Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1990 Council PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE tnCITY OF ORONO CVAILLL - ' I MEETING DATE PLEASE TILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. AGENDA FOR CODNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 23, 1990, 7:00 P.M. (*) CALL 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. COUNCIL mETING 2. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2, Regular Meeting of July 9, 1990 PUBLIC COMMENTS — (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) JUL 23)990 OF ORGHO 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. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. #1334 Rebers Construction - Sugarwoods Plat Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval #1428 Ralph Ljrgess, 2610 West Lafayette Road - Variance - Revised Proposal - Resolution #1445 Gregory Peterson, 1355 Arbor Street - Variance #1473 Jacquelyn Kelly, 2056 Shadywood Road - After the Fact - Variance #1502 Michael Hilbelink, 2180 Prospect Avenue - Variance - Resolution #1516 Whitney MacMillan, 1560 Fox Street - Final Subdivision Approval - Resolution #1527 Lyndon S. Bill Stubbs, 2555 Fox Street • Variance — Resolution #1538 Lauren Born, 1432 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Resolution #1543 Richard C. Reed, 1000 Old Long Lake Road ~ Variance - Resolution #1552 Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Denial Resolution Administrative Appeal John Wojcik, 3310 Bayside Road - Additions, to Residence - Second Review ENGINEER'S REPORT 14. Pump Well #3 Amendment MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 15. Appointments Process AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 23, 1990, 7:00 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16. Transient Merchants Lake Use Management Request for Site Visit 1991 Budget Process 1988 Building Code Adoption - Ordinance Assessing Services Contract Addendum Administrator's Information 1972 Shadywood Road Electrical Utilities Territories Pe terson/S todola Highway 12 Corridor Study CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT I Council Meeting Citizen Advisory Committee Council Meeting Planning Commission Meeting Council Meeting First Day (8:00 A.M.) for Candidates to File for City Council Last Day (4:30 P.M.) for Candidates to File for City Council COUNCIL F/IEETiNG^MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 JUl-23 l990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. ^m/ QROHO The Council met on the above date with the folloWih^ wbmBers present; Mayor Grabek, Councilraembers Goetten and Callahan. Councilmembers Peterson and Nettles were absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. PHIL BRADLEY RECOGNITION Mayor Grabek presented Mr. Bradley with a certificate of recognition and appreciation for his efforts and time expended while serving as Chair of the Orono Park Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held June 25, 1990. Motion. Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commission representative, Jeffrey Johnson, was not present. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: 11458 BLAKE BICHANICH 324-332 WESTLAKE STREET REVISIONS TO VARIANCE RESOLUTION RESOLUTION #2823* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2823, approving the revised wording of Resolution #2763, adopted February 26, 1990. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. » #1465 GERALD T. MCCOURTNEY 1055 WEST FERNDALE ROAD VARIANCES RESOLUTION #2824 Mr. McCourtney was present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief review of - 1 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ZONING FILE #1465-MCCOURTNEY CONTINUED Mr. McCourtney's application. He noted that Mr. McCourtney has further revised his proposal subsequent to staff preparing the information for this meeting. He said, "Mr. McCourtney would like to drop the looped driveway portion of this proposal and add 40 to 50 feet to the backup apron. This would allow adequate area for parking two vehicles. Mr. McCourtney is also proposing to restore the boulevard to grass, eliminating some of the hardcover in that area. Since the hardcover is not within the property lines, Mr. McCourtney will receive no credit for hardcover reduction in this area. Further, Mr. McCourtney wishes to revise the fence location so that it runs parallel with the driveway from the garage to the property line. Trees will be used for screening in front of the property. Staff has estimated that hardcover will be approximately 41%, which is a reduction from 43% as originally proposed." Gaffron added, "Hardcover in the 0-75' zone will be 2.6% and will be 41% in the 75-250' zone. Mr. McCourtney had previously proposed to reduce slightly the area of sidewalk and backup apron. He is now asking to maintain the sidewalk area and is adding to the backup apron." Bernhardson stated that Mr. McCourtney had previously agreed to reduce the backup apron. Since that time he has realized that the backup apron is necessary to safely exit the property. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission recommended that hardcover remain at 38%. He said, "If Council agrees with that recommendation, it will be necessary for Mr. McCourtney to reduce the sidewalk and/or terrace areas." Councilmember Goetten asked how many square feet exist in the sidewalk area. Gaffron replied, "The sidewalks are 496 s.f., which is less than the 514 s.f. that previously existed. The terrace was at 640 s.f. and will be reduced to 590 s.f." Councilmember Callahan noted that the backup apron seemed to function well at its present size. Bernhardson stated that the reason for increasing the backup apron is to provide an area for off-street parking. Mayor Grabek believed that the 3% hardcover increase was justified by the increased safety that it would provide. Goetten advised Mr. McCourtney that should this application be approved this evening that he is to follov/ through with his plan as it has been presented. Goetten told Mr. McCourtney that she appreciated his efforts to work v/ith the City and provide a - 2 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ZONING FILE #1465-MCCOURTNEY CONTINUED revised plan. A motion was made by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2824, approving 41% hardcover to exist, rather than 38.2% as recommended by Planning Commission, for the purpose of providing additional area to the backup apron, making a more safe access from the property. Motion, Ayes-2, Callahan, Nay. Motion passed. #1512 STEVEN RUCE 4625 WEST BRANCH ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2825 HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE Mr. Ruce was present. City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed briefly the information being presented this evening (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated July 2, 19S0). does. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Ruce to explain what it is that he Mr. Ruce explained that he is a garden designer and that his business includes planting and maintaining gardens. Councilmember Callahan asked Mr. Ruce varies from Otten Brothers or Butterfields. how his business Mr. Ruce explained that his business does not require the use of heavy equipment and only pertains to gardens. He said that Ottens and Butterfields do landscape construction which requires the hauling of dirt, railroad ties, etc. Mr. Ruce said that his work begins once the landscaping on a property has been completed. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that gardens are classified as an accessory use in the Residential District. Callahan asked Mr. Ruce why he did not obtain a Conditional Use Permit for this greenhouse addition. He noted that Mr. Ruce had been required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit in 1985 for a greenhouse constructed at that time. •y Mr. Ruce explained that the greenhouses are used for the storage of plants in the spring. He said that neither of the greenhouses are heated or cooled. Mr. Ruce stated that the greenhouse in question is quite small, 7' x 10', and that he did not think it would require a Conditional Use Permit. Goetten asked whether there has been any concerns expressed - 3 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ZONING FILE #1512-RUCE CONTINUED by Mr. Ruce's neighbors. Mabusth replied, "All of the neighbors are very much in support of Mr. Ruce's business. We included the neighbors' comments in the Resolution presented this evening." Callahan compared this Home Occupation to one reviewed last year by Council regarding a frozen food business. Goetten noted that the City had received complaints from the neighbors regarding the frozen food business. Mabusth added that Mr. Ruce is located in a less populated area than the frozen food business. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Ruce how many trucks he has involved with the business. Mr. Ruce replied, "I have five light pick-up trucks. Three or four are stored inside the garage and one is left outside. My personal truck may be stored outside as well." Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Ruce whether he was satisfied with the level of business that he has currently. Mr. Ruce replied, "I would lose the quality of my work if I expand beyond the level I have nov;, which is three full-time employees. It is possible that I may hire a part-time employee next year, but I do not expect to expand beyond my present situation." Mayor Grabek expressed concern regarding a possible problem with setting a precedent. He added however, that the property does not have neighbors in close proximity and is on a major thoroughfare. Mayor Grabek believed that Mr. Ruce's request is reasonable, but wished to establish some limits if it is approved. Mabusth stated that the annual Home Occupation license process will provide the City with a method of limiting and monitoring the business. Goetten believed that the Home Occupation license would give the City the ability to limit the expansion of this business. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2825, approving the after-the- fact Conditional Use Permit/Variance and Home Occupation License for Mr. Steven Ruce. Motion, Ayes-2, Callahan, Nay. Callahan indicated that he v/as opposed only to the Home Occupation aspect of this matter. - 4 - T V ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 #1527 LYNDON S. (BILL) STUBBS 2555 FOX STREET VARIANCE Mr. Stubbs was present. City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the major issues involving Mr. Stubb's application for a lot area variance. Councilmember Goetten stated that she was surprised that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this application. She said, "This is something that we have done in the past. It appears that staff has gone to great efforts to find suitable controls for the property. The only additional control I would suggest is that the architectural plans, when prepared, should be submitted to staff for approval. The wetlands severely limit the buildable area of tiie site and we want to proceed in a cautious manner If this is approved." Councilmember Callahan indicated that he concurred v/ith the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. Mabusth noted that there have been similar applications for lot area variances that were approved. Mabusth informed Council that conventional trench systems can be used on this property due to the excellent soil conditions that exist. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to conceptually approve the lot area variance for Bill Stubbs and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution. Goetten asked Grabek if he would consider amending his motion to include a condition that staff must review the architectural plans before final approval is given. Mayor Grabek amended his motion, Goetten seconded. Motion- Ayes-2. Callahan< Nay. Motion passed. #1532 FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. 2225 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2826 Mr. Joe Franks, Mark Gronberg, Tom Haislet and Jim Cox were present for the review of this application. Councilmember Callahan asked for clarification regarding the additional 7' of right-of-way that will be taken by the City from Mr. Cox. Bernhardson explained, "The City is requesting an additional 7' of right-of-way along Willow Drive. The right-of-way will only be taken from what is now designated as 'Outlot A'. Should it become necessary for the City to upgrade Willow Drive to an M.S.A. street, the City would need the 7' of right-of-way. However, should Hennepin County pursue its plans for County Road - 5 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ZONING FILE #1532-FULLERTON PROPERTIES CONTINUED 116, the additional right-of-way would come from the v;est side. It v/ould not be necessary for the City to acquire the additional ?' and would return it to him. We have V/illow Drive scheduled for upgrade in 1995, unless Hennepin County puts the road back on their schedule." Callahan believed that entering into such an agreement with Mr. Cox could set a negative precedent. Bernhardson said, "What makes this situation unique is the pending aspect of County Road 116 and the resulting realignment of the road to the west. That v/ould not be likely to occur with other roads which would be upgraded using the present center line." Mayor Grabek said, "I believe that we are providing a courtesy to a gentleman who has had this particular property for some time. I believe that our City is still small enough to enable us to do that." It waL moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten. to adopt Resolution #2826, granting the Preliminary Subdivision for Fullerton Properties, including the special agreement with Mr. Cox. Goetten asked whether Council \/ished to grant a blanket Conditional Use Permit for accessory structures on the four through lots that will be created in this subdivision. Callahan believed that property varied from site to site and that individual applications wouli be more appropriate. Grabek and Goetten concurred. Mayor Grabek amended his motion to include that individual Conditional Use Permit applications be filed for accessory structures for the four through lots. Goetten seconded. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. 11537 CALVIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 177 GLENDALE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2827 Ms. Joyce Anderson, a representative of Calvin Presbyterian Church, was present. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2827, granting the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a storage/garage for Calvin Presbyterian Church. Motion,, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1538 LAUREN BORN 1432 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES Mr. Born was present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief review of - 6 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ZONING FILE 11538-BORN CONTINUED the information regarding this application. Mr. Born said, "I previously obtained a permit for this project and had the understanding that a deck v/as approved. I removed the concrete areas as I v/as required to do. Before I constructed the deck. I called the City regarding the increased hardcover that would result from the driveway. It v/as then that I v/as advised that the deck had not been approved." Mabusth provided pictures showing that landscaping has been completed on the property, Councilmember Goetten believed that the necessary, but that she could not approve a deck. stairs the are It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Callahan, to approve the stairs and landing and the additional hardcover within the 75-250 foot setback area resulting from the relocation of the driveway as required by Hennepin County. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. S1539 DAVID FILKINS 3905 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2828 Mr. Filkins was present for this matter. Bernhardson reviewed the information pertaining to this application (see Michael Gaffron’s memo dated July 2, 1990). Gaffron noted that the Planning Cormission had recomraended approval of applicant's plan #1. Councilmember Goetten asked whether the Planning Commission had recommended that the concrete walk\/ays be removed. Gaffron showed the areas of hardcover that are proposed for removal. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2828, granting the setback variances to relocate an existing garage. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1540 RONALD & JULIE PRINEAS 1920 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE RENEWAL RESOLUTION #2829* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2829, granting the renev/al of variances granted in Resolution #2650. Motion, - 7 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9» 1990 ZONING FILE #1540-PRINEAS CONTINUED Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1541 DR. ROBY & JANE THOMPSON 1520 TANGLEVJOOD ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2830 Dr. Roby and Jane Thompson were present. City Administrator Bernhardson summarized the information presented regarding this application (see Michae . Gaffron's i\.^:;:iO dated July 2, 1990). It \/as moved by Councilnember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2830, granting a rear setback variance to construct additions to the existing residence at 1520 Tanglewood Road. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1543 RICHARD C. REED 1000 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD VARIANCE fir. Reed was present. Bernhardson reviewed the information relating to Mr. Reed's application. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten. to approve the after-the-fact height variance for entrance monuments at the Richard C. Reed residence. Callahan asked whether it v/ould be appropriate for the City to pursue whatever is neces-.ary to make Old Long Lake Road a public road. Mabusth stated that it is unknown how platting the road would affect the abutting property owners with torrens and registered lend. Barrett stated that the City could condemn the property. Mayor Grabek asked how wide the road would have to be if it is a public road. Gerhardson replied that the road would have to be 66 feet wide. Motion. Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1544 ROGER AND BECKY BERRY 1392 BALDUR PARK ROAD VARIANCE RENEVJAL RESOLUTION #2831* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan. seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2831, granting that the variances approved in Rc.solution #2587 be renewed. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed, #1546 SCOTT PROCHNOW 4075 HIGHV700D ROAD VARIANCE RENEWAL RESOLUTION #2832* It v/as moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by - 8 - (i- *- ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ZONING FILE 11546-PROCHNOW CONTINUED CounciImember Goetten, to adopt Resolution "2832, granting that the variances approved in Resolution {,1991 be renewed. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1547 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION INTERSECTIONS OF WEST FERNDALE ROAD & COUNTY ROAD 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2833 City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the information pertaining to this application. He noted that the metering panel will be 3' long, 18V' deep, and 5*5' in height, rather than the dimensions indicated in the information presented previously. Bernhardson stated that due to the location of the Mature Conservancy, the station cannot be moved further back from the road. Councilmember Goetten was concerned that having the station located so close to the road mas create a safety hazard. Bernhardson asked Cook what distance v/ill exist between the edge of the road and the structure. City Engineer Cook replied that there v/ill be approximately 13 to 15 feet. Public V7orks Director Gerhardson noted that guardrails would be placed on the west side of the road. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2833, granting a Conditional Use Permit for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to construct a meter station. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1548 JULIA JENSEN 2700 ETHEL AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2834 Ms. Jensen was not present. Gaffron stated that he had talked with Ms. Jensen’s contractor earlier today. He said that height is no longer an issue with this application. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2834. granting the front and side setback variances to construct additions to an existing residence. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1552 STEVEN AND RENEE FOSTER 1800 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE The applicants were not present. - 9 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ZONING FILE #1552-FOSTER CONTINUED Bernhardson reviewed the information pertaining to application (see Micnael Gaffron's memo dated July 2, 1990). this Mayor Grabek indicated that he would not vote in favor of this application. He asked City Attorney Barrett whether it would be appropriate to table the matter until the applicants are present. Gaffron noted that a resolution was not presented this evening and that the matter would be scheduled for the July 23rd Council Meeting. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to conceptually deny the request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances end direct staf : to present a denial resolution at the July 23rd Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL JOHN WOJCIK 3310 BAYSIDE ROAD ADDITIONS TO RESIDENCE Mr. and Mrs. Wojcik were present. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Wojciks wished to construct a bathroom addition onto their existing home. He said, "Their present septic system capacity is such that there is no room to expand should the system fail. Michael Gaffron has denied a building permit based on these septic considerations. This property is v;ithin the Stubbs Bay sewer study area. Staff will not have the Stubbs Bay sewer petition letters out for approximately two weeks. The Bichanich application, approved on the Consent Agenda this evening, involved a similar situation. Mr. Bichanich was permitted to proceed with additions to his residence with the condition that he sign a waiver of appeal. Should the Stubbs Bay sewer project not proceed, and the Wojcik's present system fail, they would have to rely on a permanent holding tank. Council may wish to accept the Wojciks' request and establish some conditions or delay any action until it is knov/n whether the Stuobs Bay sewer project will proceed." Mr. Wojcik said, "My proposal will not increase usage of the existing septic system. I will still have a three bedroom home, but it will have two bathrooms. The bathroom is being added for convenience because currently it is necessary to go through a bedroom to access the only bathroom. I am not adding any bedrooms." Mayor Grabek asked staff why the additional bathroom would pose a problem. - 10 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL-WOJCIK CONTINUED Bernhardson stated that the concerns do not involve the present owner of the property, but rather future ov/ners. He said, "Because of the additional bathroom, the house may now be more appropriate for a larger family to occupy." Mrs. Wojcik stated that the property had been occupied by larger families prior to her and her husband's purchase of it. Mr. Wojcik noted that the septic system had been inspected in 1988 and that the system is functioning. He further stated that there are two holding tanks on this particular system, which i not commonly found in his neighborhood. Mayor Grabek stated that there should be no problem with the Wojciks proceeding if it is determined that the sewer project will go ahead. Bernhardson recommended that if such is the case. Council require the Wojciks to sign a waiver of appeal. that Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Wojcik whether he would be willing to sign a waiver of appeal. Mr. V7ojcik replied, "I don't agree with the way that the sewer is being proposed. There are many small homes on small I0..S. The sewer line will be passing by land that is not yet developed. I believe thac the City is fixing the problem for now, but creating another problem 15 to 20 years from now. I v;ill not agree to sign a waiver of appeal." Councilmember Callahan did not believe that Mr. Wojcik should be asked to sign a waiver if he does not wish to do so. He suggested tabling the matter until it is knov/n whether the sewer project will proceed. Mr. Wojcik preferred to have the Council make a decision this evening so that he could proceed with his plans. He said, "I bought the materials to do the project because I did not foresee any problem with obtaining a permit." Councilmember Goetten was receptive to Mr. Wojcik's point of view. She said, "I must, however, respect the opinions of Michael Gaffron who is our authority on septic systems. I could not approve the Wojciks' request at this point without knowing whether the sewer project will proceed." Councilmember Callahan concurred with Goetten. Gaffron stated that it may be mid October before the City will know whether the project will proceed. - 11 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL-WOJCIK CONTINUED Mr. Wojcik stated that his system could fail tomorrow without the additional bathroom. Mayor Grabek stated that Mr. Wojcik could sell the house as is at any time to a larger family. He further stated that as long as the V7ojciks do own the house, it should make no difference whether there are two bathrooms or one. Gaffron stated that the City's past policy has been to avoid creating potential problems wherever possible. He agreed with Mayor Grabek's view point. Mayor Grabek stated that he may be in favor of the VJojciks' request if they agree to sign a waiver. Councilmember Callahan said, "I am not in favor of asking the Wojciks to sign a waiver as a means to obtain an additional bathroom. We would be asking him to sign the waiver without knowing for certain v/hat the assessment will be." Bernhardson stated that the waiver v^ould be signed at a specific level. Callahan stated that it is also possible that the sewer project will never proceed. He said, "It seems to me that the question is whether or not the Council should overrule staff. Staff does not believe that the house should be expanded." Gaffron stated that the Septic Code refers to specific criteria for expansion. He said, "The Code requires septic systems to be reviewed whenever there is an increase of the intensity of use to a residence by adding bedrooms, plumbing fixtures or other additions. In reviewing this system, we found it to be substandard, though it is functioning. There is no capability to replace or expand the system should it fail. Should the house be expanded and sold to a larger family, problems are likely to occur. Those problems are not as likely to occur if we maintain the size of the house as is." Mayor Grabek asked whether it would be possible to notify future owners of this property of the potential septic problem by filing something in the chain of title. Gaffron stated that a resolution could be used for that purpose, but that it does not guarantee that future property owners v/ould be adequately informed. Mayor Grabek stated that it would be difficult for him to deny the V/ojciks an additional bathroom based on v;hat may happen in the future. - 12 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL-WOJCIK CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek to approve the building permit for an addition to the Wojcik residence, provided that proper notification to future owners is filed in the chain of title at the expense of Mr. and Mrs. Wojcik. The motion failed for lack of a second. Callahan asked Gaffron if there have been other cases where the City denied the expansion of a residence under these circumstances. Gaffron stated that a property on Orono Orchard Road had requested an additional bedroom. He said that approval was given only after it was determined that an \lternate septic site existed. Mayor Grabek noted that Gaffron's example referred to bedrooms, not bathrooms. He agreed that if the Wojciks were adding bedrooms, there would be cause for concern. