May 15, 1990 was cancelled. DISCUSSION - It is expected that a joint meeting of the two groups will be held either the week of 6/4 or 6/11. While initial indications for the Policy meeting were that there might be aerial photos in which the Committee would start designating alternatives, it is expected that the meeting will be a review of the process and the ground rules by the consultant. It is expected this would put development of alternative corridors by the Policy Committee to be two to three months out. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information and take no action at this time. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council accept the information as presented and take no action at this time. Ayes , Nays 51690.10 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^^ May 1990 COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 9 1990 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Transient Merchants Attachment:A. Council Minutes 4/11/88, 4/25/88 and 6/23/88 B. Ordinance No. 5.30 Solicitors C. Ordinance No. 50, 2nd Series Amending 5.30 in Part D. Labatt Letter Dated 4/20/90 E. Penke Note Dated 5/13/90 F. Butterfield Letter Dated 5/21/90 G. Kilbo Memo Dated 5/25/89 H. Mobile Peddlers 4/1/88 ISSUE 1. Updating Council regarding selected solicitors licenses in the Navarre area and the City generally. 2. Determine if Council desires a license to be issued. INTRODUCTION - As Council may recall the issue . sol^icj.tors licenses and location of those in Navarre was raised in 1988. As noted in Attachment A at the time the solicitor was allowed to receive their license and to continue in the residential location wi"-h the owner being allowed to submit for rezoning of the property in conjunction with an overall Navarre Master Plan. Obviously the Navarre Master Plan has not had any strong interest in moving forward. The City has again recently received complaints and a review of the records indicated that the individual who did have licenses in 1988 apparently was selling in 1989 without licenses and has continued i*' without licenses on residentailly zoned property (3790 Shoreline Drive.) DISCUSSION - AS you will note in Attachrarnt B related to the Ordinance the elements for permitting transient sales ate as follows: A. The individual be licensed. B. That it be on commercially zc.ned property. C. That the location is at the discretion of the Police Chief when taking into account safety issues. The policy issue of whether the City should allow such transient merchants at all has up to this point not been directly addressed by Council apart from licensing. It has been suggested that as an alternative to prohibiting such, that they "pay their fair share" of taxes etc. related to their usage. (The parallel raised was one where in New York City such merchants have to be on a waiting list for a limited number of licenses and that the current rate is about $7,500/year.) Another alternative would be to establish a "Flea Market" similar to that in Mound. Either would require an ordinance amendment. As noted in Attachments C there are instances where people, because the vendor is along the road side have stopped in the east bound lane. One telephone caller indicated he had kids run across traffic, almost causing an accident, to purchase flowers from the person in this location. This has created a dangerous situation and possibly could result in pedestrians being struck. At the beginning of May it was determine by staff that the Flower Man had not submitted for a license he was sent a letter on May 7th which he received about raid-week indicating that he did not have a license and could not sell. On Sunday, May 13th (Mother s Day) he was selling and was approached by a police officer as to possible licensing. He indicated that he did not have a license and after warning Mr. Penke, the Officer left. Apparently Mr. Penke continued to sell despite the fact that he did not have a license and had been told that he could not sell without a license. Mr. Penke has subsequently submitted for a license, however, the City staff has indicated that it can only be in a commercial zone that has been deemed safe by the Chief of Police. As such it would require that he has permission from the property owner on whose property he will be located. In addition the property must be so configured so all purchasers would be required to pull into the parking lot in order to undertake the sales. The property from which he has currently been selling is not conducive to that and may in fact Generate safety problems not oni^ because of its location, but because of the physical arrangements to allow interested patrons in pulling off the street to conduct their business. If the owner of the property desires to undertake a rezoning they could do so on their own volition but would also have to make arrangements to provide for necessary ingress and egress of all patrons for such sales even if they were granted rezoning. This may not be possible with the property. It would be more appropriate to consider rezoning in the context of a Master Plan. These issues apply not only to "The Flower Man" but all other transient merchants within the City. The City is exploring potential transient seafood operation in the Navarre area together with transient merchant utilizing the property at County Road 6 and Highway 12. Issue #2 On May 25, 1990 Mr. Indritz, an attorney representing Penke indicated Mr. Keaveny had granted permission to Mr. Penke to sell from his property. Chief Kilbo will review the specific location on site to determine if it is in a safe location. While the City Clerk can issue a license upon recommendation of the Chief, the Ordinance language in Section Subd 5 (C) requires he recommend denial if there has been a violation of Section 5.30. Mr. Penke has been selling without a license since 1989 and was specifically warned and subsequently ticketed for that violation earlier this month. As such it is referred to Council for either approval or denial. ALTERNATIVES Issue #1. 1. Accept the information. 2. Amend the requirements of the ordinance. 3. Table for futher discussion. 4. Take no action. Issue #2, 1. Approval. 2. Direct denial. 3. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information as presented and direct staff to provide uniform enforcement in this area on a complaint and license review. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded _, that Council accept the information and direct staff that there be uniform enforcement on complaint and license processing basis. Ayes __, Nays __. cc; A1 Penke Dick Indritz, Reed and Pond MIHUTBS OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 11, 1988- - - - CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: MOBILE PEDDLERS City Administrator Bernhardson explained the issue of ordinance interpretation in relation to mobile peddlers, zoning information regarding the Paul Larson property, and the issuance of the solicitation permit to Mr. Penke. Staff recommends the following; 1. Appropriate ordinance modification be undertaken to be presented to the Council at the April 25th meeting. 2. That the property owner undertake the appropriate rezoning. 3. Only require a permit if the ordinance is amended to so govern but ensure he has a County license. 4. If no rezoning undertaken by June 15, 1988, not permit further sales on residential property. CounciImember Goetten asked if Mr. Penke would be entitled to a refund from past paid solicitor's licenses? City Administrator Bernhardson stated that was a question r' £ has not yet addressed. It was moved by Mayor grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, that the Council direct staff to invesitgate the zoning and ordinance situation and allow the situation as it exists for this year. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT - PHEASANT ROAD City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for a driveway easement over City property from 2673 & 2655 Pheasant Road and 2615 Shadywood Road. In reviewing the request, staff found that 2655 Pheasant Road has direct driveway access onto Pheasant Read, therefore staff recommends tabling consideratJon of access over City property for this particular property. The residence at 2615 Shadywood Road has access from Shadywood Road, therefore staff recommends denying vehicle access over City property in this case. Staff's intent is not to . close off the access to these properties, merely not grant legal access. Staff recommends approving vehicle access over City property to serve as the primary access to 2673 Pheasant Road. OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 25, 1988ROAD 116 CONTINUED , . ,-rMayor Grabek supported staff's recommendation on behalf of the Orono citizens and hoped that this action would not jeopardize any relations with the City of Medina. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, that staff be directed to indicate to the City of Medina in writing its desire not to endorse the proposed resolution regarding County Road 116 and encourage Medina to work with the County to terminate County Road 116 at County Road 24. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 1. Councilmember Goetten voted nay finding that Orono needs to look at another north/south road from Hwy. 12 to Hwy. 55. She felt that the comprehensive plan amendment may affect this issue and felt the Council should remain open in this matter. Motion carried. OONTY ROAD 15 STREET LIGHTING - DESIGN ENGINEER REPORT City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the changes in costs based on the outcome of the feasibility study. Design Engineer Bob Ehlers of Ehlers and Associates was present for this matter. He stated that he found the bids to be re/ sonable and noted that the original bid did not include lighting through Minnetonka Beach. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, that the City set May 23, 1988 as the public hearing date for asessing $97,000 in street lighting costs with the balance to come out of MSA/General funds. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 40BILE PEDDLER ORDINANCE* ORDINANCE NO. 50. SKONDJERJCES^^ Councl Imcber Sin.e, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 50, Second Series as an amendment to Ordinance No. 5.30 to regulate select classes of solicitors. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION* RESOLUTION #2411 moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt a Resolution of Recognition of Chief Melvin Kilbo. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. PROCLAMATION - MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK* RESOLUTION #2418 J It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2418 proclaiming May 1 - 7, 1988 as Minnesota Cities Week. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. j WOODHILL AVENUE CONTINUED It was moved by Councilmember Goetten^ seconded by CounciImeinber Sime, that Council: 1. Accept bids and order project in 2. Financing: Developer 75% - City 15% - 3 abutting owners 10% Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. Councilmember Peterson stated that she voted in favor because she felt the abutting property owners technically should be assessed for a portion of the improvements. 3508 IVY PLACE* It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to direct staff to continue its efforts to resolve the high water use at 3508 Ivy Place. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. REQUEST OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SOLICITOR'S ORDINANCE City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request to amend the solicitor's ordinance as it relates to requiring solicitation to take place only on commercially zoned land. Staff recommends that that solicitor's ordinance language be retained and not allow commercial operations in residential zones and that Mr. Larson be directed to submit a rezoning application pending the master planning process review, if he wishes. Paul Larson, owner of the property at issue, was present for this matter. He stated that based on the use of the abutting properties, he felt the existing use of his property should be allowed to remain. He did not feel he should go to the time and expense involved in rezoning the property. He noted that this entire issue was brought about by a complaint from a local competitor of the affected solicitor. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Sime, that the Council desires to retain the current language and Ordinance and directs Mr. Larson to undertake the necessary rezoning application which will be held in abeyance pending completion of the master planning process for the Navarre area. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 1. Councilmember Goetten voted nay stating that this is an unfortunate situation and that the Council needs to be looking at the County Road 15 area as a total picture, including this specific area. Motion carried. 1 7 SEC. 5.30. SOLICITORS. . 5.30 Subd. 1. Purpose. This Section is not intended to in any way hinder, delay or interfere with legitimate business or organizational activities. The Council finds, however, that soli­ citors have used public streets and their direct contact with residents of the City for the illegitimate solicitation practices of harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or unlawful activities. This Section is intended to ferret out and control; (1) businesses and organizations using solicitation as a means of concealing unlawful activities; and, (2) businesses and organizations which, though its activities be lawful or even com­ mendable, use such illegitimate practices in solicitation; and, (3) individual natural persons who, though they represent lawful busi­ nesses and organizations, use such illegitimate solicitation practices; and, (4) businesses, though legitimate, which cause, or are likely to cause, a traffic hazard or other inconvenience or danger to persons or property. The Council further finds that a large number of the residents of the City are employed as their livelihood and means of support by manufacturing plants and other businesses on shifts rotating between night and day, and to disturb them during their sleeping hours for the purpose of solicitation is a source of nuisance or even harassment and should be subject to control. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Solicitor" means any person making the solicitation, including such common terms as "peddler", "transient merchant" and "canvasser". B. "Solicitee" means the person solicited. C. "Goods" means any tangible thing of value, but not including money, things in action or intangible personal property other than merchandise certificates or coupons as herein described. The term includes such chattels as are furnished or used at the time of sale or subsequently in the modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction of real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not severable therefrom. The term also includes merchandise certificates or coupons, issued by a retail seller, not redeemable in cash and to be used in their face amount in lieu of cash, in exchange for goods or services sold by such seller. D. "Services" means work, labor, or services of any E. "Established place" means real estate in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-month or term-certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days. The term includes a booth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 5.30 F. "Business solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor, engaging in transactions of the same kind, to sell or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business of soli­ citor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the business firm or organization he represents, and the iden­ tity or kinds of goods, services or things of value offered; or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor; or, (3) an attempted solicitation of a newspaper subscription in which the solicitor is a minor child engaged in both the delivery and sale of the news­ paper; or, (4) an attempted solicitation for the sale of products of a farm or garden occupied or cultivated by the solicitor, when facts of such occupancy or cultivation are proven by the solicitor. G. "Contribution solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor to obtain money from a solicitee for any cause or purpose, when either the solicitor or person acting for him con­ tacts the solicitee by telephone or in person other than at the established place of meeting, business, service, or activity of the organization represented by the solicitor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the organization he repre­ sents, and the identity of the services performed or offered by the organization, or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the soli­ citee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor or the organization represented by him. Subd. 3. Prohibited Solicitation Practices. A. It s unlawful for any solicitor to engage in solicitation for c*ny unlawful business or organizational purpose or activity. B. It is unlawful for any solicitor to practice harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation. C. It is unlawful for any solicitor to enter, or attempt to gain entrance, to residential premises displaying at such entrance a sign with the words "Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited" or "Solicitors Prohibited". D. It is unlawful for any solicitor to refuse to leave business premises when requested by the owner, lessee, or person in charge thereof. E. It is unlawful for any person to engage in contribution solicitation without completion of licensing or registration as herein provided. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation without a license as herein provided. ORONO CC 120 (4-1-84) S 5.30 Subd. 4. Application. Applications for licensing or registration shall contain the name and address of the solicitor, the name and address of the business or organization for which solicitations are sought and such other information as may reasonably be required by the Council as a condition to registration or licensing or to permit investigation into the applicant's background and past solicitation practices. Subd, 5. Investigation, Approval or Disapproval. A. All applications for licensing or registration shall be immediately referred to the Chief of Police, and by him or other person acting in his stead, investigated as to the truth thereof, and as to any other factor which may result in a hazard or danger to persons or property. The Chief of Police shall have five (5) business days within which to investigate and make a recommendation thereon. B. If he finds no past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, and if he finds that to grant the application is not likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend issuing a license or approving registration, as the case may be, and the City Clerk shall forthwith advise the applicant. The City Clerk shall issue a license, upon payment of the fee therefor, to the approved applicant for business solicitation, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a contribution solicitor. C. If the Chief of Police finds a past history of the applicant indicting violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, or if he finds that to grant the applica­ tion is likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend denial of the license or registration. In all matters of recommended denial the applicant shall be forth­ with advised thereof, and the application shall be referred to the Council and considered by it at its next regular or special meeting occurring more than ten (10) days thereafter. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such meeting. Subd. 6. Duration of Contribution Solicitation Registration. Registration of contribution solicitation shall expire sixty (60) days after registration is approved. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 5.31 through 5.34, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) V.. ORONO CC (4-1-84) f"' a- L llrn&fil.'WJT'rCl ORDINANCE NO. 50 » SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBDIVISIONS 1, 2(H), 2(1), 3, 3(B), 3(F), 3(G), 4 and 5(B), OF SECTION 5.30 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984, AND ENTITLED "SOLICITORS" The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Ordinance No. 5.30 Subdivisions 1, 2(H), 2(1), 3, 3(B), 3(F), 3(G), 4 and 5(B) adopted April 1, 1984 and entitled "Solicitors" is amended to read: S*-ction 5.30. SOLICITOR AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS Subd. 1. Purpose. This Section is not intended to in any way hinder, delay or interfere with legitimate business or organizational activities. The Council finds, however, that solicitors have used public streets and their direct contact with residents of the City for the illegitimate solicitation practices of harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or unlawful activities. This Section is intended to ferret out and control: (1) businesses and organizations using solicitation as a means of concealing unlawful activities; and, (2) businesses and organizations which, though its activities be lawful or even commendable, use such illegitimate practices in solicitation; and, (3) individual natural persons who, though they represent lawful business and organizations, use such illegitimate solicitation practices; and, (4) businesses and transient merchants, though legitimate, which cause, or are likely to cause, a traffic hazard or other inconvenience or danger to persons or property. The Council further finds that a large number of the residents of the City are employed as their livelihood and means of support by manufacturing plants and other businesses on shifts rotating between night and day, and to disturb them during their sleeping hours for the purpose of solicitation is a source of nuisance or even harassment and should be subject to control. Subdivision 2. Definitions. H. "Transient Merchant Activities" means engaging in any temporary, intermittent, or transient sales or exchanges of any goods, wares, or services by setting up any outdoor stand or structure, or by using any truck, automobile, or any other vehicle, at any point or place in the City. I. "Transient Merchant" means any person engaging in transient merchant activities. Subdivision 3. Prohibited Solicitation and Transient Merchant Practices. B. It is unlawful for any solicitor or transient merchant to practice harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation or transient merchant activities. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation or transient merchant activities without a lincense as herein provided. G. Transient merchant activities can only be conducted on commercially zoned properties. Subdivison 4. Application. Applications for solicitor and transient merchant licensing or registration shall contain the name and address of the solicitor or transient merchant and such other information as may reasonably be required by the Council as a condition to registration or licensing or to permit investigation into the applicant's background and past solicitation practices or transient merchant activities. Application for solicitor licensing shall also contain the name and address of the business or organization for which solicitations are sought. Subdivision 5. Investigation, Approval or Disapproval. B. If he finds no past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, and if he finds that to grant the application is not likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend issuing a license or approving registration, as the case may be, and the City Clerk shall forthwith advise the applicant. The City Clerk shall issue a license, upon payment of the fee therefore, to the approved applicant for business solicitation or transient merchant activities, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a conribution solicitor. Passed by the Council this 25th day of April, 1988. ATTE |t: ________/6Sr?thy M. ^ llTn, cTty Clerk Published in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of May 2, 1988 I- , '.a:,, 'r. ' •‘■C ‘ V« / //iau i3j I'i^o. 'J /Uotfiixs Da.If ) /r i-TTPfMm ^ . LCh^m it r/ijiLj Cdyta^r^ ’T d /ffd/i, O-lan , has a/ujQ.(^i Dsynp/ied cuih/i fki C^'r^y oD uiifh . .(/kohtuer jhxLi hSQi^n^s. /hdirK Arm 7^ }€jtxf/(/ ^€!/ aA hh>!’5 /ocaincm , LjMr-s ape' ah- a. Caa/?cu/ . 'T d hjrsys’ cf/fy Cauad/ a(-Ot(A/yiirdc^ O.! o.n 0/lco/Aa h,u-s//?djs Ah/'S carr/nurj/zj * Ac s^fec^fc/s’ /ecr/idtf lOi'T.dd 6e ApfCi/red kill ! Irudc-K^ iD. prSpd^Ay .CtClLtA, d Dd t<i redcA.tci azti ' .0 ritii'70 // JC /?•/ hTf fhscd Cif^ Ciry Cmcplt'cettfifc.S^ LO-fil<^ Cod SL-SSurytt cdcm.vfr\icps i/p> 'TD Oh(/ oh/fees dfd-A //(co^^ay Clad ci>c tzo Sl CO-ti cf Cdc'Q prc6/d/ns cii hf^cd pnaU }ia oh^ dctie Cod. Mot 6ted /TLCiinrcLinina cur pem/jy dos/atss Jwu. . Jusi h'Jde / / AS dor t^er V yea/s . 'Tcha.u s Sa/es are. c/hha/ ~/d ow-zhkrv'/ys . ....ptnarCLd/.^^-MS/hiy ■ lOe. Set . Ao rsasari •• - _ ,.iz>-A/tadZ-Oay cAa/raes^IMAJ.DapiSicAchty .... ^ /Ca-.VAme.it •• •. -pj- uumzLsJ^ljJ) 320 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD 1 / WAYZATA, MI^.'^^IESOTA 55391 “ ’ Hay 21 , 1990 2 5 M90 City of Orono To Whom it May Concern: We would like to protest the fact that the little pink building seems to be able to sell flowers. He has very little overhead - and I'm sure he doesn't pay the $25,000 in real estate taxes we do. If we operated out of a closet we also could sell roses for $8.00 a dozen. I also object to the holiday poachers sitting in every vacant lot and on every comer - even going to rny house. If you are oivino away free areas to sell, we would be Interested. The rent can't be any higher than the taxes in Orono. JrrHQ«^ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mel Kilbo, Police Chief DATE: May 25, 1990 SUBJECT: License Application - Al Penke After a review of the application, the proposed sale from the location is in accordance with the zoning requirements as to a commercial zone, but will need written permission and a sketch to ascertain if it is in a safe location. It has been requested they be sutmited by noon 5/25/90 By ordinance however, I am required to recommend denial due the fact that he has violated the ordinance by selling without a license and continued to do so after receiving a letter to that effect and then a warning. He was subsequently ticketed. 4188._ <fOs Mayor and City Council rnOMt Mark Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato DAW* April 1, 1988 SOBJDCTs Mobile Peddlers Attachment: A. Mobile Peddlers 3/23/88 B. 1967 Zoning Map C. Present Zoning Map ^ council MtETING APR111S88 CITY OF OfiONO 155.21 1. information regarding the ordinance Interpretation 2. The background on zoning information regarding the Paul Larson property 3. issuance of the solicitation permit to Mr. Penke zoned residentiala for the property owner to seek a rezoning of the p P y discussion t^^slent merchants by the County T^e C ^ol licensing issue. irtr7he^'l/rVcrrreVld"entlal. The change in zoning to I I ■i fi )0-! O r »j T . . 1 » II. >• residential was done In order to limit curb cuts and traffic generation on 15 that was anticipated if left as commercial. (This was a typical strategy of the Council at the time.) In light of this the Council may consider: A. Rezoning of the property although this may have an impact on the type of development that comes to the property between lots and Bayshire lots which were expected to be some type of low to moderate residential density. B. Leave as is. It would be staff's position that there needs to be a registration and awareness of these types of proposals and if the current ordinance doesn't require such, then it be so amended. This does not mean that the City should be in a position to discourage such activity. Whether it is regulated under City ordinance or not it does not prevent Mr. Penke's type of business from being licensed by the County. The issue of Mr. Penke's continued business on the site needs to be addressed. Because of the fact that the zoning is a new issue and Mr. Penke has been doing business on this site for three years, it may be appropriate that the Council action to continue it for at least 60 days pending the possible rezoning of th'^ property. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Ordinance Regulation 1. Acceptance of Information from I he City Attorney on ordinance interpretation. 2. Discuss what action the Council may want to take in relationship to the existing ordinance. 3. Direct staff to amend ordinance to govern peddlers and transient merchants. 4. Choose not to regulate, leaving regulation to County. 5. Table. Issue 2. 1. Accept the information 2. Table for further consideration 3. Give a preliminary indication to the owner as to whether it is fruitful to undertake a rezoning or not . : iv f A El 1^' . issue 3. I;i£®n®® 1. Issue a license even though the ordinance really does not require. 2. Table 3. Deny approval of the permit pending reroning 4. Not require a license but ensure he has a County issued license. iJd?"nce SJ?l?«tions be undettaKen for presentation at the April 25, 1988 Council meeting. 2. That the property owner undertake the appropriate rezoning. 3. only require a permit if the ordinance is amended to so govern but ensure he has a County license. 4. If no rezoning undertaken by 15 June not permit further sales on residential property. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct staff to revise the ordinance regarding peddlers in line with the Council's discussion on the matter. Ayes —, Nay —. cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Melvin Kllbo, Police Chief Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk Al Penke ^O. Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members FroBs Mark E. Bernhardaon, City Adrainistrato Datei March 23, 1988 32388.2 Subjects Nobile Peddlers ^f^«28;98a ^^OFOROifQ AttacJ«nt8tition _ soliciting and Peddlers Memo Dated 3/9/88 B. Ordinance No. 5.30 - Solicitors ISSUE - Consideration by the Council as to any additional action they may desire to take in the regulation of peddlers in the Community. INTPODUCTION - At the Council's March 14, 1988 meeting, the Council discussed a letter from Helen Skaret together with a petition that had from the various Orono business people. At that meeting, the Council chose to take no action. The person who had sent the letter was unaware that it was going to be on the agenda and in a conversation subsequent to that meeting wondered when it would be considered. Based on the fact that they had not been contacted, it was indicated that it would be placed on the agenda again. DISCUSSION - As noted in Attachment A, this issue was discussed at the ^5, 1985 Council meeting. Concern expressed at the time was that tne individual had a right to be able to peddle under the City s ordinance regarding licensing of peddlers provided they committed no violations of the ordinance. Consideration of this matter from a zoning standpoint, however, has not previously been done. The individual has been soliciting on that has been zoned residential property (LR-lC-1) although used commercially as a non-conforming use. To the extent that the *o"**J9 ordinance does not allow for anything other than home occupations, which are not to show outside the home or road-side stands for produce the property, it is an on-going business in an "established P\®®® to Ordinance 5.30 for the definition), and therefore would only be permitted in a commercially or business zoned area. To that individual could be licensed on an on-going .basis however, they would have to change locations and get the permission of the property owner of a commercially zoned property to conduct his business. ALTERNATIVES - JT, p^icy alternatives; 1. Leave ordinance un-amended. 2. Limit the peddler's license to number of days or number of renewals within a years time. Mobile Peddlers March 23, 1988 Page 2 of 2 3. increase the fee for peddlers to compensate for the fact tha they are not paying taxes on a commercial use, A «5n#cifically, in the peddlers ordinance, code already would restrict that.) 5. Limit the types of sales that could taka place under a peddler’s license. B. Action; 1. Renew the license at a specific location only in commercial! zoned prop^rtien. 