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to table this matter until the July 23rd Council Meeting. Motion. Ayes-2, Grabek, Nay. Motion carried. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: HIGHWAY 12 SEWER/WATER COMPLETION-BID AWARD City Engineer Cook stated that there has been an adjustment in the price of this project. He said that Otten Brothers bid is $45,814.35. Cook said, "This amount is $16,000 more than the contract amount that v;as bid on the project for these same items. V7e do have approximately $9,700.00 in retainage, but that still leaves a balance of $7,128.00 for which the bonding company will be responsible." Callahan asked Cook what the bonding company has indicated. Cook replied that the bonding company representative had been out of town until today. He said, "I talked with him coday and he indicated that he needed time to revie\/ this. It is my recommendation that Council approve the work to be done by Otten Brothers. If there is any question, we could specify that we will not exceed the contract amount at this time. That will allow us to proceed with the restoration as requested by the proprty owners such as Mr. VJear and Otten Brothers." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to allow Otten Brothers to proceed with the restoration work resulting from the Highway 12 Sewer and Mater improvements. City Attorney Barrett asked Cook whether the legal representative for the bonding company has agreed to this. Cook stated that the bonding company has cooperated up to this point and that they - 13 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 HIGHWAY 12 SEWER COMPLETION CONTINUED were notified of the contract termination. Barrett indicated that it would be appropriate to actively pursue a response from the bonding company and inform them of the City's intention to enter into this contract with Otten Brothers. He said, "I would give them 24 hours to respond if they have any objection." Mayor Grabek directed staff to proceed as Barrett recommended. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. PAY REQUEST #2-WELL 13 ^ ^ w It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve pay request #2 to Keys Well Drilling for an amount of $10,315.10. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: PARK COMMISSION CHAIR APPOINTMENT Mayor Grabek noted that there are two Councilmembers absent from this meeting. He also stated that the Park Commission has been without a Chairperson for sometime. Grabek said that he would be in favor of making a recommendation this evening if that is the consensus. Councilmember Goetten stated that she would like to see Chair and Vice-Chair positions be established as is done with the Planning Commission. She also suggeste' that it may be appropriate for the Park Commission to have tneir own recorder to take care of the minutes. Mayor Grabek agreed that a Chair and Vice-Chair v/ould be appropriate. He preferred to have Council appoi.it those positions rather than following a promotional ladder system. Councilmember Goetten said that the Council initially appointed the Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair. From that point the Planning Commission members have recommended who they wish to elect or re-elect for those positions. Callahan agreed with the aspect of appointing the Chair and Vice-Chair, but felt that the internal organization should be left to the discretion of the Park Commission. It was moved by Mayor Grabek to appoint Dr. Alex Vongries as Park Commission Chair and Mr. Richard Flint as Vice-Chair. The motion failed for a lack of a second. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to appoint a Chair and Vice-Chair for the Park Commission and that Mr. Richard Flint be appointed as Chair and Dr. Vongries as Vice-Chair. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 14 - I ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 APPOINTMENTS PROCESS Bernhardson presented information regarding a potential Advisory Board selection dated June 25, 1990). process (see Mark Bernhardson's memo Mayor Grabek indicated that though he did not completely oppose the information presented, he preferred to continue with the present method of appointing persons to the various commission positions. Councilmember Goetten did not believe that the information presented constituted a rigid process, but rather served as a guideline. She said, "I believe that there were some real problems with the Park Commission appointment process. I would like to see those problems avoided in the future." Goetten stated that she would like to see paragraph #6 include a statement that thank you letters be sent in a timely manner. Mayor Grabek indicated that paragraph #6 should not beUHJdutsu uiiau jjoi.ayi.apu tr w ouvjuxsu iiwu necessary at all. He said. "We should not have to put in writing that the City will send out thank you letters. We do that automatically." Councilmember Callahan indicated that he v;as not entirely opposed to the inforjr?.cron presented, but believed that it should be considered by the full Council. He suggested that paragraph #4 be revised to state that interviews may be held. Callahan stated that very often a candidate is re-applying for his position and that an interview would not be necessary. Mayor Grabek believed that the guidelines still allow for flexibility, which is the way the process is presently. Goetten stated that the purpose of the guidelines is to provide a fair process. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to table this matter until the July 23rd Council Meeting. Motion, Ay s-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE INTERVIEVJS City Administrator Bernhardson reported that 17 applications have been received for the two Citizens Task Force Committee positions. He recommended that a questionnaire be sent to the 17 persons for the purpose of furthef screening and reducing the number of applicants to approximately 5. Councilmember Goetten asked when the Citizens Task Force must be ready to work. Bernhardson stated that there has been no definite date set. - 15 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE CONTINUED It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to send out a questionnaire to the 17 applicants. Callahan asked that staff provide Council with any other information they have regarding the applicants. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: 1989 FINANCIAL REPORT Bernhardson presented the State Reporting Form and Summary for Financial Reporting Publication. He asked Council whether they had any questions concerning the 1989 Financial Report. He also asked Council to adopt the Summary for Financial Reporting. Mayor Grabek asked Council whether they would like to have the Auditor present at a future meeting. Councilmember Callahan stated that he would like more time to review the Financial Report. It as moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table any discussion regarding the Financial Report until July 23rd. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt the Summary for Publication. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. 1989 POLICE ANNUAL REPORT The Council accepted the 1989 Police Annual Report and took no formal action. PARKING SIGNAGE-STUBBS BAY ROAD RESOLUTION #2835 Bernhardson stated that in reviewing the additional use of Bederv/ood Park for Little League, it was brought to the City's attention that parking is creating a safety hazard. He said that people are continuing to park at an angle and that is causing problems.' Bernhardson further noted that parking is occurring along the road while spaces remain open in the parking lot. He said that staff \i/ould like to post "No Parking" on a temporary basis along the west side. This would allow parallel parking to occur on the east side for overflow purposes, and encourage the use of the parking lot. Bernhardson said that the City would monitor the parking lot to see if expansion is required. Councilmember Goetten stated that she has been concerned about the parking on Stubbs Bay Road for some time and hoped that the City v/ould take immediate action to minimize safety hazards. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember - 16 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 STUBBS BAY ROAD PARKING SIGNAGE CONTINUED Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2835, restricting parking on the west side of Stubbs Bay Road adjacent to Bederwood Park. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. FACILITY CITIZEN'S REVIEW COMMITTEE* It v/as moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the information on the Facilities Citizens Review Committee. Motion. Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the information from staff regarding the Highway 12 Corridor and the transportation consultant. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. STUBBS BAY SEV/ER* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goettea. to accept the information presented by staff regarding the letter to the residents. Motion. Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. CDBG JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT RESOLUTION #2836* It v/as moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Joint Cooperation Agreement betv^een Hennepin County and the City of Orono. and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreement. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. PUBLIC WORKS REPLACEMENT* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten. to approve accepting applications only for maintenance worker position in the Public V/orks Department. Motion, Ayes-3. Nays-0. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Lift Station #10 and #43, Big Island Tour, 1972 Shadywood Road, Historical Plaques, Recycled Paper, Goal Setting Status, Receipts and Disbursements-May. and Wire Transfers. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett requested that Council hold an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. - 17 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1990 LICENSES* , , ^ ^ It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded CounciImember Goetten, to approve the following license(s): Special Event: Solicitor: Residential Kennel: Corn Days Four Mile Foot Race August 12, 1990 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Greenpeace Action Door-to-Door Solicitation-Contributions Rodney A. Crawford 4705 North Shore Drive Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed BILLS* ^ ^ ^ It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten. to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Motion, Ayes-3, Nay-0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION 9:09 P.M. As requested by City Attorney Barrett, the City Council held a brief Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. ADJOURNMENT 9:23 P.M. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek. to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting oc 9:23 p.m. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk - 18 - HiT To: From: Date:* Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator July 20, 1990 caijKciL mriMS jui. gSiggo- CITY QF OROHQ #1334 Rebers Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval - Tabled Based on progress in this developmentr it has been requested to table this item. , Proposed Motion: Moved by ___, seconded by __, to table reconsideration of conditions of PRD approval for Rebers Construction for the Sugarwoods plat. Ayes ___, nays ___. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson COUm ftlEET^GJUL 23 1990 I From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adriliyi4^atQS0?.-{j July 18, 1990 #1428 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. - 2610 West Lafayette Road Variance - Revised Proposal - Resolution Zoning District - sewered, 1 acre LR-lB, Single family lakeshore residential, request is merely to replace in kind the existing detached garage. Applicant will be remodeling the interior of the existing residence, requiring no variance for that work. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit C - Resolution Exhibit D - Council Minutes of August 28, 1989 Exhibit E - Memo of August 21, 1989 Pertinent Facts - 1.Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 33.7%. Applicant has withdrawn his previous proposal for maDor grading lakeshore and construction of an entirely new residence. He is now merely remodeling the existing house within the existing wall and roof lines. 2.The current request is for approval to replace the existing 26 x 22' detached garage with an identical structure in the same location. This garage meets all setback and height requirements, and is intended to replace in kind the deteriorating garage that is there now. Discussion Mr. Burgess is considering other properties for purchase, and has dropped his plans to tear down the existing house to one.^^ He merely intends to upgrade the interior of the and replace the garage in kind because it is in such poor condition i will hinder the sale of the property. neighL%^^nVTro^per\ys^%^hrpV°sar:? 1 hardcover above that which is existing. Zoning File #1428 July 18, 1990 Page 2 Because the previous application was tabled at the Council level, the revised request is brought back to the Council for review. A resolution has been drafted for Council's adoption in the event that Council views this current request as being so minor as to not require further Planning Commission review. Council's options are as follows; 1. Approve replacement of the garage in kind, adopt attached resolution. 2. Refer to Planning Commission for review. 3. Approve subject to additional conditions (specify)* 4. Deny. 5.Other. Staff Recommendation Based on the request to replace the deteriorating detached garage in kind, with no intent to increase hardcover above the existing levels, staff would recommend adoption of the attached resolution for approval. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVIST*^^ 2 FILE #1428 WHEREAS, Ralph D. Burgess (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 2610 West Lafayette Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; All of Lot 11, Shore Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota except the southeasterly 15 ’, front and rear, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant on June 23, 1989 applied to the City of Orono for variances and a conditional use permit seelcing approval of land alterations within the 0-75' protected laJceshore setbac)c zone where no land alterations are normally allowed, and requested a variance to allow hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250* la)ceshore setbac)c zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989 the Orono Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variances and conditional use permit. The City Council reviewed the application on August 28, 1989 and directed City staff to draft a resolution for denial of the requested variances. On September 11, 1989, the City Council tabled final action on a denial resolution at the applicant's request, pending submittal of a revised plan by the applicant; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 1990 the applicant submitted a revised pro,osal for interior and cosmetic improvements to the existing residence, with no proposed wor)c outside the existing walls or roof line, and with no land alteration proposed. Additionally, the revised proposal included replacement in )cind of the existing 22' x 26' detached garage, to be replaced in the existing garage location, requiring a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow continued hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 33.7% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1'»28. Page 1 of 4 J 2. The property is located in the L?-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono City Council reviewed this application on July 23, 1990 and finds that replacement of the existing deteriorating detached garage in kind and in the existing conforming location, will provide a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood while not changing the existing percentage of hardcover on the property. 4. The Council further finds that the revised proposal is of such a minor magnitude as to require no further review by the Orono Planning Commission. 5. The City Council has cor.sidered 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. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this 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 Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the replacement of the existing detached 26' x 22' garage, allowing continuation of the existing 33.7% hardcover in the 75-250 zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicant shall submit suitable construction plans for City staff review and approval, verifying that the proposed garage will not exceed the current footprint dimensions and meet all other City requirements. Page 2 of 4 1990. ATTEST; 2. 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 (July 23, 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. 4. 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 23rd day of July, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was a-^^knowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabex & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP AUGUST 28, 1989 ZONING PILE #1417 NSP SUBSTATION CONTINUED Counci Imember Goetten questioned whether Hennepin County would need to approve the revised access? Mabusth replied that County approval was a condition of the resolution. Goetten also asked for clarification as to whether or not a front/rear setback variance would be necessary? Mr. Fisher said that the fencing was being located so that a variance would not be necessary. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2686, approving the Conditional Use Permit for Northern States Power Company. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1425 WARD PERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE/SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2687* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2687, granting a lot area variance to Ward and Mary Ferrell at 3405 Watertown Road, to create one new building site. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1429 RALPH BURGESS 2610 WEST LAPAYETTE ROAD VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PER* Mr. and Mrs. Burgess we present for this matter, as Mr. Larry Berg, their Attorney. was City Administrator Bernhardson briefly explained that the Burgess's were proposing to replace their existing home with a "walk-out" style home. In order to create the walk-out, substantial removal of the soils in the 0-75' zone will be required. Bernhardson questioned whether the concrete pavers proposed were included in the hardcover calculations? Mr. Burgess replied that the pavers are not included in the hardcover calculations. Mr. Burgess noted that hardcover is being reduced by approximately 1500 s.f. and that inclusion of the pavers would leave the hardcover at the present percentage. Mr. Burgess said that rebuilding the house as he is proposing would reduce the amount of runoff directly into Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Burgess said there is an existing garage on the property which would be rebuilt. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Burgess if his architecht was aware of the City's policy regarding excavation within 75' of the Lake? Mr. Burgess said that he was familiar with the City's policies. He said that he was dissatisfied with the Planning Commission's explanation of the reasons why the City's policy disallowed any alteration of the shoreline. Mr. Burgess said that in his opinion his property rights were being denied. He said that he and Mr. Berg had researched the development of the present wording of the City's ordinances pertaining to the maintenance of the shoreline. Mr. Burgess said that he determined that there were two reasons that prompted the current ordinance, one being MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP AUGUST 28, 1989 ZONING PILE #1429-BURGESS CONTINUED aesthetics, the other was environmental impact. Mr. Burgess showed the Council and Mayor Grabek a model of the proposed home. He said that the house was designed and would be located in such a way that runoff would be directed toward a settling pond. He also showed that by moving the house back, it would no longer encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Mr. Burgess explained that he had a great interest in the preservation of Lake Minnetonka and had formed and been involved in the Lake Minnetonka Association. He hoped that this information would give him credibility regarding his intent to build his home without negatively impacting the Lake. Mr. Burgess said that, in his opinion, his proposal would improve the Lake. He said that he was amazed that lakeshore residents did not do more retention ponding to allow sediments to settle before runoff enters the lake. Mr. Burgess said that his proposal would be an environmental improvement because it would increase the distance runoff would travel before entering the Lake. He also said that he was replacing the hardcover within 0-75' of the Lake with sod. He said that he did not understand why he was being denied when in fact he was improving the environment. Mayor Grabek explained to Mr. Burgess that the assumptions he made regarding the intent of the City's Code may or may not be accurate. Mayor Grabek said that in his opinion the City cannot allow excavating along the shoreline, because even though Mr. Burgess's proposal may be aesthetically pleasing, another applicant's proposal to do the same excavation may not have the same results. Mr. Burgess questioned why the City could not hire consultants to review each application on a case by case basis, or why the Planning Commission could not be better informed of the City's Codes. Mayor Grabek responded that the City Council treated the citizens equally and that it would be difficult o allow one application for a walk-out and deny another. He said that the City's Codes and guidelines were very evident in that they disallow any excavation of the shoreline. Mr. Burgess referred to the issue of aesthetics and said that the existing house was a two-story home located on the highest elevation of his property. If given a choice, he believed that the Council and Mayor Grabek would choose the house he was proposing because it was more in conformity with the neighboring properties and aesthetically pleasing. Mayor Grabek reiterated that it was the City's intent to protect the shoreline by disallowing any excavation within 0-75 of the lake. Councilmember Goetten reminded Mr. Burgess that he was before the Council because he required a variance. She asked Mr. Burgess what hardship he had for a walk-out? Mr. Burgess said . ___.ti MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP AUGUST 28, 1989 ZONING FILE #1429-BURGESS CONTINUED that he had submitted a letter spelling out his hardships. City Administrator Bernhardson said that the people responsible for drafting the ordinances in 1960/1970 chose not to have these matters addressed on a case-by-case basis. They chose CO state that no excavation could occur within 0-75’ of Lake Minnetonka unless a hardship is demonstrated. CounciImember Goetten interjected that Mr. Brad VanNest was one of the persons responsibJ ' for the development of the City Ordinances pertaining to the lakeshore. Mr. Bure said that significant portions of the bank had fallen into Lake and unless something was done, more bank would be washed away. CounciImember Goetten said that the City staff would be willing to work with Mr. Burgess in that regard, but that the erosion and walk-out were two separate issues. Mayor Grabek stated that erosion of the bank was not a hardship to warrant a walk-out. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Burgess if he had met with the City staff to discuss restoration of his bank? Mr. Burgess stated that he had met with Mr. Gaffron and Mr. Cook. He said that Mr. Cook had recommended that fabric be installed and a beneficial amount of sloping be done. Mr. Burgess said that Mr. Cook indicated that the City preferred to have vegetation rather than retaining wall. Mr. Burgess saitl that he would have no problem implementing those recommendations. Mr. Berg said that he had taken the time to go back and track Orono's ordinances as they changed. He said the prohibitions about disturbing the Lake had always existed. The difference came when Orono required a permit to disturb the lakeshore and proof that such disturbance would meet the goals of the Community for preserving the lakeshore. Mr. Berg said that in 1975, Orono decided to stop reviewing the aspects of the permits, but rather chose to deny them as a whole. Mr. Berg said that in examining the precedent aspect of denying this type of an application, that he could distinguish Mr. Burgess's proposal from others. He said that Mr. Burgess's proposal also addresses all of the engineering concerns. Mr. Berg noted that the existing house encroaches 35' into the 0-75' setback zone. The proposed residence would allow hardcover to be totally eliminated in that area and remain the same in the 75-250' zone. He said that the walk-out was an additional benefit. Mr. Berg asked to have the 6 reasons supporting d this application included in the record (see MPG memo 7 ' 'al of •). It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Coun» ?er Goetten, to deny application #1429. Councilmember Goetueix said that she would like to give Mr. Burgess the opportunity to revise his proposal and go back before the Planning Commission. Councilmember Nettles reiterated Councilmember Coetten's comments regarding the City's consistency in denying applications MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 28, 1989 ZONING PILE #1429~BURGESS CONTINUED involving any excavation of the lakeshore with the policy being that the natural terrain was best. Nettles said that he interpreted the City's ordinances to say just that. Nettles said that Mr. Burgess's proposal went far beyond what was required to restore the lakeshore. City Administrator Bernhardson suggested that conceptual denial be given so that a resolution could be drafted and brought forth at the September 11, 1989 Meeting. Goetten assured Mr. Burgess that the Council does look upon each application individually. Mayor Grabek amended his motion to indicate that conceptual denial be given and that a resolution of denial be brought back to the September 11, 1989 Council Meeting, CounciImember Goetten seconded. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1433 LOREN BUTTERPIELD 3925 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION #2688 Mr. Loren Butterfield was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson briefly explained that Mr. Butterfield was applying for a conditional use permit for the removal of peat. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of this application subject to removal not exceeding 300 cubic yards per year. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2688, approving the Conditional Use Permit for peat removal for Mr. Loren Butterfield. Motion, Ayes*3, Nays=»0, Motion passed. #1435 JOHN NAFUS 2580 DUNWOODY AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION 2689 Mr. and Mrs. Nafus were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that the applicants wished to construct a 34'x 24' storage addition. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution, #2689, approving a 1' sideyard setback variance for the construction of a storage addition for John and Gail Nafus. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1438 MRS. PHILIP PILLSBURY 1200 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2690 Mr. A1 Paulson, Mrs. Pillsbury's architect, and Mr. Stephen Pflaum, her attorney were present on her behalf. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that previously. Tos Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 21, 1989 Subject: #1429 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit Zoning District - LR-IB, sewered, 1 acre Application - Request for variance and conditional use permit to replace existing residence with new residence, including excavation in 0-75' zone to create a walk-out. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 7/18/89 Exhibit B - Staff's Letter to Applicant of 7/21/89 Exhibit C - Applicant's Information Packet Submitted to Planning Commission Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/13/89 Discussion - Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of July 13th. Briefly, applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence on this property and replace it with a new residence that meets the 75* setback, but requires a hardcover variance to remain at the existing 33.7% in the 75-250' zone. He proposes to use a "grass paver" pavement system to accomplish this. Additionally, integral to the project is an excavation along the lakeshore bank to create a walk-out configuration. Planning Commission at their July 17th meeting voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the request for various reasons, including: 1. Lack of hardship to justify this magnitude of variances. 2. Excavation proposed is excessive in relation to the need to protect lakeshore banks. 3. Hardcover at 33.7% in 75-250' zone is excessive given the lot size. 4. This situation is not so unique as to justify an exception to the City's lakeshore grading policies. Zoning File #1429 August 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Applicant requested and has been provided with copies of the pertinent ordinance sections and Comprehensive Plan excerpts relating to work in lakeshore areas. The ordinances generally prohibit walk-out excavations such as that proposed, requiring a variance (supported by a hardship) to do so. The Comprehensive Plan generally indicates that grading in lakeshore bank areas should be avoided. Applicant is aware of the City's history of denial of recent similar applications, but feels his property has unique circumstances which justify his request. Staff Recommendation - The Planning Commission recommendation for denial appears to be consistent with the general philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the City's past practice in similar situations. Applicant has requested to make a short presentation to the Council at your meeting, and has provided excellent graphic depictions of what he proposes. Staff will dra£t a resolution reflecting Council's final action, for your next meeting. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson JUl, 23 19'-0 Prom: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Admitt|‘6'tratDr)c?n?#'‘j July 19, 1990 Gregory Peterson, 1355 Arbor Street - Reconsideration of Application #1445 - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Minutes 12/11/89 Exhibit B - Council Action Notice 12/18/89 Exhibit C - Staff Letter 5/7/90 Exhibit D - Peterson Letter 5/13/90 Exhibit E - Staff Letter 6/5/90 Exhibit F - Mabel Bell Letter 3/28/90 Exhibit G - Peterson Survey/Site Plan (amended proposal) Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) - Street/front setback. Required = 50' Proposed = 16' (Arbor Street setback) Proposed = O' (Briar Street setback) Variance = 50' or 100% Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - Allowed height for fencing in front yard areas. Allowed = 3*5' Proposed = 5' Variance = 1.5' or 43% Review of Application - The applicant has fulfilled the directives of the Council and has relocated the privacy fencing placed within the right-of- way of Briar Street and has installed the fence within the property along the street lot line adjacent to Briar Street. At your December 11, 1989 meeting. Council also advised the applicant to submit a fencing proposal for the remainder of the property. Applicant claims that he had understood that Council had approved all fencing in excess of 3*5* recently installed within the side yards of the property. The minutes of that meeting clearly reflect that the additional fencing in the side yards would be approved at the time the applicant presented his comprehensive fencing plans for the property. The applicant has submitted his final request (review Exhibit G). The variance noted above must be approved if the fence plan is to be approved as presented. The applicant seeks approval of 5' privacy fencing along the north lot line, 34' from Arbor Street lot line. On the south side yard, fencing is proposed 98' in from Briar Street. Setback variances are required for the fencing located within the 50' front/street yard adjacent to both Briar Street and Arbor Street (16' of fencing extends into Arbor front yard). Zoning File #1445 July 19, 1990 Page 2 of 2 At the Council meeting of December 11, 1989, Council already approved variances to the above referenced sections for the privacy fencing installed at a 5’+ height and located between 0- 1' within the front yard setback area. A resolution has been drafted in order to expedite review of this application. Upon final resolve and determination of the exact variances to be granted, staff will prepare the necessary amendments of the enclosed resolution. The resolution already addresses a height and setback variance for privacy fencing along Briar Street property line. In addition to the resolution, staff will prepare a site plan locating the approved height and location of fencing based on Council's final action. Council Action - Council must determine if it will approve 5' high fencing in the north and side yards as proposed by applicant. A height variance of 1%' must be approved for all privacy fencing placed within the 50' street yards (both Briar and Arbor Streets). JAM/tln A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.75, SUBDIVISION 4 (B) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C) PILE #1445 WHEREAS, Gregory C. Peterson (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1355 Arbor Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lot 2, BlocJc 2, Mar)cville, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to permit the installation of 5'+ privacy fencing where only 3lj' high fencing is allowed within the front yards of the through lot bordered by Briar Street to the west and Arbor Street to the east. Privacy fencing within Briar Street yard shall be placed O' from the street lot line and ___' from zhe Arbor Street lot line instead of the required 50' setbaclc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1445. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. 3. The Orono Council reviewed this application on December 11, 1989 and July 23, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) As approved, the privacy fencing will not create a visual impact or "lx>xing in" of the property. B) The applicant's insurance carrier will require fencing around the pool in the Briar Street yard. Page 1 of 4 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 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. CONCLDSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (B) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to permit the installation of privacy fencing at a 5'+ height to be installed within the front yards of the through lot adjacent to Briar Street and Arbor Street, subject to the following conditions; 1. 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 (July 23, 1991). 2. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a viol ‘*'^n of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any auLVc^rity granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3. 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. Page 2 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of July, 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 23rd day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & Ci’:y Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minn^esota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on benalt of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _f before me a Notary Public within and for said county/ personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , , I I ^ J' ^'LTTTknown 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 PuMic within and for said County, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed theme cu ue ijctovyuvo/ x-. ^ ^ - - - -- - T . . ^ 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 MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, x989 Pr ZONING PILE #1289-WILL CONTINUED CounciImember Callahan said that the read, regardless of where the cul-de-sac is located, ought to go to the northern boundary line of Lots 1, 2, and 3. It was moved by Council" her Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to ; • re an ordinance in accordance wich the opinion of the Ciw . -ney, which will require land owners in the position of ' ear Subdivision ownership to provide access to adjoining -and owners and following such preparation and in conjunction with it, the preliminary subdivision be brought back for review, and is therefore tabled at this time. Motion, Ayes=4, Goetten, Nay, Motion passed. #1445 GREGORY C. PETERSON 1355 ARBOR STREET VARIANCB/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDAI K Mr. and Mrs. Petersen were present for thxs matter. City Administrator Bernhardson summarized the events leading to this reconsideration of variance approvals. Bernhardson said that the Public Works Director has denied the applicant's request to keep the fence in its present location in the right-of-way. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that this is a two part application; the appeal of the administrative decision disallowing the fence to be located in the right-of-way and the height variance for the fence located within the 50' rear yard setback area. Mr. Petersen explained that he had indicated that he would be installing a 6’ fence and that was part of the building permit application for the pool and the porch. He said that they had indicated at the Planning C^ nmission Meeting that they intended to replace the existing fence. Mr. Petersen said that they made the same representations when they met with the Council. He said that he is shocked to be back before the Council because he thought he had covered everything the City required. He said that he had all along asked the City Staff if there was anything missing from their application. Mr. Peterson said that the Resolution only refers to the fence in one paragraph, but the fencing was part of the application from the very beginning. Mrs. Peterson said that she distinctly remembered talking of replacing the existing fence at the Planning Commission Meeting. CounciImember Goetten read a portion of the Planning Commission minutes from that meeting. Goetten also recolle^^ ed the discussion that took place at the Council Meeting regard .ig this matter. Goetten said that she did not believe any discussion took place regarding a fence under 6' around the property. Mr. Petersen said that this was a terminology issue. He MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1445'PETERSON said that in his mind, the fence is around the pool area. Mr. Peterson said he never referred to the fence being around the pool. In Mr. Peterson's opinion, the backyard is the pool area. He asked why there was no specific mention, other than reference to height, in the resolution, to where the fence is to be located. He said they have done everything as they said they were going to do. Mrs. Petersen said they do not have a large enough yard to have various fences breaking up the amount of area. She said that 5' security is imperative because there is a playground right across the street. Counci I-!inofer Callahan said that he recollected that the discussions at the Council Meeting centered around the pool, the variance needed to put in the pool, and the requirements of the insurance company to protect the pool with a fence. Callahan said that the Council never thought, or thinks now, that they gave approval for the fence that now exists, Callahan said that there may be a misunderstanding, but he does not believe it 13 proper to leave the fence in the right-of-way. Callahan said that he could not allow a pool to be installed in that neighborhood without fencing around it. Callahan said that w lat is left to be decided is how to screen the pool and what variances are required to accomplish that, Mr. Peterson said that many of the decisions they have made in regard to the pool were based on the appi. .val given. He said that at no time did he say ai ything other than 'ey intended to replace the existing feeing. Counci1memter Callahan said that replacement of a fence being discussed. he does not recall Counci Imember Peterson said thav- she rad listened to the tapes o£ the Council Meeting twice toda*: and ■‘.t no time did she make the comment noted in the Petetsor's \etter. Peterson also said that at no time did the Petersr./s mention replacing tne fence. Peterson indicated that she "oo did not approve of the fence being located in the right-of-va- because the Peterson's neighbor to the north could come in and r^^quest the same. She said allowing that to happen would create sight line pro>"Iems. Mr. Peterson said that Mrs. Belt, to the south of them, has a fence in the right-of-way. Mr. Petersen said there are many fences in that area that are located ir the right-of-way. Ke asked whether any size fence would be allowed within the right- of-way? Mr. P*?terson said that he does not intend to declare any rights to the ity's property by locating the fence there. CounciImember Callahan asked Mr. Peterson if he had discussed the installation of the pool with the City staff? Mr. " -3rson said yes, quite a bit. MIiniTES OF THB ORONO COUNCIL HBETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1445-PETERSON CONTINUED Callahan asked if there was any discussion about the need to fence the swimming pool? Mr. Peterson said yes. Mrs. Peterson said that she was confused by the conversation involved with the fencing and lot coverage. Callahan said that despite the misunderstanding, he did not believe the fence should exist without a fence near the pool. CounciImember Gcetten said that issue was discussed all along, but at no time was a fence around the per:meter of the yard or in the right-of-way discussed. City Administrator Bernhardson said if the Council does not allow the fence to remain in the right-of-way, a determination of where to relocate the fence should be made. He said that the Council probably will not require the fence to be moved this winter. Mrs. Peterson asked what the City considered a reasonable distance between the fence and the pool? Mr. Peterson asked why that criteria was not mentioned before this? CounciImember Peterson said that her understanding is that the fence would be put immediately beyond the width of the decking of the pool. Mr. Petersen said that he was told the only reason he needed a variance was because he had a throu*^ lot. Mabusth said that a conditional use permit is required because of the through lot, the variance- .■ s necessary for the setbacks . Mayor Grabek asked Mr. of what had been done? Peterson what his neighbors thought Mr. Peterson said that his neighbors were in favor of what he had done and that Mrs. Belt had come to the Planning Commission meeting to make sure everything was going smoothly. ♦ Public Works Director Gerhardson said that the section of Mrs. Belt’s fence in the right-of-way had been removed at the request of the City. CounciImember Goetten said that she would be comfortable with a 3.5' fence as it was existing around the property to tie in with the front picket fence. Goetten said that she did not want the fence in the right-of-way and she was concerned about the "fencing in of Orono". She added that a fence around the pool would also be appropriate for their own liability- MINOTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING PILE #1445-PETERSON CONTINUED Mayor Grabek asked Public Works Director Gerhardson if the fence in the right-of-way would pose a problem? Gerhardson replied that fences usually do pose a problem because of maintenance, tree removal, etc. Mayor Grabek suggested requiring the Petersens to move the fence back out of the right-of-way, but keep the fence the way it is now and if there is any change in the height, a variance will be required. Councilmember Goetten asked what height the fence could be? Mayor Grabek said that it could remain at the 5' height on the one side, but 3.5' will remain. He said allowing the fence to be 5' all the way around would give a "boxed-in look" to Orono. Mrs. Peterson said that all of the houses in their neighborhood were already bexed-in. Mayor Grabek said that the fence has to be removed from the right-of-way. He said the Petersons could then come back to the Council with a plan of what they would like to do with the rest of the lot. that . Mr. Peterson said that he had thought he had already done Mayor Grabek said that he was trying to reach a compromise for the Petersons that would mean the minimal amount of work at a minimal price. Mayor Grabek said that in the Spring they can move the fence back out of the right-of-way and come back before the Council with their proposal for the remainder of the fence. Councilmember Peterson said that she understood their hardship about buying the additional 18' of the adjacent property. Councilmember Nettles asked the Petersons if their primary concern was safety or privacy. Mrs. Peterson said that it is both. The Art Center parking lot is across from their property. Councilmember Nettles suggested a cover for the pool that could be locked. Mr, Peterson indicated that financially that would not be possible. Nettles believed that it was unreasonable to have a fence 3' from the pool. MIMUTBS OF THE ORcNO COUMCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 11, 1989 ZONING FILE 11445-PETERSON CONTINUED Nettles asked what problems had been encountered with Mrs. Belt’s fence that had been located in the right-of-way? Gerhardson said that maintenance requirements differ from year to year. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to move the fence back out of the right-of-way by June 30, 1990 and present a plan to the City for the remainder of the fencing on the property by May 1, 1990. CounciImember Goetten asked at what height the fence being removed from the right-of- way could be re-installed? Mayor Grabek said 5'. Counci1 member Nettles said that he would probably vote against this because he dees not believe the fence should be moved out of the right-of- way. He said that the fence has been in that: location for many, many years and has not caused any problems. Counci1 member Callahan said that he does not believe stuctures should be allowed in the public right-of-way. CounciImember Goetten concurred. Motion, Ayes*3, Goetten, Nettles, Nay. #1471 DAKYLE OPBOPF 2699 KELLY AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION T2737 Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea wall. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2737, approving the conditional use permit for ''epairing a sea wall at 2699 Kelly Avenue. Motion, Ayes=5, Na 0, Motion passed. #1472 DAVID CARLSON 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mayor Grabek informed the public and the Council that this item had been tabled at the request of the applicant. City Administrator Bernhardson requested authorization from the Council to dir.ect the City Attorney to research reasonable uses of this property. Mayor Grabek stated that the City Attorney is so authorized. #1474 DONALD BELAWSXI 1695 CONCORDIA STRET VARIANCE The applicant was not present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that the applicants were seeking a hardcover variance to remove an existing garage and replace it with a 1 n API-LIGATION NO.1445 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 12/18/89 Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Peterson 1355 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Reconsideration of Application #1445 - Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETING:12/11/89 VOTE: 3 For 2 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To require the removal of the portions of the privacy fence located within the road right-of-way of Briar Street by June 3Q, 1990. You are further directed that you may re-install the privacy fence along your side of the rear lot line. No further installation of the privacy fence is approved with this reconsideration of Application #1445 until applicants submit a revised site plan locating proposed location of privacy fencing within applicants' yard. Please be advised that Council meets the second and fourth Mondays of the month. Revised plans must be submitted at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting of the Council. Please contact matter. my office if you have any further questions on this cirY OF ORONO CITYof ORONO Post Office Boi 66*Crysul Bay, Minnesota 55323* Municipal Officca On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 1, 1990 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 li a or street lot line. You were further advised to submit an an.^nded plan that would designate the location and height of proposed fencing within the remaining portions of your rear yard. All portions of 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 fencing must also be removed by June 30, 1990 deadline. It maybe helpful for you to review the enclosed 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 include pool and patio areas within lot coverage calculations. If you will remember, only the house and detached structures were included in the lot coverage considerations during your earlier review. Any pool and patio improvements that were either installed or proposed are not subject to requirements of the new ordinance as they were added on under the directives of the previous ordinance. BLILOING a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-735i FAX-4734W10 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 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 require 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. Mubui'th 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 May 13. i®on Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 ■frii'liio RE: Reconsideration of Application 14-45 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Thank you for the letter of May 7, 1990. As you indicated, it has been difficult for us to get our schedules coordinated. I sought to meet with you in early April. Since you weren^t available. I spoke with Michael Gaffron; however, he preferred to defer my case to you. I have enclosed a site plan requesting permission from the City of Orono to comply with the suggestion of my insurance carrier: to erecr fencing of at least 5 feet in height. Wherever fencing of that height would be installed on our property, a variance would be required. We request permission to install fencing along the property boundaries to the North and to the South. This would not exceed 5 feet in height and would replace the 3 and 1/2 foot fencing presently in place. Also requested are three small sections of gated fencing to the North of the house, between the garage and the house and to the South of the garage. We request permission to install this fencing between now and the expiration date of our original Building Permit. The landscaping done by the previous owners was put in place to follow the boundary-1ine fencing. Fencing within the boundaries would "chop up" our already small backyard area. I enclose a letter signed by my two North and South neighbors indicating their support for our request. Mrs. Peterson and I heard the Council at the 12/11/89 meeting instruct us to remove the fence installed in the Briar right-of-way and give us permission to re-place that fence along our property line. That action has been completed. The Council als.; gave permission for the remainder of the new fence to be left as is. The notice of Council action dated 12/'18/89 stated it as follows: "No further installaticn of the privacy fence is approved...unti1 applicants submit a revised site plan..." The new fence replaced existing fence that has since been discarded. Hopefully, this will become a moot point, if the Council approves our plan for fencing. Because our conflicting schedules have delayed us in submitting this site plan—I had hoped to meet with you personally—I must also request an extension of the June 30, 1990 deadline for action, if the Council does not approve our revised site plan. As a German teacher. I am leading a small group of students to Europe and am remaining on to participate in a German educators workshop from June 5 through early July. Sincerely jory"'Gregory and Julianne Peterson CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 5, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Peterson 1355 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Re; Reconsideration of Application #1445 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Peterson: The City is in receipt of your letter received this office May 25, 1990 requesting an extension of the June 30th deadline for the submittal of the revised fencing plans. This would appear to be no problem on the part of the City as the fencing located within the right-of-way has been removed prior to the June 30, 1990 deadline. Your fen ing plans have been submitted and will be placed on the Council agenda for the July 23, 1990 meeting. Based