2. Amend the ordinance to further restrict peddling sales. ■ 3. Leave the situation at the current status-quo. RECOMMENDATION - • It is recommended that any rlquirtn^perai-sion'" nature be limited to however, the further limitations applied the property owner. At this r^*r^icular case (with the exception of to the ordinance for at le«st this orooerty for -on-going* businesses) are limiting them to bee"o^ problemi related to the ES‘in%^L”Sn^”rt Ts rorabrnor^apr-prll^e tS unduly limit business competition. PROPOSED MOTIOJ^ Moved by ----nature ai staff thit all solicitor-s “^^tLs! ^ this time take xto be limited to commercially toned properties, ouv further action on an ordinance amonoment. Ay.s -----, Y ----- cc: Helen S)caret 3988.3 ■/^ TO: FROH: DATE: Mayor and City Council John P. Gerharoson, Acting Administrator March 9# 1988 SUBJECT: Petition - Soliciting and Peddlers On March 2, 1988, the City of Orono received a petition from local businesses requesting the City to review its soliciting ordinance. In particular the complaint is because of the "Rose Man" that is selling flowers on County Road 15 across from the Calvary Church by Dunwoody Avenue. Also Included is information from 1985 when this matter was brought to the Council. It was Council's decision at that time to not amend the ordinance as long as the person selling was complying with the ordinanccj. To date that person is still complying. For your information we have conducted a brief survey of neighboring communities and that information is included. Be advised that the construction of County Road 15 will most certainly restrict this type of activity for the summer of 1988. At this writting I do not know if any of the petitioners will In attendance at this Council meeting. Recormendaticn - To review the material Included and to dvise staff of the Council's wish^- on the matter. .;.r> ..f-r ' sftt.a John e«rhardten» netlnf Malnlstratof Dorothy Dalllfi* City Cloth narcn f, I9tl flPiijBCTt Sorvoy of fiolyliborliiy citlos Hot MIcItaro/ttroot vofidori th ehoehinf with nolDhbotIny oooaonltloo tho fallaaliif InfonMtlon Is yroviaodi HQ019D - ordlfioiieo royolatlny to! lei tort/it cf«% ooiiCots ff liaiiily eoncornta that traffic fltr.<# la cat Intatraytaa. fCtty Clack atatad rialaa Skarat had eaataetad a naaad caaaeilaaabar catatdlaf tba *riaaac nan* aalllna In Otene. ayatitc PMK - ao ordlnanca* yaraoas wiahtiif to aall aca r?larrad*te Chief ailbo. tone LAce • ordinance raquiraa parait and aaadota ara re^ufr^'^'le have an establiahad plaaa of baalnaaa# aach as ovnad or leased property aithin 2 alias of tba City* nmncT^rA^ncActj - No ordlnanca* Thair policy la to t**rI'persc^n' to” suboit a reqaaat In arlttlnf to tba Council* To date no one has sttbaittad a orittaa Council would review each request on a case by car** bar*.Ir, • Ftatea aallaltcta srr n*^*''f If sued a llacoao* ia I - (irdlnanee tefolatlaf r.irc'^t rn alro ne|la Ml tblC Clip b?#n no ce*^^alntn c^fafdlnf bid bcolaaia* • CPif ‘■‘i • or Tiic onoNo council mgetinc held march 25. 1985. pack 2 •.SENT AGENDA* Policc Chief Kilbo ockecl that the Blue Bell Solicitor’s License be removed from the consent agenda item 119. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda*, subject to item 119 being removed, with all staff reports concerning these items to be attached to an original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). • PPROVAL OP MINUTES* ,, w «Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to approve the regular minutes of the Orono Council meeting held March 11, 1985, as submitted. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). ‘PPEARANCE BY AL <; MARGO PENKE - OLICITORS LICEN Margo Penke were present to discuss their solicitor's license application to sell cut flowers. A1 Penke stated that his current solicitor's license expires next week and he is here to renew the license. Penke stated that he.learned about the complaint from Flowers by Helen through the newspapers. Penke explained that the newspaper articles made him look like the bad guy when all along he has complied with the City's ordinances. Penke stated that he did not know that he needed a temporary sign permit and will remove the signs. Penke felt that the complaint from a Sp) ing Park business owner should not have any bearing on the Orono business person just because he is creating competition for the Spring Park business. Penke stated that his own competition is Tyra's market. Maroo Penke stated that their business is like a European Flower Market. Penke stated that they have been doing business in Maple Plain and Cokato and have never had any complaints. Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the solicitor's license for A1 and Margo Penke to sell cut flowers for 60 days. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). •AKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT « t .v-m,*•’EPORT Jo Ellen Hurr was not present and there was no Lake Minnetonxa Conservation District Report. LANNING COMMISSION 'OMMENTS UBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Callahan and Planning Commission member Rovegno were present. Policc Chief Kilbo asked that the Council act on a limited firearms permit. Kilbo stated that a resident is haying problems with raccoons. Kilbo stated that he just received the telephone call today. Kilbo stated that he rcvicwed.the firearmr. permit and doesn't foresee any problems. t.-.'•.V •v-n KINUTES OF THE OHONO COUNCII. K.EETING HELD MARCH 31, 19B5. PACK J ATTENDANCE 7:00 PM The Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present; Mayor Dutlcr* CounciImembers Frahm, Tim Adams* and Lynn Adams. CounciImember Grabek was absent. City Attorney Radio and City Engineer Ccok were also present. Building 4 Zoning Administrator Mabusth* Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron* and Recorder Sutton represented the City staff. Planning Commission Chairman Callahan was also present. CONSENT AGENDA* i Counci Imember Frahm moved. Counci Imember T. Adams seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda*, with all staff reports concerning these items to be attached to an original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). APPROVAL OP MINUTES* ‘Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember T. Adams seconoeo, to approve the regular Council minutes of February 25, 1985, as submitted. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0). .APPEARANCE HELEN SKARET FLOWERS BY HELEN Helen and Ken Skaret were present. Helen Skaret explained that she owns the flower shop in Spring Park and is opposed to the solitors license issued by the City to a peddler that sells flowers on the street corners. Skaret felt that the City shouldn't want peddlers cluttering the streets selling their products. Skaret stated that the peddler puts up cardboard signs which clutter the streets. Mayor Butler explained that the solicitor went through the City's normal procedure in applying for the solicitor's license. Butler noted that at the time the solicitor applied he did not state the location where he would be selling his flowers. Butler stated that the solicitor is allowed a piece of the free enterprise system too. stated that if the solicitor is using signage, that he should be required to acqv’ a temporary sign permit, Councilmember T. Ado. stated that the time limit on th'^ license should be shortened. Councilmember Frahm suggested raising the fee charged for the solicitors application. Mayor Butler asked staff to ask other cities how much they charge for solicitor's licenses and what the time limit is on the licenses. Butler stated that Council would discuss tl -s issue further on March 25, 1985, after the additional information is received from staff. Butler directed staff to draft a letter to Helen Skaret informing her that the Council will be discussing the issue again on March 25, 1985. i . 4fJ t itr.ttmtf• SS364 4Ji-S*C9 LC3CAL BUSINESS KEK AGAIKST PSaPLIWC OW STRftgIS IW ORCWO /jjir'f’iM'S ''Cb 1^0 <^o ,?,th ^^OtC CLEAH lKS/^/ ^ "T)£su)*fV\A>|!7 IcLd /fl{L /Ho4df ( KCVM-^fp^ ^ V0^'*^c./<b, AX ^ / Mti^A 'a-'j’T . .. i •':Vv .-.v! :r:t *^^5* ■ :',y 'plZcr^ _____; .4 ------- '■'YW.^ ^ yiLL-^-u^S-Z^ . ^r7x^a^^/ZU^ . jfOsuUL 'ULei^, ta——— _ ----------------- , /<^.._ d2^f0.yU^ ------ dL/y^-^ -d-#«t- ■=-^M.. ■ :pf i;?y^') ss®. ,. . ......... I ,,y^C^yCyty.-d-<^'C>^. _ —. -•—__ ___! __----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x,.!^ • t • - • _^y^-idyiAAmyb;'t\^ ^V><M<Vf )*?♦«“ . '** *-r r r -. -. •'* :©3 i ■ ■ . !• ■ .. 1. 0 ^ ___ &z>-^rc^2-^ ^ e:.^>T5rz.X- C/y\J ___ ^ - .--^■'A-t^ >>•zr^OL- i-: ijr:-' vi-:‘^‘"': ________ 'f~~ ^.r-<OCyCAt^ C^JT^ _ ^ ___ .'Cyk^^yj -_-^lJ/ __ [*;■ :.; vr*^-.- .'■•f •• •;; './••'••')r->.r.r^it- *r: ;'. ,* i^\-V' \ ._ _ —.—■r'Ljh«^>£.j2<>:U^sjL__, 1_______ './A<:s>-'fco- -‘i-tXJ Y^A'ttntq-, 51690.1 nc TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adroinistrato DATS: May 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Recognition - Teri Naab %k Attachment: A. Resolution of Recognition ISSUE - Adoption of recognition of Teri for her achievement in becoming a Certified Minnesota City Clerk. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 9, 1990 Council meeting it was noted in the Administrator's Information that Teri Naab had achieved the certification from the Minnesota Clerk's Institute. This is indeed a milestone and Councilmembers requested that they would like to recognize her at a meeting. Because of scheduling conflicts we were not able to do until this meeting. The attached resolution represents a small token of the appreciation of the staff and hopefully the Council for the excellent work and efforts that Teri makes above and beyond the call of duty. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council adopt Resolution No. _ recognizing Teri Naab for her achievement of attaining the City Clerk's Certification. Ayes _, Nays _. OF ORONO 52190.2 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION TERI NAAB, DEPUTY CLERK WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono does take the opportunity to recognize its outstanding employees; and WHEREAS, Teri Naab began her employment with the City of Orono on September 4, 1984; and WHEREAS, Teri Naab assumed the position of Deputy Clerk on December 16, 1986; and WHEREAS, Teri Naab continues to exceed the expected level of performance of duties; and WHEREAS, Teri Naab has completed the educational, experience and service requirements prescribed by the Municipal Clerks and Finance Association of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 1990 Teri Naab was conferred the title of Certified Municipal Clerk of Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council recognize Teri Naab, Deputy Clerk, for her dedication and exemplary work to the City and its citizens by this resolution. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 29th day of May, 1990. ATTEST; James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk tssaaa To: ProB: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director May 16, 1990 Subject: Temporary Employment - Orono Golf Course 29 1990 C/Ty OF OHOfiQ On May 14, 1990 Don Yeager, temporary counter helper at the Orono Golf Course, submitted his resignation. Forest "Bud" Jostrom, 5325 Edsall Road, Mound, has applied for that position. Recouendatlon - To employ Mr. Forest Jostrom, 5325 Edsall Road, Mound as a temporary counter helper, effective May 16, 1990 at an hourly rate of $4.75. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , to employ Mr. Forest Jostrom, 5325 Edsall Road, Mound as a temporary counter helper, effective May 16, 1990 at an hourly rate of $4.75. Ayes ___, nays ____. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administat< Forwarded recommending approval. i ! To: Mark Bernhardson Fron: John R. Gerhardson Date: May 22, 1990 COWIKCa MEETING may 2 9 1990 Subject: Temporary Employment - Parks Maintenance £S^/JE QffI The City advertised for two consecutive weeks for a temporary park helper for 1990. We received five applications. Three of the applicants could not begin employment until after June 11, 1990. Two of the applicants could start any time. Recoanendations To employ Erik Bowman, 1535 Rainbow, Maple Plain, MN, as a temporary park maintenance helper at a starting rate of $6.00 per hour effective May 30, 1990. It is further reommended that after 30 days and upon a satisfactory performance review, Erik's salary be adjusted to $7.00 per hour. Proposed Notion Moved _ _ _ _2nd to employ Erik Bowman, 1535 Rainbow, Maple Plain, as a temporary park maintenance helper at a starting rate of $6.00 per hour effective May 30, 1990. It is further moved that after 30 days and upon a satisfactory performance review, Erik's salary be adjusted to $7.00 per hour. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator|/'^^ Forwarded recommending approval. 51590.4 Citizens Facilities Committee |sATO: FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: May 15, 1990 SUBJECT: Staff and Service Background Attachments: A. Engineering Service Review Dated 4/13/90 ISSUE - Provide responses to questions raised at the Facilities Committee review meeting on May 10, 1990. The specific responses to staffing issues include the following: A. Current and projected numbers of staff. B. Space impacts those have on the proposed layout. C. Cost impacts of those layouts. D. Impact of contract services to other communities on City budget. INTRODUCTION - At the May 10, 1990 meeting the Citizens Review Committee raised questions related to the current and proposed staffing to the proposed building site to determine what impact, if any, building only for the current needs would have on the overall project. DISCUSSION - Community and Organizational Growth Based on the current zoning and comprehensive plan, Orono will be built out in about 10 years with a population of 9,500-10,000. Based on these expectations, the projected space is anticipated to be adequate at that built out and potentially for a significant number of years beyond that. Other scenarios which may include any of the following: - New types of service to Orono residents. - Additional services for other, currently seperate jurisdictions. - Change in zoning which significantly increases cae population. are not predictable enough to build in additional finished space solely for those potentials. However, given those potentials, it is key to acquire sufficient land for those potentials now, as the ability to acquire any contiguous or non contiguous land for expansion will be severely limited even 10 years from now. A. Staff Projections - The staff has occasionally over the last two or three years looked at what factors would govern potential staff increases during the next 10 years. The projections given by the architect are ones that are essentially based on the following criteria: Increase in community population Shift of function in the following areas: Engineering Recreational Supervision Assessing Engineering - The issue of whether the City looks to an in-house engineer or not is currently being explored as outlined in Attachment A. Even if the City remains with a consultant engineer that person may need some in house space to better serve the organization. Recreation - Another significant shift may be the addition of a recreational supervisor, which most communities have, but the City of Orono is currently handling through the Orono School District by contributions to its fund. The possible need for a recreation supervisor for Oronc is based on the potential that school districts may cut out this function given the ever decreasing dollars available to the schools for other programs. Assessing - The space for the Assessor may be needed whether its in house or on a contract basis. As a contractor may need to have space available to better serve the public. A related issue is that there are few people who provide this service and the City may be required to make it an in house function because of a lack of available contractors. (Orono is probably one of the most difficult cities in the State to assess because of the unique and varied types of housing to a full economic spectrum.) Police - Here the projected growth is a straight projection for an increase of three patrol officers to parallel the population growth. Public Works - The growth in actual publ Ic works personnel apart from engineering amounts to three individuals again based primarily on increased population, although the increase may be less than that. IMPACTS OF PROJECTIONS The following represent the impacts of staff growth projected over the next ten years. 2 - ■ •• ;ty hall # OF PROJECTED ADDITIONS SQUARE Admin 1 Clerical*72 Bldg/Zoning 1 Technical 99 Finance 1 Clerical 104 Recreation 1 Technical 120 Engineer 2 Admin/Technical 198 Assessing 1 Assessing 99 Total Net 692 Total Gross (35%)1,064 COST $85,169 3 Officer 1 Clerical* 0 3 Maintenance personnel POLICE Orono Contract PUBLIC WORKS * currently have a part timer in the position so would not result in a space saving. CONTRACTING SERVICE - Police - The City currently has contracts with Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park and Long Lake. In all cases the contracts pay not only for the cost of the officers, but do provide the City with a 10% administrative charge and an additional 6% contract charge over the specifically alloted officers. In addition each of the communities pay a share of the nine basic officers and all associated costs to the total of over $220,000 for the three. The arrangement is beneficial to each of the communities as each of the communities would need a minimum of five, if not six, officers plus other capital and maintenance expenses to have around the clock service and are able to get by at a cheaper rate contractin' with Orono, In addition the City of Orono benefits as it woulc essentially need a substantially similar basic force itself to .rovide around the clock service to as large a community that it presently does. The arrangement is mutually beneficial to all communities. The facility as proposed provides a facility that would be used whether the City has 10 or 20 officers with the only significant difference being the number of locker spaces that it would use. It should be stated that certain of the "minimum facilities" are not absolutes, and would not be utilized as much with a smaller force than with a larger force, but are still useful, even if Orono did not contract with any of the communities. Animal Control Service - The City not only provides police service on a contTISFbasis to Spring Park, Long Lake but also does contract for animal control service. Here they specifically contract for a number of hours of patrol ■ ... r' together with call outs. The City of Orono would retain a function such as this, but just decrease the number of hours the Community Service Officer would be working. The contract cities pay $3,400 for a service whose total cost is $11,000. Again this is a beneficial arrangement to all the communities. The city did get into the animal control function because it was having trouble getting a successful service from a private contract arrangement that it had for a number of years. Several communities around the lake have gone away from private contractors because of the lack of availability of service or reasonable service quality. Building Inspections - The City does, on a contract basis, provide building inspection services to Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach. While the City wo:ld probably not reduce a person if these contracts were elimin i d they do provide revenue ranging from $8-$20,000 per year - h-:p off set the building inspector's salaries. For popula ^n comparison this would increase the staff per population/comparison. It should be noted that the building inspectors not only do building inspections, but assist in the septic areas and zoning reviews. The city is unique in the area of building and zoning because of the very stringent and complicated zoning ordinances, septic program and the unique residential construction that does g^-' on in the community together with substantial remodelings. T"- ‘..partment generates substantially more in revenues from all 5 than the cost of all the personnel. The projection for inc ^ased staff would be to help carry out functions particularly in the septic and zoning areas. COST OF SPACE NOW VERSUS THE FUTURE According to our architect, in present dollars the cost of the additional square footage as listed above is about $85,000 to $100,000 for building and equipment. If the building addition were constructed later as a small project the costs would be 50% greater due to the small scale. In addition each year the construction prices go up, with the average over the last 10 years at 3% per year. COMMON LOCATION FOR FACILITIES Construction - From the standpoint of construction if the buildings are on the same site wi >. the ssme contractor it is estimated that the City could save about 5% on the contract or $100,000 on $2 million in construction. In addition to the building construction savings, other savings regarding utility hookups, sprinkler systems, wells if needed, shared parking facilities, landscaping, plus having "common" expansion space on the same site as opposed to buying two seperate parcels having to have expansion space for each. with two seperate sites more total land would be needed. Sprinklers and Utilities - Any location will have a building that will be totally sprinklered for safety purposes. Sites without ■i.-'. i.-'.iA'- " water service will need major wells to handle this at a cost of $200,000 or more. If sites are seperate it would double that, cost. Operations - There are selected operational features of having City Hari7 Police and Public Works together ach as having common spaces that can be shared, bathrooms, lunch space, meeting rooms etc. For example if located together selected records and other storage can be placed in the public works building without any operations problem at a substantially less square footage cost than in a City Hall structure. The vehicle storage could be accomodated in the aisle of a Public Works building for city vehicles, particularly police vehicles (there are a total of 9 police vehicles and not all can be stored in the sally ports.) The ease of fueling for city staff etc. together with the non quantifable issues of the integratation of a work force between public works, police and city hall to discuss common issues and find common solutions. If not located on the same site it may require additional personnel to coordinate certain functions or the fact that the operation may not be as effective and efficient as one on the same site. Customer Standpoint - The splitting up of the three facilities would create confusion for people coming to city hall, police or public works if they were in three different locations. It is much easier to have it all in one place so the public can come to one place and find all the personnel instead of having to "chase all over the community" to find various portions of the operation. Conclusion - It is hoped that these do provide some guidance and will be’available for further questions at your meeting on May 24, 1990. 51690.9 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATB: May 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Water Resource Protection COUNCIL MEETIHG WAV'2 9 1990 y OF OHOHO ISSUE - At the Council's March 12th meeting during a discussion of property at 1342 Rest Point Lane the issue was raised regarding a source of water and looking into whether the City should require water conservation or source regulation relating to both environmental and also a sanitary issue. DISCUSSION - The primary *«sues in utilization of the water resource : Source A. Surface 1. Lakes 2. Streams B. Sub-surface 1. Individual wells 2. Municipal well and system Usage A. Domestic/Sanitation purposes B. Commercial processing purposes C. Fire protection D. Supplement to natural moisture for lawn and garden watering. E. Recreation Persons in the City of Orono may use 1, 2, 3 or all 4 of the sources outlined for the various uses or combination of uses specified. The City through its initial water conservation measures passed originally in 1988 control the usage regardless of source when it comes to watering. The City has not required how any specific source be used for any particular usage up to this point. The City does not require where municipal water is available that any property hook up to it: however, it does charge an availability charge to that property primarily because of the fire protection aspect to which a municipal well contributes up to that property. The City has because of State legislation lost to the State the right to govern any drilling in the community and is researching ways in which it can presently get a handle on it to protect necessary setbacks etc. Related Issues - Issue for ongoing consideration in this area apart from the recreational lake use ones include sanitary usage for domestic purposes and any restrictions related to that; Fire protection Depletion of resource Potential pollution of selected sources ALTERNATIVES - Policy - 1. Determine what regulations, if any, it desires to undertake by source. 2. Determine any regulations it desires to undertake by type of usage. 3. Combination of A and B. 4. Take no additional policy action at this time. Action Alternatives 1. Discuss. 2. Give policy direction. 3. Table for f’^rther discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council after any conceptual discussion on the matter give their initial feedbacks to the Administrator to determine what policy directions may be appropriate to undertake. It is additionally recommended that the issue related to water from the lake for off-lake purposes be an issue for consideration by the Lake '^e Management Committee if that be undertaken. Additionally sraif will work on; 1. Additional authority regarding well regulation. 2. Continue an aggressive program for sealing of abandon when they are discovered. 3. Continue water regulation for sprinkling, with anticipation that should sufficient moisture come this summer look to see if they should be removed, if at all. 4. Montioring proposals for use of wells to replenish Lake Minnetonka or other schemes to divert water into the lake. (County indicated this week they would seal the last of their wells.) 5. Consider banning use of fertilizer and pesticides in the community if appropriate alternatives are available. (Reference LMCD’s Draft Plan.) 6. Undertake when necessary development of the storm water management plan. 7. Review recreational uses through the Lake Use Group. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council after discussing the issue table it to the June 11, 1990 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. i \ I 1 I Tos Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Prom: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: May 25, 1990 Subject: Loop Driveway Request - 220 Wakefield Road 52590.2HD COUHCIL MEETJNG may 2 91990 CJTV OF ORONO Recently, I received a request from William S. Bloomer, 220 Wakefield Road, to construct a loop driveway at his residence. Mr. Bloomer wishes to contruct the driveway to accommodate off- street parking for guest. Mr. Bloomer has in excess of 200' of front footage, adequate site distance and does not interfere with primary or secondary septic sites. Mr. Bloomer will be placing paver blocks in the majority of the driveway. Loop driveways are consistent in the neighborhood. Recommendation - To approve the loop driveway for 220 Wakefield Road contingent upon acquiring a land alteration permit. Proposed Notion - Moved by seconded by to approve the loop driveway for 220 Wakefield Road contingent upon acquiring a land alteration permit. Ayes ___, nays ___. To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Member^ Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending approval. ‘A r 52390.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato DATE: May 23, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information 1 WAV'2 9 (990 ^^‘TYoforoho STUBBS BAY SEWER - This week staff has been confirming the numbers with the City Engineer regarding new areas for possible inclusion east of Leaf Street and Oxford Road together with segmenting out certain lateral areas. Based on this, staff will hopefully send out the letters the week of May 29th. SPRING MANAGERS CONFERENCE - I would like to thank Council for the opportunity of allowing me to go to the Spring Managers Conference at Cragans on May 9th through the 11th. The program consisted of two primary speakers. The first one was David Campbell a former University of Minnesota Professor who developed the Strong-Campbel1 Psychological Interest Profile who currently works at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. Dr. Campbell talked about the distinctions between leadership and management, defining management as doing things better and leadership as doing things differently, together with the components of experience, creativity and management which lead to ever increasing leadership. The second speaker in the program was Dr. John Anderson from the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Business. His emphisis was that in order to begin to solve a problem, you must have a good definition of what the problem really is. Often times, he indicated, people spend much time solving the problem but very little in defining what it is which can result in the right solution for the wrong problem. Time spent on formulating the problem to be addressed can show real benefit in coming up with a solution that will really solve the problem. 19 72 SHADYWOOD ROAD - An injunction has been filed to be commenced regarding the feeding of waterfowl at the above address. It is anticipated that this will be heard by a Judge on June 6, 1990. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR LEAVE - John Gerhardson will be going in for major surgery to correct a problem that, while significant, is not a life threatening problem. It is anticipated that he will be gone from May 30th through June 20th. Being hospitalized approximately a week of that time. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT - The Minnesota Department of has transmitted to the City the plans that it approved for the 1992 Safety Improvement. The include signa1ization for the intersection at the expectation that it will meet warrants, once City had been told by the Minnesota Department of Transpor tation desires to have plans as shown. Willow based on installed. The Transportation that they were employing an outside consultant to do an actual traffic warrant analysis for the intersection as far back as January of this year. When asked about it, it was determined that the consultant was finally "under contract" at the beginning of this month and that the study was to be completed by May 30th. While it is the expectation that the intersection will meet warrants at time of construction, it was felt prudent to await the results of that study prior to submitting the final plans to the Council for final approval. It was the issue of an unprotected U-turn or left turn at Willow that was of concern to the Council before they would finally approve the plans. Given that the traffic warrant study is to be concluded by the end of the month, the City would still be timely in reviewing the plans from MnDOT at either the first or second meeting in June. MnDOT agreed that this would not be a problem. ANNEXATION UPDATE - As indicated from the Municipal Board that following the initial organizational date of May 31, 1990 that the "Trial Hearing Dates" would be September 26, 27 and 28. 