on the schedule set forth in your above referenced letter, it appears you will be back in the United States in early July. If the July 23rd meeting creates a conflict with your summer schedule, please advise my office at your earliest convenience. As to the issue whether the Council has formally acted on the portions of the new fencing already installed in the north and south side yards of your property, I have enclosed a copy of the Council minutes of December 11, 1989. It would be staff's interpretation of the Council's recommendation on Page 10 of those minutes that all other proposed fencing outside of the privacy fence allowed to be reinstalled parallel to Briar Street has not been included with this approval. Council has asked to the applicants to submit a "plan to the City for the remainder of the fencing on the property". As your letter suggests, this may be a moot point when the Council acts on your fencing proposal. Once again, please contact my office if the July 23rd meeting date creates a conflict with your schedule or if you have any questions pertaining to the original directives of ^ ® Council. The information that you have submitted for Council s review appears to be very adequate. ^anne A. Mabusth, Briilding & Zoning Administrator JAM/tln ' cc; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members BUILDING A ZONING-4717357 • ADMINISTRATION A RNANCE-473-735* • PtmiC WORKS - 4717359 ASSESSING FAX-4710510 F-March 28, 1990 To: Orono City Council From: Barb Garcia and Mabel Belt Re: Greg & Julie Peterson's Variance Request Greg Peterson has explained the need for fencing around his property boundary line and the need to gain Council approval. As explained to us, the Peterson's insurance company, in the absence of a city ordinance, recommends a 5-foot fence around the area encompassing a pool for liability protection. The Peterson's have requested our permission to remove the existing fencing that is presently along our property boundaries and to replace it with fence which shall not exceed 5 feet in height along all or part of the boundary between our properties. The Council has approved the fencing that is presently in place between the properties, and continuing with the same type of fence along the property line would be uniform and more attractive than different types of fencing, as now exists. We support the Peterson*'s in their request to rec.' ice the existing property line fencing with stockade-stvle fencing not to exceed 5 feet in height. We ask that you grant the variance required to allow the installation of this fencing. Sincere 1y, Barb Garcia and Mabel Belt Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson JIJL 23 1990 nry of Froa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: July 19, 1990 Subject: #1473 Jacquelynn Kelly, 2056 Shadywood Road After-the-Fact Variances List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Council Minutes 6/25/90 Exhibit B - Council Action Notice 6/27/90 Exhibit C - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit D - Revised Plan Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculation & Diagram Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 A. Lakeshore setback Required = 75' Proposed * 83' No setback or h^»rdcover variance is required. B. Average lakeshore setback Original deck = 4' encroachment of entire 36' deck Proposed deck = 4' encroachment of a pointed section of deck tapering back behind average setback line within 10' Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover 75-250' setback area = 12,645 s.f Allowed = 3,161.25 s.f or 25% Previous =* 7,239.46 s.f. or 57.2% Original Proposal = 7,697.46*1 s.f. or 60.9% Current Proposal =* 7,629.46*2 s.f. or 60.3% Total Reduction in Hardcover » 68 s.f. or .6% *1 Original deck = 1,078 s.f. not 1,040 s.f. *2 Rock bed to lakeside of deck, total hardcover *= 65 s.f. not 90 s.f. Current proposal shows rock bed not covered by deck at approximately 30 s.f. Current deck is 1040 s.f. with a reduction of 38 s.f. from present deck. Total hardcover in current proposal is reduced by only 68 s.f. Applicant proposes the removal of the plastic underliner under rock beds and to replace with fabric underliner considered hardcover by the City. Zoning File 11473 July 19, 1990 Page 2 Review of Current Application - Please review applicant's addendum, ti ? B. The revised proposal shows the new deck relocated out of the 0-75* setback area with only a partial section of the deck extending beyond the average lakeshore setback line at approximately 4'. Note the deck has been now extended over into the side yard where there was adeguate room to meet the side yard setback. The applicant refers to hardcover at 5,952.9 s.f. or 47.1%. Current hardcover on the property is shown above at 60.9% or 7,697.46 s.f. The applicant's representative may be confused as applicant originally proposed the reduction of 10% in hardcover to be accomplished by the applicant removing plastic underliner from the approximate 1700 s.f. of rock bed. This is no longer proposed by applicant as rock beds are to be installed with fabric under liner. Hardcover remains at the level noted above. It appears as we go further with this review that the findings appear to be getting more and more confused. Staff would recommend to Council that applicant be given clear directives as to an acceptable level of hardcover within the 75— 250' setback area as a condition for granting approval of the current deck that results in 3.1% of additional new structural hardcover. Council Action To provide applicant with specific guidelines for reduction in hardcover. If Council has any concern with the current proposal for the deck, the applicant should be advised. Staff recommends tabling all action on the application so that the applicant may present a revised proposal showing reductions in hardcover at the required level set forth by Council at this meeting. Staff will draft the appropriate resolution to include the final amended site plan (designating existing areas of hardcover to be removed based on City's directive) for formal action at a later meeting. 1 frORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED It was the consensus of Council that juveniles should be required to be licensed to operate a motor boat. Mayor Grabek asked Hurr for an update as to the level of the lake and the presence of Eurasian Milfoil. Hurr replied that the lake level has increased by nearly a foot. She noted that there are some persons on the Board stating that the lake level is currently 928.6. She said the average lake level is 92^.4, and that she doubted the current level is 928.6. With regard to the Eurasian Milfoil, Hurr said that the weeds are growing rapidly. She sa\d that there are four weed cutters working to harvest the weed. Councilmember Peterson made reference to an article that aopeared in the paper regarding the use of chemicals to rid Lake Independence of Eurasian Milfoil. She said that the article stated that the weed is gone from the lake and questioned whether that is accurate. Hurt replied that though areas of Lake Independence have been chemically treated, there are other areas whe. . the weed exists. Hurr noted that the Freshwater Biological Foundation has received a $100,000 grant to use for research to find a chemical to rid the weed from the lakes. She suited that harvesting is only being done to make the lakes functional, but it is not a permanent solution. Mayor Grabek thanked JoEllen for her presentation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: S1473 JACQUELYNN KELLY 2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE Ms. Kelly and her present. Attorney, Mr. Dennis Johnson, were Bernhardson reviewed the application (see Jeanne Mabus* Bernhardson noted that the has not provided a revised surv - information regarding this dated June 21, 1990). nas revised her plan, but Mabusth showed Council an overhead sketch of the current proposal. She noted that the deck is being reduced in size and will no longer encroach into the 75' setback area. Mabusth also - 3 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1990 has been lowerea ana another portion reaucea in size to meet the 10' side setback. Mr. Johnson statea that the concept for the com» Lom the information proviaea from the City. He h» haa receivea a copy of an Orainance pertaining to fences, walls or bundlngs that are 42" in eight or more. He saia that h» was recently informea by staff that the Orainance haa been rivisea." Mr JohnsL saia that the plan was revisea so that the ma-inritv of the aeck locatea in the average setback wouia be n more than 40" high. He saia that the revisea plan shouia have no imoact on the neighbors. He noted that the neighbors consented to^ the old deck design and have no objections olan Mr. Johnson also showed Council that planters a . ? Ssid' in lieu of railings alongside the deck to lessen visual impact on ths neighbors. Mabusth stated that she had previously T u «« -f-hp Section of Code that he received in error pIrtaiL only to retaining walls and fences. She said that Mr. hjis sinc» been provided with the most recent amendment of thf Ordin\'nce Mlbust^ noted that Mr. Johnson had accepted staff's interpretation that the Section of Coce only pertained walls and fences. deck will be no more than 42" high. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Johnson if he would P^fer to have the matter tabled to allow him more opportunity to -.view proper Ordinances. Mr. Johnson indicated that tabling would^ g9o"'''council provided that they are scheduled .or the ju.y Meeting. Councilmember Goetten stated that she w. the information the .-eviseS'as Council dirLted.*^^"^Goetten°indicated that she e*^5ittter deck resemble the old deck. She suggested that should the matte agiL be ’tabled, that the applicant bring back more concrete information. Mr. Johnson explained that the P"®®"*"j"!Jgonevening was prepared using the incorrect Ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated^ that he will prepare something t“ng ^ correct Ordinance and will present that at the next meeting. - 4 - I' ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1990 Pr ^licant 'n. wasZONING FILE 11473-KELLY CONTINUED C;Duncilmember Callahan questioned why the being permitted to construct a deck in any configu. Mr. Johnson explained that there are three sets double glass sliding doors on this side of the house which require a deck in order to access. It was moved by C\allahan, seconded by Peterson, to table this application until the July 9, 1990, Council Meeting and that the applicant submit a proposal with a revised survey locating the deck, and hardcover calculations. Mayor Grabek stated th^t he would prefer to have staff prepare a resolution of deniax. Callahan concurred with Mayor Grabek. Motion, Ayes-3, Grabek, Callahan, Nay. Motion passed #1476 DAVID & SUSAN PRASS 1065 LINDEN LANE RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE APPROVAL Mr. and Mrs. Prass were prt^sent. Bernhardson explained that Mr. and Mrs. Prass are meet the conditions set forth in Resolution #2738 and for approval to construct a permanent wood cover f^r he said that Mr. and Mrs. Prass are also ask? .iq September deadline for construction of a prin^ * extended. Bernhardson stated that if the wood . render th-j pool safe, it v»<^ ixd mee u the intent jL Commission and Cc inoil cirect.'on. Councilmember Ciilahaii ask., when the Prasses might be a position to cc-i*struct a principal structure. Mr. Prass replied that he would hope to construct a home within two or three years. Mayor Grabek asked wherner : c would still • >'>ossible for water to get in the pool even tiwjgh it is covereu. xplained that tho cover must be sealed to prevent xnp .7 ^ the pool, or the cover cannot be unable to are asking the pool, have the -.ructure ’cr does Planning Mabust water from approved. ,'d that staff could work with the back a design for the cover to the next jb.? arked wh^^ther the Clt/, was currently liable for Hf-v occur while the pool remains uncovered. City Attorney Barrett advised Grabek that, in his opinion, the City has no legal liability. - 5 - Ber. . applicaK'? Counci- -^ee Ma yox any misha^^ .. CITY OF ORONO P.O* Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55123 APPLICATION NO. 1473 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: June 27, 1990 TO: Jacquelynn Kelly 2056 Shadywoodl Road VJayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: Dennis Johnson Chestnut & Brooks 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION: After-the-Fact Variance DATE OP MEETING: June 25, 1990 VOTE: 4 For 1 Against COUNCIL ACTION To table the above referenced application pending receipt of the following information: 1. Amended deck plans. 2. Revised survey locating ame.ided deck, areas of existing hardcover improvements to be removed, etr.. 3. Revised hardcover calculations. New suHi'ittals must be received by the 'City staff no later than July 2, 1990 if you wish to be scheduled before the Council meeting of July 9th or July 16th for the July 23, 1990 Council meeting. Failure tc meet the final deadl for the July 23, 1990 meeting of the Council will nece ‘♦■ate ; f's presenting the application before the Council for fur- 'ec\ .1. t' contact Jeanne Mabusth at (473-7357) if you have any questions concfc - .g the directives listed above or any questions concerning the pertinent ordinances. CHES'f NUT & BROOKS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW (3 JACK L. CHESTNUT WILLIAM F. BROOKS. JR. KARL L. CAMBRONNE* CORTC.HOLTEN CRAIG A. ERICKSON DENNIS B JOHNSON ALAN B. DEMMER** ROBERTA. LaFLEUR. CPA JEANETTE A. FREDERICKSON STUART C. BEAR BRIAN W. RUDE 3700 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 (612)330-7300 FAX (612) 336-2040 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. W. ST. PAUL. MINNE.'^.yrA 55103 (612)201-1000 •ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ••ALSO AD.MITTED IN CALIFORNIA hand-delivered July 16, 1990 w —^ • - Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Orono City Hall 1335 South Brown Road Orono, Minnesota 55323 'JUL f f ® Re:Jacquelynn M. Kelly After-The-Fact Zoiiing Variance Zoning Filing Number: 1473 Our File Number: 9244 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Enclosed you will find a revised plan in connection with the above-refeL.anced matter. In connection with this plan, Ms. Kelly will do the following: ! ; 1. The portion of the existing deck identified in hatch marks will be removed in its entirety and rebuilt in the area whep indicated on the plan, so it will generally not encroach over the average lakeshore setback line. 2. The only encroachment over the average lakeshore setback line will be a small portion of the deck extending a maximum of two to three feet over the setback line, and then tapering back to the setback line over a distance of approximately ten feet. It is for this one minor encroachment that Ms 'elly requests a variance. 3. The revised deck will contain 1,040 square feat, the exact same square footage as the existing deck. 4. In connection with this revised plan, Ms. Ke\ly will remove approximately 90 square feet of rock bed. This will reduce her proposed hardcover in the 75 to 250 foot zone from 5952.9 square feet to 5862.9 square feet, resulting in a reduction in tne hardcover percentage in this zone from 47.1% to 46.36%. Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth July 16, 1990 Page 2 5. Ms. Kelly plans to replace all existing plastic underlining with fabric underlining, to reduce the impact of the existing hardcover. As you know, this matter is scheduled for the City Council meeting on Monday, July 23, 1990. If you need anything further, please contact either myself or Dennis B. Johnson. Very truly yours, CHESXJJUT & .Stuart fc.^Bear SCB:dh cc: Dennis B. Johnson, Esq. Ms. Jacquelynn M. Kelly From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono CounciImembersCity Administrator Bernhardson -... I'/iEETiiePJeanne A. Mabusth, Building i Zoning Administrato’ir‘*’“-«) July 19, 1990 JUL23i9S0 ♦ 1502 Michael Hilbelink, 2180 Prospect Variance - Resolution * ' " 7 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Revised Survey Hilbelink Letter Cook's Report Topographic Map French Creek Section - Ditch Elevations of Catch Basins Council Minutes 6/11/90 Resolution Review of Application ~ At the June 11, 1990 meeting of the Council, the applicant was directed to work with Mr. Jentilucci, the most affected neighbor to the north, and the City Engineer to reach a resolve regarding the drainage problems within the area. Review Exhibits C, D and F, Cook has proposed a 3' deep drainage swale, 4» wide at the base with 4:1 slopes to be installed within the French Creek existing drainage easement of 20'. The City will obtain temporary easements to construct the drainage swale within the property. The drainage swale will help to relieve the drainage that collects in the northwest catch basin located within the Jentilucci property. The excavation of approximately 150 cubic yards from the French Creek property will alleviate ponding above the 952 elevation (elevation of the Jentilucci parking area). As Engineer's report notes, the project could be completed under a City contract or the developer could do the work. Please review Exhibit E, Mr. Hilbelink's most recent letter. The applicant advises that it appears unfair to ask a single property owner to be responsible for what appears to be an existing public drainage problem within the neighborhood. He is concerned with the liability of assuming the responsibility of the project no matter how low the cost. Hilbelink is concerned that the City and/or neighbors will be coming back to him to make the necessary changes if he assumes responsibility for the alterations. Staff has reviewed Mr. Hilbelink's concerns with Glenn Cook. Cook has advised that Hilbelink's excavator would be able to provide the necessary equipment to excavate the drainage­ way and use the approximate 150 cubic yards of topsoil fill with the final grading for the proposed residence on the property. The City could in turn be responsible for the final discing, grading, seeding of the drainageway, and maintenance of erosion control. . ^ iBZoning File #1502 July 19, 1990 Page 2 of 2Staff met with Ned Dayton, the president of the homeowners' association of French Creek, on Wednesday, July 18th and he advised that he saw no problem with the proposal, but stated that he would have to bring the request before the homeowners' meeting on Friday, July 20th. Dayton then advised that he would contact me prior to the meeting to advise of the final decision of the homeowners' association. Dayton noted that he saw no problem with granting the temporary construction easement requested in the Engineer's report (10' on either side of the existing 20 wide permanent drainage easement). Cook will discuss the sharing of the responsibility for constructing the drainage ditch with Mr. Hilbelink and report to Council at your meeting. The applicant has submitted a revised survey locating the house 30' from the south side/street lot line. Staff has prepared the resolution for Council's action on the area and setback variances for the residential development of the property. Pending final resolve of the drainageway alteration. Council may adopt the enclosed resolution subject to an amendment that would resolve the responsibilities for the installation of the drainage swale on che French Creek property. Ji A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28r SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND DENIES VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 16 FILE #1502 WHEREAS, Michael Hilbelink (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2180 Prospect Avenue within the Cit’ of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot that consists of 22,490 square feet or .516 acres where 2 acres is required and a side/street setback variance that would place the structure 30* instead of the required 50*. The applicant also seeks variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 to allow a 5* fence in a required yard area that would allow a 3* to 3-1/2* high fence. NOW, THEREFORE, B£ TT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1502. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres of dry contiguous land. The subject property consists of 22,490 square feet or .516 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 19, 1990, April 16, 1990 and May 21, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance application as amended based upon the following findings: a) The property consists of .516 acres and is subject to 2 acre zoning standards. Page 1 of 5 b) The area of the property is consistent with the surrounding one half to three-quarter acre pattern of development within the Crystal Bay neighborhood. c) The property is served with sewer. d) There is no additional area available for acquisition to increase the building envelope. 4. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny a variance to Secion 10-03, Subdivision 15 (C) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 requiring height and setback variances for proposed fencing along the south lot line finding the placement of a fence at that height to be a hazard to the public who use the intersection of Prospect and Briar Street and to find natural plantings along the south line a more acceptable method in achieving the desired level of privacy. 5. 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. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this 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 pre­ serve 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 one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 16 and grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a single family residence Page 2 of 5 requiring approval of an area variance of 64,630 square feet or 1.4 acres at 74% and a side setback variance of 20' or 40%, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City for the new construction, applicant must provide proof from the County that delinquent real estate »:axes and special assessments have been paid. Applicant is further advised that there is approximately $6,825.84 incurred by the City as a result of a previous Hazardous Building Action against this property. This fee is in the process of being assessed against the property. Applicant will have an opportunity to pay this off prior to the formal assessment to be ordered by the Courts. 2. New driveway access at Briar Street must be reviewed by Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a building permit . 3. Connection to municipal sewer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for new residence. 4. City Engineer to review final drainage/grading plans for new construction prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Granting of a 15 ’ wide drainage easement along the north boundary line and the granting of drainage anv' utility easements 10' along southern property line and 5' along west property line. 6. With the approval of this variance application, the applicant hereby agrees to excavat- drain;iO?=? swale within French Creek per City Engineer's ' dat d July 2, 1990 entitled "Ditch Grading". The City .*11 agree to complete final grading and seeding of disturbed area in addition to maintaining erosion control until ground cover is restored. Applicant shall maintain erosion control on his property throughout construction to prevent any restriction upon drainage system along northern border of property. 7. 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 (July 23, 1991). 1 Page 3 of 5 8. Violation of cr 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. 9. 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 23rd day of July, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 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 behal of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) d^ cribed 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 5 of 5 mm EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the South­ west Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of tho Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10 515.625 feet north of the southwest corner of said Northerist Quarter of the Southv^est Quarter; thence North 130.00 feet; thence Last 200.00 feet; ^thence South 130.00 feet; thence West 200.00 feet to the point of heginnincr. V *■i • . ' %• . # Ail tliat part of tho Northeast Quarter of tlie South­ west Quarter of Section 10, Towr>,: . 117 North, Range 23 West of tlie 5th Principal Mer-;. Lan described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10 j15.6^5 feet nortli of the southwest corner of said Northe.'iMe Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; tlience North 1 30.00 feet; thence East 200.00 feet; thence South 130.00 feet; thence West 20B.00 feet to the point of beninninq. GENERAL NOTES o • + ' Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete X 939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation 1939) Denotes proposed spot elevotion <--------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features Proposed top foundation elevation = lot-® Proposed bast ment floor elevotloi ‘ ® Proposed garage floor elevation - )0t.5 Br.WCHMAR.; Ir^ of nen- NW (Above. Atsumvtooo.o ALL-MET RO LAND ■.SUKy^^EVORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 1 hireb> carlify that this su'vey, plon or was prepared by me or under m, direct supervision and that 1 om a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. zjzlhoDATE _.REG NO no?^ SCALE I"-' 30' BOOK eo PAGE 7 FILE NO ‘^OOl 1. \<o A Michael Hilbelink 85 Golden View Drive Long Lake/ Minn. 55356 July 16/ 1989 Orono City Council P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay/ Minn.55323 Re: Lot at 2180 Prospect Ave Dear Member's of the Council; Glen Cook/ Orc.'o's city engineer/ has come up with a plan that seems to sat’ jfy the potential drainage problem between the Jentilucci's and our property. We ace in agreement with his suggested alterations. However# we do not agree that this work could be done by us# the developer. We do >i?t feel it is appropriate for a private citizen to do work within a public easement# to correct what appears to be a comprehensive and public drainage problem. According to City records# this problem has existed for years and is not being newly created by our development. are more than willing to give the requested 15' easement so that the 'tty can maintain the storm sewer# but are not willing to do the actual work. I would have grave queoc.’.ons on who would supervise the work# what happens if the work done : not effective# any corrections who would they come back tc. x.- c' the work/ what liahity wou?d there be present and future for a private citizen doing work cn the French Creek property# ect. I hope we can rrsolve this problem at the next meeting. ^ Thank you. ^^Respect f u^lly Bonestroo Rosene AnderMk & Associates CJttoG Bonemoa "E B oom W Bwcne PE Joi^pn C Anoffi*, PE VUivm L ScxvjU PE E Turner PE J»mei C 0«on PE &enn # Coo*. PE Thomai £ f'toyei PE Rocen G Scfiunithr. PE Sown M Eaerwi. C pa Engineers & Architects July 3. 1990 Ke<^ A Gordon. PE Pitftjrd W FbHer PE Donjid C BorgiidL PE Jerry A Bouroon PE M*r* A Hjnjon. PE Teo * Fpew PE Mrrwer T (Uuorwnn. PE Rooert R PWitrie PE D*vk ) O loikou PE Thomii W Peterjoa PE M<rrjet C Lyncn, PE Umti R MMnd PE *fnn«n P ArxJerion. PE M«r* R R d R i. PE RDOrrt C RutMk. AItA Tnomjj E Angui„ PE HOkVATd A SjoTorO P£ a*r^'A i<«imr>PEsIa Se<xPlC~v ■ Thomm R Arxterwni A lA Gjry f Ryunder. PE M*et a Jensea PE L Pftifcp Gr«v«< m. PE Rene C P*urrv»a AIA Agnei M Rmg. AlCP Jerry O Peroscfi. PE Ceciter OIMer. PE Chjrlej A Enckson Leo M P»rverj*y Hiiun M brton City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 rJUL e 1930 Attn; Jeanne Mabusth Re: Michael Hilbelink 2180 Prospect Avenue Our File No. 139-1502 Dear Jeanne: We have reviewed the storm sewer system between Briar Street and the easterly pond on the French Creek property. The storm sewer system is adequate for a one year return frequency storm. The water ponded on the Jentilucci property would have to reach an elevation of 953.8 before overflowing to the ve«r.. The existing conditions could result in some property damage from a storm with a return frequency of 1 year or greater. We would recommend that some minor grading be completed on the French Creek property to eliminate the potential for damage. We have shown the proposed grading on the attached plan and profile. There would be approximately 150 cubic yards of material that would be removed to provide an overflow drainage swale. The grading would not eliminate all ponding on the Hilbelink and Jentilucci property, the ponding however would be for short duration (less than i hour) and be below the elevation of the Jentilucci parking area (952.0). The grading work could be completed under a city contract or the developer could do the work. The developer may be able to use all or a portion of the material for grading around the new home. Please contact this office if you have any questions or need additic ;il information. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDEANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh End. cc: Alex Jentilucci 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 I •• V Y S ■•!/Vv 1 11 !1 •.•:.• 1I i r; 1 i‘ 1 1 1 1 V • •.. • ••* ; ft -•N y'J: ”•'f.'V 1 • 1 ^cSL--'-R ;Y. \ •• m - o I^j5 *' ;; e • . 4 - r* h • I • I * .4 ^ fcJ ••-. ^ • I • -\ H r Ji•A \ 4 «i V. j« ■J 5 l> 4 • T5. 4) -Ji O jG o \ 95-o.r d d- O ■hOO 4FTi* TJ •t- > L c vj (/) O I I Xi 0 It (\j / 7)rr Ui 7M T> c* :*- ■> o - 0 + If J 5 P V3 r S- Cs ^ J s C) .1/6 :»>0Q lAg p9M9iAad O bf 2/L> :»PQ ^ rAg pajodajd ‘jod suoj>0|n9|oo ?^Sl-bsrOH *[0Jd ^T/'H :P»[0Jd a5od c fc.y'Q • ^4'^i) nu9i|0 sdiepossv V >ll|japuv auaso^j oojisauog kH CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for I ______ 4)6/^t> A«lc) RtMtitJ 3/lt./‘30 k> shou> sUrrrx a/icj dr-ai Aac»c^ . i/nho »W MIKE HILBELINK ■ •(bwc •' ■"■}■■■■■' — ■ .f .. Cftiu 0w«n ■ — - ______ .*•* I ----S£L xs ^ ^ tW»% *€mirTc\ y. J» \ noi -fropoird <M* '< *l»l » / S ( Wh f>ROSPECT-----AVENUE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that ’.»art of the Nortlieast Quarter of the South- v;est Quarter of Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian descrioed as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of th4 Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 10 515.625 feet nortn of the southwest corner of said Ncrthear.t Quarter of tlie Southwest Q'uarter; thence North 130.00 feet; thence Last 208.00 feet; thence South 130.00 foot; thonco West 208.00 foot to the point of beginning. GENERAL NOTES ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 11, 1990 WRIGHT/HENNEPIN FRANCHISE AGREEMENT CONTINUED passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information regarding the Council Minutes of the May 29, 1990 Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commission Representative, Charlie Kelley, present and indicated that he had no comments at this time. was PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rosemary Scheuer referred to the Shoreline Beautification Plan that was approved last year and asked whether Orono had plans to install a "Welcome to Orono" sign. She noted that both Mound and Spring Park had designed welcome signs. Mayor Grabek informed Ms. Scheuer that staff would provide her with information at the June 2j, 1990 Council meeting. ************************* Mayor Grabek informed staff that he had spoken with Mr. Bill V7ear regarding the status of the clean up process along Highway 12. He said that Mr. V^ear had stated that the condition of the access area for his property was such that it is having a negative impact on his business. City Engineer Cook stated that he has asked for information from three landscape companies in relation to the clean up work. He said he has received information from only one of the companies. Mayor Grabek asked Cook if he would expedite the clean up process and send Mr. Wear a letter informing him of a completion date. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1502 MICHAEL HILBELINK 2180 PROSPECT AVENUE VARIANCE Mr. Hilbelink, Mr. and Mrs. Jentilucci Heikkila, Attorney for Jentilucci's. were present and Mr. Neil Bernhardson reviewed the information regarding application (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated May 2, 1990). this Mr. Heikkila stated that his clients do not feel that it is necessary to grant a variance for this particular house design. - 5 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 11, 1990ZONING FILE #1502-HILBELINK CONTINUED He said that if another design or location v;as proposed, a variance may not be required. Mr. Heikkila said that the proposed location of the structure raises concerns regarding drainage. He said that permitting the house to be constructed where proposed will necessitate a change in drainage. He stated that though the resolution requires the final drainage plan to be reviewed by the City Engineer, it will not come before Council again. Mr. Heikkila said that there is no longer an area that will allow runoff to settle. The proposed location of Mr. Hilbelink's house is where drainage was stored prior to fill being added. The development of this property will cause more runoff to drain into the drainage pipe between properties. He stated that the Jentiluccis are willing to give the City an easement over that pipe. Mr. Jentilucci presented pictures of the vacant lot to the Council showing the condition of the property after a rain storm. He noted that the rain storm was not the 1987 super storm. Mr. Jentilucci stated that the existing swale is to the left of the storm sewer and that concerned him. City Engineer Cook stated that the City has asked for a 20* easement along the north property line. He said that the expectation is that there will be no change in the location of the swale. He said that the City cannot guarantee that the property will survive a 100 year storm. He said that the area is restricted in that it does not have overflow drainage. In most restricted areas, the City prefers to either provide for a 100 year storm or install some form of an overflow system. Cook noted that prior to the development of French Creek, there was no outlet for the storage pond. As part of the French Creek subdivision, a storm sewer pipe was installed and provides an outlet. languageMayor Grabek noted that the resolution provides requiring that the City Engineer approve the drainage plan before a building permit is issued. Mr. Heikkila said that the Jentiluccis preferred to have the drainage problems resolved prior to variance approval. Councilmember Peterson indicated that she concurred with Heikkila. She said that a drainage problem has existed in that area' for the last 15 years. Peterson said that she could not approve the variances without seeing specific building plans. Mr. Hilbelink stated that he had tried to do that at the last Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the hardship for the variances is that the property is a corner lot. The Planning Commission recommended that only a 30' side yard setback b© required which would be standard for non-corner lots. Mr. - 6 - I ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 11, 1990 ZONING FILE #1502-HILBELINK CONTINUED Hilbelink also informed Council that he had been on the property since the heavy rainfalls occurred. He said that there was no standing v/ater on the lot. He questioned whether it was possible to provide for a 100 year storm. Mayor Grabek asked why the house plan submitted was not the actual plan that would be used to construct the house. Mr. Hilbelink replied that it will be necessary to downsize the plan shown, but that he was not asked to provide the City with the exact specifications. Planning Commission Representative Kelley informed Mayor Grabek that Planning Commission did not think it was appropriate to design the house for Mr. Hilbelink. He said that it appeared that the main issue was drainage. The Planning Commission provided Mr. Hilbelink with a building envelope and conditioned the recommendation on drainage issues being resolved with the City Engineer. Councilmember Goetten stated that the drainage issues involving this property perhaps warrant that more than the building envelope be established. Goetten stated that she would like to see the building plans prior to approving the variances She said that the City Code requires that there be no runoff created by the development piece additional of property. Goetten asked Cook not occur. if he was assured that increased runoff would Cook replied that there would be no increase in runoff from a normal rainfall. However, if a 100 year rainfall should occur. Cook could not guarantee that runoff would not increase. Mayor Grabek asked Cook what his recommendation is regarding the construction of a residence on this property. Cook said that constructing a house in the location proposed would reduce the water storage area by approximately 20%. Mabusth noted that storm sewers are constructed with 5 year storms in mind and often are not meant to handle 100 year storms. Mabusth stated that the issue here is how to direct the drainage that will occur due to the reduction in, the size of the water storage area. Mabusth said that the Jentiluccis are asking the City to solve the drainage problem and are willing to grant an easement over a portion of their property. Mabusth said that it may be necessary for grading changes to be made to prevent drainage from flowing onto Jentiluccis' property. Mr. Jentilucci suggested that the City might look at the option of lowering the rear property elevations extending over - 7 - ► •.ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 11, 1990 ZONING FILE #1502-HILBELINK CONTINUED the draintile that flows through the Dayton property. He said if the grade is lowered a foot or so lower, it will provide a place for the runoff to go. Mayor Grabek asked staff why this was being discussed at this point, yet there seemed to be no answers to what appears to be a serious drainage issue. Mabusth replied that this is a variance request, and as such, the City would not require the applicant to re-design the storm sewer. Cook stated that the problem area is the draintile that extends from the catch basin to the French Creek development. Mayor Grabek asked Cook how this problem should be addressed and solved. Cook said that the City could solve the problem, or ask Mr. Hilbelink to solve the problem. Callahan reiterated Mr. Jentilucci's point regarding the location of the proposed structure. He said that the pre­ existing structure was located higher up on the property. It seemed to him that placing hardcover over the storage oasin would aggravate the situation more than necessary. He questioned why Mr. Hildelink could not construct the house where the pre­ existing structure was located. Mr. Hilbelink replied that all of the drainage runs to the north and northeast. He said that any change in grade will move drainage away from the neighbors. He said that without a house on the filled area, all drainage flows toward Mr. Jentilucci’s property. Mr. Jentilucci disagreed with Mr. Hilbelink citing v/hat Callahan had just stated. He noted that at one time ducks used to swim in the filled area where the house is proposed to be constructed. Bernhardson stated that Mr. Hilbelink could design a house with no variances required and construct it where he is proposing. stated that options available to solve the drainage issue include the creation of an alternate ponding area, increasing the size of the pipe, or extending the swale all the way back to the Dayton'property. Cook indicated that the last option would involve making a 10' cut through the property to create the swale. Mayor Grabek said that in order for the house to be - 8 - t J ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 11, 1990 » b. to JenLluccis' satisfaction. He suggested that nxlbeltnk and Jentiluccis work with the City Engineer to reach a mutual resolve. Mabusth offered to revise the resolution to require that Jentiluccis approve of the drainage plan prior to a building permit being issued. Mr. Heikkila asked that the matter be tabled for an additional two weeks to allow the parties to meet with the City Engineer. Mr Kilbelink indicated that he would like this matter resolved as soon as possible, but that a two week delay would be acceptable. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmeinber Goetten, to cable this natter until the June 25, 1990 Council Meeting. Cook asKed to wnat aegree is the City protect the Jentiluccis. He said that it -s probaoly i.easible t provide protection from the 5 years storm, out not the ^00 yea storm Mrs. Jentilucci asked Cook to define 5 year and 100 year storm. Cook said that a 5 year storm refers to the volume or rainfall generated by a storm that occurs once every 5 years. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1510 RICHARD BROWN 2685 SHADYWOOD ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT „ uMr. Richard Brown, applicant, and Richard E. Brown, applicant's son and purchaser of the property, were present. Bernhardson e.xplained the information regarding this application, noting that today Mr. Brown subnitued a written request asking that 28.9% hardcover be allowed, rather .han the 28.1% suggested by staff. Mr. Brown showed the areas of hardcover that would be removed to achieve 28.9%. Mayor Grabek asked what the square footage of the house is. Gaffron estimated the house to be 3,000 s.f. without the inclusion of the garage. ■ Council.member Goetten stated that she had f° site. She said that Mr. Brown has indicated that he will eliminate the garage door access to the house. Kelley explained that Planning Commission believed that the - 9 - i COUNCIL mum JUL23 1990 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson CITV OF OROSiO From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator July 19, 1990 #1516 Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal, 1560, 1580 and 1620 Fox Street - Subdivision ~ Final Flat Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Copy of Final Plat Exhibit C - Copy of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution Discussion - The applicants have completed the requirements for approval of this plat to create one new building site, per the conditions of preliminary plat approval resolution #2808. A copy of the final plat drawings is attached for Council review. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the plat per the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to approve the plat of MacMillan Addition for Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan etal. at 1560/1580/1620 Fox Street per the attached resolution. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF MACMILLAN ADDITION PILE NO. 1516 WHEREASr the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by Mr. & Mrs. Whitney MacMillan etal., the subdividers; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 1990 the City Council approved Resolution #2808 granting preliminary approval for a plat at 1560/1580/1620 Fox Street; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat contains 4 lots, each exceeding the 2.0 acre minimum lot area requirement and each containing in excess of the required 200* lot width as measured at the rear of the defined front yard. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 require a variance because they do not have frontage on a public roadway; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all other standards of the RR-IB zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use for a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of further variances; and WHEREAS, a variance is required for continued existence of a tennis court within Lot 1, Block 1 which does not meet the 50' rear setback required by Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D); and WHEREAS, a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) is required for the detached garage to remain in the defined front yard of Lot 3, Block 1; and WHEREAS, all four lots have been proven to contain adequate primary and/or alternate drainfield sites to serve the proposed or existing single family residences; and Page 1 of 4 ’ 1 WHEREAS, 33' of right-of-way has been dedicated on the plat for the existing Fox Street; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution #2808. 2. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for the public road known as Fox Street. 3. Dedication on the plat of an unnamed private road outlot over the existing private road serving 3 of the 4 lots. 4. Concurrent with the dedication of this private road outlot, the subdividers have dedicated to the City a road and utilities easement granting to the City permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said outlot; subdividers have created a non-exclusive ingress/egress, drainage and utility easement over said outlot in favor of all abutting and/or benefitting lots including a declaration of certain maintenance covenants wherein each of the abutting and/or benefitting lot owners covenants and agrees to permanently maintain and pay the cost of maintenance for said private road. 5. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements along lot lines. 6. Dedication to the City of a flowage and conservation easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainageways described therein and shown on the plat as "drainage easements". 7. Creation of Outlots A and Br each containing approximately 5 acres of dry buildable land in addition to wetlands, such outlots being designated for future development. A future City Council must approve the access, lot standards, and septicr testing prior to any future development on these two outlots. Flcwage and conservation easements will not be required over ponds or wetlands on these outlots until future development occurs. 8. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $200.00 for Lot 2, Block 1, the only lot in the plat which does not contain an existing residence. Page 2 of 4 r .j' 9, Payment to the City of a final plat administrative fee and fee for tne legal review and filing of the plat, easements, and covenants in the amount of $300.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of MacMillan Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance is hereby granted for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, to approve the absence of frontage on a public roadway. 2. A variance is hereby granted to al ^w the detached garage in the defined front yard of Lot 3, Block 1 to remain. 3. A variance is hereby granted to allow the tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1 to 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. 4. All lots except Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the private roadway platted as Outlet C for access to Fox Street. Lot 1, Block 1 shall continue to use the existing westerly driveway access to Fox Street. 5. 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. 6. The private road Outlet C shall be privately owned and maintained per the Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Covenants for Maintenance of Same executed by the developer. 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 two outlets (flowage and conservation easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future development occurs). Page 3 of 4 8. 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 xhat time period. 9. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before January 23, 1991 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the foil iwing documents: a) Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Covenants for Maintenance of Same; b) Road and Utilities easement over Outlot C; and c) Flowage and Conservation easement over the wetlands in Lot 1, Block 1. The apriro'^al granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted this 23rd day of July, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the C4.ty of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2808________ A RBSOLOTION GRAHTIMG PRELIMTNARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 1560/1580/1620 FOX STREET FILE NO. 1516 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan, etal (hereinafter "the applicants") on March 23, 1990 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a residential 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 00(>1 0002 (See legal descriptions attached as Exhibit A) Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "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 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 prooerty contains a total of approximately 49.67 acres, including lake and wetland areas. 3. The propo' d 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 200' lot width as measured at the rear of the defined front yard. 5. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Tot 1, Block 2, require a variance because they do not have frontage on a public roadway. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2808______ 6. Lot 1, 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 Outlet C. 7. The private road outlet is proposed to be shown Outlet C on the 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 Outlet B is proposed for development. At the time Outlet 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 outlets. Flowage and Conservation Easements will not be required over the ponds or wetlands in these outlets until future development occurs. 12. A variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, 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 witnin 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 property is removed, at which time the tennis court would have to be removed. Page 2 of 5 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___2808 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, BlccJc 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 sites 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 outlot configurations and locations as shown on the revised preliminary plat dated May 3, 1990. 2. No upgrading of the existing private roadways within Outlot C will be required nor will construction of the cul- de-sac be required, until such time that Outlot 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 Outlot 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 OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2808_________ 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 If Block 1. 10. Granting of variance to allow garage in front yard of Lot 3f 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 tha property within that time period. 12. Tennis court on Lot 1, Block 1 may remain in location until such time that the principal residence on that lot 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 meetinc .n the second and fourth 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" all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of property lines. Such easements need not be shown within the proposed Outlets A, B and C. c) Designation and dedication of a "drainage easement" within Lot 1, Block 1 on the plat drawings, to be used as the lega description for ♦-he 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 s a 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 t • k . * ♦ OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2808 _________ ~ 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 engineering review fees trat 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. b^, M^ycrr allin. City STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss. City. The foregoing instrument was acknow^dgedm ment w^ executea on THER-.SA L --'AB NOT*'*'' .. . .;ty I4y cOfWi.KOn o*W“ Notary Public My Commission Expires Proii: Date: tiEane•'fJL 23 1990 (SB® Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 18, 1990 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Subject: #1527 Lyndon S. (Bill) Stubbs, 2555 Fox Street Variance - Resolution The Council conceptually granted approval of the lot area variance of the applicant in a 2 to 1 vote. The Resolution has included recommendations of the Council that would require the future consultants of owner to meet with the Orono staff prior to drafting formal plans for residential construction. The Resolution also includes the conditions originally presented for Council's consideration. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1527 WHEREAS, Lyndon S. (Bill) Stubbs (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 2555 Fox Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows : Lots 9 and 10, Auditors Subdivision #229, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a property that consists of 1.46 acres of dry contiguous lands instead of the required 2 acres in area. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1527 2. The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres of dry contiguous area. The subject property consists of 63,598 s.f. or 1.46 acres in area (.06 acres of drainageway). 3. The Orono Council reviewed this application on July 9, 1990 and conceptually recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) There is no additional dry buildable land adjacent to the property to increase building envelope. B) Adequate and suitable area for on-site septic development has been found in the upper elevations of the property. C) A house can be located on this site meeting all required setbacks from wetlands/drainageway and street. Page 1 of 6 D) The location of the ho»’se will provide minimal impact on existing residential development to the west. E) The property was zoned R-lC requiring 1 acre in area at the time the applicants purchased the property 20 years ago. 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 one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a single family residence on a property that consists of 1.4 acres of dry buildable land instead of the required 2 acres, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the City issuing a building permit for new residential construction on this property, the applicant or future owner must have completed the registration of the property submitting proof of the Court's action that would add .42 acres of dry lands to the existing substandard building envelope. T 2. On-site septic areas to be protected during construction as these are the only suitable areas on this property for septic development. 