1355 ARBOR STREET - As you will notice in Attachment A the staff has indicated to the owner of the property that they wTl 1 have to take certain actions by the end of June. The owner has submitted a revised plan for privacy fencing within the rear yard for review by Council at their June 11, 1990 meeting. CITY OF ORONOr CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66* Crystal Bay. Minoesota 55323 • Municipal OfBcea On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 1, 1990 ouihf>un4 A Mr. and Mrs. Gregory Peterson 1355 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Reconsideration of Application 1445 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Peterson: At the December 11, 1989 meeting of the Council you were advised that all portions of the privacy fence located within the right of way of Briar Street were to be removed by June 30, 1990. In addition, the Council granted approval of additional variances that would allow a portion of the relocated privacy fence to be placed within the street yard of your property, specifically the portions that abutted the Briar Street lot line line. You were further advised to submit an amended Plan that would designate the location and height of A®"®’’"? within the remaining portions of your rear yard. All portions o the existing privacy fence located within the rear yard (^50 east of Briar Street lot line) and in excess of 3-1/2 have not been approved by the Council. These sections of the be removed by June 30, 1990 deadline. It maybe helpful for you to review the Inclosed staff sketch that designates the allowed height of fencing within the rear yard of your property. Michael Gaffron has also advised that he has discussed with you a recent amendment of the zoning code that would now and patio areas within lot coverage calculations. If you will reme^er, only the house and detached structures were included in the lot coverage considerations during tailed orpool and patio improvements that were either installed or proposed are not subject to requirements of the new ordinan^^^^ they were added on under the directives of the previous ordinaince. iUILDtriC A lOfilNG - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a finance - 473-735S FAX-473-0S10 PUBLIC WORKS - 47J-7359 ' • *• -- - Page 2 May 7,1990 Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Peterson As the original notice mailed to you on December 18th advised, the Council meets the second and fourth Mondays of the month. Staff would appreciate your revised plan for fence improvements to be submitted at least 10 days prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting. Once again, I would encourage you to review the enclosed staff sketch so that you will be aware of what sections of fencing will requiis variances to height and setback. As we appear to have difficulty reaching each other by phone because of our hectic and conflicting schedules, it may be best that we continue to communicate through writing. Please contact my office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mubusth Building & Zoning Administrator cc: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector Michael Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Tom Barrett, City Attorney JAM/lsv i ; A.u_ji I LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL Q/fQ^ FOR MEETING OP May 29, 1990 ^ \ Garbage & Refuse Collectors -Baldy Sanitation Ihc. Blackowiak & Son East Tonka Sanitation Westonka Sanitation Woodlake Sanitary Service Inc, ; 1 i ; i Septic System Installers - Clover Hill Company Inc.* McCarthy Water & Waste CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 License Yeau: Date Received J99o - /99/ - - - - - - - - -9-9 0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fee Paid Initials/p^; GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Firm &aJUUj. ^h<l. Addres^ /Tia^y,. (Street^ (City) Business Phone Number V7*?- rr>n. (State ode) Applicant's Name Address >SA-rr?-.* abot^g, (Street) Phone Number (City)(State) (Zip Code) Check One:Individual Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono Partnership I_ _ Description cf Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded Year Mfgr. Gross Wt. Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards License Number 01 CSi 45,00 am 11 45,00 i^tLEIPr-fH4^K YQU itl 79420 cool se Number 0^/c^4/ / y !^/JL General area of City served Schedule of Collection charges/ dates Approximate number of customers in Orono Location of dumping area / £lfc_____________________________I________L____________ IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in the amount of $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. Annual fee is a ^$30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable). I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes required by law. The above information is correct. Applicawi ^.Date FOi^ CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: n Approv^ _ _ _ _ _ _ Denial _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) Signati^e of City Off (7zy^\iciar ■S~-^ y-9(D Date ' License Year /990 _________ CITY OF ORONO Date Received g:-c9c^-9n lrystll\ly. MN 55323 Fee Paid ^ Initials JZAL 473-7357 garbage & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Fina _ -»aefewtafe i Sons --------------- --------------------------=—5--------------- . 3,, ^?^!^Code — Business Phone Number _____________________________ Applicant's Name f,ranh j---------------^7-— 55364 ” Address -----j-----------(city'T-------------(State) (Zip CodTi Phone Number iU-ltn -------------------------- Check one: _ _ _ _ Individual __s- - Partnership - - - - Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono -5- - - - - - - - - - - -- Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Grcss'St RearAxL wt. Size/Yards I-icense r^fsI^KEYear Mfgr. Gross Wt. Rear Axxe -------c---------- ----------?~n/Vt!(}i!u — —- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __— - - - - - - - Ji/syav tivi General area of City served - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - Approximate number of customers in Orono . ItQO- --- - - - - --- - - -— Location of dumping area mcucUnn, — irJmra'roR raVs’w^u'cknw'TO'M TOO MOST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: surety bond in the amount of $1,000. '"AnnualTeris ”! r^'ttyownZ':Z'o7e7:t7rTf~th^^ and taxes required by law. The above information is correct. - - - - - - Ma,f)J990- - - - - - - -- Applicant ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;sriis';:rs£;r ‘S“ . Sign^tut^of Ci^ Of f icial ^ Date / CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 /990-9 /License Year _ _ _ Date Received -S'9 o Fee Paid Initials tzj\^ GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Fil^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ “■’(StreeFj . J/Ciry) y (^a^te) (Zip Code) Business Phone Number ____________ CITY OF ORO^O .. ^icTtyr^ (iS~tV - Phone Number Check One:Individual Partnership rCi' iilTncO iCii iiOi !v)S.-: Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono / Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded Year Mfar. Gross Wt. Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards License Number f ! _ _ _ General area of City served _ Schedule of Collection charges/ dates /Approximate number of customers in Orono _ _ _/^- - - - - -- ■> — —i^msT oki A se t Location of dumping area IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU^THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in the amount of $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. Annual fee is a $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all li -.use fees and^axes required L^aw. The above information is correct. _ _ __ _ •Applij FOR CITY USE ONLY: ^ pprov^ - - - -- Date After review of application, staff recommends:,. Denial _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) a'^reof City Official 6'^yO •s-AsAi «».!« ». .. . Date CITY OF ORONO p.O. Box 6^ Crystal Bay, MN J5323 473-7357 License Year Date Re : ^ived' 1990 - 9/ :!r> - /fc> - 90 Fee Paid ~7<^,Trr^ Initials izjd garbage & RiTFOSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION mJcWrc The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the CitV^fi^^|§o ani_ herewith makes application for a license .to do so. ^ Business/P^ ^/V -n A-P £.<£. -(St-r^g^- - -^- -- ' (City) Business Phone Number t7P- -/3 77 . //)AZ flO fiCEIFT'-^iX kSlJ^ iinSVO COOi !<0I US!:. 6/y (State) (Zip Code) ----------------- Marne ^Cf/PA/ ^ Zw ____________________________ (Street) (City) r ^JS-Pc /3 _ _ _ _ _ _Phone Number Check One:V Indi’^ldual (State) (Zip Code) Partnership _ _ _ _ Corporation Number of Vehicxes to be used in Orcno - - - Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded year Mfgr. Gross Wt.Rear Axle wt. /? Size/yaras 18 Uicen se i/^ umijts ^ 3 33 3^t/ep.^aS-^ 9 /W Xvr If 'f/x f General area of City served _ _ _ _ _ _ Schedule of Collection charges/ dates /dht)Approximate number of customers in Orono - - Location of dumping area J—- - - - - - - - - - -/-- - - - - - - - - - - - "lOMPLETEr YOU MOST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING:IN OWJ5ER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO Surety bond in the am $100,000-$300,000-$50, $30.00 flat rate fee, pla $1 jjO. Proof of -insurance in the amount of d 10-day cancellati clause. Annual fee is a /--uck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable). / Date royiCT^osBoO^i After . ■ oghL^sp^Ify)' Signa^re of Xity Offici.Wi 'Date CITY OP OnONO I 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 License Year Date Received Fee Paid TTf GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATIO The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. NAY Business/Finn LD ^ , Address ^(/ 3 1990 (Street) , (City) Business Phone Number ^/7~ / 7^ / (State) _ _S^Si^a (Zip Code) Applicant's Name Address ^ (Street) ^ ^ , Phone Number V? 9- (City) !heck One:[ndividual umber of Vehicles to be used in Orono Partnership 3 (State) (Zip Code) Corpo-ra#i.€H>4 ascription of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded Gross Wt. Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards Licensie'yr'dmb'i^'± imm 1311700000 #01 ODI ;5.00 CiSK JL 75,00 RECEIf'T-TimK YOU . IffH JU-/^{txro Xi/7 oJU^<Jn /_<rS’<77 'ffr n3(^f3 u a t/3‘f9 9a Schedule of Collection charges A dates ^ .LuyC/ >>wvc:a^ ^ ,2 cf^At'proxi;aate number of customers in Orono ^ Location of dumping area tN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO Be”cCMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOW "NG: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in the amount of 1100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. Annual fee is a 30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable). •: am rhr .nwruir and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees taxes rsq)^i^ed ^y law. The above information is correct. 9c_ _ _ _ _ _ __ Dateipplrcant XIR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommr»n^s: _ _ _ _ Approval _ _ _ _ _ Denial _ _ _ _ _ Other (spec.Ay) ignature of City Official Date r~-\ \v DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 15.165, "Rights of subjects of data" we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential inform­ ation. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. It •iur requested permit or license reqires council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. Ycu have certian rights under M.S. 15.*165 to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name, and date of birth are required to process this appli. ition or permit. /)----0-^ Middlje Vu- Date of birth Hi<9- I understand my r^ts as stated above Signsiignature t'osi \Jinas i>o* ^ CITYirf ORONO Ciyital Bay, Minn—of 56323 SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICENSE APPLICATION ITY 7SE WLY BUILDING * ZONING - 473-7357 assessing All questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate o£ insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewage Treatment Workshop attendance must accompany this application. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. // 'iX.P ' Ax._ _ _ _1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Business or trade name Business address 3^2-/^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Business phone (^rV~ ^7(31 Residence phone Name of applicant or company, representative holding MPCA certification A — InstallerType of certification held: _ _ Site evaluator _ _System designer Is this a Provisional Certificate? _ _ Pumper Certificate No. I ^ If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at one of the On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshops held immediately prior to the current construction season. U^ve you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? Most recent year had a license revoked? When?Have you ever Where? _ _ _ Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes_ 10. Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes_No X ----i-3H5 rr - rwr 25.00't5-.00 SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 05/10/1. $25.00 license application fee. 2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono ^ obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted.^?<r $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. /3. if — —— -- ——- - - - - -^ 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendance at On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately prior to current construction season. 3— LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applic^t who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license -- - - - - - The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for . license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. Date S^/th Applica^s Signature staff recommendatioi Reason for denial: . City Council Action Date license mailed Approval Denial Date S’-n-yO Date Approved Denied ITYrfitttONO Post Ullice oo» Cryttd Bay. Minn-oto S5323 building a zoning - 473-73:;7 assessing SEPTIC SY LICENSE A anfevidenirofOTCA"cer“ficaaoro; Business or trade nan* iO^^.- - - - -- Business address U{^Wa.Y U ■ ff\(^kPb.W Business phone Residence phone V77-^Sg- 1. 2. 3. 4.Name of ap^ certification representative holding MPCA Installer certificate «o ./M r^r^ ror<-ificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at oL of the On-sI?elewage'Treatment Workshops held immediately prior to the current construction season. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer Orono before? ____ Most recent year _ Pumper 7. 8 10. Have you ever had a license revoked? Where? _ _ _ Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes. Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes A/q When? SUBMITTALS REQUIRED; ysL'6o?oSl!=lnsraifpermit'boAd naming City of Orono Obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of \ ^ Copy of current MPC\ Certificate or evidence a/on-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop ^Id prior to current construction season.^r \Z I^CO W' **VS^3. 0^ - ■ int LICENSES WILL MOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - systems and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws Qf the State of Minnesota ^d the Ordinals of th^i^ o Date^^^<^ Applicants Si^ature^^^<^^i^^(^!^^ Staff recommendation”^ Date”^^^^^2^. Reason for denial; City Council Action Date license mailed Date Approved Denied •t'i ' • ,4'^- ->s» •;;v;*^ji ' ** * • ^ ■ •■ 05/13/90 PR CB PRREGOR COUNai MEETING MAY 2 91990 CITYOFORpNO '. ■' •. • I ' ‘.V i • •••..'/ f< ••••■*"■ •. y^M-. fWfcsSa ■■yk-i--.-: ■>4M NAME ABRAHAMSON, FREDERIC ANDERSON. BRUCE L BERNHARDSON. MARK E BOBZIEN. SUE A BOSMA. iAMXE L BRAUN. ROBERT R BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK. GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORNXCK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI. JAY C DENNISON. TROY A ENGLISH III. IRVING ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH. DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M GAFFRON. MICHAEL P GERHARDSON. JOHN R GREGORY, JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN, STEVEN C HANSING. CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLEY P KARNITZ. RICKY D KILBO. MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A KUEHN. THOMAS M LINDSTROM. DAVID J MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN. HARK F MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES NAAB, THERESA L NELSON. DAVID 0 OAS. DANIEL 0 OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN LYLE E OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J SASS. JOHN J SKREEN, DALE S STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD STEVENS. BETTY G THOMTON. MARK R TOHCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG, BRUCE L VEE. LINDA S YTO CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS ! 93 356.26 192.38 31 16398.65 1615.98 12 22406.02 2115.61 31 9451.30 921.84 12 6242.46 492.74 93 133.01 68.88 42 14609.43 1391.12 31 14927.73 1468.00 31 2211.48 205.84 31 15286.96 1496.23 31 2609.95 929.11 3$214.20 61.20 31 17613.55 1618.35 31 14457.54 1492.05 31 13589.63 1494.08 31 15075.30 1396.16 33 13361.48 1338.72 42 17574.29 1760.80 42 13039.90 1631.01 12 11509.05 1153.12 42 10800.15 1331.28 31 5253.83 499.55 31 14960.60 1487.79 31 1304.55 445.68 31 19606.24 1964.40 > 15 9200.66 921.84 15 18872.47 1870.88 93 80.75 33.25 33 16732.56 1676.48 31 13573.39 1337.28 31 16885.73 1364.16 12 9295.75 956.41 35 249.90 45.90 93 417.38 157.50 92 9988.04 1075.31 33 11479.60 1228.89 92 13602.81 1179.29 92 10474.69 1075.29 42 10500.81 1163.09 42 10582.91 1171.76 1 93 11524 23 1154.64 93 602.25 242.00 31 14064.06 1367.44 31 14892.10 1388.34 31 13735.40 682.08 33 10130.50 1079.92 12 1175.40 783.60 05/13/90 PR: 54 CB PRREQOR YTD CURRENT NAME DPT GROSS GROSS WALSH, KEVIN L 35 2178.38 168.26 WALTERS, LINDA Q 15 8718.94 935.03 YEAGER, DONALD C 93 556.51 341.25 51.971.81 5.• • • • 8 I< m 0 m 4» 1 o» O to sc u c/> u </> o «/J u M-' mo > X r*^ifi-<nnror>4 «4^^nnr>r>«» I I I • I I • • Ok o> a> o> <D <D « o> I I •• I I I Ioooooooo OirMCMIMNrsKMfM zE o « oooooooo r*.CM CM A CM CM -4 A r><•A << a a f a 1 a 1 1 A A o>A A an A A AN C4 <A A 0-1 CM O CM CM CM a a 1 a a a a a AA •*4 A io CM ACM<<00 A an A A A A A n CM A A A A<<< <<<< -M —t -4 OO o o o o OO ^«<D^>OO•e«0•o•o«eo• I I I • • I • I I a I • oa>oomeo«r)«(or»>ai 0 « A «an o c«>^> (n r>> o CD 1 a I I I t a I I I a I an in in an an an CO CO » w moooooooooooo ro o o o o o o CO ro A cn a a a a a a a a a a a a ^^^^O^COCDCDCDIOA o o o o A m (M CM A A A r» za>i in cncn A </)(/) {/>(/> a. Q. a. Q. o. Q. Q. a. o. a. a. a. Q. a. a. oooooooo in cntn (/)(/> (/>(/)(/) ooooooooi-ia-ii-»»-aa-i>-*a-«a-a U. La. U. Li. U. Li. La. U. ta. y. U. la. ha. 14. Ik. la. OOOOOOOO I4l ac Lij a- C30 oc-< <x« Oa-a a:< o a. >l4j One O<|4J o< oeo zo tn 0 a: <1 Z K <n < l4j ^l4i UJUJ uja- a-cn cn a.2-<OOC lO cncn ae IS ^ <oe oe oe oe oe CK oc IK CK oe a < a a a >> uia-oec-c-a-oincncnina- z-JOZ z z z-I a-ao OOOOeOOOOO <a/l^cn(/un h-aa-aa-o-acn a-zi-HZzzoea-a-a-a-z UiOflDOOOIXOOOOO oe o *^0 o o in uj i4i i4j uj u ^ a.a.o.cL O o oe o o o a-cn in in cn o Z Z < Z Z Z-JZ z z z z oeu: ObJoe kCoU1Xu soz Ui> oooooooozzzzzzzz <<<<<<<< oooooooo cn cn cn cn in in in in 4Uzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzxxzzza a a a a a a aoooooooo oeoeoeoeoeoeoeoe OOOOOOOO oo *-#•-4 oeoe a— a— OO luO UJIaJ oeoe<< oo oe m a Zoinoe UIoz< o cn in< z 0 cn oe l4l 1 < hUz zin cn< k; o< zzzzzzzzzzzz cnincncncncncncncncnincn <<<<<<<<<<<< 1.11.1111111 ii 11 ■ 11.11.11.11111.11 i izzzzzzzzzzzz LaJ UJ I4j UJ UJ UJ1^ liJ UJ UJ UI UI cnincncncncninininincncn OOOOOOOOOOOO oeocoeoeOeoeoeoeaeiKoeae 888888888888 oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe oe a-a-a-a-a—a-a—a—a—a-a-a- cncncncncicncncncncmnin 1^ 1^ zzzzzzzzzzzz OOOOOOOOOOOO CD CD CD CD ro OQ OD OD GD CD OD flD r^eoioior^r^a«.r^-4 omm mm OO oo OO CO< A Ar>.Airar>»f^a^r^w tnt^csi oooo OO oo O A< Ar^AOr^r^f^r^A A A oooo oo OO AAA a-z <-H-HA-M-H-M^A v4 CM r>A A CM CM CM CM A A oo AA a-- a~ A < A 3 < OO^OOOACOOCMOOm Ootnooo-H—looorooo o<AOCD(or^ana^(Mr»Aea O-a—•Oooor^^-iooarnaNjA -4f>4-Hv> CMinnj-4 a^ -icsa J Oz O oe O u. O OOOOOOOO oo o o o o oo A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A\\\ AAAAAAAA A A A A A A A A AAAAAAAA A A A A A A A A W.\>s.\V.V. a— cnmmmmmmm mm m in m m mm < OOOOOOOO oo o o o o oo OOOOOOOOOOOO aaaaaaaaaaaa A AAAO AAAAA A A minininaninmintnininanOOOOOOOOOOOO o A A o a«izo IQ fQ OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO A A A A A AAA OO A A A O A A O A CO ID OO A A OOOOOOOOOOOO A A A A Oa A A Oa A A A A (/> u u to u to u to o to a to u to 3Co Uio l« • 0 S . ■Ao oo ^ a r>CMCSJ -«-»ro cn <0 CO CM -H n cn r>r> a a O»0»coroo)O)-H 1 -H 1 wA 1 CO 1 01 1 1 • »«»0)0)<0 0)0 —i 0 0 0 o>O) M CSJtSt ID to *M«MO)O)«•00 cn <M «■< ^mm -4>4m m 0 01 0 1 01 111 tOID -H (M <0 CO 0 <M cn €0 mm fO^mmm 0 in m Csl CM (V <n ron fSICO 00 CO CO CO CO^ >» 1 a ««»«<•1 n%1 •H 1 1 1 1 i on —1 -* 0 0 00 OOr»)».0 0 0 0 0 mi»« M O to ow 55too ae O UJ X3C i to to to 8 UJ ou zzz K Ul 0 oe^-M t-l »-l 0 to <to;*UJI-I to -1 < h-UJ toio UJUJUJ a.1-4 H* oe <UI Ouj zzz i-i C9 at to<1—I -IX -Ilk.3=33 X )-a.0 D.X 00 eau u X <a. m O on oc M o UJ Xo os >>h- atae </> UJUI OL 3 (Oto i-4 X Qd oou X ><h- 00 zzz 0 »-l ►- zz l^t-4«-4 >a H* t-M-4 0 X >-Z Ul <<33 XXX 1-I-z I—z Qcae <0 1-4 Qd Ul i-i-33 -I.J-J H-at u.Ul Od Z 1 1 <<<0 0 a.X 'Nu *->“ac a:UJUJUl 0.0 >0 h-0 z XX UJUJ XXX I—Qd Ul 0 zz (30 to z U Q.K QS o:ae ZZ 0.0.0.>»-4 0^ 4^UJUJ ►H t-H 333 0..J z H- U.>><<000 Q.-1 z Q.£<00 tt; ckt acaeac <<UJ UJ 0 Ul a uo 00 oao I X X 0 t-H «n z 3 ««B «««««m « coca mm 000 1 r^oPO)cnpp^cM 00 CM CM (DCD mm epoo 00 r-c-000 00 cn^cnoo^^ -4 9> 0)00 <ac#<D<ocncn mmo (M CM m -4 -4 (M 75678om*-«<d> r- ^ O) m<DCM cn 0)0)CDC0 2.4642.4641313o>o>00 00 w-i Q 0 0 00 00 000 0 O)o>30)0)0)o><no>o> 0 \'N.'S.'s.'V ■V. z CO CO COCO COCO CO CO CO CO 0 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM ae M •V."v.\V.'s.•N. 0 ►-lO m mm mm mmm m<0 0 00 00 000 0 15 oz o u 3C 0 ««O) O)00 •mmm «4T ««CO •0 € 0 «49 «coco m cn «o»«0 0 c cn 0 M CM «CM «CM CM CM CM m CM CM CM «CM «CM «CO cn «cn a X O)«a>«0> (7)<n o>m 0) 0> 0)«o>«o>«O)o>«o>« Ok u ««€C ««4»«m —4 •M ««fl c •H ««-4 m *—•• ino ©oo> ino Ui <9 Vt It O a. 00>cu v>3Cu U)(/)Xu 00m:u >2 OCMO oin-Jrj-^in-^oin'Hotn'H-iiMCM rjoo o O-HO —1 OIDO-^O-HOO—<00100)0)0)0) iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii natat 1 1 11 1 01 OI 1 01 1 1 1 00)«O)^ino)0)a)0)0)'*o)oxm0)0)0>0)0)00 Q (P Or>i^O)r~. o) «M <*) rj ID r>j lo <M r«. O) w <o lO «0)0)s CM CM 1 1 iTi OO-J 1 1 1 O 1 -<r>j—<0-^o^-^o —<-^f^j/)inmin IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII rjinin 1 1 1• ■ OCM(M o oonjOOrsir^niinmininrjiniMin rsiOCM 2 OC*l r>OICMCNJ >4>4r)««ininininininininininin OIMO C^CM r-oo o INICsIlNOOOOOOOOOOOOO mCMIM O «•IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <<< 1 1 1of % 1 1 1 n •H —<—<^—<-H.-<-H»H-H-HO-^fM(MOO <oo ooo o oooooooooooor^r-f^f^Or*«r« oc CJin UJ O Z UJ IH 0000 (noIUJ ae(DeoO oe I-in 00 moo _»_j UJUJUmmo.<<_ dc O—i-J —I o-KOCdc ac ac <a.a.Q.^_i—j-Jo._jQ._i < aeacaca: ac oc oo ' UJ Q.O.Q.Q.h-Q.1—Q. >-vac»-UQC(Eae<<<<ac<QC< UO>-ZZOOO I • ' I O • O I iijuja>>-i>-a.a.a.uoouQ-U(LU oco:oacmo.a.OLOOOOo>Oo.O a. <3 o 3 a: oc ac a: o ac 3 oc OC) oom<na.a.a.a.(na.(na. ;— _ ____ Q.a.>->-i*-tQ.o.a.»-i-i-i-o.i-a.i- ujui(n<<Q.a.a.<<<<a.<a.< oo(n<z Z<<<0000<0<0 (nocn acooc <-j<o.u.a. OO uu mm o<<z (n<n l-l ac acoXX<a oo UJzy~ 1—OQ UJ <<>XX z zz »-<M < »T-* acoeac UJUJUJ <<< _J_I _l UJUJUJ XXX oooooooooooooonooooooooooooooooomroofoocofocotopororococofofo UJ IaJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 3333000030000003mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I I • I I I I I I ) I I I I • I mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm S88S888SS8§§§§§8 acacacooo l-l-*- uuu<<< xococ oooacacac OOO U.U.U. OOOzzzOOO onjfM oooo^^ OO eooo OOOO n^CMS) r~ o)f^ ro (Mh- mio -< (M oo OO <M<M (DID 0)C7)0(Niom<oO-<a>^moo^tN(^<7> «^0<Mr~^*^oror-~ooo)ir)ooOOr^ u3(£)r)«»mmoo)rMr-~mor^m-4^-< f-«r~.inotMO(Nim^no)rg(MO rsi h>«r>jtnox —• ocMin 00^0)-^ OOO)-4 (or^inO) tnioiM oooo o oo o ooo o 0)0)OI 0)0)0)OI ■w.'»s •v.'v.'v.'»* o o o Mor)r> fMIM rj (NJfNKM CM ■V.>s. mm m mmm m oo o ooo OO r-. oo 0)0)o OOO ^ ^ 0)0)0)^ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO v) O) O) O) O) O) O) 0> O) C ^0)0)0)0) OOOOOOOOOl 'MfMf'JlMCMIMIMINJr-JI imnmmmminmmm. OOOOOOOOOOv. u)>nin n tr.a tin m m in in «n m m in or oooooooooo /)0)0)0'0)0)0>0)0)0>0) OOO 0)0) O) or) n (MrsitNj in in in ooo 0)0)0) ooo «» ^ O) oi o> ^ 'J a S I M U (/I 0 1 (/))£ U (/>o </>)Cu <Au (/>acu © s- Oi o N I IL Mo m i ►- X8 8< o <Min-<n<M o CM -4<s»o o<sio o>o ^ r) n "•o 9 'MO) 0)0) till 09 O) •0 o 0)0)0)9 0)o O)010)0)0) 0)0)o 00)0 o>o r)«oiMr^9 o 9 0)CM9(0 CM 9 O)909 in o 00-H-<CM o CM O'^mm -Hfy|m OOO m o •H -4 -4 «M «9999 OO CM ID -4 . O)in mm mm OO r)CM CM (SI CM CM CM 9 m«o(M> «e >4 >4 >H <>4 >4 <M CM O) CO CO OO O o o o <o r*99999 1 1 1 1 1 -4 9 99 99 9 9 9 999 <•V ■ V V ■ r>-4 -4-4 CM CO -4 .4 9 >4 >4-4 o ooooo I-.O oo C»OOO ae ui a.UI ae ►4 >UJ oe UJ 3oocoto 00 in 00 UJUI Qmcnincn (/)(/)K UlUJUiUJ zz Z UJ z zzzzz X h-14 >-41-4 »-<oo UIUJoOMMMMMo-1 )-»->-)-XX oe C90 1-4 <>4 »-« H4 1-4 0.0.Ki <<z CE )—UJ iU UJ UJ UI UJ X -J-J—l_J UJUJ <—lui UI Ui Ui u zzzzz z o.A4)4l4h4 —I_J o.<-l-Jt-UJ ooooo o </»•-)-)-)--UJUJ aJ UI >414 ►4 m «ooooo o <OOOO 1- h-oe zzz > w# > 3 IaJ11 1tall>It.I UI (O aeoevocoeacID<<<<<ucuuu UJUI 3C UI )-_l_looexxxxx_J UlUl UI »-oc <►-1— X W)<_)_I-I_J_I Xo•4 ><<<<<UI o.oeoe o oe o <ID UJ UJ UJ UJ I—in oooo <<o 14 >4 14 O z xxxxx to <oooo —1 _i aeaeaeo14<in in in <n oo 1—oraceez•4 to oeoeoeoeoe 3 h-<<<<_l _J in Ui 4 UJ UJ >z 1-1-)-)-)-to oooo -1 _J ►4 )-|- )->14 uouoo o UI UJUI UJUI UIUJ oz)-oc 3 zzzz oo 00 00 00oeoeooooot-o zzzz •4 <<<<<L li H. 1 l.l 111 l.l UJ *4 14 141414 zz 1-<<<Z Z zzzzz z z zzzz zz z zzz ««««>«u «« OO oo oooooo mm (0(0 ISItOCDmiM men 08 mm 9(M(*)0) mm CM CM (0(0(00(09 coco mm 0(on04 CM 080 CM CM OXMCMCO •4 4 oooo o> o) CD rsi O -4 mm 99 -M(o^~r».(M (Doem oooo (0(010(0 0)0)10(0 O O O (SJ CM|4 cnr)O'H^ror^4 CM o o •4 com K 0)0)4 -4 4 9 n o mm (SI 9(0 oooo Z 3i< o c s u. O 0 01 Oi o ooooo o o OOOO oo 0 OOO O)010)0)0)0)O)OS 00)0)0 0)0)O)0)0) O)\\•>4 S4V.\S4S^*S. n CO CO (0(0 CO lO CO CO CO r^) CO CO (OCO CO (0(0(0 (M CM CM CM CMCMCMC^CM (SI CM CMCMCM UJ >4 >4 "s V.>4 •s.>4'«VV. m m mm m m m m m m mm m mm m mmm<o o ooooo o o 0300 OO 0 OC o Oz zu UJzo ffy fp ^ ^ o> n} o) o> o> ■« ^ rr ^ oooo o o> o> o> <* 0)010)0) 00 oo 0)0) 0)0>«» '» <M iD <0f0\0 «* ««» tntnir) O) O) O) 0 ui O< 0o 1 hJ<9<(/> V) vt •)Cu I M o CO 5Co to u (A O v% u I mo >z oz z3Ooo< r> CO O 0 1o oo CO o P4 WOCO CO CO I I I I I o>a»o>a»o» MCMCMCMCM • III! -40000 rommmtn I I I I I coooo CMat Ia to If* O CM inCO CM-M CM O-<-4C0C0C0»0>0» I I t I I I I I •oa>9>-40t^o>e>a» O CO ID CM CMC^ « « <0 ooo-^-^-^CMinm I ( I I I I I I I r^imnininuominm «0— I i I I • I I I I »H—4«M —^^^CMCO OOOOOOOr->r*. CO I ai CM CM•* o at at CM zo X ae Ui o Uioe tc o Ui Xu ocoaz Ui> <ae Uia. z <;ito< a. X Ui CO o ct. ae Ui t— CO K O o in -410 0-1 at^zio Q. -h O -< Qe*-i«o:« i-HO CD <O0- Q. o.uii-ia.i-1 Ui ooo oeuiOOO > Ui ui Ui OUlUJUiUi<zzzz oeKOfoeae •>4 »-4 t-l t-4 IH act. a. 0.0. uiuiui Ui Ui ocaoeaeK *c.3c:*CiCiO cteoeacceo: (/t V) (/)(/) (/> oeKacoea;oeoeacocae UlUiUiUiUiaaaaa X</)< 3 oe<u CO Ui a:O CO>- oe O' tOCO(/7tOtOCOOOt/){/) zzzzzzzzz l-IU*►4H»-»|.HK4>-«»-4 Ui Ui Ui UMO ui Ui Ui Ui ZZZZZZZZZ XXXXXXXXX <<<<<<<<<uiuiuiuiuiujuiuiui XXXXXXXXX cotocococococococo zzzzzzzzz <4t<<<*t<<< t-ll—)-4l-4l-4l^l^l^*M ouuoouuuu COt/JCOCOCOCOCOCOCO XXXXXXXXXaaaaaaaaa at ui t- Ul X Uio< ►-c/» Oa to oUi Ui 3 >-< 0£a.to CO o CO z o 4o z Ui i o z «M ««« oo OO oo <-:-*o»ooro OO mm mm oo C-'’)-4 0)0)C-<7)0) 00 00 CO CO oo CM oo (O'M-40 COCO rsiM cno>oo cMCOMt ^ '♦m mm m CM CO lo m CM coco CM oooooooooo ooomoomo^-ico oo-4CMOocMO«incom mooiMto-H^^mcoco WIO«COCOfOOO-4<MCM OO OO oo OO OO IT CM CM oo 1' - COCO mm -4-4 mm 0 o gs uo > t- oo> at Ui ►<ra oz zoui X o CO CO CM ino o ooooo o at at at o> at at <n\ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM 'N. m mmmmm in o ooooo o CO CO ro CO CO ioio ID m m o> o> at oi at ooooooooootaioiaiatatOTOiot cococoforoco«'ofoco CM «M CM (M CM CMC-4 CM CM mininmintominin OOOOOC.OOOO cmcmcmcmcmcmcmcm.m (OIDIDIDIDIDIOCJIOo)a»o>o>o»o>Da»a> O at “v CO CM 'v bOO CM IDo>*» o at ino ino oo in €) LUa< Q. UJ O<</) {/> UJ£ •</) o </) o </> o in o lO o f I '.:v o> <M ino oz O •H -H (M m -H (Ni —4 -<n r>-4 •H o>^ ^C7)O r>foxj —1 on cn 1 1 1 1 1 o> 1 (OOi 1 1 CO 1 to cn 11III O) p> o>•H in o>Ol Ol o o> O)o> • 1 oo in o at o>minm o>in <M CMVID^IO <»cn O)cn a>CM m ooo • 1 I m n -H »Hfsiomm in rg m <ct rg 1 1 1 1 Oe»--^m lO o OOmmm <«■4-4 to -4 o o —*0«M o m (SI rg m m m tn r.n o cn 00 rsiron 00 n m n m on m m rg coco ro CM CM All 4J 4j «» 1 III •H ^ ^n —(-1-4-1 CM CO rg -4 4»<o i-H OOO INI o OOOr~r>.r«.OfN.CM o o zo oco(/) UJ Q £ UJ Q. O. 3 V) UJ UJ UJUJO Ou.< HH I— u. >- (/) u.<0 0£Q- inaz •—t q: O CO B 00 oz UJUJUJzzz UJUJUUUZ2000 OOKoro:xxa.0.0. QlQ. UJ UJ Ul Ui UJ UJUi<<< l-t-OOQ intn 4-4 t— h-oc Q UJUJ O in 5 —J-J 00 -j 00 UJUl Ul l-H*—1 tr o O£0£1-4 Ol z OO o << 0.0.in m X QC u> 1-)4-4 o UJ (k:m o u z o Ul z Ul o OOO I--4 zz z z 4- oe <ooo a O ££1—4-4 < 00 comm z £o m ozommm4-4 ll-U.Ul 4-4-4 u »-<<<O I-zzzzz m OO 1—z —I Ul O m h-ooooo 4-o m X •0 •0*d*0 Ul £££££o mm CD o ou►-1-(/>£££££o UJUl Z cu Q£>-XXX m UJ ooooo Q oo Ul ooQ— I~l—4-4 >•»-H ooooo O 4-4 4-4 Ul <o z 4-4 4-4 4-4 o 4-K ce >>z 4-4- z <£££4-4 I-4-1-4-4-cx.oca:<o < Ul u mmm UJ O o mmmmm UIUI o -1 o>Q.UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ d :mm 4-4 oo_i_i.j o:z z 33333 Ul 0£m 4- Ul o 4-4 4-4-4 4-4 Ul z > Ul <<<X 3 15 mmmmm <ii £o o oe a. a. Q.4—4—ooooo 3 <o o «« «««««««■ tniA OOOO oo mm oo OCM-CCMCNjr^OO tnr-^to OO OO m oo r- O 4f -H m m lOCO oo CMCn oo CDIOIO oo oo cn CM CM m -4 4T ^ —4 mm eoo>r^csifO-4 r- cn r-mm oo 4» rgorgoo <no><0(0 (OU>^CMCMCMCnCD (DCD cncnr^CJCM oo 00 4—•H-H -4 CM cn 00 00 rg CM (CIO CM CMz•• •■ - o 4T «r cncn -4-4 ) o ooo o o o OOOOO o OO o o o O)cn m cn o>cn 04 at a> at at at cn cn cn cn cn O) V i V.■N-w wv 'M V.\ cn cncncn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cncn cn cn cn CM CM CM CM CM rg CM CM CM (M CM CM rg CM CM CM CM CM Ul V V.•v.W W V 'm V.\ 4-m mmm irt m m m iT» m m m m m m m m m<o ooo o O o ooooo o oo O o o Oz zo UJ Xo <M (O (D O) n n n r~r>.r^ o> o> o> ^ ^ ^ >n in j*> in tA ^ ^ ^ ^ ooooooeooo (7) O) o> o> o> ^ ^ ^ mm OOOO o cr> ’9 r>ocn cn ■•I UJo Ul < (9 (/> < V) a. ui D g- I at O M . I o. mo m >z -3 •5*' 00 u .#w 4* Q> -« ro r> o) I I O) o CM CT) —I m -I «* O r>^ CO CB roo CO CM *H-H —< roro ro I II I 0> 0)0) O) « CMCM CM CM —I—I -H I I CMO 't in ro in I I o 0 1ooo• CO CM CM CM CM CM -H ^ O) COo o> •o CM -H -H -H ^ —I ^ ^ • m OO oo OO oo mm oo oo oo oo mm (00(0 OO OO (0(0 OO oo C7>oo <0(0 imn oo oo oo oo mm mm C^Ot>.oo OO mm oo oo CO r>in in CMCSJ oo mm oo Ororo —^ -H (0(0 (0(0 oo oo 00 00 00 roro (0(0 for> roro CSICNJ mm CMCM <7)0)CMCM fVICsJ —«—« CMCM O —1 ^ -ccMro r>o mm CM(M —1 —<mo OO r-~ zu.3 U.C9z(/)*-!z> 0-1 00 U.3 OO Zo z LU UJ l-l <>> 03 t-4 o X Ul X Q ►I a>—m oe a.00 o m m Z < Ol a:<Z 00 UJ''^(K 3 Ul O 3 t-4 to UJ z <UJ ZUJ 3 <Q£Z3> ee.(/)Q ►H 1 —oc 0£oz o 3 3H-0 O <z z 00 Ul 1 —XO o o \3 u<cr(/)-J <UJ o Ul 00 Q.X <h-o i-a UJ o to X 1 —1 z a.a </)Z z 3tOZ O I—<:►-_l o oa fC z ►1 < < *-• Z UJ O Q.1 —z ►H Ul ►13 ►1 3 ►1z<UJ 1C.CD z UJ z H-Z <*->►1 <to 3 3»-«Z UJ 0£<o o -1 <a z o o a 00 ►1 o:0£Ul a z z a ►-o O 1-1 l-l »—Ul UJ l-C 3 <UIZ q:Q.Ul 3 a 3 33 hH z X »-*1C V)u.<_></)<Q.Qtl-<O <O <OZO. y' A in ’ ' 1 3 tn 3 V /<9 3 oc <>>>-3 a 3 H-<Z X aa 3 O z (C 3 3 z 3 X 3 to 3 33 3 z »-4 1-3 3 o 3 <3 3 to to m 3 -J X 3 >z X Z 3 z 3 a o o 3 3 3 o I-<3 o a <>tom 3 o >-<<< 3 00 0£00 o 3 a a 3 33 >u 3 3 3 X z 3 O to O 33 3 3 UJ ooo o 3 X o <3 z o <<z 3 a:333 a:<3 z a <3 mm 3 O X O X <3 3 a O a 00 UJ 3ro^ O o u Z X o 3 3 3 aa O <o OCMCM z 3 o m o o <<<3 3 z 3 H-0£3 z <3 3 U a 3 3 3 O <OOO>3 3 < <<00 O <z 33 3 O zzz Z z z X 3 3 3 X o 3 3 u a <$-J 333 z o z a X a 00 Z o 3 3 3 Ul Q.U 3 3 3 tc 3 o o 3 3 o a <33 3 3 Ul O a. X c z a 00 CO 3 o O 3 UO m z a.< (Otno 0)(00 oooco o in o —tOJCM o)ro«»• o O coc O u. _ O >- d►- z o jc: o a O) I C3) O O O o o o o o o o o OO o O)O)O)o>O)(7)O)O)a>O)a>0)(J) V.\'M 'V.\w ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro CO ro n ro ro (M CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM (M CM CM CM 3 \\\ 3 m m m m m m m m m m mm m<o o O o o o o o o o oo o O o> O) O)o 0)0)o)cn in O amr 5* ^« ■ aa % gig.?1.* . 0 111a<o. o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 01 oo> CM CM tn u-i o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o < Q OC Z O 3 Q. o: UJ Ui ►- OC Q <Ui o <o COt- z OC 23 o OC tii Cl »- Ui a < OC Ui O o o < 3 ►-•H O OC U Ui o z I O. < O Ui Z (/) OC > 3 >- »- O OC >-• Ui O > I CC. I-H u Ui »- (/) OCo< O M O O O O ino o Z CO UJ H-Z z I- 3 OC O < o Q. O Ui <o u. t- Oo V)o •-> a: O < a: Za. u o: H- O< a ^ O Ui ^ “Ui O I »- t- CJ Ui OC O < Q Q Ui 3 Z OO Z 3Z UJa m CM CO ac O O z Q. O Ui OC OC O < O Q OQ. Ui 3 OC Oz u. u. u. O O O t- >■ z ►- 3 *-lo u oo o < o> O) Ui > OC OC OC ui Ui Ui UI -I CD CD CDz z z 3 3 3z z z Ui> UJ UJ UI > > ui Ui Ui Ui > > oo OC Ui CO 3 I.**.* 4^m COUNCIL MEETING ■ MAY 2 9 1990 CITY OF ORONO . r" m iV • tr-y m .» « v5* - a~5" - 90 ^CCJL /Th^ 0 aJ I MINUTES OF m MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON APRIL 9, 1990 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, April 9, 1990. Present;Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William Fenholt Dave McKown stated that the following two agenda items under New Business will be moved to the beginning of the meeting; staffing for 1990-91 and settlement of the claims of an employee. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent agenda was approved as follows; - approved the minutes of the March 12, 1990 regular meeting; - approved the minutes of the March 19, 1990 special meeting; - accepted the resignation of Nancy Thayer Tomlinson, secretary to the Schumann Elementary principal, effective June 30, 1990; - approved the appointment of Sue Kueppers to the position of Orono Middle School Assistant to the Principal beginning July 1, 1990; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 065615 through 065741 and building construction bills as covered by vouchers 1000 through 1015; - agreed to contribute $200.00 to the Orono Education Association to offset costs of the recognition/retirement breakfast held at the end of the school year. Dr. Mich stated that he wanted to extend congratulations to Mr. Doug Erickson who has been named Teacher of the Year; that he wanted to express congra­ tulations to Sue Kueppers on her appointment as assistant to the principal at the middle school and that he looks forward to working with her; that on May 15 the National Honor Society induction and the scholarship awards night will take place place at the high school and that the Board meeting will take place following that as It Is school board election day; that the last construction bids will be taken on April 10 and he would recommend the Board hold a special meeting on Thursday, April 12 at 7;00 a.m. to accept the recommended electical bid. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by John Maresh, a special Board meeting was set for Thursday, April 12 at 7;00 a.m. to accept the recommended electrical bid. Or. Mich provided the Board with an update on the requests for usage of School District property. He recommended that the Board schedule a workshop session for the purpose of exploring all Issues relating to this land usage. The Board will hold a workshop session on April 30. Dr Mich reminded the Board that the Junior Senior Prom will be held on May 11 at the Calhoun Club. Dave McKown coinnented on the arMcle written by Dr. Pregle regarding parents taking students out of school for vacation and stated that he agreed with the comments made by Dr. Pregle. Or. Mich provided the audience with information on the law regarding non-renewal of* probationary teacher contracts and the process that is followed. He reiterated that, according to the law, the Board of Education is not at liberty to discuss personnel matters with the public and that this can be frustrating for everyone involved. He also stated that teachers, whose contracts are not renewed, may reapply for positions in the district when positions/openings occur. * Decisions such as these are not easily made by administration or the Board and he assured the audience that their concerns would be heard/considered but he also requested that they not draw conclusions as to the cause for the action that is being considered at this meeting. At this time, the meeting was opened to parents to allow them to voice their concerns/share comments regarding the non-renewal of contracts. Dr. Mich informed the audi-jnce that the Board would be going into executive session for purposes of discussion of personnel data and that no action can be taken at this session. A vote on resolutions can be conducted only in public session. The Board adjourned to executive session. The meeting was reconvened by Chairman Dave McKown. Member Don Anderson Introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: BE IT RESOLVED, by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, Orono, Minnesota: ^ ^ ^ tv ^1) That the district approve the payment of the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in settlement of the claims of a school district employee.2) Pursuant to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in the case of Annandale Advocate v. The City of Annandale, the name of the employee and theTactual "bTsTT oTlheuaTm will be treated as private personnel data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 3) That the School Board has reviewed the Settlement Agreement and directs the Board Chair to sign the Agreement on behalf of the School Board. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by John Maresh and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Crosby, Maresh, Taylor, Anderson, Franklin, McKown and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dr. Mich expressed appreciation to the audience for their attendance at the meeting and their concern not only for their children but for the district. He reiterated the law regarding non-renewal of probationary teacher contracts and the process that is followed by the Board and administration informing the audience that their comments and information will be studied/reviewed for future use in matters such as this. In view of the present concerns/rumors, Jim Franklin stated that the law regarding discussion of personnel data has been established for the protection of the employee but it prohibits the Board from responding to concerns/rumors. He reiterated that the recommendations being acted on have been studied/reviewed by administration and the Board; that the proper processes have been followed and looked at very carefully and having complied with all of the processes, the Board has to make these difficult decisions. Kitty Crosby read the following resolutions regarding staffing for 1990-91 and each one was acted on individually. Resolutions on file in District Office. The meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Don Boylan Introduced two representatives from Computers of St. Cloud who pro­ vided the Board with a demonstration of the video disc CD-ROM. Don Boylan then provided the Board with information on the technology status in the district in 1988, the technology status today, in 1990, which Indicates a substantial improvement and the technology expectations for the future in Orono. Mr. Fenholt addressed the construction bids asking the Board to note an adjust­ ment in the ventilation contract on Exhibit B stating that the deducts were eli­ minated and the basic bid of 270,900 is being recommended. UPON MOTION Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education accepted the low bids and awarded the contracts for new construction as recom­ mended by the construction manager and as listed in "B" of the attached exhibits, the only exception being on the ventilation contract which shows an adjustment. Exhibits on file in District Office Connie Fladeland reported to the Board on services/programs provided for K-12 students at risk covering such areas as academics, behavior/emotional and social skills. She stated that coordination/communication between grade levels is a necessary component when working with students at risk. Member John Maresh introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO TiiE ELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND CALLING TME SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL ELECTION BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278 ((Orono), as follows: 1. It is necessary for the school district to hold its general election for the purpose of electing (j^) school board members for term; of three years each. The following individuals have filed affidavits of candidacy for said election during the period established for filing such affidavits: Don A. Anderson Ann A. Cosgrove Katie Dayton Julie A. Erickson Maryanna Massey Peg Swanson 2. The general election is hereby called and directed to be held on Tuesday, the 15th day of Hay, 1990, between the hours of 7:00 o'clock a.m. a«d 8:00 o'clock p.m. 3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 205A.11, the combined school district voting precincts and polling places within those precincts established and designated by school board resolution dated February 13, 1989 for school elections not held on the day of a statewide election, are hereby designated for said general election. 4. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said election to be posted at the administrative offices of the school district and at each polling place at least ten days before the date of the said election. 5. 6. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a sample ballot to be posted at the administrative offices of the school district at least four days before the date of said election and to cause a sample ballot to be posted in each polling place on election day. The sample ballot shall not be printed on the same color paper as the official ballot. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said general election to be published in the official newspaper of the district, for two consecutive weeks with the last publication being at least one week before the date of said election. The notice of election so posted and published shall state the offices to be filled set forth in the form of ballot below, and shall Include information concerning each established precinct and polling place. The clerk is authorized and directed to secure buff colored ballot boxes for the deposit of ballots at each polling place and to acquire and distribute such election materials as may be necessary for the proper conduct of this election. The clerk is further authorized and directed to cause buff colored printed ballots to be prepared for use at said election In substantially the following form: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 (ORONO) LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA Put an (X) in the square opposite tue name of each candidate you wish to vote for. (NOTE: on the back of each ballot shall be printed the words "Official Ballot", the date of the election and lines for the initials of two Judges. The printing shall be so placed as to be visible when the ballot is properly folded for deposit. Example attached). OFFICIAL BALLOT MAY 15, 1990 (Each ballot to be Initialed by two Judges) J 7. 8. 9. The name of each candidate for office at this election shall be rotated with the names of the other candidates for the same office so that the name of each candidate appears substantially an equal number of times at the top, at the bottom and at each intermediate place in the group of candidates for that office. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to prepare instructions to the printer for layout of the ballot and for providing the ballots in groups of 50. Before a contract is awarded for printing ballots, the printer shall furnish, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 2040.04, a sufficient bond in an amount not less than SI,000 conditioned on printing the ballots in conformity with Minnesota elec­ tion law and the instructions delivered. If the cost of the ballots exceeds $1,000, the clerk shall set the amount of the bond in an amount no greater than the value of the purchase. The following individuals, each of whom is qualified to serve as an election judge, are hereby appointed as judges of election, to act as such at the respective polling places and for the respective precincts listed below: Precinct Polling Place Election Judges 1 Schumann Elementary Ken Turnham, head judge School Deanne Preston Jan Johnson Elaine Goldsmith Elayne Halldin Orcno Primary School Alice McPherson, head judge Judith Davies Carol Strassburg Marion Alger Sharon Michavich (half day) Bernice Breithbrath (half day) Alternate: Jeanne Sorenson The election judges snail act as clerks of election, count the ballots cast and submit them to t'le school board for canvass in the manner provided for other school district elections. I The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lucie Tavior and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the folTowing voted in favor thereof: Crosby, Maresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson, McKown and the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. UPON MOTION BY Jim Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education directed administration to develop a day care program to be operated under the auspices of the Community Education program. Connie Fladeland provided the Board with background information on the multi- cultural gender fair curriculum rule which was establi^hso by the Minnesota State Board of Education in 1989. In order to comply with this rule, a plan must be developed for the district and a policy established. Ms. Fladeland pre­ sented the following proposed policy to the Board as a nrst reading: PLAN FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM PROPOSED SCHOOL BOARD POLICY April 9.1990 The School Board is fully committed to the values of gender-fairness; to respect for social, cultural and racial diversity; and to a positive emphasis on the abilities of individuals. Therefore, the School Board affirms its intention to provide equal educational opportunities to all students attending Orono School District regardless of gender, race, or capacity. As a result, administration will work with staff and community to develop and monitor a written plan which assures that District curriculum and instructional practices reflect an inclusive educational program. Dave McKown and Kitty Crosby will present diplomas at the graduation ceremony on June 8, 1990. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: dave M^own, Chairmian KatPierfne P. Crosby, Cleric MINUTES OF TWE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON APRIL 12, 1990 A Special meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, April 12, 1990 at 7:00 a.m. Present:Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Thomas Mich William Fenholt Absent: Lucie Taylor UPON MOTION BY Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, each Board member concurs in and the Board of Education approves the convening of a special school district meeting under special circumstances for the purpose of approving a construction bid, and farther, that each Board member waives statutory notice for such meeting. Or. Mich reported that the reception honoring Marvel Bongart upon her retirement will be held on Sunday, May 20; that a faculty meeting was held at the high school on April 11 concerning budgeting, staffing, etc. and a communication com­ mittee has been established which will be co-chaired by Dr. Greenfield and Don Boylan; that an announcement was made at that faculty meeting that Wayne Smith will return to his position as assistant principal and anyone interested in the position of Athletic Director should contact Dr. Greenfield; that groundbreaking will take place on April 18th and he requested that Board members plan to attend, if possible, and that student representatives from each school be pre­ sent. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education approved acceptance of the bid of Medina Electric Company for electrical work on the proposed new construction as presented by administration. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Dave med: jMcKown, Clramfian LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., April 25, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Call to Order. Cochran at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chair Members Present: Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono (as noted); Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata,(as noted); Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCP Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Eugene Stromraen, Executive Director. , t i_ Members Absent: Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; John Malinka, Victoria; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. 3. Reading of Minutes: Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of the minutes of the March 28, 1990 regular meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4 Public Comments. Charles Timberg, 5060 Minneapolis Avenue, Mound, asked to be heard when the personal watercraft ordinance is discussed and was informed he will be called upon. 5. Reports Martinson arrived. A. Chair Cochran 1) DNR Shoreland Grant Contract The Board received the Shoreland Grant Agreement between the MN DNR and LMCD. Cochran reported the agreement has now been separated into two documents, the management plan partial fund reimbursement and shoreland rules adoption reimbursement. The management plan partial reimbursement segment is presented at this time incorporating the changes recommended by the LMCD * Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to authorize the Chair and the Executive Director to execute both agreements upon review and to proceed with the execution of the shoreland rules adoption reimbursement agreement with the fourteen cities. Motion carried unanimously. Hurr arrived. _ . „2) Management Plan Public Review Procedures. Cochran reported arrangements have been made to hold the public hearings on the Management Program public review draft - continued LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS APRIL 25, 1990 June 6, 1990, 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Minnetonka City Hall. The public review comment period will continue until June 19. Reese suggested highlighting the items of specific interest to the public at this hearing rather than presenting a broad overview of the plan B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions as of 3/31/90 Lewman submitted the statement of cash transactions through March 31, 1990. It was ordered filed. Audit of Vouchers for Pasrment Lewman submitted bills for approval, checks numbered 6021 through 6077 in the amount of $30,262.24. Responding to a question from Babcock, the executive director stated check 6060 to United Marine International for $4,000 is the balance withheld on equipment purchases. It should be described as a capital item rather than repair. Hurr moved, Bjorlin seconded, approval of bills in the amount of $38,262.24, checks numbered 6021 through 6077. Motion carried unanimously. C. Standing Corainittees 1) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese. a) Bids for Hauling Cut Aquatic Plants to Disposal Sites. Reese disqualified himself from the discussion of the bids for hauling weeds because of a conflict. He turned the discussion over to Bjorlin. Bjorlin submitted a comparison of bids received from Land Men and Ceres. Land Men bid $64,320 at $45 per hour using a 15 yard truck and a 7 yard truck. Ceres bid $57,904 at $47 per hour using 24 yard and 33 yard trucks. It was noted the 24 yard truck capacity will reduce the number of trucks needed. In response to a question from Boswinkel, the executive director stated an hourly rate was specified because it would be difficult to estimate tons or yards to be hauled as a bid quantity. The time is estimated on an eight hour day with the t-'ucks starting about 30 minutes later than the harvesters. Grathwol moved, Babcock seconded, to declare both bidders responsible and to award the contract for weed hauling to Ceres. Motion carried, Reese abstaining. b) Project Supervisor Hiring Agreement The executive director presented a field operations supervisor employment agreement for the Eurasian water milfoil weed control program. He recommended Robert J. F. Merila for the “ continued LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1990 position based on Merila’s experience in 1909, including knowledge of the equipment, operations, maintenance and suppliers. Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the field operations supervisor employment agreement with Robert J. F. Merila. Motion carried unanimously. c) Project Equipment Maintenance Contract been made service on agreement. operators. The executive director reported a decision has to handle equipment maintenance through a repair call rather than with a season-long contractual Daily maintenance will be done by the harvester No action was needed. d) Equipment Purchases - Weed Removal The executive director reported on competitive pricing reviews and estimated costs for the following equipment: $9,000. Vehicle, truck or van 8.000. Pontoon boat, equipped 1,500. Portable radios 600. Water surface measuring device 3.000. Power packs. Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to authorize the expenditure of up to $22,100. for the listed equipment, to be funded from the milfoil equipment reserve. Motion carried unanimously. Hurr asked about the boat purchased in 1989. The executive director responded it will be be regained to be used for dock and other lake and weed inspections,particularly if an Administrative Technician is employed. e) Weed Harvest Equipment Operators Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, to designate Chair Reese and the executive director to hire weed harvest equipment operators within budget provisions for the planned harvest period of 5-29-90 through 9-7-90 to include up to three days advance training prior to 5-29-90. Project Manager Norm Paurus is interviewing and recommending the candidates to be hired. Motion carried unanimously. f) Private Fund Solicitation Progress The executive director reported $28,600 has been received toward the goal of $55,000. Hurr was assured that the equipment operators employment is based on budgeted funds being raised and available. Operators are subject to lay off or termination if the need exists. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS g) Other April 25, 1990 The executive director conimented on Norm Paurus work, stating he has secured contribution of space for parts and equipment storage at no cost to the District. C. 2) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the 4-7-90 minutes, amending heading and paragraph 2, page 2, line 2: delete reference to "new dock license and" since the new dock license for change of ownership was approved by the Board 3- 28-90. Motion carried unanimously. b) City License. of Doephaven New Dock and Special Density The Board considered the results of the public hearing held on 4-25-90 at 7 p.m. to consider the City of Deephaven new dock and special density license for 8 new Boat Storage Units at Bay St. Louis, for a new total of 218 BSU. There were no objections from the public to the increase. Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of new and special density license for 8 new Boat Storage Units at Bay St. Louis, subject to preparation and distribution of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Motion carried unanimously. Gerald Laughlin was informed the EAW will be prepared, returned to the Board for approval and then distributed to a stipulated list of interested parties. It requires at least 45 days to process it after submission to the Environmental Quality Board. Maxwell Bay/Lakeside Marina Temporary Variance. Low Water The Water Structures Committee recommended approval of a temporary low water variance to 600’ from the 929.4’ shoreline for Maxwell Bay/Lakeside Marina with use of floating docks in the exact same configuration as the permanent docks. Ilurr reported the owner has made application to the City of Orono with action scheduled for their next meeting. Grathwol acknowledged a letter dated 4/6 from Gayle Wittig, Gayle’s Marina, objecting to the extension proposal. LeFevere commented that 600’ is three times the dock length called for in the code and expressed concern about infringing on neighboring dock use areas. He noted the side setback requirement in the Code of Ordinances does not extend beyond 200’. Cochran responded there would be a stipulation in approval that the setback must be met for the full length of the dock, namely 20’ beyond 200’. James Dunn, owner of Maxwell Bay/Lakeside Properties Marina, displayed an aerial presentation of the area showing water depths to 600’. His figures show 2.6’ near the shoreline, 2’ at 400’ - continued LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25,1990 and 8’ at 600’. The figures are based on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District lake level of 925.73 as of the date the readings were taken. Arlo Vander Vegte, attorney representing Gayle’s Marina, said the extension to 600’ places his client at a competitive disadvantage. The new Marina docks will dominate the water surface. There is no way Gayle’s Marina could ask for a similar variance because of their location. Vander Vegte asked the Board to deny the variance to 600’ and limit the dock to 400’. Cochran said in his opinion, if the dock were limited to 400’, the applicant would not have a usable depth. His alternative would be to dredge his dock area and LMCD does not favor dredging. Hurr asked about the gas dock. Dunn said they will not move the existing gas pump. It will not be usabl*‘ -ntil a channel is dredged to it. Vander Vegte asked that li the variance is granted a stipulation should be added that the Marina not be allowed to move its gas business to the end of the temporary dock extension. Cochran noted this variance requires an annual review, and that would be a consideration in its renewal. Martinson expressed concern about giving variances to allow applicants to extend their docks to reach adequate water depth. He would like to see a policy stating how far out a dock can be extended. Cochran replied this is covered by the stipulations and all such extensions are subject to review by the Water Patrol. Grathwol moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of a temporary low water variance to allow extension of the Maxwell Bay/Lakeside Marina dock to 600’ from 929.4’ shoreline using floating docks in the exact same configuration as the licensed permanent docks. Motion carried, Bjorlin voting Nay, Martinson Abstaining. d) Dock License Renewals The Committee recommend approval of seven 1990 dock license renewals. The list includes Dennis Boats, Tonka Bay, which has a new owner. Don Westman, the new owner, stated he has received approval from the City of Tonka Bay pending LMCD approval. The executive director reported the code requires a new dock license on change of ownership. A public hearing is not required on a change of ownership and there are no additional fees. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of the following 1990 dock license renewals, including any and all applicable orders and stipulations: Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc. Formal city reply pending Forest Arms. Association, City time expired Howard’s Point Marina, Inc. City reply pending Lakewinds Association, Certificate received Shorewood Marina &, Yacht Club, City reply pending Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, City reply pending Motio*^ carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS o) Deicing Deposit Refunds April 25, 1990 Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to approve the refund of the $100 deposit submitted with the 1989-90 deicing license applicants as recommended by the Water Structure Committee, the eighteen licensees listed in their recommendation ha^'ing performed their deicing without generating additional expense to the District. Motion carried unanimously. f) Excelsior Bay Yacht Club - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The Board received the EAW required because of the expansion of +he Excelsior Bay Yacht Club dock structure which covers over 20,000 square feet of lake surface. Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club and authorized distribution and publication as required by the Environmental Quality Board. Motion carried unanimously. Excelsior Bay Yacht Club - Request to Operate under New Density License Grathwol conveyed a request from the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club. They would like to provide the amenities required for its new density license and to begin operating under it without construction of the additional eight slips, forl990. The Club would thus have eight fewer rental units, 4 for charter boats, 18 for over-night-storage (rental) and 10 transient docks. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, to allow the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club to operate their existing 32 slips as proposed with the same amenities to be provided as offered with their application for 40 slips. Motion carried, Hurr voting Nay, g) Temporary Low Water Variances Grathwol submitted applications for temporary low water variances which have not been considered by the committee. Boswinkel commented on the poor quality of the drawing which accompany some of the applications. Cedarhurst Association (Deephaven); The executive director commented that the Cedarhurst docks are not proximate to neighbors and while they are licensed for 17 slips they will use only 7. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow the Cedarhurst Association, Robinson’s Bay, Deephaven, to extend their dock 30* to a total dock length of 70’, subject to all conditions of the permit. Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25. 1990 Woodend Shores, Minnetrista. Lewman moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow Woodend Shores Beach Association to extend their dock from 96'to 105*, subject to all conditions of the permit. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Boats. Tonka Bay. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow Dennis Boats to extend their dock from 04’ to 220*, subject to all conditions of the permit, based on the approval of the City of Tonka Bay. Motion carried unanimously. City of Excelsior, Excelsior Bay and St. Alban’s Bay. Grathwol moved, Martinson seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow the City of Excelsior to extend their docks at both sites to 66*, subject to all conditions of the permit. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Grathwol, to include in the permit a requirements that all docks extending further than 100* in length have reflectorized material on sides and end. Motion carried unanimously. Lyle Berman, Wayzata Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to refer the application of Lyle Berman, Bushaway Road, to the Water Structures Committee with a request for a better drawing. Motion carried unanimously. Renewal - Multiple Dock License Renewal - Dennis Boats Grathwol moved, Bjo \ seconded, approval of a multiple dock license for Donald B. *tman d.b.a. Dennis Boats, noting a public hearing is not required on a change in ownership \,thout any change in density. Motion carried unanimously. h) Interagency Agreement, District, MN DNR and LMCD. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Grathwol reported that the MCWD, MN DNR and LMCD have met to draft a uniform criteria and depths for dredging pw.rposes. Slocum stated there should be more participation by Board members before any decisions are made on such an agreement. Cochran moved, Lewman seconded, that the Water Structures, Environment Committee Chair designate a cross-section of the Committee to serve as a sub-committee to study the dredging criteria and to present their findings to the Board before negotiating with the other agencies. Motion carried unanimously. Hurr expressed the opinion that it is fine to discuss the matter, but if there are going to be permits issued with no monitoring of them it does not accomplish anything. 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE Chair Pillsbury LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1990 a) Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the Lake Use Committee minutes of 4-16-90 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. b) Personal Watercraft (PWC) Babcock, representing Sub-committee Chair Foster, presented the committee recommendations for changes in the draft ordinance as shown in an edited draft. As a point of clarification it was pointed out that Section 3 applies to all watercraft and Section 3.041 applies to PWC only. Slocum moved, Cochran seconded, to delete the word "confined" in Subd. 11 so the words defined are "single area". Motion carried unanimously. Charles Timberg, 5060 Minneapolis Avenue, Mound, suggested the LMCD consider a total ban on PWC on Lake Minnetonka. Reese moved, Bjorlin seconded, to amend Subd. 11 Prolonged Operation. by changing "No person shall operate a personal watercraft in a single area . . ." to "No personal watercraft shall be operated in a single area . . ." Motion carried, Lewman and Hurr voting nay. The executive director submitted a letter from the MN DNR offering comments and suggestions on the PWC Ordinance. Babcock moved, Pillsbury seconded, to make a change in the definition of a PWC by changing the watercraft length from 12’ to 14’ and to strike the words "and outboard motor". Motion carried unanimously. Pillsbury moved, Bjorlin seconded, to approve the second reading as amended and return the amended ordinance to the May Board meeting for the third reading. Steve Wagner, Minnetonka Jet Ski, asked that the record show that he believes unenforceable laws are inappropriate. c) Charter Boat Wine auad Beer on-sale license - A1 & Alma’s Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the renewal of A1 & Alma’s six charter boat wine and beer on-sale liquor licenses. Motion carried unanimously. d) Special Event Refund Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the special event deposit refund for Rollin B. Child, Inc. fishing outing having been satisfactorily conducted. Motion carried unanimously. e) Commercial Sale Activity on the Lake Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, to appoint Bert Foster to initiate a subcommittee study of the concerns raised about various commercial activities on the Lake. Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS f) Low Water Safety Progr^lffl (UFO) April 25, 1990 Reese explained a low water safety program to identify Underwater Found Obstructions (UFO) through the use of temporary low water danger buoys. Persons so finding UFOs would advise the LMCD office. Slocum moved, Bjorlin seconded, to implement the UFO program, approving a $3,500 expenditure from the Save the Lake reserve to purchase buoys, chains and anchors, LMCD weed harvesting personnel to do the installation under the direction of Paurus. Motion carried unanimously. g) Water Patrol Report Chandler reported the Johnson/Holiday crappie contest was well attended and created no problems with no moving violations by the contestants. The * ling program on report writing and court handling of citations . ese’ited by LMCD prosecuting attorney Steve Tallen,Holmes & Graven, was well received. Inspections of charter boats and rental boats is underway. D. Executive Director's Report, Eugene Strommen 1) Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) The executive director reported he and Chair Cochran mot with Michael Markell, MN DNR, to revise the Plan on Public Access. They developed a revision which was submitted to the Board. The MNDNR is interested in seeing this plan developed. Markell would be the Program Manager and LMCD would act as local sponsoring agency. This fits in with Management Plan recommended objectives. The grant application for Managing Mearshore Use on Minnesota Lakes will be done independently rather than merged with any other agency. The application to produce a fishing guide has not been responded on by the LCMR. Hurr reported none of the LMCD proposals were recommended for funding at this time by the Citizen Review Committees. A $100,000 grant to the University of Minnesota to study means of controlling Eurasian Water Milfoil was on a list of twenty recommended by the committee on which she serves, members to lobby for the LMCD grant applications. Senator Earl Renneke as a valuable Lake area contact, furnish a list of the committee members. Hurr urged mentioning Hurr will 2) LCMR Schedule The executive director presented the Review and Allocation Meeting Schedule. Proposal Review and Allocation Meeting 199^ LCMR Proposal LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1990 Martinson, expressed the opinion that there are other ways to expand access to the Lake than agreeing to furnish 700 car/trailer public parking spaces. He would like to see the wording less specific, if still possible, using the word "expand" rather than the specified 700. Martinson foresees the possibility of the light rail system bringing people to the Lake and the MTC operating boats on the Lake, reducing the dependency on car/trailer parking spaces. There was no action on Martinson's suggestion as Cochran pointed out the car/trailer parking spaces are a MN DNR mandate, and it is part of the management plan. 3) Staff Addition - Administrative Technician The executive director presented a position proposal for an administrative technician, detailing the rationale for the hiring and the means of funding the position. Reese stated he would like to see the position as a back-up to the executive director. Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to endorse the position description submitted by the executive director and authorize advertising for interviews taking into account the intent of the Board that this is a administrative position, not a mechanical position. Motion carried unanimously . 4) Office Space Needs The executive director explained the need for additional space to accommodate the needs of the weed program administration and new administration technician. Hurr mentioned space which might be available at the Minnetonka Art Center. Grathwol moved, Martinson seconded, to authorize the executive director and officers to analyze available spaces and to make a recommendation for expanded office space. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business 7. New Business There was no new business 8. adjournment The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. David Cochran, Chair Jan Boswinkel, Secretary COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER SUMMER 1990 West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board rOMAftJNlTY CONCERNS MEETINGS During April the United Way of Minneapolis, the suburban human service councils and Community Action for Suburban Hennepin sponsored four meetings for area residents. These meetmgs were held so people could voice their worries about the most serious problems in their commumtieb. This is the first time United Way has sought grass roots citizen input. These needs & ideas are used m plannmg and priority setting. Attendance at the "Community Concerns" meetings have been average. However, the Ust of problems is long. The top issues of concern for three of the four areas follows: Northwest Suburbs • Housing • Early Childhood Prevention & Intervention • Crime • Transportation • Health Care Far West & Rural Area • Isolation of low income people due to location • Insensitivity, inattentiveness & discrimination on part of funders • Issues of poverty (health care, inadequate wages, housing, job training, transportation, senior citizen, health problems) • Family issues (shelters, foster homes, runaway resources, child abuse, chemical abuse, healthy outlets for teens) • Educational issues We«;t Suburbs • Lack of support for community based, non- institutional services • Lack of awareness of needs by general population • Lack of commitment & advocacy for children • Lack of formal networking model RtAl ttn SViUAttA ts HOT 50 PIKTICT OVK nOtUMS ART AtCHT DOWH THi HIOCKo GET PERSONAL^ Every day tons of mail arrives on Capitol Hill. Even so, nine out of ten Americans never write their senators or representatives. We may feel Washington is too far away to care. We may feel legislators only listen to special interests. We may feel they are out of touch with our way of life. And we may feel they have too much to keep up with to have time for our mail. However, we should write our lawmakers. They need to bear our opinion. Experts insist a good way to get action in Washington (or at any level of government) is to write a letter. The key is to keep it polite and to the point. Most of all, make the letter personal. Pre-printed letters sent by masses of citizens don’t get much attention. If they get a response, it is likely from a computer. Real letters do get noticed. Letters written by hand stand out from mass mail. Focus on a single issue or topic and keep the letter short. Don’t settle for a form letter in response. Write again and say nicely, "You sent me a form letter in response to my personal letter. You haven’t answered my questions or addressed my concern. It is important that I hear directly from you." Chances are, you’ll get a more personal response next time. Metropolitan Senior Federation HEALTH PLAN INFORMATION FOR SENIORS Minnesota senior citizens face tough times due to big increases in Medicare supplement and health plan costs. The repeal of the Catastrophic Health Act and insurance changes required by the state make health insurance more confusing. Senior citizens need to figure out which insurance plan is best for them. The Metropolitan Senior Federation’s Health Plan Information Center can help. Trained volunteers and staff help seniors and their families sort through insurance options. Some seniors can no longer afford any insurance. The Metropolitan Senior Federation sponsors Senior Partners Care. This program works with doctors and hospitals to provide low to moderate income seniors with health services. There are no deductibles, co­ payments, or monthly fees. Medicare is accepted as payment-in-full for Medicare approved services. For more information, call the Health Plan Information Center at the Metropolitan Senior Federation: 642-1398. They answer calls Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. equip :vieot DisTRrounoN program The Regional Services Centers for Hearing Impaired have a new program. The program is for low income people who have problems hearing or speatog on the telephone. People who qualify can get special telephone type equipment at no cost. Mirmesotanr, can get help if they have problems with the telephone due to a speech or hearing handicap. They must be at least 5 years old. They must have home telephone service or applied for it. The gross family income must be at or below the State median income. If eligible, you could receive a TDD, telephone amplifier, ring signaler or special equipment for deaf-blind people. For more information, contact the Metro Equipment Distribution Program at 444 L^ayette Road, St Paul, MN 55155. Phone: 297-1507 (voice), or 296-9306 (TDD). r.* • - ■ .r . »r. ■ If . . yj TODAY’S NEWS TODAY I The State Services for the Blind Commu ­ nication Center Las a new program. It is called News and Information for the Blind. It gives blind persons access to daily newspapers and other printed documents. This service is available at any time of the day or night. News and information for the Blind is different than other services for blind readers. You don’t need a lot of special equipment You just need an everyday push-button telephone. The hours of service are flexible, too. You can read the paper at a time good for you. You can pick and choose what sections or articles you want to read. About 120 blind readers in the Twin Cities area began this service in March. The Commumcation Center of State Services for the BUnd and Visually Handicapped is a statewide special library and transcription service. It s available without charge to eligible Miimesotans. Anyone who is unable to read normal newsprint because of visual or physical handicap is eligible. Call 1-800-652-9000 for more infomiatioiL DONT OVERLOOK ’HTE' PROPERTY TAX REFUND 'Xi'X-X'rj'i ' ■ “r■“ ¥■" t'm. ■ -.i »» V- ^ ________ Be sure to look into the Minnesota Property Tax refund. You can apply whether you own or rent If you rent, your income ’iiust be less than $35,000. If you own your home, your income must be less than $60,000. To apply, you cannot be someone else’s dependent You must have been a Minnesota resident at least part of 1989. As a renter, you must have lived in a building on which property taxes are assessed. This can include a nursing home, health care facility, or subsidized housing. If you aren’t sure whether your building qualifies, ask yoar landlord. To apply you must file a gold refund form, M- IPR. Renters must attach a Certificate of Rent Paid. Homeowners must have owned and lived in their home on January 2. You must have filed a homestead application with the county assessor. Apply by August 15th for a full refund. Call 296-0557 for a schedule of tax assistance sites. J-- - WHHS appreciates all its volunteers. In iddition to the many who help with EAP, these ndividuals have assisted with mailings and )ther agency projects: Cay Bauman ene Bryant imelia Kotlovski -ucy McDonald Hoy Pouhot Gladys Blackmarr Doris Pooton Charlotte Spurr Martha Wilson Helen Kwakenot Grace Libra Alma Swanson Esther Lenmark Florence Novak Ruth Cluka FOOD STAMP PROGRAM Volunteers are available until June 30, 1990 to assist households in applying for Food Stamps. Call 920-5533 for information. The Suburban Energy Assistance Program thanks the following sites for allowing us space to take Energy Assistance applications during the 1989-90 heating season: Bloomington Ice Arena Brookdale Hennepin County Library-Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center Community Center Brookside Community Center - St. Louis Park Champlin City Hall Crystal City Hall Creekside Community Center Eden Prairie Community Center Hopkins Community Center Lenox Community Center Minnetonka Community Center New Hope City Hall Oak Grove Church - Bloomington Plymouth City Hall PRISM - Robbinsdale Richfield City Hall Robbinsdale City Hall Southdale Hennepin County Library Southshore Senior Center - Excelsior Westonka Senior Center - Mound Word of Peace Church - Rogers Zanewood Community Center - Brooklyn Park West Hennepin Human Services is committed to community-based services. These sites help us serve people in their own communities. - r •T r ?*• r$I r ------------- .. .:r •. : • • . • • - ■ ■ THANK YOU ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM VOLUNTEERS The Energy Assistance Program & the suburban Hennepin county area salute these individuals whose volunteer efforts "WARMED HOMES AND HEARTS" during the 1989-90 heating season: Harriet Armstrong Debbie Grahek Dottie O'Brien • Jack Bamum Hans Gunderson Anita Olson Shirley Bamum Marty Guritz •Kim Perry Ruth Barr *Jerry Hagberg Dr. Skip Petersen Eric Bass Luc^e Hallen *Leona Peterson • Harris Baxter *Emily Heesc •Bernice Putt * Tina Bozeman RusseU Jacobsen Kate Quady * John Broude *Bemadine Jahe *Dorothy Rauschendorfer* Vicki Busse Deann Johnson Kathy Roline Pearl Cannon •Dawn Kauffman Annette Ronan Caron Carlburg •John Kauffman Amy Samuelson Nonna Richar^-Carlson*David Knipp •Peg Schoenecker * Rose Deiley •Marion Koch *Theresa Spaeth Marion Dillon *Kersten Larson Norma Staver John Dysart *Florence Levy •Sheryl Stimpson Vanessa Edwards Juanita Lmder Bob Strelow • Dean Erickson *Irma Lionbe.-ger •Terri Swenson Martha FaUstrom *La Dean McWilliams *Joe Ulaszko Lloyd Perm •Mary Margaret Madcr *Marion Usset * Estella Fiikins *Deaima Magnuson Ed Venberg Ralph Friskey •Roy Markstiom •Renee Walton Barb Furaeisen Annette Mayberry Vicki Weikle Theresa Gauwin Charlotte Mellom *Dorothy Wickham Howard George Marcy Miller • Denotes RSVP membersLisa Geise Barbara Morris * Sara Goldberg Loma Goyns Virginia Morrow THANK YOU ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUPPORTERS The Energy Assistance Program Volunteers Recognition Event is set for May 16, 1990 aboard the Queen of Excelsior. Funds for this event are not part of West Hennepin Human Services or the Energy Assistance budget. A sincere THANK YOU" to the following businesses, vendors, and friends whose donations make this event possible: Minnegasco Natur^ Resources Corporation Local Oil Company Sipe & Gray Oil Company WnL H. McCoy Petroleum Fuels, Inc. Rettinger Bros. Oil Co. Wright Hennepin Coop. Electric Assoc. Klaers Oil Company, Inc. Beaudry Oil & LP Company The W. Gordon Smith Company Bill Dark Oil Company Robbinsdale Jaycees Corcoran Jaycees Midwest Gas Company Kisch Oil Company Rollins Oil Company Waconia Farm Supply Jafar Baradaran Byerly*s ■.-/f — MAZEBUSTERS t*'t The Mazebusters program begins training 10 new volunteers in July 1990. Program funds are from the McKnight Foundation’s Aid to Families in Poverty. West Hennepin Human Services sponsors die Mazebusters program. Mazebusters is a peer counseling program. Participants receive training as peer counselors and information and referral specialists. After training, participants volunteer in community agencies. They volunteer four hours per week. Mazebusters help other low income people receive available services. They receive a $500 voucher of their choice at the end of their volunteer service. :"T“ • -T The program pays all related child care and . transportation costs. ‘ Selections for new Mazebusters start soon using the existing waiting list. If you are a person of color, unemployed, receive AFDC and feel that you have limited options, please call 920-5533 to find out more about the program. This program serves low-income participants from the West Hennepin Suburban Area. West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 4100 Vernon Avenue South St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 (612) 920-5533 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1387 Mpls., Minn. MARK EEkNHhRDSuN, ADMIN. ORONO CITV HALL BOX 66 CRVSTAL BAV MN 5S3&3 err 3F Cl [lEDiD'o/istiil MAY 1 6 FUNDED BY COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN (C.A.S.H.) t 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE COMMITTEE AGENDA 4:30 pm, Monday, May 21, 1990 i e 1990 Water ski permit review, Carey Manson and Westonka water ski residents, seeking permission to renew approval for slalom water ski course per enclosure, and to further discuss proposal to amend LMCD ordinance governing requirement for an observer at all times while waterskiing on Lake Minnetonka. Special Event application. Lord Fletchers Restaurant, Canoe Races, involving use of channel to transient docks, which would further require off-lake storage of canoes which will conflict with the existing transient license held by the restaurant. Personal Watercraft Ordinance amended ordinance review as reviewed by the Board of Directors 4/25/90, copy with proposed amendments attached. Special Event deposit refund recommendation, Holiday-Johnson Crappie Contest, confirmed by water patrol as creating no problems and no moving violations per 4/25/90 Board minutes. Water Patrol report: Charter boat inspection progress; Fishing opener activity; Underwater Found Obstructions coordination assistance; Incidi It report; Additional reports . . . a. b. c. d. e. 6. Additional business recommended by the committee; a.Citizen complaint concerning wakes at approach to City of Wayzata docks on Wayzata Bay at Broadway Avenue near Sunsets restaurant. 5-15-90 » .<Including amendments adopted by the Board 'VBS/Xi Arrows point out amendments recommended by Lake Use Committee M/lb/'lO'T ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOAT SPEED IN QUIET WATERS AREAS AND TO THE OPERATION AND RENTAL OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT ADDING NEW SECTION 1.02, SUBD. 37; ADDING NEW SECTION 3.041; AMENDING SECTION 3.02, SUBDS. 1 AND 4; AND AMENDING SECTION 3.01, SUBD. 17 The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation DNtrict ordains that the LMCD Code is amended as follows: Section 1. LMCD Code Section 1.02 is amended by adding the following definition as Subdivision 37 and renumbering the current subdivisions from 37 on: Subd. 37. ^’Personal watercraft'* means a watercraft less than feet in - M/ES/'IO length which uses aw owtboofd an Inboard motor powering a water jet ^ pump, as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing Inside, the watercraft. Section 2. The LMCD Code is amended by adding new Section 3.041 as folK* ws: Section 3.041. Personal Watercraft. Subd. 1. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to operate a personal watercraft or for the owner thereof to permit the operation of a personal watercraft on the Lake in any way which is contrary to the provisions of this Code or the laws, rules or regulations of the state. ! Subd. 2. Personal Flotation Devices. No person shall operate or ride on a personal watercraft unless wearing a United States Coast Guard approved personal flotation device. Subd. 3. Hours of Operation. No person shall operate a personal watercraft between sunset and sunrise the following day. Subd. 4. Speed. No person shall operate a personal watercraft at a speed In excess of 5 miles per hour or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake within 150 feet of any shoreline, swimmer, anchored boat« person fishing, t mooringt dock or other water structure. Subd. 5. Operation Within 300 Feet of the Shoreline. No person shall operate a personal watercraft at a suc»d in excess of 5 miles per hour or at a speed which results in more than a mini mu >. ike between 150 feet and 300 feet of the shoreline unless the pf-rsonal watei aft is being driven perpendicular to the shoreline and to or from the nearest point of water 300 feet from the shoreline or parallel to the shoreline from one location to another in a manner which Is not repetitive.-------f Subd. 6. Automatic Cut-off Device. No person ad operate a personal watercraft which Is equipped bv the manufacturer with a lany: rd-type cutoff switch unless the lanyard is attached to the person, clothing or personal flotation device of the operator. No person shall operate a personal watercraft o.n_y dch the automatic cut-off device applied bv the manufacturer has been altered, disabled_or removed. Subd. 7. Wake Jumping. No person operating a personal watercraft shaU lump the wake of another watercraft within 150 feet of that watercraft. RnhH. B. Age of Operator, l^xceot In the case of an emergency, no person ■■nrtpr the aze of 1-1 shall operate or be permitted by the owner to operate_a nprpnnnl watercraft. \ person under 18 years of age may operate a personal watercraft undpr the direct supervision of an adult 18 years of age or over and within viaible band signaling distance. No person 13 years of aRC or^derbutjea than 18 years of age shall operate or be permitted by the owner to operate a personal watercraft, regardless of horsepower, without possessing a valid operators permit issued by the Commissioner pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 361.041 (1988). Subd. 9. Careless Operation. A personal watercraft must at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers which unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb or property, including, but not limited to weaving through congested boat traffic or swerving at the last possible moment to avoid collision shall constitute careless, reckless or grossly negligent operation within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subd. 2. Subd. 10. Rental. Any person who offers personal watercraft for rent; (a) shall not rent a personal watercraft, regardless of the horsepower, to any person who is less than 16 years of age or who is 16 years of age or over but less than 18 years of age and not in possession of an operator’s permit required by this section. (b) is required to provide a summary of the laws and rules governing the operation of personal watercraft and to provide instruction regarding safe operation to any person renting personal watercraft. The instruction provided to a renter must cover the laws and rules governing personal watercraft as well as the actual operation of the personal watercraft itself; and (c) is required to provide a United States Coast Guard approved wearable personal flotation device to all persons who rent a personal watercraft, as well as all other required safety equipment. Subd. 11. Prolonged Operation. No shall nperaU a personal y SHAi.1. BC. > watercraft^in a single osnfineA* area for more than thirty consecutive minutes. A M/5S/*1D <>nfined‘ area Is defined as an area of the lake which Is so small that the noise > M/ES/'lQ emanating from personal watercraft operated continuously within it Is liable to be a nuisance or cause substantial annoyance to residents of one or more shoreline properties during all of the time of such continuous operation. Section 3. LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subd. 1 is amended as follows: Section 3.02. Watercraft Speed. Subd. 1. Maximum Speeds. No person shall operate a watercraft on the Lake at a speed greater than is rei-sonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, watercraft or structure in or upon the Lake which is in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. No watercraft may be operated on the Lake at a speed in excess of the following limits: (a) 40 mile per hour during the daytime; (b) 20 miles per hour during the nighttime; (c) ft 5 miles per hour in the following areas; i) a quiet waters area established by this section, ii) that area within 150 feet of the shoreline, iii) that area within 150 feet of an authorized bathing area or swimmer, an authorized scuba diver's warning flag, an anchored raft or watercraft, or a dock or pier except that from which a watercraft with a person in tow is being operated. iv) an area of restricted speed posted in accordance with Subd. 4. The sheriff or executive director may provide for the erection of signs at appropriate locations in the Lake to inform operators of watercraft of the speed limitations established by this subdivision. Section 4. LMCO Code Section 3.02, Subd. 4. is amended as follows: Subd. 4. Quiet Waters Areas. No person shall operate a motor operated watercraft, inc’uding waterborne aircraft, on those areas of the Lake hereinafter specified at a speed in excess of 6 5 miles per hour, or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake in any area of the Lake designated as quiet waters areas. Quiet Waters restrictions shall apply to areas, channels, bays and shorelines as delineated by markers, buoys, or other aids to navigation placed by the County or the District. Section 5. LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subd. 17 is amended as follows: Subd. 17. Noise. No person shall operate any watercraft or boat, other than an aircraft, on the Lake which is capable of exceeding a noise level on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet or more from the watercraft or boat of: (a) 84 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured before January 1, 1982; or (b) 82 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured on or after January 1, 1982 i; or ^ 79 decibels in the case of per onal watercraft water jet pump engines. manufactured after Januv ~^ U 1992. This enactment is in effect from and after Its passage and publication In accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. Adopted by the LMCD Board of Directors this ,1990. day of MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16, 1990 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTENDANCE 7:02 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chairman Kelley and Planning Commissioners Johnson, Bellows, Hanson, Cohen 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 Peterson was also present, as was Councilmember Callahan. #1516 MR. ft MRS. WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560, 1580 and 1620 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:02 P.M. TO 8:07 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. MacMillan were present for this matter. Also present were Mr. Larry Hanson of Schoell ft Madson, Mr. Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, and Mr. Jack Taylor, Attorney. Gaffron explained the MacMillan's subdivision proposal. Mr. Baldwin stated that the main objective of this entire procedure is to build a house for the MacMillan's, not to subdivide property. Mr. Baldwin indicated the approximate location of the new residence. He stated that the subdivision is necessary to facilitate the sale of the MacMillan's existing home. Mr. Baldwin said, "The MacMillan's wish to maintain as much of the existing character as possible. The intent is to preserve the land." Larry Hanson stated that they would prefer to use the existing driveway alignment for Outlot C. He said, "The alignment proposed by the Orono City Engineer may cause problems due to the steep grade. If the road were constructed as we are proposing, a two-acre parcel would remain on the lake side of the outlot. It would allow extra land on the other side to be combined and added with another site if that were the case. The platting of this property will help to simplify the legal descriptions of the parcels. The site contains 50 acres which is fairly low density for the number of houses located in this area. " Gaffron noted that each of the new proposed lots that are less than 5 acres do have tested drainfield sites. Gaffron also noted that the existing house that is shown with the property line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, through the center will be removed. Gaffron asked if the MacMillan's intended to remove the other structures (the caretaker homes). Larry Hanson replied that is correct. - 1 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED Gaffron located an existing tennis court and stated that it is between 15' and 25' from the lot line. Bellows observed that once the house (1620 Fox Street) is removed there will be no principle structure as required if the tennis court is to remain. In regard to the proposed alignment for Outlot C, Gaffron said, "The City Engineer prefers not to have the Outlot dead end in the middle of someone's lot. However, the proposed outlot follows the logical progression along the existing driveway and from a topography standpoint, it may be the best location. The City Engineer did not like the idea of ending the road against a property line of a fully developed lot. The point is well taken that further development of that lot could occur if it is combined with property to the north." Kelley asked Gaffron what the City Engineer is reco.nmending to address the slopes if his alignment is used. Gaffron replied that the City Engineer has not commented about the feasibility of putting the road in that location. Mr. Taylor said, "The MacMillans and the property owners to the rear are concerned about upgrading the road between the MacMillan's driveway and the back end. This plat is not increasing any use at all in that area. They would like the gravel road to remain as is." Kelley asked how many houses will exist on the road when this proposal is completed. Gaffron counted 6 houses that will be served by this road. Bellows asked Gaffron what the is the status of the existing driveway from Fox Street to the entrance of the M. -Millan subdivision. Gaffron replied that the entire private road system is within private easements rather than on a platted outlot. Bellows said, "Given that the proposed subdivision does abut a public roadway, the subdivision could achieve access from a public road. Why is the driveway being used as an alternative. I think that should be clarified for the record." Baldwin explained that the use of the private road is only being increased by the addition of one house. He said, "The MacMillan's have a strong desire to maintain the high degree of privacy. Also, with the wetland and the slopes and the limited area we have for on-site septic systems, we would make a mess of - 2 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED the existing maple woods if we tried to put a road through to the public road. There is also the fact that other parties, other than the MacMillans are involved with the ownership of these properties.” Bellows asked how access to Outlot A will be achieved. Larry Hanson stated that Outlot A does not meet standards for a buildable lot at this time, which is why it has been designated as an outlot. Johnson observed that Lot 1, Block 1, appears to be a buildable lot and asked what purpose it will serve. Larry Hanson replied, "Though that lot is large enough, there is no intention to build there. That parcel was brought into the subdivision because part of it was needed to enlarge Lot 2." Bellows asked why it could not be combined with Lot 2. Mr. Taylor explained that there are different entities involved. Kelley stated that though the City Engineer may have good reasons for his alignment of Outlot C, it did not make sense. Gaffron asked for the Planning Commission's opinion regarding the cul-de-sac. Kelley stated that the cul-de-sac will run by the front of the Norton house. Bellows asked if it would be possible to locate the cul- de-sac further south where the grade is more flat. Baldwin stated that the MacMillans have a large garden in that area. Mrs. MacMillan asked why the cul-de-sac could not be located in Outlot B. Kelley stated that there are steep slopes in that area Gaffron informed Bellows that placing the cul-de-sac more to the south may interfere with drainfield sites. Kexley asked if it would be sensible to take half of the cul- de-sac from the Nortons and the other half from the MacMillans. Bellows interpreted the City Engineer's recommendation to - 3 - II MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED include only the dedication of the cul-de-sac at this time. Gaffron's interpretation is that the cul-de-sac be constructed at this time. Gaffron stated that clarification will be necessary. Larry Hanson saia, "I have a strong suspicion that no matter where the cul-de-sac is located, once future development occurs, it will be in the wrong place." Kelley stated that it would not make sense to move the cul- de-sac down toward to Fox Street. Bellows stated that perhaps the cul-de-sac does not make sense. Gaffron stated that from a safety aspect and the requirements of the Building Code, a cul-de-sac should be included. Gaffron asked Larry Hanson how wide the gravel portion of the road is. Larry Hanson replied that the gravel portion is 16' wide. Kelley quickly reviewed th= issues involved with this application. The Planning Commission agreed that the grade is too steep to realign the Outlot as proposed by the City Engineer. Kelley observed that the existing 16' paved portion of the driveway will serve more houses than the gravel portion of the road. The City is asking that the gravel portion be constructed to meet City standards which require a 24' or 26' paved width. In regard to the tennis court, Kelley stated that it should be removed. Moos, Cohen, Kelley, Bellows and Johnson agreed that the cul- de-sac is not necessary. Kelley stated that Outlot C should be aligned along the existing driveway. As far as the upgrading of Outlot C, Kelley stated that the portion to be upgraded is beyond the driveway entrance of the new lot. Johnson suggested that Outlot C not be upgraded until Outlot B is developed. Bellows, Kelley, Hanson, and Moos agreed with Johnson. Cohen favored upgrading Outlot C to a 24 foot width. Johnson stated that Lot 1, Block 1, still presented a problem because of the fact that it is a buildable lot. - 4 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE 11516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED Bellows said, "The access to that lot is achieved from t ,ie west, rather than being served by a road within this subdivision. If it is the intention not to use this lot as a buildable site, then why cannot the lot be designated as an outlot?" Mr. Taylor stated that there are other parties involved with Lot 1, Block 1. That party is amenable to what is being presented this evening, but any variation of that would require their approval. Kelley stated that Lot 1 is already served by a driveway from the west. He suggested that a condition of approval be that in the event Lot 1, Block 1, is developed that it continue to be served from the existing driveway to the west. Mabusth asked what purpose Outlot A serves. Taylor explained that by agreement between the two parties, the property line for Lot 2 runs along the lakeshore. The owners of Outlot A kept the lakeshore and the portion to the west of the lake. Gaffron reviewed the proposed conditions for Outlot A (page 4, A through D, of Gaffron's memo dated 4/13/90). With respect to Lot B, Gaffron asked whether it could be combined with the adjacent property to the west since there is common ownership. Larry Hanson said that there is really no need to do that. He stated that Outlot B is a residual piece created so MacMillans could take title to the property with the caretaker structure. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the tennis court be removed. Johnson suggested allowing a specific time period for the structure to be removed, a realignment of the lot line, or the construction of a principal structure. Larry Hanson stated that actual measurements were not taken to determine its location on the property. He suggested that he be given the opportunity to measure. Gaffron explained that the issue is not the location of the tennis court, but rather that it would be an accessory structure with no principal structure. Bellows suggested allowing one year for the accessory structure to conform >r be removed. Kelley indicated that the other accessory structures and the principal structure should be removed prior to the issuance of a - 5 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1516-MACMILLAN CONTINUED building permit for MacMillans' new residence. Baldwin asked if it would be possible to overlap that schedule to allow construction to begin while the estate of the applicant's mother is being settled. Taylor stated that it he cannot be certain that the existing house will be torn down. He said that the lot line may have to be realigned to preserve the house and the tennis court. Cohen ?aid that Mr. Taylor's statement put new light on the information presented this evening. Mr. MacMillan explained that there are other heirs involved and the decision to remove the house is not solely his to make. Bellows suggested tabling this application because the information presented at this point is incorrect. Bellows said that the Planning Commission would probably be amenable to recommending an extension of time to remove the principal structure. Johnson preferred to see the house removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. He indicated that such a requirement is a consistent policy of the City and tnere should be no exception. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1517 WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560 FOX STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:07 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining to the MacMillans' application to enlarge an existing pond. 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 Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for reconstruction of an existing artificial pond, subject to staff's conditions 1 through 6. - 6 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGZONING FILE #1517-MACMILLAN CONTINUED Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1502 MICHAEL HILBELINK 2180 PROSPECT AVENUE VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Hilbelink was present for this matter. Mr. and Mrs. Jentilucci and their Attorney, Neil Heikkila, were also present. Mabusth briefly reviewed the information and recommendations from the City Engineer resulting from the March 19 Public Hearing. Mabusth referred to a letter that she had sent the Jentiluccis. Mr. Jentilucci had not received the letter due to an incorrect address. Mr. Heikkila explained the specific concerns of his clients. These concerns are also addressed in Mr. Heikkila's April 12, 1990 letter to the City of Orono. Mrs. Jentilucci stated that Mr. Hilbelink is going to build the new house and sell it. She questioned how the new property owners will be notified of their drainage concerns. Mabusth stated that if the lot area variance is granted, it would be subject to certain conditions. Mabusth said that a permit is required for any type of land alteration. The City will now be aware of the drainage concerns and will carefully review any land alteration applications to assure that those concerns are addressed. Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission only address the lot area variance due to th. uncertainty of the house that is to be constructed. Kelley said that the City can require that the drainage requirements and setbacks be met as part of the building permit process. 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 Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot area variance for 2180 Prospect Avenue. The hardship is that the lot has been assessed for sanitary sewer and was previously a buildable lot. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. - 7 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING #1508 DONALD OLSON 4590 NORTH ARM DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:26 P.M. TO 8:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Olson were present. Gaffron reviewed the information pre. 1990 memo. his April 12, Ms. Barbara Dunsmore, 420 North Arm Drive, expressed concern regarding the possibility of the horses being housed in front of the Olson's house. Kelley asked Ms. Dunsmore and Mr. Olson if either would object to a condition that the horses and pasture area be located behind Olson's house. Mr. Olson stated that he had no intentions of housing the horses in front of his house. He said that he was taking this step first to see whether he could have horses on the property before he invested in the construction of a barn. Bellows questioned whether the City had any standards pertaining to proper sheltering of animals. Gaffron stated that the City did not have such standards. Bellows asked whether a requirement that the shelter be suitable for all seasons could be incorporated into the provisions of the conditional use permit. Kelley opined that such regulating was beyond the Planning Commission's realm of responsibility. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Donald Olson to keep up to 2 horses on his property provided the horses are housed in a new, all season structure meeting proposed horse shelter standards and that both the animal enclosure and pasture be kept behind the line of the existing house. Hanson questioned whether staff had the proper knowledge regarding the housing of horses to enforce such provision. Gaffron stated that staff would have to do some research. Motion, Ayes-3, Johnson, Hanson and Kelley, Nay, Motion failed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to recommend - 8 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1508-DONALD OLSON CONTINUED appr oval of the conditional use permit for Donald Olson to keep up to 2 horses on his property provided that both the animal housing structure and pasture be kept behind the line of the existing house. Motion, Ayes-4, Bellows and Moos Nay, Motion passed. i^i509 EARL FREEMAN 4545 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:37 P.M. TO 8:39 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Freeman was not present for this matter, nor was there a representative on his behalf. Mabusth reviewed the information in her April 11, 1990 memo regarding this application for variances for an existing accessory structure. Mr. Thomas Hallquist, 415 Deborah Drive, stated that he was concerned about public safety due to the condition of the accessory structure, v.ell and storm cellar. Mr. Hallquist stated that the structure could remain if it was cleaned up. Hanson concurred with Mr. Hallquist and said that he would be willing to give Mr. Freeman a limited amount of time to entirely clean up the site. He suggested June 30, 1990. Johnson asked if it was Mr. Freeman's intention to s.ell the property. Mabusth stated that she understood thac to be his intention. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of the variances to maintain the accessory structure, conditioned on the following: That the site be completely cleaned, all debris and safety hazards removed by June 30, 1990. If this condition is met, the structure may remain with no principal structure until June 30, 1991. Bellows asked why Hanson was providing such an extended period of time. Hanson stated that Mr. Freeman resides out of State and that may cause more delays than if he resided close by. Motion, Ayes-2, Nays-4, Motion failed. Hanson suggested that staff inspect the site and make a list of all the items on the site that pose a safety hazard and should be removed. - 9 1MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1509-FREEMAN Cohen stated that Mr. Freeman should be asked to verify that he has insurance coverage for the property. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the variance to maintain the accessory structure provided that the lot is cleaned up and all items within the structure removed by June 15, 1990. If this condition is met, the structure may remain until December 31, 1990, subject to conditions 1 and 4 of staff's memo and that the structure remain empty at all times. Proof of insurance and the name of a local agent must be provided by June 15, 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Janson, Johnson, Nay. Hanson voted nay due to the time frame. Johnson voted nay due to the time frame and his preference to allow the structure to be used for reasonable storage. #1510 RICHARD H. BROWN 2685 SHADYWOOD ROAD GUEST APARTMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Richard E. Brown, son of the applicant and purchaser of this property, was present. Gaffron explained the applicant's proposal and the facts regarding the property. Kelley said there is not much that can be done to correct the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback area. Kelley objected to the removal of non-structural hardcover in exchange for structural hardcover. Cohen, Johnson, and Bellows concurred. Mr. Brov;n stated that he did not understand the issue of hardcover. Gaffron stated that more than likely the applicant will opt to remove hardcover from the driveway and/or sidewalks in order to maintain the 25% allowed. Bellows stated that there is no access to the apartment through the primary residence as required. Gaffron showed where the apartment accesses are located. Gaffron suggested giving the applicant an opportunitv > provide an interior access. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. - 10 - Vi MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE 11510-RICHARD BROWN CONTINUED Kelley asked Mr. Brown if he would prefer to table this. Mr. Brown stated that he would like the matter tabled. It was moved Ly Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-i, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1511 CITY OF ORONO 2210 WAYZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:30 P.ri. TO 10:32 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were dwvy noted. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and a 7' setback variance. Motion, Ayes- 4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1512 STEVEN RUCE 4625 WEST BRANCH ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:58 P.M. TO 9:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Ceiiificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Ruce was present for this public hearing. Mabusth reviewed the issues involved with this application. Mabusth sugge i that it may be appropriate for Mr. Ruce to appl’ a H: Occupation License. / asked Mr. Ruce if uhe commercial use of this property has unified since the conditional use permit for the greeni -^.e was first issued. Mr. Ruce explained, "The garden has two purposes. The terraced area is used for gro»*»ing plants to sell off-site in my garden business. I'm not a 1^ v-^scaper, I'm a garden designer and in order for me to make the business profitable, I grow the plants I can on the site rather than acquiring them from another source. The second reason for the garden is that I am interested in growing plants that I can cross-pollinate to create differc'nt varieties. I tried to make the garden aesthetically pleasing. The only mistake I made is tha' I did not go through the proper channels to do that. I'm sor:. . hat happened. It was due to my own ignorance more than anythinn MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1515-RUCE CONTINUED Kelley asked Mr. Ruce if he employs persons and if so, if they leave their vehicles at his house to go to various work sites. Mr. Ruce replied, "I have employees that come to the site and we take vehicles from the site. I have hired a person to work on the garden itself, but he is not an employee of my business and does not work for my clients. Hanson stated that he views the construction of the additional garage as an intensification of the site and that concerns him. He said that the expansion of the garden does not trouble him, but rather it is an appropriate use of the land. Hanson said that the Code does not work well if it makes no provision for addressing the issue of vehicles being 3 eft at the site by employees. Mabusth stated that vehicles are not to be parked on the site. Mabusth suggested that the Home Oc‘jupation may be more acceptable if the company vehicles were taken home by the employees rather than stored on this lot. She said that it is the way the applicant's home occupation is conducted that violates the intent of the Ordinance. Mabusth suggested that staff could work with Mr. Ruce to make revisions in the way the business is run. Mr. Laverne Dunsmore, a neighbor, stated that Mr property is beautiful and has been enhanced tremendously. Ruce's Mr. Jim Steffinson, a neighbor to the west, said, "Steve's business is unlike any other. He is not ci landscaper, he is a gardner and is very low key. You can talk to any of the neighbors and they will all agree that Mr. Ruce has very little impact on the neighborhood. It is a boauti !ul area and we would like it to remain." There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. Bellows indicated that she was only concerned with the trucks and the employees. Kelley indicated that he is concerned about employees going to work at a residential site. It was moved oy Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to table this to allow time for staff to work with the applicant. Motion, •..es“6, Nays-0, Motion passed. - 12 - J r MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLAITNING COMMISSION MEETING #1513 WALTER KRAHL 4775 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:15 P.M. TO 9:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information and issues pertaining to this application for hardcover and street setback variances. Hanson asked what the hardship is. Gaffron said that the lot is just under 1/2 an acre and is located in the 1 acre zone. He also stated that there are steep slopes on either side of the house. Mr. Krahl said if the rock and plastic was removed from the north side of the house# it would be difficult to grow grass or any other vegetation in that area. He said that there is a 65% slope toward the lake and that any fertilizers used would run directly into the lake. He suggested there may be less impact on the lake if the rock and plastic was allowed to remain. Mrs. Krahl added that they have a very tiny kitchen and dining room. They ha/e been trying to plan this addition over the course of 5 years. Mr. Krahl noted that they are adding 4' to the bedroom add tion on the other end of the house because there is currently no alternate way to exit that room. He said that the bedroom windows are very small as the house was constructed prior to the Building Code requiring them to be larger. Johnson asked if the house existed prior to the platting of County Road 19. Gaffron showed that at one time the Krahl's property extended to the middle of County Road 19 and the traveled right- of-way was less. When the road was platted Krahl' s lost approximately 5 to 10 additional feet of their property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. Johnson stated that this lot is unique because of the steep slopes and the shared driveway arrangement. He believed that runoff would occur rapidly regardless of whether there is grass or structural hardcover. Kelley stated that he would not be in favor of such a 70 addition. He said that he might look favorably upon an addition that equals the size of the concrete patio. - 13 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1513-KRAHL CONTINUE Bellows concurred with Kelley in that the addition is ambitious for the size of the lot. Johnson asked how many square feet the addition will add to the house. Gaffron calculated that the addition will add approximately 900 s.f. to the size of the house. Kelley said that the footprint of the house would increase fifty percent. Hanson stated that this is one of those sites that probably should not be improved. The lot is developed to its capacity. Cohen stated that he would have difficulty approving this because it is trading non-structural nardcover that could be removed for permanent hardcover. Johnson agreed that the addition is ambitious. It was moved by Bellows to recommend denial of the hardcover and street setback variances for Walter Krahl to construct an addition. Gaffron suggested asking the applicant if he would prefer to table this and bring back a less ambitious plan. Mr. Krahl requested tabling and Bellows withdrew her motion. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Cohen, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1514 RONALD MILLER 270 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:35 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Miller was present for this public hearing. Gaffron reviewed the facts and issues involved with this application for a height variance for an accessory barn. Gaffron noted that it is the applicant's intention to move a barn onto his property from the Panuska property. Kelley asked Gaffron if he had heard anything further from the property owners on Harrington Circle. Gaffron stated that he had received several acknowledgment forms from residents on Harrington Circle. The owners of 253 Harrington Circle indicated that they object to a barn in a residential neighborhood because it will be higher than the - 14 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1514-MILLER CONTINUED houses. Gaffron said that their concern should be weighed with other facts such as the size of the barn in comparison to the houses and other structures in the area. He noted that the house at 253 Harrington Circle is higher than the barn will be. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Hanson asked how much fill Mr. Miller intends to bring onto the property. Mr. Miller did not know. Kelley stated that if this application is approved Mr. Miller should have these specifications prior to Council review. Kelley said that he would like Mr. Miller to submit site elevation depicting the floor level of the barn. Kelley asked whether the floor level is going to be above or below street level. Mr. Miller replied, "It is going to be 18" above the level of the road." Bellows agreed with Kelley. She said that a height variance cannot be determined without topographical information specifically showing the elevation of the barn floor compared to the house. Johnson suggested that the Planning Commission require that the floor level of the barn be the same as the house. Bellows suggested tabling this. It was moved Hanson, seconded by Bellows, to table this application. Mr. Miller indicated that the barn may not uo available to him if this is tabled. Hanson withdrew his motion. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Hanson, to recommend approval of the height variance for an accessory barn provided that the applicant submit a topographic survey placing the barn on the lot one week prior to Council review. The height of the barn shall be no more than 4' above the height of the house. Councilmember Callahan stated that it may be appropriate to grant a height variance for an existing barn being moved onto the site. He questioned, however, whether xt was the intention of the Planning Commission to allow the height variance should Mr. Miller construct a barn structure. Kelley stated that the height variance will only apply to the existing structure being moved from ♦he Panuska property. Any other structure that Mr. Miller may construct, must conform to the height requirements. Kelley asked if the Planning Commission would give Mr. Miller a variance - 15 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE 11514-RONALD MILLER CONTINUED if more than 100 cubic yards of fill is needed to maintain tho height. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission thau such a variance would be granted. Johnson amended his motion to include those provisions, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. (Bellows departed at this point) Gaffron noted that the applicant had submitted a letter which made reference to the potential need to construct a barn structure should the Panuska barn be unavailable. Gaffron stated that he had not addressed that issue with the applicant. He asked that Mr. Miller be given the right to come back to the Planning Commission with the same application if the Panuska barn is not available. Kelley stated that he would not object if the City Administrator agrees. Kelley noted however, that he will not recommend approval for a variance for a new structure. #1515 JEFFREY JOHNSON 3825 CHERRY AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:54 P.M. TO 9:58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Johnson removed himself from any discussion or voting of this matter in the capacity of a Planning Commissioner. Mabusth reviewed the information contained in her memo dated 4/12/90. She noted that the Hennepin County Property Description office has confirmed that they will approve the legal combination of these parcels. Mabusth stated that the property is divided by an unimproved platted right-of-way. She said that vacating the right-of-way would not be beneficial to the applicant. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson, to recommend; approval of the variances requested to provide riparian access and a dock for 3825 Cherry Avenue based on the hardships set forth by the applicant and subject to conditions 1 through 4 in staff's memo dated 4/14/90. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Johnson abstained. Motion passed. #1518 BIG ISLAND VETERAN'S CAMP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:00 P.M. TO 10:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. - 16 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1518-BIG ISLAND CONTINUED Mr. Wisdorf, a member of the Board of Governors, was present. Mabusth referred to her 4/12/90 memo regarding information and staff's concerns regarding this application. Mr. Wisdorf explained that the cabins will not be accessible to the handicapped. The plan is to construct the basic cabins at this point and add the water and kitchen facilities at a later time. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for expansion of the overnight camping use, allowing 5 cabins to be included in the overnight tent camping area based on site plan included as Exhibit "J". Approval is also recommended for the variance allowing pier foundations instead of standard block foundations. Approval is based on conditions 1 through 10 of staff's memo dated 4/12/90. Kelley asked if the applicants have met all requirements set forth in previous resolutions. Mabusth replied that they have. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-C, Motion passed. 11520 GERRY & DIANE CARLSON 3165 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:03 P.M. TO 10:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information and issues involved with this application. Kelley asked if the hardcover calculations included only the area around the pool, not the water surface. Gaffron stated that is correct. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that an increase of 6% hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is not acceptable. Kelley stated that the Planning Comraission has consistently denied requests to encroach beyond the average lakeshore setback line. Hanson noted that in this case, the encroachment occurs with a grade level structure. - 17 - MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1520-GERRY CARLSON CONTINUED Cohen agreed that the average lakeshore setback was not a concern. Mr. Jeffrey Anderson, Architect, explained that the increase in the 75-250' hardcover occurs mainly because of the garage and driveway. He said, "We feel we have improved the situation. V7e added bituminous, the garage is virtually the same size. By eliminating the need to back onto Casco Circle, we have improved the safety factors. However, we had to increase the hardcover in order to do that." Kelley agreed that the safety conditions would improve. Kelley stated that he would approve the new garage provided that hardcover is maintained at 25%. Kelley stated that this is an intensification of the property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Hanson asked the Carlsons if they would prefer to have this matter tabled to allow them to revise their plan. Ms. Carlson stated that she would prefer to proceed to Council. Gaffron noted that should the Carlsons proceed only with the proposal for the garage and driveway, they will still exceed 25% hardcover. He asked the Planning Commission for direction. Kelley said if the old garage is torn down, the new garage must conform to the standards. Kelley suggested constructing a two-car garage rather than a three-car garage. Mr. Carlson stated that he had received a letter from t'‘*^ City at the time they obtained the permit for the addition. he said that the letter offered the opinion that a request for a three-car garage and 27% - 28% hardcover would appear to be reasonable. Gaffron stated that the City would nui ’■•ave r de such statements without a disclaimer. Mr. Carlson said that there were full disclaimers, but that was his interpretation. He asked if the Planning Commission would consider the three-car garage if they withdrew the request for the pool. 25%. Kelley reiterated his position that hardcover not exceed It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Kelley, to recommend - 18 - MINUTES OF APRIL IS, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1520-GERRY CARLSON CONTINUED denial of the variances requested in Application #1520. Motion, Ayes-4, Nay-0, Hanson abstained. (Cohen departed at this point) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #1519 FULLERTON PROPERTIES WILLOW DRIVE AND COUNTY ROAD 6 Mr. Joe Franks was present Gronberg, Surveyor. for this review, as was Mark Mr. Franks stated that it was not appropriate for staff to request that they provide a loop road to the north as well as an extension of the private road to the south. He said that the County preferred that there be no access from County Road 6. Mr. Franks suggested that the road to the south could be looped by including the southern property at the time it is subdivided. Kelley stated that if a loop road were constructed to County Road 6, the City would probably, at some point, maintain it. Kelley asked Franks how that would affect the homeowners association. Franks replied that the homeowners could vote to disband the association. Hanson asked if the private road would be constructed to City standards. Franks replied that it would be constructed to City standards. Kelley stated that due to the increasing traffic and speed of traffic on County Road 6, he would prefer to nave the loop road to the south. Franks noted that the existing out-buildings located on th.. lot with the original homestead will be removed. The condition of the principal structure is being reviewed to determine whether it can be updated to conform with the homes that will be constructed in this subdivision. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 1990 It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Kelley, to approve the Minutes of the March 19, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayej-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Sarah Moos would attend the May 14, 1990 Council Meeting. - 19 - MINUTES OF MEETING NORTH TONKA CRIME PREVENTION COALITION: JOINT MEETING OP ORGANIZING COMMITTEE AND THE FIRST BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 9, 1990 7:30 a.m. Pannekoeken Huis, Long Lake Directors present:Burt Lindahl Gretchen Menzel Barbara Peterson John O'Sullivan Desyl Peterson Terry Albers Janice Berg Michael Byrne . Eugene Deterling Rev Richard Erickson Melvin Kilbo Directors absent: Jerry Rockvam, Arlo VandeVegte Organizing Committee members not on Board: Present: Charlotte Hill Dean Molin Absent: Diane Weist Others present: Brad Johnson, Crime Prevention Officer, Orono Police Dept The meeting was called to order at 7.*35 by the chair of the Organizing Committee, D. Peterson. Distributed Materials:List of BOD, to be corrected for address, phone Letter from D. Peterson to Jo A. Paetznick, dated 4-10-90 re Articles and Bylaws 3. Letter from Mark F. Palma to D. Peterson, re same 4. Minutes of Action of Incorporator 5. Draft copy of Bylaws 6. NTCPC Proposed Major Activities list of 4-13-90 7. Budget Projection of 4-18-90 prepared for incorporation filing 1. 2. ACTION AND CONSIDERATION ITEMS; 1. Review of proposed Bylaws and comments D. Peterson to implement. 2. Election of Board of Directos. Confirmed. Adopted with changes. 3. Terms of first Board: using distributed list of BOD, members numbered 1-2-3 years, etc., down the alphabetical listing. 4. Election of Officers. President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer Results are: Gretchen Menzel Reverend Richard Ericksor Desyl Peterson Michael Byrne ^nesday of each month at 7:30 a.m. ng Lake. Reverend Erickson 5. Future meetings-* The second the Trinity Lu^haran Church *. graciously offered the facili* and the BOD will reimburse him for the cost of coffee. The Boai.cs Secretary will arrange for pastry and juici'. 6. Annual meeting: tc leld in May of each year. i . ?• Executive Committee: the Officers of the Corporation will serve as the Executive Committee. 8. BOD roster: the distributed list of members will be corrected by C. Hill for preferred mailing address and phone numbers. 9. Tax Exemption Application: the Officers are to comple*-e,with D. Peterson implementing. 10. The Organizing Committee, having completed its function and purpose, resigned, to be replaced by the BOD of the NTCPC. THE MEETING WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, G. MENZEL: 11. Standing Committee will be: Neighborhood Crime Watch Committee: "E. Deter ling to chair Business Crime Watch Committee: T. Albers and J. O'Sullivan co-chair Community Education Committee: Communication Commitcee: D. Molin will serve as member Funds Development Committee 12 Kick-Off Committee (during Long Lake Corn Days, Aug. 11, 12), ad hoc committee. J. Berg will chair, with D. Weist and G. Menzel to serve as members. 13. Chief Kilbo itemized c'urrent expenses which he will be paying out of the Or^no Crime Prevention Fund assets. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 a.m. NOTE: NEXT MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Wednesday, June 13, 1990 7:30 a.m. Trinity Lutheran Church of Long Lake 2060 6th Ave N Long Lake 473-8577 C. Hill 5-10-90 . i.iUU / NORTH TONKA CRIME l.>EVENTION COALITION i 1990 BOARD OF DIRECTORS (corrected) NAME TERM OF OFFICE PREFERRED MAILING ADDRESS HOME PHONE Terry Albers Janice Berg Michael Byrne Eugene Deterling Rev Richard Erickson 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 1 yr 2 yr Melvin Kilbo 3 yr 3183 North Shore Dr Wayzata MN 55391 2655 Lydiard Ave Excelsior MN 55331 P.O. Box 636 Long Lake MN 55356 240 C>gnet Place Long Lake MN 55356 Trinity Lutheran Church 2060 6th Ave N Long Lake MM 55356 471-9597 471-7462 894-3980 4:.3-z793 473-13c5 Orono Police Dept P.O. Box 86 Crystal Bay MN 55323 OFFICERS; President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer Gretchen Menzel Rev Richard Erickson Desyl Peterson Michael Byrne C. Hill 5-10-90 ^ WORK PHONE 473-0873 476-2413 473-7347 473-0732 4/3-8577 542-1762 473-7710 Burt Lindahl 1 yr P.O. Box 32 Wayzata MN 55391 471-834:473-1455 Gretchen Menzel 2 yr 421C Forest Lake Dr Mound MN 55364 472-4127 N/A Barbara Peterson 3 yr P.O. Box 164 Crystal Bay MN 55323 475-2706 927-8997 John O'Sullivan 1 yr P.O. Box 65 Navarre MN 55392 420-3399 471-0725 Desyl Peterson 2 yr 4385 Chippewa Lane Maple Plain MN 55359 473-7496 939-8262 Jerry Rockvam 3 yr P.O. Box 335 Spring Park MN 55384 47l-?r'l5 471-9515 rlo VandeVegte 1 yr 1850 W. Wayzata Blvd Long Lake MN 55356 475-3469 association of metropolitan municipalities 2 2 1990 May 21, 1990 Dear Chief Administrative Official: Attached is a summary of 1990 legislative action on significant AMM policy issues. It includes a summary of tax related issues found in the 0-inibus tax bill, major high priority AMM non tax policy, other AMM policy issues which were passed into law, and finally, significant issues which did not become law as per AMM policy. Please do not hesitate to contact either Vern Peterson or Roger Peterson at the AMM Office (227-4008) should you have questions. Respectfully, Walter Fehst, AMM President NOTE; Managers/Administrators. This Summary Bulletin is being sent only to you for further action. Would you please duplicate and distribute this to members of your council and other interested staff persons as you deem appropriate. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 3 as^clatlon of metro BULLETIN _ tropoliton municipalities May 11, 1990 TO: AMM Mev^sr City Officials FROM: Vern Peterson Roger Peterson RE:SUMMARY OF 1990 AMM LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND ACTS OF INTEREST TO AMM CITIES. A.OMNIBUS TAX BILL (HF 2478, CHAPTER 604) PRIORITY POLICY TAX ISSUES (ITEMS 1,2,3) 1. 2. 3. 4. Budget/Aids/Levy Base/Credits Tax Base Equalization Aid (TBEA) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Other Tax Bill Issues B. MAJOR PRIORITY POLICY ISSUES - NOT TAX RELATED 1. 2. 3. Land Use Planning (HF 1654/SF 1510) Solid Waste Management (HF 2108/SF 1996) Organized Collection (SF 2195, Ch. 600) Comparable Worth (SF 488, Ch. 512) C. OTHER POLICY ISSUES - PASSED IN 1990 Metropolitan Surface Water (SF 1894, Ch. 601) MVET Transfer (HF 2200, Ch. 562) Z. Combined Sewer Separation Funding (HF 2651, Ch. 610) 4. Airport Search Area Zoning (SF 2433, Ch. 440) 1. 2. D. OTHER POLICY ISSUES - NOT PASSED 1. Long Trucks (HF 6696/SF 447) 2. Statewide Contractor Licensing (HF 2015/SF 1792) 3. Fiscal Disparity Funds - Attempted Raids Distribution Note: This Bulletin is being mailed to Managers/Administrators only. Please provide this information to members of your council and interested staff persons. 183 university avenue east. st. paul. minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 Pages 1 2 3 11 12 12 12 13 14 17 17 17 18 18 19 ■■ A. 1990 OMNIBUS TAX BILL (HF 2478, LAWS 1990 CHAPTER 604) 1. BUEXSET IS SUES/AT PS/LEVY BASE. PREFACE. The 1990 Omnibus Tax Bill continued the two year reversal of nearly two decades of state/city partnership in provision of key local public services. City Local Government Aid is cut $46 million in 1990 and 1991 following the nearly $100 million city LGA shift in the 1989 special session tax bill. In addition, if the budget reduction in the area of aids, credits, etc. in pay 1990 and 1991 do not create a continued savings of $175 million in pay 1992, additional cuts in LGA and HACA will be made proportional to the city and county levy bases. It is estimated at this time that the 1992 cuts could be as much as $54 million of which $28 million would come from cities. The 1991 Legislature will make the final determination based on Revenue forecasts in late 90 or early 91 and will also consider whether additional aid cuts will be allowable levies or base reductions. The bad news is that the year in question will be another election year for all legislators. LGA. The 1990 city LGA/HACA cut is $15.6 million which equals approximately 1.53% of a cities super revenue base of certified 1990 LGA, tax base equalization aid, general tax levy, and specials including bonded debt levy. This reduction in aid occurs with just 8 months remaining in the 1990 budget year and is a permanent aid reduction for future years none of which can be recaptured through levy by cities covered by chapter 275.50 levy limits (i.e. those over 2500 population). ] addition another $15 million of aid increases granted by the 1989 special session tax bill are cancelled, thus holding the 1991 LGA level at the reduced 1990 amount. The total two year LGA cut, although disproportionately high when comparing the total city aid to state budget, is significantly less than the original governor's proposal or Senate passed tax bill. A provision which would have reduced MSA funds in cities with no LGA, TBEA, or HACA was eliminated from the final bill. LEVY BASE/LIMITS. The basic levy limit law of 3% inflation and one half of population growth did not change for 1991 nor did special levies for cities. However, after calculating the 1991 levy base from the current 1990 levy base, an amount equal to the 1.53% aid cuts will be deducted from the new base thus making the 1990 aid cuts a permanent levy base cut. The Levy base cut in 1991 equal to 1.53% of super levy base does apply to those cities that do not receive any LGA, TBEA, or HACA even though they did not lose actual dollars in 1990. LEVY LIMITS EXTENDED. The legislature did extend city levy limits one more year through payable 1992 so that the 1990 -1- 2. aid/levy base slashes would force real spending cuts and would be less likely to show up as property tax increases. City and County Chapter 275.50 levy limits will now both sunset effective taxes payable in 1993 unless changed by the 1991 or 1992 legislature. HOMESTEAD AND AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AID (HACA). Because of the base reductions in 1990 there will be a permanent $1.2 million HACA savings. In 1991 the cost of living adjustment is reduced and capped at 3.94% and changes made in class rates other than the high valued C/I property will not be paid for with HACA, saving an additional $10 million. The high valued C/I class rates are reduced to 4.95% for 1991 and HACA will be increased by $18 million to offset the decreased property tax to prevent a shift to other property. HACA growth for 1992 and beyond will reflect only Household growth and not contain a cost of living adjustment. It will continue to be adjusted for net tax capacity changes and fiscal disparity adjustments. PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES. Several Class Rates were changed which will not be funded by HACA thus causing a shift in taxes from one class of property to anccher. Of primary interest in the metro area is the change for Homesteads. The 2% rate will now apply to the market value between $68,000 and $110,000 rather than $68,000 to $100,000. The rate on the first $100,000 value of C/I property drops from 3.3% to 3.2%. Other property with declining rates include utility real and personal, all classes currently at 2.4%, agriculture, mobile home parks, and fraternity/sorority houses. The shift from over $100,000 homes to other property is estimated to be $12 million statewide. TARGETING INCREASED. The pay 1991 targeting funding for homeowners with tax increases exceeding 10% was increased by $6 million to a total of $13 million. The refund will equal 75% of the first $250 increase over 10% plus 90% of the amount over the first $250. To qualify, the increase must be at least $40. This provision mainly benefits the metropolitan area. C/I EQUALIZATION REFUND REPEALED. The 1989 tax bill provided an equalization aid refund for C/I property in areas where the local tax rate was in excess of 100%, primarily in cities in greater Minnesota, at a cost of $10 million per year. This provision was repealed. TAX BASE EQUALIZATION AID fTBEA). The final tax bill basically implemented a major AMM policy of grandfathering the 1990 distribution but provide no increase for 1991. The $19 million distribution in 1990 had been rolled into the LGA pot, however the new bill pulls it back out and continues a modified TBEA formula. The new unfunded formula reduces the equalized amount -2- to 30% of a cities average 3 year levy and limits the increase if there were one to 12% plus adds eligibility for first class cities. There was discussion that if funding is considered in future years, it may be limited/targeted for C/I relief. 3. TAX INCREMENT FINANCE (TIF) ARTICLE 7. Preventing restrictive amendments to the TIF law was one of the major AMM priorities for the 1990 session. The AMM worked very closely with the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), North Metro Mayors Association and other city groups during the session to try and maintain TIF as a viable economic development tool for cities. Unfortunately, the opponents of TIF which included two county associations, two school district associations, several business associations and the Department of Revenue, launched a major anti-TIF lobby which helped convince the legislature to radically change the TIF statutes. Damaging as the amendments to TIF are, we were able to persuade the Tax Conference Committee to eliminate some of the most punitive features of the original house bill co-authored by Representatives Rest, Schreiber, Ogren, Simoneau and Price. The restrictive provisions eliminated from the original bill were volume limits, reverse referendum, prohibition against land write down, redefined project area and restricting use of developer repayments. The following is a section by section summary of the major provisions of the TIF Article. We want to acknowledge that much of the material contained in this detailed summary was prepared by Jim Holmes of the Holmes and Graven Firm. Section 1. Cities will loose part of their LGA or HACA payments for districts certified after April 30, 1990. The reductions vary depending on the type of district but the mechanism works as follows: (1) Determine qualifying captured tax capacity ("QCTC") for post April 30, 1990 districts. This is an amount equal to: (a) 100 percent of the captured tax capacity of economic development and soils condition districts; (b) For renewal and renovation districts, none of the captured tax capacity in years 1 through 5, then phasing in at a rate of 12-1/2 percent per year in years 6 through 13. (c) For redevelopment districts, housing, districts, hazardous substance districts, none of the captured tax capacity in years 1 through 5, then phasing in at a rate of 6-1/4 percent per year in years 6 through 21. -3- (2) Calculate the "reduction in state tax increment financing aid" ("RISTIFA") as follows: (a) Determine a make-believe state school aid amount assuming QCTC within the school district (divided by the applicable sales ratio) was available to the school district and, therefore, would be included in its tax capacity for purposes of determining state school aid payments; (b) Subtract this make-believe state aid amount from the real state aid amount. (3) Equalize RISTIFA as follows: (a) Divide the municipality's total tax capacity by the applicable sales ratios; (b) Multiply the adjusted total tax capacity by 5 percent; (c) If RISTIFA exceeds this amount, multiply the excess by 75 percent and subtract the result from RISTIFA. (4) Add QCTC to the municipality's taxing capacity for purposes of calculating its next years LGA. Section 2. Essentially a special provision for St. Paul's Galtier Plaza. Section 3. POOLED REFUNDING BONDS. A provision in the municipal development district law (Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.129, Subd. 2) has permitted the refunding of general obligation tax increment bonds with tax increment revenue bonds and the pledge of increment to the refunding bonds from all districts participating in the refunding. This permitted limited pooling, since districts with healthy cash flows could be used to pay debt service on the refunding bonds, thus freeing increment within other participating districts. This amendment revokes this authority after April 30, 1990. Section 4. Technical Correction. Section 5. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. Two substantive changes are made in the definition of "redevelopment districts." First, the definition which authorized qualification of a district as a redevelopment district if parcels comprising 70 percent of the area were occupied, 20 percent of the buildings were structurally substandard and 30 percent of the buildings required renovation was eliminated. Therefore, a -4- redevelopment district can now be created only if the area jneets the 50 percent substandard test or if it consists of underutilized railroad property. Secondly, a new limitation was added with regard to determining whether a building is substandard. A substandard condition cannot be found if (1) the building is in compliance with the relevant building code, or (2) it is not in compliance, but would be at a cost of less than 15 percent of replacement costs. This determination can be based upon reasonably available evidence and does not require interior inspection or independent, expert appraisal. Section 6. RENEWAL AND RENOVATION DISTRICTS. The 30 percent substandard and 20 percent renovation test which was eliminated from the definition of "redevelopment district" by Section 5 is added as a separate definition of "renewal and renovation districts." Section 7. HOUSING DISTRICTS. The percentage of fair market value of a housing development which can constitute non-low and moderate income housing uses and still have the development qualify as a "housing district" is reduced from 30 percent to 20 percent. Sections 8 & 18. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. The use of economic development districts was severely restricted. Economic Development districts are basically limited to manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, and telemarketing. Tourism projects can be included outside of the 7-County metro area. No more than 10% of the square feet of the buildings may be used for non-<^alifying purposes. If the non-qualifying sc[uare footage is directly related to and in support of the qualifying activity, up to 25% may be for non-qualifying purposes. Cities with less than 5,000 residents can use TIE to subsidize retail or commercial development up to a total of 5,000 square feet on a cumulative basis for all economic development districts in the city. Cities cannot use economic development districts to entice a business from another Minnesota City. Section 9. CREDIT ENHANCED BONDS. Added to the definition section of the tax increment act is the definition of "credit enhanced bonds." They are bonds which are: (1) Payable primarily from tax increment which is: (a) Derived from a tax increment district within which at least 75 percent of the bond proceeds are expended on "activities", as defined in Section 21 set forth below; -5- and (b) Estimated to be adequate to pay debt service on the bonds; (2) Further secured by tax increment: (a) Derived from other tax increment districts; and (b) Determined by the user to be necessary to market the bonds. Section 10. COUNTY ROAD COSTS. The Amendments broaden this rec[uirement from soils conditioned districts only to include road costs precipitated by any type of tax increment district. In order for the county to conclude that the costs would not be recjuired "but for” the existence of the tax increment district, the road improvement must not be scheduled for at least 5 years under existing county plans. Section 11. RENENAL AND RENOVATION DISTRICTS - MUNICIPAL APPROVAL. This amendment adds "renewal and renovation districts" to district types which the city must describe in its approving resolution. Section 12. RENEWAL AND RENOVATION DISTRICTS - MODIFICATION. This amendment adds "renewal or renovation districts" to the district types for which findings supporting enlargement must be made by the City in its approving resolution. Section 13. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DISTRICTS. Under prior law hazardous substance subdistricts could consist of parcels containing hazardous substances and contiguous parcels separated only by rights-of-way. The Amendments expand this to include contiguous parcels whether or not separated by rights-of-way. Section 14. DEBT SERVICE ON CREDIT ENHANCEMENT BONDS. This authorizes the expenditure of tax increment from any tax increment district for debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The district from which the increment is derived need not be located within the same project as the project within which the proceeds of the bonds are expended. Section 15. RENEWAL AND RENOVATION DISTRICT - DURATION. The durational limit for a "renewal or renovation district" is 15 years from receipt of the first increment. Section 16. EXCESS INCREMENT. The Amendments provide that excess increment distributed to the city or county must be deducted from their levy limits for the following year. For -6- purposes of calculating the city or county levy limit base for later years, the excess increment payment is to be treated as if it re a LGA payment. Sectic.. 17. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. The administrative expense definition and percentage limitation has been changed several times, each time with separate effective dates. With the Amendments, districts are subject to the following limitations: Date of District Certification: June 30, 1982 Definition: Pre August 1, 1979 or Post ! "Administrative expenses" means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issues pursuant to section 469.178. "Administrative expenses" includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. % Limitation: 10% Date: August 1, 1979-June 30, 1982 Definition: "Administrative expenses" means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issues pursuant to section 469.178. % Limitation: 5% Section 19. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. The Amendments include "renovation and renewal districts" with redevelopment districts in the recfuirement that 90 percent of revenues derived from tax increment be used to finance the cost of correcting those -7- conditions "that allowed designation" of the district in the first instance. Section 20. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE AND ROAD COSTS. Under separate provisions of the tax increment act, the county within which tax increment districts are located can require that the district pay for county road improvements (Section 469.175, subd. la) or county administrative costs (Section 469.176, subd. 4b). The Amendments authorize either party to submit disputes to binding arbitration. Section 21. POOLING RESTRICTIONS; FIVE-YEAR RULE. Since the enactment of amendments to the tax increment act in 1982, increment generated from a tax increment district could be expended anywhere within the "project area" which underlies the district and, which in many cases, is considerably larger than the district. The Amendments require that after May 1, 1990, 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increment districts must either be spent in the district or to pay debt service on bonds the proceeds of which are spent in the district. Debt service on "credit enhanced bonds" is exempted from this rule. The Legislature also for the first time defines the activity upon which tax increment or bond proceeds can be spent in order to qualify under the 75 percent rule. "Activities" is defined to mean: "...acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities, but only to the extent that tax increment revenues may be spent for such purposes under other law. Activities do not include allocated administrative expenses, but do include engineering, architectural, and similar costs of the improvements in the district. In addition, housing project expenditures authorized by the tax increment act in Section 469.174, subd. 11 qualify as "activities within the district" even if located outside the district. Finally, county road and administrative costs are at best neutral, being deducted before calculating the 75/25 percent split. The Amendments also mandate that the qualifying expenditures be made in the first 5 years of a district or that they thereafter be limited to payment of obligations incurred during the fist 5 years. Accordingly, expenditures on "activities" will qualify only if the expenditure: (1) Is made to a "third person" (other than the developer or authority) within 5 years of certification; or -8- r (2) Is for debt service on bonds issued to a third person within 5 years of certification; or (3) Is to pay obligations arising from contracts executed within 5 years of certification; or (4) Is to reimburse a party (note: not a "third party”) for eligible tax increment costs incurred within 5 years of certification. Beginning in year 6 following certification, 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increment that remains after bond and contract payments must be used to prepay bonds or contracts, so that the 25% expenditures outside the district becomes substantially less after the first five years. For example, assume that a district which is smaller than project area is certified in 1990 and in each year beginning in 1992 produces $1,000,000 in increment, 75%, or $750,000 must be spent on qualifying activities within the district in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 and in each of those years $250,000 can be expended outside the district but within the project area. In year 6, or 1996, assume $500,000 is paid on bond debt service and $100,000 on contract obligations. This leaves $400,000 in increment, 75% or $300,000 of which must be used to prepay the bonds and contracts, leaving only $100,000 to be expended outside the district. When the bonds and contacts are defeased, the district is decertified. Section 22. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS. Authorize assessment agreements with developers whether or not development agreements exist. Section 23. EXCESS INCREMENT. Excess increment returned to a school district must now be allocated between state equalized and unequalized levies. Only the excess which represents unequalized levies is then deducted from the school districts levy limits and state aid payments. Section 24. SCHOOL REFERENDA LEVIES. There had been some question about whether an authority and school district could agree to payment to the school district of referenda levies in cases other than where mandated under Section 469.177, subd. 10. The Amendments authorize this. Section 25. PENALTIES, with respect to any tax increment district, regardless of when formed, the Amendments mandate that the Commissioner of Revenue enforce the provisions of the Tax Increment Act; that any taxpayer can sue and recover cost, including attorneys fees; and that the State Auditor carry out financial and compliance auditing. -9- Sections 26, 21, 29. Affects Minneapolis. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM. Section 28. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. Apply the county administrative costs recovery provisions for costs incurred on or after May 1, 1990 to pre-1979 districts. Section 30. TRANSITION RULES. Various cities are given exemption from certain new limitations. Section 31. EFFECTIVE DATES. Each section of the amendment is effective as follows: Section Section 1 Sections 2,3,4,13,17,20,22,24,26 27,28,29,30 Sections 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15 18,19,21 Sections 16, 23 Effective Date Section 25 School year and taxes payable 1991 May 1, 1990. Certification after April 30, 1990 Excess distributions after December 31, 1990. Violations after December 31, 1990 (2) If a district is certified during April, 1990, the Section 1, 5-12, 14, 15,18,19 and 21 limits apply, unless by June 1, 1991: (a) The authority enters into a development agreement for at least one site in the district; (b) Bonds are issued to finance project costs; or (c) Property in the district is acquired by the authority after ’cril 1, 1990 -10- 4. OTHER TAX BILL ISSUES. EXCESS LODGING TAX REPEALED. The provision of the 1989 tax bill allowing a no strings attached second tier 3% Hotel/Motel tax was repealed for cities that had not enacted it by February 1, 1990. Roseville may levy an additional 2% for its speed skating facility and Bloomington may levy 1% for promotion of the Metropolitan Sports Arena. The basic 3% Lodging Tax Authority for promotion of tourism was not affected. TRUTH IN TAXATION. All cities, including those under 2500 population must comply this year with Truth in Taxation requirements. The Revenue Department will certify LGA and levy limits for cities over 2500 population by August 1. All cxties must adopt a proposed budget and certify a proposed property tax levy to the county auditor by September 1 and have selected the initial and continuation hearing dates for the formal public hearing. Budget hearings will be held between November 15 and December 20 with final levy certification by December 28, 1990. The final levy cannot exceed the initial proposed levy unless population and household estimates are not final from the demographer in time for the September 1 certification. The county auditor controls hearing date selection within the county to avoid overlapping dates by taxing unit. The county will pelect first by August 1 and then the schools will select their dates by August 15 leaving the last two weeks of August for cities to select thei:.. dates. Besides a direct generic initial property tax notice mailed by the county to property owners by November 10, each local government must publish a newspaper advert: ement of the proposed budget and levy in an official newspaper of general circulation in the taxing authority. The paper must be at least a weekly and does not have to be the Star Tribune or Pioneer Press. The ad must be at least one-eighth of a page and not in the legal notice or classified ad section. It must be published not less than two nor more than six days prior to the hearing. The purpose of the ad is to notify renters, etc. The Revenue Department will send out specific ad requirements prescribed by law. Parcel specific notices required in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties for payable 1992 taxes will be required for all counties for taxes levied in 1992, payable 1993. PREVAILING WAGE A very scaled down version of early strict prevailing wage provisic .s was finally included in the tax Prevailing wage for economic development assistance must be paid by recipients of a state grant of $200,000 or more, a loan of $500,000 or more or a sales tax reduction. HACA and LGA payments to local governments are specifically excluded from the requirements as are existing housing rehab or new -11- r housing construction financial aid of less than $100,000. Finally the bill sets up a legislative study of prevailing wage to be completed by February 1991. B. MAJOR PRIORITY POLICY ISSUES NOT TAX RELATED,. 1. LAND USE PLANNING (HF 1654/SF 15101 This bill was sponsored by the Governor's Advisory Commission on State-Local Relations (ACSLR) and was a carry over from the 1989 Session. (The bill under a different number was first introduced in the 1988 Session). The bill would substantially modify and combine the planning and zoning authority for cities, towns and counties. The AMM has opposed the bill since its original introduction due to its prescriptiveness which would cause a loss of local flexibility in the planning process. The AMM has had a special task force at work for over two years in an attempt to make this bill acceptable for metro area cities. Much progress has been made but since several problems still remain the authors of this bill did not request a hearing during the 1990 session. The AMM will continue its work on this bill because it is likely to be reintroduced in the 1991 session. Our hope is to modify the bill so that it will improve existing law instead of taking a step backward. 2. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (HF 2108/SF 1996j_ For the first time in at least 10 years, a comprehensive bill dealing with the state's Waste Management Act did not pass during the 1990 session. A comprehensive bill (HF 2108/SF 1996) was introduced early in the session but it ran into major problems in the State Departments Division of the House Appropriations Committee and did pass. Several sections of the bill would have impacted cities but not necessarily in a positive way so the AMM did net push to pass the bill. However, one section of the bill dealing with organized collection was added on the floor of the Senate to SF 2195. ORGANIZED COLLECTION (SF 2195, LAWS 1990, CHAPTER 600) The following is a summary of the statutory changes impacting the city process for establishing organized collection: 1. The local government unit must provide the opportunity for all licenses haulers within the unit to participate in developing the plans and proposals for an organized collection system. 2. At least 180 days (was 90 days) before implementing an organized collection system the governing body must by . -12- resolution announce its intent to organize collection. 3. During a 90 day period following the resolution of intent, the unit must include the licensed haulers in development of plans or proposals for organized collection. 4. For a 90 day period following the original 90 day period, the unit must discuss possible organized collection arrangements with all of the interested license collectors operating in that city. If the unit is unable to reach an agreement with a majority o^ the haulers or upon expiration of the 90 days, the unit may implement an alternate method of organizing collection. However, the unit must first make specific findings as to why it is choosing an alternate method to organize collection and what the impact of that decision will be. These amendments are effective August 1, 1990 and apply to all local units that initiate action to organize solid waste collection on or after that date. These changes to the process for implementing, organized collection were adopted in lieu of the haulers proposal for compensation for those haulers who might loose business as a result of an organized collection system. 3. COMPARABLE WORTH (SF 488, LAWS 1990, CHAPTER 512) A new version of pay equity u».s passed by the 1990 Legislature which leaves no doubt that pay equity applies only to female dominated jobs. Legislative intent is clear that increased pay of any kind for males in male dominated classes is not a result or requirement of the Comparable Worth Law. The major change was in the definition. 'Equitable compensation relationship means that the compensction for female-dominated classes is not consistently below tixe compensation for male-dominated casses of comparable work value as determined under section 471.994, within the political subdivision.' To the extent that a city used a corridor syfitem and most of the female dominated job classes were paid several percentage points lower than men of comparable value within the corridor, pay equity is not achieved and changes must be made. However, if there is a good mix where some female classes are higher tnan male and visa-versa then pay equity is achieved. The Department of Employee Relations (DOER) will make the final determination. In determining compliance, DOER must consider items such as recruitment difficulties, retention difficulties, recent arbitration awards inconsistent with pay equity plans, and data demonstrating good faith efforts to achi'ive compliance. If that determination is negative, they must consult with the local -13- unit. The final determination can be appealed through an Administrative Law Hearing and ultimately the courts. If the subdivision is found out of compliance it can be fined five percent of its LGA or $100 per day whichever is greater. No fines will be effective until after the appeals process and after the legislature has had an opportunity to meet and review the compliance report required of DOER to the legislature. The pay equity implementation date remains December 31, 1991. An implementation report to DOER is required by January 31, 1992. Reports filed with DOER are considered public data. The evaluation system must be maintained and updated. Collective bargaining for balanced classes may consider internal pay equity studies but must also consider comparable classes in other subdivisions. The final bill definition of pay equity was significantly better than the initial 'equal' in all cases language. The law now states that its intent is to eliminate sex-based wage disparities in Minnesota public employment but then clearly seeks only to adjust female dominated class salaries. OTHER POLICY ISSUES PASSED IN 1990 1. METROPOLITAN SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS (SF 1894, LAWS 1990, CHAPTER 601) This bill generally increases the statutory requirements for local water management in the metropolitan area and places local water management organizations (WMOs) under greater supervision by the state Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The intent of the bill was to implement the recommendations of the Metropolitan Local Water Management Task Force which was mandated and established by the 1989 Legislature to evaluate the Chapter 509 Surface Water Management System erected by the Legislature in 1982. The Task Force had found the Chapter 509 process to be lacking in some areas. This bill does not implement the recommendation of the Met Council that it (Met Council) replace BWSR as the approval authority for WMO plans. The following is a summary of the sections of this bill with major impact for local water management responsibilities. Sections 1-3, Technical changes which do not impact local water authorities. Section 4. Requires Chapter 112 Watershed Districts to establish technical Advisory Committees composed of representatives of local government agencies. Section 5. Requires the Metropolitan Council to adopt a water resources plan which includes management objectives and target -14- pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area. Section 6. Technical change mostly but states that one of tie purposes of metro water management programs is to 'protect ard enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities'. Section 7. Adds a definition for a 'subwatershed unit'. Section 8. Directs BWSR to adopt rules which prescribe minimum requirements for the contents of WMO joint powers agreement and prescribes that decisions by a joint power board may not require more than a majority vote except a CIP decision may require no more than a two-thirds vote. Section 9. Establishes certaix. operating standards for WMO's as follows: Subd. 1. Requires WMOs to report appointments and vacancies to BWSR, and requires that vacancies be filled in 90 days. Subd. 2. Requires notice of vacancies on WMO. (Effective July 1, 1992). Subd. 3. Requires BWSR to adopt rules prescribing standards and procedures for removing members of WMO boards for just cause. Subd. 4. Requires an annual WMO newsletter or written report to residents (Effective July 1, 1992) . Subd. 5. Requires WMOs to solicit proposals for legal, professional, and technical consulting services every two years. Subd. 6. Requires BWSR to facilitate the formation of a metropolitan association of WMOs. Subd. 7. Allows WMOs to accept jurisdiction of existing public drainage systems. Section 10. Requires that watershed units on the fringe of the metropolitan area that are exempt from current metropolitan water planning law must prepare and implement water plans as determined by BWSR. Section 11. Technical Amendment related to section 10. Section 12. Requires metropolitan counties to take on the responsibilities of a WMO for a watershed, if a WMO does not exist or is not performing according to BWSR standards. -15- If BWSR determines that a county has failed to perform as rec[uired, state agencies may withhold from local governments in the watershed certain state funds and certain delegated regulatory powers, and state agencies may stop issuing water-related permits in the watershed. An appeals process from the BWSR decision is established. Section 13. Requires WMOs to coordinate their plans with counties and contiguous WMOs. Sections 14, 15, 16. Requires BWSR to adopt rules which prescribe standard requirements and the procedure for amending watershed plans. Directs the Met Council to tell BSWR whether the watershed plans conform to the Council's Water Resource Plan and requires BSWR to prescribe standards for determining whether water plans are being property implemented. Section 17. Requires BSWR to review WMO plans at least every 5 years. Section 18. Allows appeals to BWSR if a WMO fails to comply with its plan. Section 19. Mandates that BWSR adopt rules prescribing requirements for annual financial and activity reports by WMOs (Effective July 1, 1992). Section 20. Technical change. Section 21. Requires BWSR to prescribe standards for local water plans. Section 22. Clarifies that levies for water management activities are not exempt from levy limit. Sections 23-26. Technical changes. Section 27. Requires drainage authorities in the metropolitan area to prepare a report to BWSR on the general condition of the public ditches under their authority. Section 28. Requires the Council to establish an Advisory Water Quality Management Task Force. Section 29. Technical, Section 30. Appropriates funding to BWSR to carryout its responsibilities. Section 31. Specifies that Section 9, subd. 2 and 4 and Section 19 are not effective until July 1, 1992. The remainder of the -16- act is effective August 1, 1990. 2. MVET TRANSFER (HF 2200. LAWS 1990, CHAPTER 562) The Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) transfer from general fund to the Highway User Tax and Transit Assistance funds beginning July 1, 1990 was reduced from 35% to 30% taking away the gains made in the 1989 session. Damage Control here, as in other money areas, was significant. Early in the session hearings were held to discuss complete elimination of the transfer and MVET administratively is an easy target. No changes were made to the distribution provisions that eliminate the city and county highway share of the MVET after 1991. 3. COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION FUNDING (HF 2651, LAWS 1990, CHAPTER 610) Section 22 of the bonding bill continues the state funding for 1991 and 1992 to assist the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul to complete separation of their combined sewers. This bill provides $11,850,000 for each year (1991 and 1992) to b( divided proportionately among the three cities based on the original grant allocation formula developed in 1985. The $11,850,000 per year is an increase of approximately $5,100,000 per year over the previous level of the state provided funding. The intent of the increase is to make up a portion of the shortage caused by the elimination of about $8,000,000 per year of Federal funding plus some inflation adjustment. The three cities at their discretion may use a portion of the 1991 or 1992 funding for projects begun during 1990 but they are forwarned that the legislature does not intend to appropriate additional money to make up for any shortages in 1991 or 1992 because the money was used for 1990 projects. 4. AIRPORT ZONING (SF 2433, LAWS 1990, CHAPTER 440) An airport bill passed in 1989 setting up a dual truck process, which continues use and improvement of the Metropolitan Airport while proceeding towards identification and site selection for a possible new airport, provided for the Met Council to select several 'search areas' in the first quarter of 1991 and select a final 'search area' by January 1, 1992. The MAC then has until 1997 to identify a specific site. In order to protect the search areas from significant land speculation pressures or local mass rezoning to thwart the process, the Council sought some additional controls within designated search areas. Generally, search areas will be in the rural sections of the metro area and/or immediately outside the 7-county boundry. There will be no impact on the developing urbanized area and very little impact on the outlying cities that are included. The bill allows all activities provided within current zoning and comprehensive -17- plans. The council only becomes involved for zoning type change requests and then can only make adverse rulings if something is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Chapter 440 provides that land not otherwise zoned in a search area is automatically zoned for agricultural use. A local unit nay not permit a change in zoning, a zoning variance or conditional use that is inconsistent with the approved comprehensive plan. Any change must be submitted to the Metropolitan council which has 90 days to approve or disapprove. An expedited process will be developed. Any public building or facility, including sever, must be submitted for Met Council review and comment in the final designated search area prior to construction. The Council in all likehood will approve most changes unless they would create a tremendous expense or deterrent to an airport. As Chairman Keefe explained, it will probably be cheaper to buy an actual development later than pay for the development rights to a dreamers version of that development now. D. OTHER POLICY ISSUES - NOT PASSED 1. LONG TRUCKS (HF 696/SF 447) The 110 foot, triple trailer, 4 year demonstration bill was again heard in legislative committees. The action centered in Senate Transportation where it has lost on a narrow or tied vote in each of the last several sessions. This year there was some very heavy lobbying done by the trucking interests. In a Senate Transportation Committee meeting packed with opponents, the bill was presented by its author Senator DeCramer, shortened to a 3 year program, and passed by 1 vote without testimony and with very little discussion. It was then sent to Senate Finance where it was scheduled for hearing. However, the Teamsters finally officially joined the opposing forces and tipped the scale once again against the Triple Trailers. The future of this issue is unclear at this point since Senator Purfeerst, the Committee Chair and a strong proponent, is retiring as are one or two others on the committee. It probably will continue to be an issue. 2. STATEWIDE CONTRACTOR LICENSING (HF 2015/SF 1792) HF 2015 introduced by Representatives Sarna, Vanasek, Simoneau, Bennett., and Long had a hearing in the House Committee on Commerce. The bill established a statewide testing and licensing process for building contractors, remodelers, and specialty contractors. It creates a state and regional advisory boards and authorizes the Commissioner of Commerce to establish rules, fees, and education requirements. The bill requires a $5,000 bond and establishes a suspension or revocation process. Local licensing -18- by cities is prohibited. The hearing was introductory only and not intended to process the bill. It will be pushed hard by the Builders Association of Minnesota Contractors next year and has significant support from th Building Inspectors organization. 3. FISCAL DISPARITIES Two separate serious attempts were made to strip off part of the Fiscal Disparities pot before final distribution. The RTB Light Rail Transit Financing Plan initially included as the major capital funding source for LRT construction 40% of the growth in the fiscal disparities tax base (i.e. 40% of 40% or 16% of the total C/I growth). The AMM took the lead in showing the RTB the folly of this position and it was deleted totally from the final recommendation. Hennepin County and Senator Linda Berglin devised a method to use a significant portion of the C/I F.D. growth for county health and human services. The diverted funds would be outside of Levy Limits and go to all 7 counties under a formula giving the lions share to Hennepin County. Once again the AMM took the lead in persuading the Senate Tax Committee that this was really an inappropriate funding source. The issue is complex in that most people feel that striping F.D. funds'mainly aff facts the large contributors whereas the actual biggest losers axe the taxpayers in the areas which gain the most. These people lose a larger amount of the distribution and thus experiencing a larger property tax increase to make up the difference since F.D. is included in the local bases for levy limit calculations. -19- i-' I ' i r : ? : ■ Tos Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FroBs John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director 52590.4HD Date: May 25, 1990 Subject: Park Commission - Chair Appointment In May 1990 Phil Bradley resigned his position as Park Commission Chair effective June 1, 1990. Phil will stay on as a Park Commission Member. Park Commission Members Alex Vongries and Richard Flint have expressed an interest in being Park Commission Chair. I recommend they be scheduled to appear before the Council on June 11, 1990. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures and Environment Committee Meeting:Saturday, May 12, 1990, 7:30 a.m. LMCD Office, Wayzata Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Acting Chair, Spring Park; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; John Lewroan, Minnetrista; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Norm Paurus, EWM Project Manager; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Babcock at 7:30 a.m. ENVIRONMENT 1. Eurasian water milfoil equipment purchase. Norm Paurus reported he has searched for a used truck suitable for carrying weed harvesting supplies and for moving the conveyers. He located a 1984 diesel Suburban for $9,000. Bjorlin stated he does not like the diesel and also feels they need a 3/4T truck. It was agreed to take more time in checking the market. 3. Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement Foster spoke against signing the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement prepared by MnDNR, MCWD and LMCD. He objects to the 921.6 feet limitation as it would put a number of multiple dock licensees out of business. Ho also believes it would have an impact on the tax base of lakeshore properties. Foster would allow dredging to 918 feet with extra consideration given to multiple dock licensees and for the channels tc get to the marinas. Cochran explained the 921.6 depth was selected as the bottom line because to go any further would verge on damaging the ecology. Hurr would favor one level for all vs. the tiered system proposed in the agreement. Cochran agreed, adding there is an further problem in enforcing a tiered system Reese favors one depth to maximize the use of the Lake. Hurr suggested the MnDNR and MCWD charge a fee adequate to cover complete dredging inspection and the cost of regulation. The committee received a letter, dated May 9, from Charles LeFevere suggesting changes in wording and pointing out that this is an agreement, not a contract. As such it is not legally enforceable. Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend scheduling an informational hearing on the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement before the agreement is signed. Motion carried, Cochran and Bjorlin voting nay. L._ Water ?t and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 Boswinkel arr«ved. Foster excused. DOCK COMMITTEE 2. Temporary Low Water Extension Variance Requests. Smithtown Bay Association, Inc. Area 6, Victoria Smithtown Bay Association is currently licensed for 17 slips. They request a temporary low water variance to replace the 14 slips in the channel with 4 slips, 198 feet from the 929.4 shoreline. There would be two 20 foot slips and two 24 foot slips. Tom Sheehan, Treasurer, Smithtown Bay Association, explained the 14 BS” in the channel will not be used in 1990. Their request is to increase the 3 slips on the Lake to 4 slips and to extend the dock to 198 feet. The dock would be in line with the Harborage dock on the other side of the channel. Hurr pointed out that the temporary low water variance ordinance does not permit a change in slip size. Sheehan agreed to amend the request to four 20 foot slips. The dock will be sited so there is no infringement on the George C. Owen property dock. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend a temporary low water variance to allow extension of the Smithtown Bay Association iock to 198 feet from the 929.4 shoreline to allow four 20 foot slips, in place of the 14 slips in the channel. A stipulation is included that the dock meets the 20 foot setback from the George C. Owen property. Motion carried unanimously. Baycliffe Property Owners Association, Area 16, Minnetrista This request proposes to relocate 11 slips of 14 licensed to the main lake from a near-dry lagoon. There is a partial encroachment within the 15 foot setback to the southwest, property owned by an Association member. Reese moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend approval of the Baycliffe Property Owners Association temporary low water variance as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Jennings Cove Dock Owners Association, Inc. Area 16, Minnetrista. Bjorlin moved, Reese seconded, to recommend renewal of the Jennings Cove Dock Owners Association temporary low water variance to 200 feet from the 929.4 shoreline granted 3-11-89. Motion carried unanimously. Lafayette Club Area 21, Minnetonka Beach. Reese moved, Bjorlin seconded, to recommend approval of additional temporary low water ''ariance from 107 feet to feet. Motion carried unanimously. an 123 Water Structures and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 Minnetonka Yacht Club/Lake Minnetonka Sailing School, 33 and 34. Deephaven Areas The request is for a AO foot dock extension at Site «tl (Carson Bay) and a 60 foot x 6 foot dock at Site 1^3 (Lighthouse Island) for transient use by sailboats during training sessions. The dock extension at Carson Bay is need because the low water does not allo^ the keel boats to rig at the existing dock. The 60’ X 6’ dock is needed at Lighthouse Island to accommodate the temporary storage of 12’ Butterfly class sailboats during the sailing school classes. Low water make it impossible for the young students to lift the boats from their land storage location. Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval ol the temporary low water variance requests of the Minnetonka Yacht Club/Minnetonka Sailing School. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Dock License Renewals. Babcock moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of the following 1990 dock license renewals, city certificates having been received: Lafayette Club and Pizzelli’s, with Minor Change - Name from Pizza on the Lake. Motion carried unanimously. Dock License Renewals Pending City Certificates Cochran moved, Lewman seconded, to recommend approval of the following 1990 dock licenses subject to receipt of city certificates or expiration of time period, provided there are no changes from 1989: Gayle’s Marina (need $100 late fee) Grays Bay Resort Harborage Jennings Cove Johnston, Adeline D Loring Acres Beach Association Maple Crest Estates Minnetonka Portable ''redging St. Albans Bay Marina Imithtlwn^’^Bay’^^AMOciation (Subject to Board approval of Temporary Low Water Extension.) Motion carried unanimously. The Executive Director reported 1990 applications have not been received from Clay Cliffe. Eagle Bluff Association, David Thomas Development and Crystal Bay Service It was noted a barge is docked at Crystal Bay Ser ice in violation of their license. Water Structure a-:d Environment Committee May 12. 1990 Pean’s Greenwood Marina - Minor Adjustment to 1990 Dock ^jiconse. •ean's Greenwood Marina is requesting a minor adjustment to tr , f90 dock license to move slip <»101 from its location next to si Ip 1^98 on the southwest side of the property to a location next to slip on the northeast side of the property. Currently no storage is permitted on the slip next to and with this change no storage would be permitted on ItlOl next to *»98. Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend a temporary change in the Bean’s Greenwood Marina 1990 dock license to move slip #101 from its location next to slip #98 to a location next to slip #6. Motion carried unanimously,. 4. City of Deephaven - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The Executive Director submitted the EAW t ->r the City of Deephaven dock expansion. Bjorlin commented on the water surface use of 7,688 square feet for eight new slips. The computation will be reviewed. Hurr questioned the cost involved in preparation of an EAW. The Executive Director stated they are prepared by staff. They are time consuming. The Environmental Quality Board rules state the administrative time is the responsible governing unit's obligation. Strommen was asked to re-investigate the cost responsibility. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the City of Deephaven dock expansion and authorized its distribution and publication as required by the Environmental Quality Board, subject to verification of the water surface use for the eight new slips. Motion carried, Bjorlin and Boswinkel voting nay. Hurr moved, Lewman seconded, to direct the staff to investigate the rules relating to cost of EAW preparation. Motion carried unanimously. Commercial Off-Lake Storage on Trailers in Lieu of Low Slips. Water The Executive Director reported he has discussed v:ith Charles Lefevere the public advertising by two marinas offering boat storage on trailers in lieu of slip storage, to compensation for slips out of service due to low water. The marinas offering the service were invited to this meeting to explain their plans which could be in violation of the "off lake storage" code. The Executive Director said Gayle’s Marina called to say they were testing the market, have not taken any rentals, and will not pursue it any further. Lakeside Marina reports they have put together .a price schedule, are still attempting to secure some clients. Jim Dunn was out of town during this meeting. He is willing to cooperate. Water Structure and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 The Executive Director noted this might bo an option for accommodating boats in lieu of temporary low water variance dock extensions, whereby the storage on trailers would replace slips taken out of service. There is a further anticipation of more requests for relief from the charge for slips not in service duo to low water conditions. , ^ u The Executive Director is to investigate a means by which off lake storage on trailers may serve as an alternative to temporary low water dock extensions. City parking requirements will be a consideration. 5A. Dredging at Gayle’s Marina. Woody Love, Board of Managers member, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, reported Gayle’s Marina has dredged a channel in Maxwell Bay without a permit. The channel is longer, wider and deeper than what would have been permitted. MCWD is working on a full survey of the site. It will present its position at the May 23 Board meeting. In the meantime Love requests withholding approval of the 1990 dock license for Gayle’s Marina. Hurr noted the LMCD does not have a code to cover dredging, and Gayle’s Marina is not in violation of the LMCD code. This is the type of subject to be discussed at the information hearing on dredging recommended to the Board. . . « , , k. Responding to Boswinkel’s question Love said Gayle s Marina had a dredging permit, without a requirement for a dredging license. Their permit expired 5/2, and now Gayle s Marina must be licensed under new MCWD rules to conduct any dredging. 6. Use of Lake Water for Lawn Sprinkling. The committee discussed a letter Grathwol proposes be sent to member cities requesting local restrictions on the water for lawn sprinkling in conjunction with published sprinkling control programs as each city may require. Slocum objected stating this is contrary to opposition to the use of the pumps to raise the lake the believe LMCD should say anything. Boswinkel thought that river water could be pumped to the area west the Lke and stored in the wetlands to refurbish the ground water Hurr said that while the sprinkling restriction is negative, it is good to make a statement in favor of water conservat . Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, to recommend the Board direct a letter to member communities suggesting ^ sprinkling regulations include drawing water from the Lake. Mn+ion carried. Pillsbury and Slocum voting nay. , , SllcSf suggested cLhran re-write the draft so he would be comfortable in signing it as Chair. Water Structure and Environment Committee 7. Lake Inspection Tour May 12, 1990 Pillsbury furnished Cochran with a list of places to go on the lake inspection tour scheduled for June 9, 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. If there are matters before the committee which demand attention, a brief meeting could be held prior to the tour. A Water Patrol representative and Denis Bailey are to be invited. 8. Progress Dpdate on Priority Study Items Relating to the Moratorium Ordinance. Grathw.1 is preparing a calendar of target dates issues to be addressed in the Moratorium Ordinance. for tne a. Hurr moved, Boswinkel seconded, to authorize a letter to member cities requesting assistance in preparing the wetlands inventory. A definition of wetlands is to be included in the letter. Motion carried unanimously b. The staff is updating the multiple dock licenses which extend beyond 100’. This relates to code provision which allows a variance for dock extensions to 200’. . c. The committee received an updated Amenity Value Study prepared by sub~committee Chair Hurr and the Executive Director. It was agreed to add Milfoil equipment storage to *'B" and to add public service slips to "C". Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend preparation of a Code amendment categorizing and valuing amenities required in Code 2.05, as submitted, adding Milfoil equipment storage to^ B and adding public service slips to C. Motion carried unanimously. Lewman left. 9. Findings of Fact - City of Wayzata EAW The committee received the Findings of Fact in the matter of the determination of need for an Environmental Impact statement for the City of Wayzata request to add 15 slips to the northerly most of two lagoons in its city marina on Wayzata Bay. When the Findings are approved the City of Wayzata can proceed with the installation. . , -Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend approval of the Findings of Fact in the matter of the City of Wayzata request to add 15 slips, subject to response from the MnDNR and Metropolitan Council due 5/16. Motion carried unanimously. Water Structure and Environment Committee 9. Storm Sewer Catch Basins May 12. 1990 Cochran suggested a letter to the cities and MCWD asking them to assure that their storm sewer catch basins are regularly cleaned out and if they do not have deep catch basins to ask them to install them at storm sewer outlets to the Lake. Two person Pontoon Boats The Executive Director reported Lord Flct.-hers is looking into roiital of 4 two-person 8' x 7’ pontoon bo ts powered by battery operated trolling motors. Their license ±3 for transient use only. The license conflict is with off lai'^ storage. Lord Fletchers has received administrative approval rom the City of Spring Park to operate from an adjacent residential property. Boswinkel said they have installed a dock at that location which should be reviewed by the Water Patrol. This location will be put on the list of places to be looked at on the tour. ENVIRONMENT 1. Eurasian Water Milfoil Program Status The committee received a report on the EWM program from Norm Paurus dated 5/11/90. A request from the U. S. Olympic Festival '90 committee was received requesting harvesting in the Diamond Point area prior to their events in July. Reese stated the request will be given consideration if at all possible. 2. UFO Program Progress (Unidentified Found Obstructions) A sample of the UFO buoy was displayed. It was noted they will be purchased in quantities as the demand develops for them. The cost is approximately $60 each, plus chains and anchors. The committee concurred with the selection. A procedure review with the Water Patrol and Hennepin County Lakes Improvement is set for Monday morning 5/14. Other Boswinkel reported Mr. Brody has told him placements east of the Areola Bridge are great. the buoy Meeting adjourned at 10 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director James Grathwol, Chair i'Mw/ 4i m: S\<k: Li2^«WF^.» %.^ IK&s* : iaM J W'wtirrisiifln MACMILLAN ADDITION 'te'.l5w^.V-.J“.r"rnU.,.Mr ^fjUt «k/ i/« mf fh* «W»/4 «f 5*« r- HeeAQ -SOOT«- Bi,‘;,'r.K’^L“:.rsarE'yfiMtpItfW tnj IMt tta ftfiA frlaetf F^PAREDFQR:^ \ 'i MR.& MRS. WHITNEy\ ]^^ i - i nm UK - rf ln.«.. 15M FOX STREET WAYZATA, MINN. 55391 y > \ n\\ V ’i " I i h i ^ ^ U9 ■ ' X Ml'** • MIM t v\Ar ‘^4( '... f - ' ' xir-'v rsss^i.^ '•,\\\ «. i \\\1 mm •H, lx ics r ’s'Sro^o-t-V X. “U -..............--1S«-°2------------------------ \ 'itL'•./ \;V w s \4>^ m - «•« t* — '•C^* J hm *f tUm U «/* »f <h* Mr l/4 «r 9 m • / I 5- --- MU QMrttr «f t M .f 9 M| ;; ;sr'.r“-------"^'- Ks; s ; 2:s:;s;;; t; j "=; iii‘ o4x( "S.-.-.i-Xy • U«Mrl7 «f MMllH sis- )£ n • I lnjM« <««Ut V. IfM U tw« t»M>«l Ml*. 9 •«>«M •.|4M tl, i«M » M> M n*9W«M^F«f>Mrfd-Mnli •O »MM » MM* 9* I^WM M0«W^4 mi KV,. ♦* »»»2 Moil qr —-f X, nWWVx^o ■ \i 11 \ .,\,.:; V\’ \i‘ • trt 09 NO*e«'X4* h -0 J- iU;----!1»~— tm h= S'.!"'/* .1^ V / / ..a^-ii\ ^t ..A •CMOELL « MAOSON, INC:\ ^ INCmCtllt • tUIIVITOM- B. FtAMMM • ton. rtfTIN* B MM9 wiTXArA tLm. fSSrrK™- :.j^l fjh-®‘'' '-V;mm Sstl^^Ei. . ;i : .J3^ji^M :-f' j# Miwi ■*::-ii ■s«W '^mmi -.iK. 1^ i -i-vW'- I::. “ ■V ■:mmsi 0.0 3^3o>« —n ?=gN,=" ■coo> g “"i°c/> 0(D£ 3 1^. .Wmd ■ % ■ •: ■^■ mm^y. :m': vv ■: ' ;'4 ■I. OT-:- ' ■. * . . >ri . • • . . I ■ ,'P ;\ WELL no. 3 - MB* PUMPHOUSE 1990 COUNCIL M ■ ...u/J ■: A, ■ •■ JAMESaORABEK J. DIANN QOETTEN BARBARA A. PETERSON EDWARD CALLAHAN ALLEN NETTLES JOHN a 6ERHARDS0N TOM BARRETT MARK BERNHARDSON MAYOR COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNaLMEMBER PUBUC WORKS COORDINATOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY ADMINISTRATOR • V ./ ■?; T [•■ iTTr bS. SHEET INDEX % imCMBT 4. Wi>U.«CnON»»B«T «fc« a HOOP ruM WTMA t Kcmm « aOWNCa t OCTMLI 7. IBOHMKAL PUN t OCTAU a MMMOPUN a aNeiMCAL ocTAU ORONO. MINNESOTA mmis. I*"vv'3'.'iV ■V;v--m. %■ ■:®lif;v ■C^5^ ifam wrnWmW ' • ,> J ■ 4. : * V V .^'.- V, '■'■ 8; :•••, /•.' m/w4m • , ’ ■ ■ ' *v I.' •/'. it11 ■ / 'it' ■ V*: I ‘ ir ■ • ,r. - ;. •'tjj| V' -'.-w'mm^ roimuiijjiiagi -■■■ —f,-ggj fiCpIW; 1 UcKM2;aiU S8«"' ■I wr"“—* fi—gawfswt r fcjiiitfw toMo * KM* •/ 1#$ iMH■ UmZ32£B LL SECTION. ill !ii < iji >1 I li 4 9J I..-;my0mm t’-- ■ i. A# K;is “my .■', ■* ■■- '■ --■■: ^^’UAV.Vi mm mi ■■ammm liiiiid SflKKS ramif7:7:iT»l:TaaT:rii»i:l*r.Yt«I»Jl IW siliill 9 \ ■■.. •4^ «m E'‘\:2|g -4- ' ■■■C - ''*'- mm mm WmmM 'Mf:, 'M m.. ;f»s »*''*';**ip IW?;"' '.II Hi Mi K.VM\Un^1M90^-OM 11| ii! I i 7 9 / ■ i^‘■r.S^C' >' ■•- W-- ‘ y V' " .\'|NW::-.. -^ ■■ .. ^ ..•■.■■' • :-.-i ..y ■■■' ■•■'■■ '■.: v.r ,.'i-'V; ^:'> ■ : . . iW ' ■ ■, '.' 1 imsmi A C M I L E -| cr^ herb balclwin landscape architect 4196 west 185tK Street jordan minnesota 55352 mr: ■ lb mm