3. Prior to the development of final building plans for the residentia1 development of this property, the future owner and/or Page 2 of 6 owner*s consultants shall meet with the Orono Bu ■ Idinq and Zoning staff so that the special conditions of this variance application may be reviewed. 4. Upon application for a building permit the developer shall provide a grading plan for alteration of drainageway. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The alteration of the drainageway shall be confined to the excavating and defining of the banks of the drainage path. 5. The following shall be the guidelines for residential construction on this severely limited site: A. Future owner placed on notice that the water use for the residential structure is limited to 600 gallons per day or 4 bedrooms. The residence must be installed with a meter to determine water use levels. The meter shall be so installed so as to determine the amount of effluent entering septic systems and shall not monitor but exclude the water usage for '^•itdoor landscaping. B. No setback variances are to be granted for the proposed structures. Said structure must meet the 50' setback from the street lot line and a 26' setback from the drainageway and wetlands area as shown on the attached survey as page 5 of this resolution. C. No grading or filling will be allowed witnin the 26' setback area. All fill resulting from new construction must be stored out of the protected area. Applicants to design a house that will provide minimal impact on existing elevations. The only approved excavation to be allowed in the protected area will be the modifications to the drainage ditch that intersects the current building site. D. All structural improvements at this site shall be limited to 15% of the dry buildable envelope as defined on the survey included as page 5 of this resolution. Structural improvements shall consist of house structure, garage, patio and swimming pool (this includes water retention area of pool), and tennis courts with fences in excess of 6'. Upon application for a building permit, future owners surveyor shall confirm dry buildable envelope as defined in above referenced exhibit. Page 3 of 6 1990. 6. .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 (July 23, 1991). 7. 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. 8. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of July, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 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 Page 4 of 6 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 foregoingthe person(s) described in and who executed the 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 6 of 6 j V.:i'.’1 • • • EXHIBIT A Jet. 7S <M 0fU/fi^//At ret. Jr /tf /^4f- P t * ^<W*/ e0rmtr •( Cmf^ A*- •/ re w of r«r. 7^-/// '-*-X ro/rti* rs7z.tr ftef / of rcucoe/ttf ofc^tf 7 - ~^iT’A, or fer. 3r-/f$-tt. :i LEGAL DESCRIPTION Par 1. That part oC Governnent Lot <1, Section 35, Townsliip HR, Range 23 clescrii'jed as beginning at the torthwest corner of the East half of the Southeast Quarter of said St'ction 35; thence ^Jorth along the East line of said Government Lot <1 a distance of 362.05 feet itore or loss to a foir'*’- 29B0 feet North from the ^tl^st corner of said East lialf of the Soutlica.st Quarter; ».henco V-to-st deflecting to the left 88 degrees 22 mnutea, a distance of 264.11 feet t<j tlu* West line of the East 264 feet of said Government Lot 4; thence South alo^ said West line a distance of 362.05 foct noro or loss i.o i Ik: r.iiji ainl W(»st Quarter line of said Section 35; thence East along said Quarter lino to tlie point of hoginning, according to the Government Sur­ vey thereof. Government Lot 4, Soctioi 35. Township HR, Itango 23 descrilxKl as beginning at the ttorthwest rarner of tlie East Iwlf of tlio S<Kitlw-.. st Quarter of saitl .‘y-ertion 35; i.hence South along the East line of said Government lot 4 a disiancx: of 53 foot more or Icfj.s to a point 2572.95 feet Nortl. from the ^tl^west corner of said East Ivalf of tlw? StKitlw.'ayt Quarter; thonco I4ust ikjriccting to the riglit 80 degrees 10 minutes, a distance of 264.14 feet to thi* West line of tl»c liist 264 feet of rnaid Govorniw?nt lot 4; thence North along said West line a distance of 60,03 feet I'orc or less to tlic East and West quarter line of .said Section 35; thence East aloi-ig .said Quarter line to the point of Ixxiinning, according to the Govern­ ment Survey therTOf. /•'; .. ;• V W-Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Plannir-q Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Pi^-nning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson cr'iifica MEEijivsJUI. 23 1990 / O f lTV OF 0RC?^0 From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: July 18, 1990 Subject: #1538 Lauren Born, 1432 Shoreline Drive Variances - Resolution The enclosed Resolution has been drafted approving additional hardcover for a landing and access stairs to the grade level of the lakeshore yard. (A 4' x 4' landing at 16 s.f. and access stairs at a 4' width equaling 16 s.f, for a total increase in hardcover of 32 s.f.) Total hardcover within the 0-75' setback area is now approved at 2,005 s.f. or 21.6% (0.6% increase over 21% approved with original Application #1350). The enclosed Resolution is presented for Council's review and action. A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 PILE #1538 WHEREAS, Lauren Born (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 1432 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; See Exhibit A, attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the app]icant has made application to the City of Orono to permit construction of a 10' x 12' dec)c to be the lakeside of the house located 34' from the lakeshore (929.4' elevation) instea . of the required 75' and hardcover variances within the 0-75' setback area requesting an increase of hardcover of 120 s.f. or 3% resulting in 2,135.6 s.f. of total hardcover or 23% where there already exists 1,973 s.f. or 21%. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota : FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1538. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property consists of 13,196 s.f. or .3 acres. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 18, 1990 and recommended approval of limiting hardcover to a landing and access stai^' within the 0-75' setback area based upon the following findingiU A) Applicant had received approval for new structural hardcover within the 0-75' setback area with a 1989 variance application that resulted in the removal of 590 s.f. or 6% reduction of existing hardcover within the lakeshore protected area. B) The stair stucture will not impact the lake view of the residences on each side of the property. Page 1 of 4 5. 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. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this 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. CONCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to A<”'*icipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permi onstruction of a landing and access stairs within the lakeshore ^ :d of the property requiring approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 44' for the new structure where a 75' setback is required and approval of additional hardcover of 32 s.f. for a total of approved hardcover at 2,005 s.f. or 21.6% where none is allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall obtain a building permit for approved landing and stairs limited to 32 s.f. Access stairs shall be constructed so that they run parallel to the lakeside of the house. The City shall approve no more than a 4' encroachment into the lakeshore setback area beyond the existing principal structure. 2. 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 (July 23, 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 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 23rd day of July, 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 23rd day of July, 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 Exhibit A The southeasterly 37.03 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, DRAGONFLY HILL, according to the recorded plat thereof, lennepln County, Minnesota. i i \ strip of land In Government Lot I, Section 11, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, said strip of land having a uniform width of 50.00 feet and bounded on the sast by the shore of Lake Minnetonka and on the west by the shore of Mud or Round Lake (ao>called). The northerly line of which said 60.00 foot strip of land Is described as follows! Beginning at a' -joint 56S-8d feet southeasterly measured along a line which bears South 10 degrees East from the meander corner of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 1; thence North 67 degrees 40 minutes East a distance of 14.3 feet more or less to tite shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence South degrees 48 minutes West a distance of 207.27 feet more or less to the shore of Mud or Round .ake (so-called). The southerly boundary line of said 60.00 foot strip being a line parallel with ind 60.00 feet southerly from and measured at a right angle to the northerly line above described and. Excepting from said above described strip the public highway crossing said tract all according to the United States government survey thereof. 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 foregoingthe person(s) described in and who executed the 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 oefore 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 i. FroB: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members JUL23i990 Planning Commission Chairman KelleyOrono Planning Commission Members rfTV rtr niiJr-sjACity Administrator Bernhardson ’ I* t;;' rjayi^y Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 18, 1990 // Subject: #1543 1000 Old Long Lake Road After-the-Fact Variance - Resolution The enclosed Resolution has been drafted for Council's action approving entrance monuments at a 5’ height where only a 3 1/2' height would have been allowed. The monuments will be placed 10' from the traveled road providing adequate area for snow maintenance. A RESOLDTION GRANTING AN APTER-THB-PACT VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03r SUBDIVISION 15 (C), PILE #1543 WHEREAS, Richard C. Reed (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 1000 Old Long Lake Road 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 an after- the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 15 (C) to permit the installation of 4 entrance monuments at a height of 5* instead of the allowed 3 1/2' to be installed 10' from the travelled right-of-way of Old Long Lake Road. Minnesota: NOW, THEREPORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1543. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The subject property consists of 2+ acres. 3. The Orono Council reviewed this application on July 9, 1990 and recommended conceptual approval of the proposed after-the- fact variance based upon the following findings: A) The proposed location of the entrance monuments will provide no hazard to the users of the adjacent publ c roadway. Old Long Lake Road. B) The monuments placed 10’ off the traveled road will provide adequate area for snow maintenance purposes. C) The entrance monuments with lighting will provide no visual impact for the adjacent residential properties. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, Page 1 of 4 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 prope.ty 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 one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to permit the construction of 4 entrance monuments at a 5' height placed 10* from the traveled road subject to the following conditions: 1. Fencing to be installed between the two inner entrance monuments shall not exceed a height of 3 1/2'. 2. 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 (July 23, 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. 4. 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. Page 2 of 4 1990. ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of July, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor S 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 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonFrom: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator July 19, 1990 #1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Ro&d - ® Variance - Denial Resolution JUL 23 1990 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution ‘T?"/ j^r Exhibit B - Notice of Council Action 7/16/90 ' ' ‘ ' •'vS’ilj Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 6/13/90 Per Council's direction at the regular meeting of July 9, 1990, attached is a resolution for denial of the requested hardcover, lakeshore setback and conditional use permit requests. The applicants have not provided any new information nor have they submitted a revised proposal. Applicants have been requested to attend the meeting to answer any questions Council might have. Absent any additional information, staff would recommend adoption of the denial resolution attached. MPG/tln u A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1552 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Renee & Steven Foster (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1800 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 21, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow construction of retaining walls and additional hardcover in the 0-75* la)ceshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and for similar construction of walls and hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and requesting a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to allow excavation in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no excavation is normally allowed; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission, and the comments and written statements of the applicants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the application as described above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property; Page 1 of 4 I FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1552 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, and contains a lot area of 15,474 square feet or 0.36 acres. 3. The property was the subject of a lot width area variance in 1985. Conditions of that variance limited the property to 25% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A site plan was submitted which met those conditions and the house was constructed. The purchaser of the new house, James McNaughton, requested additional hardcover to make the driveway functional. A further variance was granted to allow up to 35% hardcover via Resolution #1908 on January 13, 1986. 4. A review of the hardcover on June 1990 indicates that the existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.5%, in excess of that which was allowed by Resolution #1908. The applicants currently propose to increase hardcover from 40.5% up to 42.7% in the 75-250* zone where only 35% was allowed, and increase from approximately 0.3% to 2.3% in the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed. 5. The applicants have not added any hardcover to the property since they purchased it from the previous owner. 6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this variance request on June 18, 1990 and voted 6-0 to recommend denial based on the following findings: A. No adequate hardship was given to justify further increases in hardcover above that which was previously approved for the previous owner. B. No adequate hardship or justification was given for the proposed grading work in the protected 0-75' lake- shore setback zone. 7. In reviewing the site plan. Council finds that plans could be revised so that the proposed patio could feasibly be constructed on the property without excavation or hardcover in the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone. Further, the Council finds that because the driveway was constructed in excess of the driveway hardcover previously approved, no additional hardcover is justified without removal of all excess portions of the driveway. Page 2 of 4 8. The applicants have failed to demonstrate adequate hardships to justify granting of the variances, and have failed to meet the following basic tests for hardship: A. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use and is being used generally under the conditions allowed by the official controls as a single family residence. B. If granted, the variance will alter the essential character of the locality by creating additional hard­ cover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, in direct conflict with the intent of the code to prohibit all land alteration within that protected area. C. The code requirements applying to the proposed construction and land alteration are not peculiar to this property but apply generally to all other lakeshore properties in the LR-IC zoning district. D. The granting of the application is not essential for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. E. The granting of the variance will serve merely »s a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 9. The proposed excavation and retaining walls in the 0-75* setback zone are not necessary to preserve the lakeshore bank, but are merely provided for the convenience of the property owner. 10. The land alterations within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone conflict generally with the principals and goals set forth in Orono's Community Management Flan for protection of lakeshore areas. Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 23rd day of July, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 3 of 4 I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 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 Page 4 of 4 rW.APPLICATION NO. 1552CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 7/16/90 TO: Renee & Steven Foster 1800 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: July 9, 1990 VOTE: 3 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Although applicants were not present, Council voted '^irect staff to draft a resolution for denial, to be reviewed at the meeting cf July 23, 1990. (Meeting starts at 7:00 p.m., at the Orono Council Chambers, 1275 Brown Road South). Applicant should be present if possible to answer any questions the Council may have. If you wish to submit additional information supporting your request, please contact staff at 473-7357. Since Council agreed in 9eneral with the Planning Commission recommendation, applicant may wish to consider a plan revision showing reductions to 35% hardcover, with no wor)c in tne 0-75' zone. T6: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Orono Planning Commission Membii^s City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P, Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 2, 1990 Subject: #1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance Application - Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variance for construction of a walkout/patio/hot tub area on lakeside of house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 6/21/90 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 6/18/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 6/13/90 Discussion - Pie- e review carefully the memo and exhibits of June 13, 1990. 1 lot was in common ownership with the property at 1810 Shadywood Road and was granted a lot area variance to construct a new house in 1985, conditioned on meeting all setback and hardcover requirements. The house was constructed, and the initial owners then requested and received a hardcover variance to widen the driveway to a more functional configuration. That variance allowed 35% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. The current applicants, having recently purchased the property, were surprised as was staff to find that currently existing hardcover is 40.5%. The previous owner apparently expanded the driveway in excess of what had been allowed. Planning Commission reviewed this application at their June 18th meeting, and on a 6-0 vote rec'>ramended denial of any additional hardcover, finding that, although the current applicants are not at fault, a previous hardcover allowance has not been adhered to and Planning Commission found no justification for granting additional hardcover. The improvements proposed include excavation partially within the 0-75' zone, to create a walkout and hot tub/patio area. The applicants propose vhat the excavation not "daylight" to a gravity runoff situation, and they would provide a sump-type drainage system discharging in the 75-250' zone. In general, all of the improvements would be at or below grade, and would meet the average lakeshore setback. r Zoning File #1552 July 2, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Staff Reconmendation - If the applicants were to redesign the walkout/patio excavation and improvements to be totally outside the 0-75' zone, the issue of hardcover would still be a concern. Planning Commission did not wish to consider any new improvements, however, unless the applicants could revert the property back to its allowed hardcover of 35%. Council would appear to have the following options: 1. Conceptually approve, directing staff to draft a resolution for approval. 2. Approve conditioned on redesign outside the 0-75' zone and/or reduce hardcover to a specified level. 3. Conceptually deny, directing staff to draft a resolution for denial. 4. Table. 5. Other. i.po5CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING PILE #1552NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: June 21, 1990 TO: Steven & Renee Foster 1800 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: June 18, 1990 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission reviewed the request for additional hardcover and grading work to create a walkout patio, and recommended denial based on the history of approved and unapproved hardcover increases on the property, and also noting no work should be allowed in the 0-75' zone. Planning Commission did not address the issue of resolving the current hardcover excesses. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council, Monday, July 9, 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. L. To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson / From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:June 13, 1990 Subject:#1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, *s acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variance for construction of a walkout/patio/hot tub area on lakeside of house. _ _ __ • ■.T.cf-.T s-ni'i**List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - Survey with Staff Notations Exhibit F - Proposed Landscaping Plan Exhibit G - Hardcover Review Exhibit H - Resolution #1908 Pertinent Facts - j 1, Applicants are proposing to excavate for a proposed waixout door on the lakeside of their existing residence. In jonjunction with that walkout excavation, they propose to construct a walled patio below grade, with steps leading back up to grade. A portion of the excavation is in the 0- 75' setback zone. 2. 3. Applicants also propose to expand their existing entry step at the west side of the house. Applicants' initial landscape plan also indicated a stepping stone sidewalk along the right side of the house. This was dropped after applicants discussed the hardcover history of this property with staff. 4.This lot was granted a lot area and width variance in 1985. Conditions of that variance limited the property to 25% hardcover in the 75-250* zone. A house and site plan was submitted which met those conditions and the house was constructed. The purchaser of the new house, James McNaughton, requested additional hardcover to make the driveway functional. A further variance was granted to up to 35% hardcover. A review of the hardcover in June 1990 indicates that the existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.5%. It is apparent that McNaughton constructed driveways larger than was strictly allowed by Resolution #1908. d Zoning File #1552 June 13, 1990 Page 2 of 2 5. Existing and proposed hardcover is as follows: 0-75*: 75-250': Allowed 0 35% (3421 sf) Existing 2.0 40.5% (3950 sf) Proposed 2.3% (133 sf) 42.7% (4170 sf) Discussion - This property is another prime example of the "expanding hardcover syndrome", in which the intentions of the City have not been fulfilled. Although the current applicants had nothing to do with the existing hardcover situation, creating additional hardcover on the property would seem to be questionable. The apparent reason why hardcover currently exceeds 35% is because the driveway was constructed significantly wider than it should have been. This would seem a logical area in which hard­ cover removals might be considered. The existing deck is not the shape of that originally proposed, but approximates the approved square footage. While the existing deck meets both the 75' setback and the average lakeshore setback, the proposed patio will extend approximately 8' lakeward from the 75' line. The proposed patio area will be below grade, and applicants propose some sort of a french drain system to handle any run-off into it. Perhaps some sort of pump system will be needed. Applicants should seek competent advice on this matter. The City has denied many requests for excavation in the 0- 75' zone to create walkouts in recent years. Does this proposed excavated patio area fall into the same category, or is the fact that it will not be fully excavated to allow a gravity run-off situation but be contained by a surrounding retaining wall, make this a unique case? Staff Reconmendation - riease review the attached exhibits, and if possible view the site. If Planning Commission feels that the proposed hardcover increase is justified by a hardship or unique circumstances, then a recommendation for approval might be appropriate. Planning Commission may wish to consider removals of portions of the driveway to reduce the hardcover back to a level more consistent with the previous approvals. Planning Commission may also wish to ask the applicants to revise their plans to avoid any grading work, construction, or retaining walls within the 0-75' zone. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION tnitial Ajplication Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Douoie duplication fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address oob KoACi f Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) / ^ H 2^21 co'i^C^ lU'i OF ORCHO ip 4lMoMioi'n4:42 05/25/90 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) / -o ^^ Name ^-r^vrAJ ^ Address: JF'OQ Pf.Alj City: S - 1-U- ■*- Phone (work ) - /'r Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ \ AflfiJpL Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:,Zip:. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (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 $ ----- Describe request in detail: UJe tjnjLh u\>t i 77o pc/^ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ _ _ lAjt^A.%^ Lot Width Front y Hardcover Side __ Rear); i T « I HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; cy ^ t DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; ^ .0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTIVLS .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 (ll* X 17- OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your varicmce application is not complete if the aibove 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 corre/rt to t/ie >est of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 'Z /99C /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.ion of this requ^t.y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Z f~ /f90Owner's Signature Applicant must have all subl^ttals 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. 11 \ K J Si O V* o M V nrt N 8 1^<rt $ »j V 0 t'i 0 <r 1 5'1 i. *1rSoft *<1 y< I —I. t** s CO y\ .§ p: I3 0 0 (V>N • I f^ J ifcs <r >k CD v\ 5* it I /c81 o H'. O •r* (^\ v3 F: rr- <j- a Si fs H< i 1 reOM HOLLO lUIB^EPV tMC. Ibi S :T.l«ao |Pi'4 THE city op ORONO 6l2-d73-7357 005 HARDCOVCR CALCULATION WORKSHEET 88T8ACK ZONE: (circle one) 0-75' 75-250' 250- rxiSTiNG Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' A. H ouse H x 2o . • •gD cv.xi^ LENGTH width ■ ^(hf ‘ X 5:/.5" . ^/7.' X a.p. X ■ a.r. B. GARAflE X ._ • _ _ ^.f.p e. D hjvewav S~yyi n.s . !ooc>^,,y X l&.s . ^Hh-.y 1 C. Stngw^K—> /"7 ^ z:^X /O -m •230 S.f*.' / II X :?'A m '2,'ZO S.P. E. ’atio /Z )lCK ^ CT EV«*je. ^X 75'vZ m .4/0 S>F.srr«« zy P.La NT^ SCAPE f[lr\\C>X . Z-O S.P. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X S.P. PLASTIC SHEETING « X .■S.P. X .-SiF. JTAL H ardcover in Zonc .lTal Proper ^ Area in Zone ^70/.X.^[T| I^^ID X ioo 4 CAS^?77y II 'P^vJ(?4m/a ;/^-70/C m 9 •\ •? ■i; ■{ o.<3 .* :r•X m*" N /-* I N.I«. N AM >a*4 ^ ^ M ■>; 11,A -f 'I .. ’ ^ City of OROINO RESOL ''J OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^^08__________ 6>W. H A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO KUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE #996 WHEREAS, James McNaughton (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1800 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lot 21, Shadywood (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to r anicipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Suba-.ision 2 t^ permit the paving of a driveway and baclcup pad which will increase the 75-250' lakeshore hardcover to 36.4%, exceeding the 25% 75-250 hard­ cover normally allowed. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #996. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC ingle Family La)ce*' Residentiai Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this applicatic December 16, 1985, and recommended approval of the propo«..u variance based upon the following findings; A) This property was granted lot area and lot width variances per Resolution #1718-A on January 14, 198j. No other variances were granted at that time, and the condi­ tions of Resolution I1718-A specifically noted that all improvements must meet City requirements, and that the hard­ cover must not exceed 2,280 square feet (25%) in the 75-250 setback zone. B) Upon approval of the bu lding permit for construction of a residence on the property, staff ncted the recalculation of lot area by the surveyoi which would allow 2,444 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone. C) The houie was constructed, and gravel drive-ay was installed in excess of the hardcover limits by the builder. Excelsior Design, prior to applicant's purchase of the property. Page 1 of 4 / .''sir ‘ i City of OROINO RESOLUTION OFTHECITf COUNCIL NO. 1908_________ D) The applicant's claim that the "grass paver" mono-slabs proposed by the builder are not suitable for Minnesota's severe climatic extremes, and will suffer frost heave and plow disturbance, is a valid claim to the extent that failure of such a system would potentially cause damage to applicant's vehicles. In addition, the permeability of- the "grass pavers" has not been demonstrated under continuous usage conditions. E) Applicant has a valid hardship from a safety standpoint in requesting he be allowed to have a backup pad so he does not have to back out onto County Road 19. F) The requested 75-250 ’ hardcover of 36.4% is not exceptional but is similar to many other properties along Shadywood Road. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of .he 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 suostantial property right of the appli ­ cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code " Compreher*^ i ve Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS 3a^ed upon the above findings, the Oror City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the paving of a driveway and backup pad which will incre.-«e the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone to not more than 35%, whtrre only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the followi c<'-Jitions: 1. The driveway, backup pad, house, and other hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone shall not exceed 3,421 s.f. or 35%. Pare 2 of 4 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1908_________ 2. 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 (January 13, 1987). 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 9ii<-hority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemear l- 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on oehalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. January Adopted by the 1986. ^no City Council on this 13t.. day of M^y C. /Butler, Mayor Adams^ Acting Mayo, Page 3 of 4 Froat Dutmi COin^Ui. '*1 9 ^ IMayor Grabek ft Orono Council Menbora ^ - '"* ' City Administrator Bernhardson ?-^Ty r‘: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning ft Zoning Administrator July 19, 1990 Smbjmett Admir^strative Appeal, John Wojcik,3310 Bayside Road - Addi.. 1 Information Regarding the request to add a bathroom and expand the size of the existing bedrooms, there have been a number of past situations in which the Council limited the degree of improvement to a property or delayed such improvements until sewer issues were resolved. The following are cases in point: 1. Pile #517, Robert Ruber, 3390 Bayside Road - Pall 1979. The applicant wished to increase this from a 2 bedroom to a 4 bedroom residence. The property contained a substandard septic system that was functional, but had no alternate drainfield area. Pursuant to a negative recommendation from staff, Che applicants were able to acquire an adjacent lot for usr as an alternate drainfield site. The Council approved the addition subject to combination of the adjacent lot with the residence parcel, requiring no upgrade or replacement of the existing system until it fails. 2. Pile #533, Steve Curren, 110 Orono Orchard Road - Spring 1980. In this case, the applicant proposed to add a second bedroom to the single existing bedroom to this house on a 1/3 acre lot. The request which occurred in J luary 1980 was tabled until the spring of 1980, at which time applicant was able to do soil testing and found suitable area for a drainfield addition and alternate site to serve the 2 bedroom house. The variances for the addition of 1 bedroom were approved. 3. Pile #883, Gary Printup, 1261 Briar Street - January 1985. The applicant wished to add 2 bedrooms and a bathroom to the existing house on a 1/4 acre lot. Staff review of the site Indicated that there was no way to feasibly upgrade the existing substandard septic system to accommodate additional bedrooms. Planning Commission recommended approval of the additions subject to the Crystal Bay Sewer Project becoming a reality. The application was held up from January 1985 until May 1985 pending the decision to go ahead with the City sewer. Variances were then approved once sewer construction was confirmed. John Wojcik July 19, 1990 Page 2 4. File #906, S.G. McWilliams, 1120/1130 Willow Drive South - Spring 1985. The applicant proposed a lot line rearrangement between two existing substandard residence parcels. Staff contended that the lot line rearrangement would leave the westerly parcel with inadequate area for expansion of the existing septic system should that become necessary. The subdivision request was delayed approximately 1 month pending decisions on the construction of municipal sewers, then was approved upon confirmation that sewer would be installed. 5. File #1341, Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road - Fall 1988. The applicant requested a lot width variance to construct a new residence to replace the existing deteriorated residence. In this case, applicant submitted septic testing and design work to show that a primary and alternate drainfield site existed on the property, and applicant was allowed to construct the proposed residence with the use of temporary holding tanks until such time that a decision was made regarding the installation of sewers in Stubbs Bay. If Stubbs Bay sewers do not materialize, the applicant would be required to construct the mound drainfield system as designed. Currently, the applicant is maintaining holding tanks and has a pumping contract on file with the City. 6. File #1458, Blake Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street - Fall 1989. The applicant proposed a second story addition, increasing the number of bedrooms from one to two. The proposal required a side setback variance. The existing substandard system was functioning adequately, and there was some opportunity for future expansion of that system if the adjacent commonly owned lot was combined. Council approved the additions subject to the applicant agreeing to sign an assessment appeal waiver for the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project, and applicant was advised that if the sewer did not occur and the septic system failed at some point in the future, the applicant would be required to take whatever steps necessary to provide a functional septic system, up to and including installation of holding tanks. The resolutions for this variance have yet to be filed. Applicant is still attempting to obtain signatures from the Contract for Deed holders. 7. File #1536, Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road - Summer 1990. This item will appear on Council's August 13th agenda. Briefly, the applicant wished to construct a second story addition to provide a second and third bedroom on this very substandard lot. Planning Commission initially tabled the request, indicating to the applicant that they likely John Wojcik July 19, 1990 Page 3 would recommend denial unless major plan revisions were forthcoming. The property has a substandard septic syste*. and cannot upgrade that system to serve a 3 bedroom house. The applicant subsequently revised his plans to result in no additional bedrooms and relatively minor modifications to the existing house, which has resulted in a Planning Commission recommendation for approval. There have been a significant number of residential additions needing no Council review, for which staff issued building permits conditioned on upgrading or replacement of septic systems. This is a standard practice, and I would estimate that we average one such situation per ye .r which is suitably resolved by replacing or repairing an existing system. CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. NOTICE OP COUNCIT ACTION Date of Notice; 7/16/90 TO: John Woscik 3310 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OP APPLICATION; Administrative Appeal DATE OP MEETING: July 9, 1990 VOTE; 2 For 1 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled until the Council meeting of July 23, 1990 (7:00 p.m.). Please » contact City staff if you have any questions. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. vop To:Mayer Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fron: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:July 2, 1990 Subject: Administrative Appeal, John Wojcik, 3310 Bayside Road Building Permit - Septic Considerations List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Letter to Applicant 6/20/90 Exhibit B - Applicant's Letter to Council 6/26/90 Exh: it C - Pertinent Septic Code Section 12.30, Subdivision 4(E) Exhibit D - Portion of Preliminary Plat of Bayside Woods (adjacent property) Exhibit E - Excerpt Site Plan from Stubbs Bay Study Issue The Septic Code requires staff review of an existing septic system whenever the addition of bedrooms or plumbing fixtures, or a change in the character or intensity of the established use, is proposed. The applicant is proposing to increase the size of his house, by expanding existing bedrooms and adding a bathroom. The existing septic system is functioning adequately, although it is substandard in design and location. The attached excerpt from the Stubbs Bay study indicates that the expansion will encroach into the only available "future potential drainfield expansion area", and that expansion area is so limited that, even if the room expansions did not occur, it is questionable whether the drainfield could be suitably upgraded in the area available. Should the proposed house addition be allowed? Discussion In the past, the City has on a number of occasions reviewed similar situ.atxons to this one, and in general has endeavored to limit the development of capabilities. rural site based the site's septic This 1 acre lot is extremely limited because of steep slopes and intermittent creeks on three sides. The lot is unique and attractive, but has significant septic concerns not found on many other similarly sized lots. The area available for replacement of the existing septic system as shown on Exhibit E, is probably not sufficient to accomplish anything more than an interim repair should the existing system fail. Encroachment of that area with room additions would merely mean that such an interim repair would be pushed further southward downhill. Wojcik July 2, 1990 Page 2 On the adjacent property, soil conditions required that a mound system be used. There simply isn't enough area within applicant's property that meets the code criteria for a mound system or even a trench system, if soil conditions allowed. The main question to be answered here is whether allowing the proposed additions will increase the load on the existing substandard septic system, possibly causing it to fail. Staff believes that the additional bathroom will tend to increase the short term rates of flow into the system, while not necessarily increasing the amounts of that flow initially. However, the expansion makes the house that much more liveable by a larger family, and this could ultimately lead to greater amounts of sewage to be treated. If the system fails, while interim solutions might be considered, the ultimate result could be a holding tank system. Because the property is within the Stubbs Bay Study Area, there is a potential for municipal sewer to be provided in the area. Staff is currently working to prepare materials to be sent to the neighborhood to survey the interest for such a project. Obviously, if sewer was provided to this property, the septic issue would be eliminated. The applicant has not provided a survey, since there is no point in spending the money until there is a determination by the Council whether the additions will be allowed. There is a possibility that the proposed additions will be slightly less than the 30' required side setback, which would require a variance. Again, applicant would not request a variance (if necessary) until he has direction from the Council regarding the additions. Options for Action Council wo*, id appear to have the following options regarding this property: 1. Approve the additions as proposed. 2. Approve the additions except eliminating the second bathroom. 3. Deny the additions until such time that sewe. is available. 4. If full or partial approval is granted, some or all of the following conditions of approval could be considered: a. Require applicant to sign sewer petition/appeal waiver. This does not guarantee sewer will go in, but removes another potential obstacle. Wojcik July 2, 1990 Page 3 b. Place applicant on notice that it is likely a holding tank would be required if the system fails, due to limited drainfield expansion area. c. If approval is granted for additions without the second bathroom, require a covenant be filed that owner agrees to not add a second bathroom until City sewer is available. Staff Recomnendation This is a case similar in nature to others the City has reviewed in the Stubbs Bay area, wnere expansion of the house ultimately may increase the need for municipal sewer in the area. For the reasons noted above, staff would hesitate to recommend full approval until such time that City sewer is available. If the sewer ultimately does not occur and the existing system fails, it is unlikely that a conforming septic system could be developed on the lot, and the City would be in the position of having to require a holding tank or having to allow repairs that would need setback and design variances. iQPtOWO^ CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323• Muiuupal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 20, 1990 John Wojcik 3310 Bays'lde Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Proposed Additions Dear Mr. Wojcik: The Building & Zoning Departrienc is in receipt of your application for a building permit, which was received by this office on June 19, 1990. A preliminary review of the application finds the following concerns: 1. A Certificate of Survey is required. The topographic survey of the Bayside Woods addition is not acceptable as a Certificate of Survey for your property. You must provide a Certificate of Survey indicating the exact locations and setbacks of your existing house within the property boundaries, as well as locations of all other buildings on the property. 2. Based on the plat drawing you provided, it apoears that your additions may be less than the requirea 30' setback from the side lot line. Again, this must be verified by your surveyor. 3. City records indicate this house cu-rently contains three small bedrooms and one bath. I note that your expansion will result in two bedrooms and a den, which has a closet and is therefore considered as a legal bedroom. While the addition technically does not result in "additional bedrooms" any expansion of this sort always raises concerns abou^ the capabilities of the septic system, and City codes re., ... * that whenever the additions of bedrooms or plumbing r .^-'-ures is proposed, the City must review rha existing sys-'f.am and require expansion or system alterations If necessary. BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7J58 FAX-473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Tl John Wojcik, 3310 Bayside Road Re: Proposed Additions June 20/1990 Page 2 of 2 Citv records inaicate your septic system is extremely substandard in -elation to current requirements, but was fuctioning duri;. the last inspection in 1988. There '.s no record of the s ze ot vour drainfield, however, records indicate that it is less than 75' from the intermittent creek in your 'ront yard, and there is very kittle room on the property in which to expand the system. Furthermore, the addition of the screen porch and deck on the south side of the house will further encroach on the extremely limited potential ar*^-. for future drainfield expansion. For this reason, whether or not a setback variance is required, the prooosed additions will require review and approval by the City Council unless you can provide a septic system that meets all current City standards. If in fact the Stiibbs Bay sewer becomes a reality ind your house is served, at that point your septic system will no longer be an issue. We would be happy to meet with you to dicuss your proposed plans and the issues noted above. Please contact me at 473-7357 it you wish to set up a »ting. Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/tln cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 5 Zoning Administrator 3310 Bayside Road Page 1 of 2 Orono City Council City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 From: John and Kit Wojcik 3310 Bayside Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Home phone: (612) 473-5033 Work (Kit) phone: (612) 936-6110 Date: June 26, 1990 Rg. Building Permit Application for 3310 Bayside Road Residence We are submitting a building permit application lo the City of Orono to include the following: 1.Reside house and garage 2. Reshingle house and garage 3. Replace windows in heuse 4. Add an addition to the back of the current house (crawi space underneath - no addition to the current basement). If you look at the archiicci. al plan submitted, this area wou d allow: a) a porch b) entryway (in the entryway an opening would be created going directly into the living room rather than entering the house into the kitchen). c) The addition would move the 2nd and 3rd bedrooma ir, '.Uc back of the house out farther to allow a hallway to the existing balhrocTJ. (currently public access to the one existing bathroom is either through master bedroom or through the 2nd and 3rd bedrooms). • The remainin’ area from the 2nd and 3rd bedrooms and the new space created would be combined to then become the new master bedroom area with a small private bath/dressing area and a 2nd -1. ► 3313 ? \>side Road Page 2 of 2 bedroom. (The small baih in the new master bedroom area would have basement space under it.) • The current master bedroom would become a den. The house is currently a three bedroom house and would remain so after the restructuring (master bedroom, 2nd bedroom and den/bdrm). So there would be no expanded usage to the current functioning private sewer (two functioning sewer tanks in place). The restructuring would allow us a more modem house with an entryway area that allows main entry directly to the living room area, public access to the current existing bathroom and a master bcaroom with a private baih/dressing area. 5. Scrccnporch and deck addition to the front of the hou.se. £XCe^T ’ZSrT~‘C < S 12.30 4. Site limitations including soil characteristics and lot size may require Alternative System design for the repair, alteration, extension or replacement of existing systems, or for the construction cf new systems on lot'* record as of the date of adoption of this Section. In such cases, the City shall have authority to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the proposal. 5. Subdivision proposals may include Alternative Systems for one or more proposed lots. In such cases, the City's review and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Council for inclusion in the review of the preliminary plat. The Council may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove of the proposal and may require that the proposed subdivision be redesigned to reduce or eliminate the use of Alternative Systems. E. Building Permit Applications. No building permit shall be issued by the City for any new building which will be connected to a new on-site system until the site evaluation report and system design specifications as required by the Design Manual have been reviewed and approved by the City. No building*^ permit or plumbing permit shall be issued by the City for any expansion or alteration of a uuilding or use connected to an existing on-site system, until such system has been inspected and ( certified by the City as being in compliance with this Section. ^ Whenever the addition of bedrooms or plumbing fixtures, or a change in the character or intensity of the established use is proposed, the City may require the review and/or replacement, repair, alteration or expansion of the existing system or any portion^ V^thereof. F. Subdivision Applications. No subdivision, lot division or replatting for the purpose of creating a new building site, which property includes the use of on-site systems, shall be approved by the City until a site evaluation report as required by the Design Manual has been reviewed and approved by the City, and all existing system.s have been inspected and certified by the City as being in compliance with this Section. 1. Wherever the site evaluation report indi­ cates slopes in excess of 12%, or percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch, or ground water table less than five feet deep, or soil classifications requiring the use of Alternative Systems, the site evaluation report shall also include specific system design specifications as normally required for building permit applications. 2. As part of any subdivision, the owner shall grant to the City in a form approved by the City a perpetual of entry to allow for the future inspection of all systems, which right of entry may be filed in the chain of title for the property. ORONO CC 494 (4-1-84) T71790.4 / TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: July 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Advisory Commission Appointments JUL231990 ‘ If HF n'C?iO Attachments; Advisory Commission Appointment Memo Dated 6/25/90 ISSUE - Determine what process, if any. Council desires regarding future appointments. INTRODUCTION - At the the Council's July 9, 1990 meeting they discussed Fhe issue of possible process for an advisory commission. Based on the discussion, it was felt that all members should be in attendance to decide on this issue and the matter was tabled until the July 23, 1990 meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council after discussion that Council indicate to staff what process, if any, they desire for future appointments. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council direct staff as to procedure, if any, they desire for future appointments. Ayes _, Nays _. 62590.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administrato) DATE: June 25, 1990 SUBJECT: Advisory Commission Appointments //■TTAQMSfJT /I Attachments: A. Advisory Commission Appointments Memo Dated 6/14/90 ^SSUE - Determine what process, if any, Council desires regarding future appointments. Introduction - At the council's June 25, 1990 meeting Attachment A was presented for Council's initial consideration and was subsequently tabled to July 9th meeting. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Adopt. 3. Amend and adopt. 4. Table. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the procedure outlined in Attachment A. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by , Council accept the process outlined and direct staff to use that in upcoming appointments. Ayes __, Nays 53190.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: June 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Advisory Commission Appointments Attachment:A. Planning Commission Appointment Memo Dated 5/24/90 (Memo Only) ISSUE - Delineation of process for future appointments. INTRODUCTION - At Council's May 29, 1990 Council meeting discussion was held regarding the appointments process. It was indicated by the Council that there was not a desire for a formal process, but that there were issues discussed that CounciImembers would like to have addressed. DISCUSSION - Attachment B represents an "informal" orocess that would be appropriate to both the timely submission of applications together with addressing the necessary level of expectations for candidates. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information for r.«nsideration . 2. Adopt. 3. Amend and adopt. 4. Table. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information and table until the July 9, 1990 meeting for discussion. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, Council accept the information and table until the July 9, 1990 meeting. Ayes _, Nays 53190.4 CITY OP ORONO ADVISORY BOARD SELECTION PROCESS ADOPTED N\ f The following represents an outline of a flexible appointments process that the Council has adopted for guidelines to staff and applicants during the selection for vacancies of its various Boards. 1. When a vacancy occurs or when a term is to expire advertisements will be placed in the City's legal newspaper together with other appropriate notification of the impending vacancies. Advertisements will not be required for appointments of Chair and Vice Chair. 2. Notices will contain a closing date for accepting applications for purposes of administrative ease. The Council by a majority vote can either direct further solicitation of people or indicate by majority vote ones that they will accept after the established application deadline. 3. Applications should be in the form of a letter expressing interest and a resume of experience, particularly experience that may be relevant to the position from individuals who are new to the process. Letters of intent will be requested from incumbents. 4. Council will hold interviews at one Council meeting and may extend the interview period if it desires to a subsequent meeting unless a differen' process is indicated prior to such interviews. 5. Following interviews Council will then decide what appointments they desire to make to the various vacancies. 6. Upon appointment of an individual, the City will send * out letters from the Mayor's signature indicating appointment or thanking people for participation in the process. i; ? r:, /I Ttfatfn\eiur ’■ ■ 51690,5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato' DATE: May 24, 1990 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments Attachments: 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 ISSUE 1. Discussion of appointment process 2. Determine if Council desires to appoint two vacancies on the Planning Commission. INTRODUCTION - Ac the Council's March 26, 1990 meeting Council directed staff to solicite 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 received a call from Mr. Rollie Martin that he had not received the notice, but would be available for the Hay 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. A The Council the past an "deadlines" application meeting and meeting. has not had a formal appointment process adopted. In informal process was used establishing application for the purpose of being able to send out letters of in the packet to Council. Interviews were set for a generally the decision made at the following Council 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: Jeff Johnson Steve Johnston Candy Rowlette Rollie Martin Ralph Bagley Randy Weestrand - Lakerhore Resident - Lakeshore Resident - Lakeshore Resident - Lakeshore Resident Rural/Urban U R R U U R '..J (Subsequent to the meeting of May 14, 1990 Ward Edwards requested his name be withdrawn. On May 1 5, 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 R Maureen Bellows At T.arge Ed Cohen At Large James Hanson At Large Sara Moos 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 tha 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 P 1 anning“1iomralsTlon, these terms will expire March 31, 1993. Ayes , Nays cci Applicants only) 5190 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATB: May 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Interviews Attachment:A. Planning Commission Apoointments Memo Dated 4/6/90 B. 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 CouncTI requested that additional persons be solicited for Planning Commission. As 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 the Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair officially appointed effective 1 April, 1990 so they request the following persons be appointed: Chair - Charles Kelley Vice Chair - Maureen Bellows ALTgRfi»TTV-;s - 1. Interview the candidates. 2. Determine if other cardidates should be solicited. 3. Appoint two Planning Commissioners. 4. Appoint a Chair and Vice Chair. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following interviews that Fhe Counci 1 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 Commis^n 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 _. r'> IL 62190,A TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator July 20, 1990 SUBJ^?CT: Transient Merchants mm JU!. 23 1990 nry nr Attachment: A. Transient Merchants Memo Dated 6/14/90 (Memo Only) B. Survey of Communities - Transient Merchants Dated 7/17/90 C. Ordinance 5.30 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council renarding information of transient merchants regulation and alterr tives. 2. Allow Council the opportunity to determine what regulation they may desire of transient merchants. INTRODUCTION - Council at the the June 25, 1990 meeting requested that the staff come back within a month with recommendation on dealing with transient merchants. DISCUSSION - The City has not had a substantial amount of transient merchants conducting business outside of a permanent place of business to any great degree. However, there have been a couple of perennial vendors, including Mr. Penke, over the last four or five years. In addition they are increasing requests to allow such an itinerant vending of merchandise. Attachment B represents a survey of the different ways the surrounding cities handle these types of merchants. The City's ordinance does set forth three categories under its solicitation ordinance: Business Solicltion - This is a person who sells a product or BerVIc98~Irom other than an established place of business. Contribution Solicitor - These are persons generally affiliated witlTcharitable religious or public interest groups who uses a telephone or goes door to door soliciting contributions. Transient Merchants - These are persons who are merchandTsing Frcwa one location with patrons OTming to that location to obtain their products rather than they going door to door. As you may recall the term transient merchants was defined back in 1988 to address this class of merchants and at the same time stated the already existing implicit requirement that such types of sales could only be from commercially zoned properties. At the time of the definition the issue of what constituted a transient merchant as opposed to a non-translent merchant was left unaddressed. To the extent however, that a person who is merchandising from a location at more than an infrequent basis is intensifying the land use of that location. To the extent It becomes a perennial business it is causing an intensification of thf, land use without an appropriate land use review. Such a commercial site plan or zoning review would look at issues as far as setbacks, minimum building sizes, traffic flows, structure reviews, parking, etc. which become part and parcel of any substantial change in a commercial site use. In order to address this land use concern which translates into issues of public health, safety and welfare a possible strategy would be: A. Define transient merchants as those persons conducting business for no more than a certain number of days or occasions per year. Variations on this could include actual number of days operated, a specific block of time that would be allowed, etc. B. Specifically state that in the solication ordinance and possibly land use that all other merchandising that did not qualify as transient merchants, business or contribution solicitation would be required to be conducted in a permanent structure in accordance with the applicable land use regulations. (There may need to be a "fine tuning" of bi’siness and contribution solicitation definitions.) ALTERNATIVES - Policy A. Regulate as at present. B. Require less regulation. C. Defer discussion. D. Define the terms of what constitutes transient merchants, E. Explore an Increased fee such as a vendor fee (currently the City does not license businesses generally .) F. Explore other alternatives (see eurvey). Action 1. Discuss. 2. Adopt. 3. Amend and adopt. 4. Table. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended, given the problems created by ongoing business in a particular location intensifying the land usu,- that the City Council undertake the following by amendments to its solicitation ordinance: A. Limit transient merchants to no more than 10 days operating per year and that be within no greater than a 120 day period. B. Require that all other merchandising of products and services that do not fall under the transient merchant definitation or solicitation definition be conducted in a permanent structure in accordance with all applicable land use requirements. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council direct staff to draw up the appropriate ordTnance amendment in line with the principals set forth by the Council. Ayes _, Nays Westonka Chamber, 5600 Lynwood Blvd, Mound 55364 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator 61490 ■V-TTfitCLUM.€VT-4 TO 8 FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^^ June 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Transient Merchants Attachment: A. Transient Merchants Memo Dated 5/25/90 (Memo- Only) B. Westonka Chamber Letter Dated 6/13/90 C. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook Information Dated 1989 ISSUE - Presentation to Council of Westonka Chamber's position regarding transient merchants. INTRODUCTION - As indicated previously the Westonka Chamber .if^as in the process of formulating their position regarding transient merchants. It should be noted that the :ity of Mound limits transient merchc. .a to a specific place and specific times during the week. DISCUSSION - As noted in Attachment C to tota 11y exc1ude iolicitation from a community may not be possible, but if Council is interested, it should be furt...r researched by the City Attorney. On the other hand a City could leave this area unregulated if it so chose. Should the Council choose to limit, but not exclude, transient merchants solicitation it may choose to look at the following; Specified area for such sale (narrower than commercially zoned property such as done in Mound) Times of day (day of the week) Length of permit Number of permits allowed per year Number of days per year maximum for such merchants on the otner hand Council may choose to have little or no restriction on this activity if it chooses. The City in Its application has limited solicitation to 60 in the past but has had no limit on the number of times that such can be renewed. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. I 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action, RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council give an Indication as to whether they desire to further explore the level of regulation of transient merchants. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council direct staff as to what they desire regarding transient merchants. Ayes , Nays Westonka Chamber Chic Remien, Executive Director 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 71790.8 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator PROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE: July 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Survey of Cities - Re: Solicitors/Street Vendors After contacting the communities listed below the following information is provided: City currently has a Task Force which is undertaking a review and revision of the sol icitors/transient merchant licensing procedure. Currently the fee is $22.00 for a 1 year license. There are no sales allowed in a residential area and all applications are reviewed by the Police Department and the Planning Department. The City requires a letter from the property owner. Minnetonka - All transient merchant/street vendors must have proof of licensing from Hennepin County License Division and a letter from the property owner. The application is a conditional use permit and takes approximately 45 days to process. All signage must also be approved by the City. Hennepin County License Division - A street vendor's license is $50.00. The license is obtained at Hennepin County Government Center, southeast corner of 2nd floor. The license is issued at the time the application is made and expires one year f'om issue date. Eden Prairie ~ All transient merchants/street vendor licenses are reviewed by the Planning Department. Their policy states such activities must be on commercially zoned property and include a letter from property owner giving permission. Sales are not allowed in right of way or green areas. Sales can not be conducted from any required parking area. Sales are allowed on sidewalks only. Signage is also reviewed. License is for 1 year and takes approximately 30 days to process. Maple Grove - Police Department reviews all applications. Initfal investigation fee is $15.00 plus license fee of -$10.00 for one month or $35.00 for one year. Letter from property owner is required. Police review for traffic safety. Sales can be in either commercial or residential zone. CL-S 5.30 SEC. 5.30. SOLICITORS. Subd. 1. Puroose. 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, incl nUng 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 terra includes such chattels as are furnished or used at the tine 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 kind. E. "Established place" means real estate in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-month or terra-certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days. The terra 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 distrioute 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 is unlawful for any solicitor to engage in solicitation for any 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 reguested 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 rhall 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 affordea 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.) ORONO CC (4-1-84) ORDINANCE NO. 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: Section 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 zc.ied 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 ih 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 I'egistration by the applicant for a conribution solicitor. Passed by the Council this 25th day of April, 1988. ATTEST: James R. Gra^£, Mayor' published in the Laker and pioneer newspaper the week of May 2. 1988 ...........________. 71790.6 TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: July 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Lake Use Management ii am/* JUl. 23 1990 / OF oncm Attachment: A. Consultant Response to Orono Comments (Undated) ISSUE 1. Present to Council preliminary comments of the consultant relative to Orono's comments on the Plan. 2. Update Council as to the results of the July 11th plan review meeting of Orono's comments. INTRODUCTION - Attachment A represents the comments of the consultant in response to Orono's submittals on the final draft plar . DISCUSSION - While the tenor of the consultant's remarks were not necessarily helpful in enlightening the discussion, Councilmember Callahan and myself spent approximately 2 1/2 hours reviewing the intent of Orono's comments and the specific issues outlined in Attachment C. Despite Attachment A the LMCD Review Board for the most part seemed receptive to several of the suggestions as they relate to: Metro Council - Scopte of review Clarity of plan Regulation by type of boat Funding Proposed governmental structure Plan focus - Encourage vs control Specifying methodology for determining density being included in the document In addition the discussion was instructive as to what the plan really meant versus what an initial review would lead one to believe. The true test of the work however, will be the next draft and what changes will be made to clarify or change the issues of concern. It is my present understanding that they are working to have a revised draft by August 15, 1990 and that there would be a 60 day review period from that date before it would go into effect. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information 2. Make any comments. 3. Table for further discussion. RSCOMMENDATI^ON - After making any comments or asking any quesitons it Fs recommended that this item be tabled pending further materials or drafts related to the plan. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by_ _, Council tables this matter until further documentation from LMCD is available. Ayes _, Nays _. L f\^rTAO.ffiHenJr A But the fact remains that the interests of the City and of Lake Minnetonka are not always in 100 percent agreement. Therefore, the effect of commenting on certain variances enhances coordination, better assures cooperation and formalizes communication in an arsa of critical interest to the LMCD. We think that the City of Wayzata has overreacted to a proposal not completely understood. CITY OF ORONO Appendix A, June 18, 1990 Paragraph 1, sentence 1. "Planning is an activity that LMCD can undertake on its own statutory authority." RESPONSE; We are pleased that the City of Orono has reversed the position taken at the public hearing and recognizes that the LMCD has the authority to prepare the Management Program.i Paragraph 1, sentence 2. "Unless more specific statutory authority can be cited than that contained in page 8 of the plan, that authority does not come from the Metropolitan Council." RESPONSE: Since the City of Orono has already reversed its position at the public hearing that the LMCD docs not have the authority to develop the plan, the issue raised in this sentence |V is moot. We are inclined to let the City of Orono argue theA w w w w • w VA A. w ww waaw a. w jr w ^ w a. w a a v.# ^ Metropolitan Council's authority elsewhere. Neither the LMCD nor, its Advisory Committee need to be involved. ' Paragraph 1, sentences 3. "The act of planning does not require/MtV’X the permission of the Metropolitan Council." RESPONSE: Again, we are pleased with the reversal of the position that the City took at the public hearing. However, the City of Orono should conduct further research. Chapter 473 also empowers the Metropolitan Council to order the preparation of comprehensive plans by any organization under its jurisdiction. A Paragraph 1. sentence 4 and 5. "The plan developed (provided it deals with matters on which LMCD is empowered to act) can neithe be prevented by r.or embellished upon by the Metropolitan Council. This is not to state that the Metropolitan Council cannot make plans of its own for its own purposes."" RESPONSE: Again, we are inclined to let the City of Orono discuss the powers of the Metropolitan Council without the involvement of the LMCD or its Advisory Committee Paragraph 1, sentence 6. "And in fact, we understand that the Metropolitan Council has a committee about to engage in a repetition of the planning which you have attempted to complete in your own plan." RESPONSE: We know of no such effort and have been unable to verify Orono's contention. The Council is participating in a multi-agency planning effort on the Mississippi River. There is also discussion of a study of metropolitan-wide lake management, following recommendations (in part) of the C zens League's recent report. We believe the City is in error. Page 1, paragraph 2. "With this in mind, we believe that the section on Authority beginning on page 7 of the draft and continuing through page 8 should be revised in its entirety and that any other areas of the draft purporting to rely upon the Metropolitan Council to give validity to actions of the LMCD should also be removed. RESPONSE: Since the City of Orono now recognizes the authority of the LMCD to pinpare the Management Plan, the most pressing issue has been removed. The discussion on pages 7 and 8 have been reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. Changes were made in earlier drafts at the request of the Metropolitan Council to clarify their authority. We are inclined to rely on LMCD counsel and the Metropolitan Council for the interpretation of extant authority. We recommend no change to pages 7 and 8. Page 1, paragraph 3, sentence 1. "If the LMCD chooses to submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council as a courtesy, it should clearly state that it is only done with that in mind." RESPONSE: The LMCD, indeed, did submit the plan to the Metr politan Council as a courtesy. We also requested review under M.S. 473.175, Subd. 1. That gives the Metropolitan Council the authority to review the plan and to mediate disputes between interested parties (Subd. 2). That was done in April, 1990. Page 1, paragraph 3, sentence 2. "What the LMCD chooses to do with any comments it receives is up to the LMCD." RESPONSE: We agree. We recommend no changes to the Management Program as the result of the first three parc.graphs of Orono's Attachment A. Page 1, paragraph 4, Authority for review. "While the City of Orono believes that LMCD's enabling legislation is its sole authority, if the LMCD believes that the authority of approval of the Metropolitan Council is required to give its plan force and effect, ... it must follow that the LMCD believes that the Metropolitan Council has control of its actions in implementing the plan. RESPONSE: As so often with government, there are parallel authorities granted under Minnesota Statutes. On one hand, the LMCD has the authority to prepare the plan through its own enabling legislation. Parallel to that is Chapter 473 which gives the Metropolitan Council authority to order plans prepared under certain circumstances. That, coupled with the State Executive Council ordering the Metropolitan Council to become involved, created the joint interest in preparation of the Management Program. And no, the Advisory Committee does not believe that the Metropolitan Council has control of its actions in implementing the program. The LMCD has authority to implement certain components of the program. But most of the program is to be implemented variously by the 14 cities, the Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin Parks, Hennepin County, the Water Patrol, Metropolitan Council, the DNR and the Department of Trade and Economic Development to mention the most important. Major components of the plan fall outside of the jurisdiction of the LMCD. Implementation is to be by those organizations with the cooperation and, at times, coordination of the TMCD. The LMCD has limited powers over upland areas. This Program and the LMCD seek no substantive change in its authority. Page 1, paragraph 4, sentence 2. "The question then arises as to what portions of the plan will require the approval of the Metropolitan Council before a change can be made. Would such changes and addition in the opinion of the LMCD, require the approval of the Metropolitan Council and would the LMCD have to go through the lengthy and formal review process involved in obtaining such approval? If the approval is denied, would the LMCD be without authority to proceed in these matters.'" RESPONSE: No, no, no, and no. Orono's suppositions are erroneous in the first sentence of the paragraph. Therefore, the remaining issues raised are not relevant. Pages 1 and 2, paragraph 5. "The City of Orono believes that it is beyond the power of the LMCD to submit itself to such control, and we suggest that this draft not be submitted to the Metropolitan Council except as a matter of information and courtesy. If it is submitted, we believe the plan should contain a clear statement t^^t it is being sent as a matter of courtesy, and that the LMCD does not concede the right of the Metropolitan Council to regulate its affairs in connection with the matters in the plan.” RESPONSE: Orono's advise is noted. But we cannot help but conclude that the advise is as faulty as the misunderstandings and arguments upon which it is founded. The LMCD submitted the Management Program for review to the Metropolitan Council at the same time it was distributed to other agencies. In that, Orono's concerns are not timely. It is too late to do it your way. Second, the program was submitted under M.S. 473.175 Subd. 1, in accordance with our interpretation of the law. Page 2, first full paragraph. "However, if the Board of the LMCD disagrees with the views of the City of Orono, on authority and nature of submission, we believe it is essential that the views which the Board does have on the ability of the Metropolitan Council to control it be explained to the interested public and the statement specifically included in the plan before submission. In particular, the LMCD should state in the plan both the legal and intended effects on future actions of the LMCD and the rights of the other interested parties once the plan is submitted to Metropolitan Council control." RESPONSE; We believe these matters are already satisfactorily addressed in the Management Program. Based on all other comments received on the Program, it appears that the City of Orono is the only interested party. recommend no change in the Management Program. Page 2, second paragraph. "In this connection we believe the LMCD should also spell out what the compromise was that is referred to on page 5 of the report. What was LMCD's position before sits position was compromised? Why did it compromise?" RESPONSE: The compromise was for the LMCD to lead the Management Program effort, that it be concluded in two years, that the Systems Committee of the Metropolitan Council would abandon its consideration of an independent planning process. he LMCD wanted to complete the study in three years, the Metropolitan Council wanted 18 mon^.is. The compromise at two years represented a small price'to pay for the support and participation of the Metropolitan Council. We recommend no change to the Management Program. This issue is too trivial. and Page 2, Paragraph 3, Plan Focus and Statutory Authority. "In our original draft submission, we noted that we believe that the LMCD's Plan is misdirected in focussing on the promotion of increased use of the lake and the establishment of new access points and recreational land destinations.” RESPONSE: No where in the Management Program do we promote increased use of the lake. There is a significant difference between allowing growth to occur within a strict regulatory framework and promoting increased use. Participants in the development of the Management Plan were unwilling to close the lake to further growth. Does Orono wish the LMCD to close the lake to increased use? If so, we wish that Orono had sent a representative to the subcommittee meetings to present that view. The representative would then have been a party to the discussions leading to the formulation of that part of the Management Program. However, if Orono does not favor closing the lake to further growth, but instead favors carefully regulated growth, then the City of Orono and the Advisory Committee are in agreement. New access ramps are advocated for two reasons. Some need to be replaced because of unsafe conditions. Construction of other ramps has been proposed by the Metropolitan Access Committee in accordance with their stated policy of one car/trailer parking space for each 20 acres of lake surface. The Metropolitan Access Committee members each have the independent legislative authority, financial resources, and policy commitment tc nure that standard is achieved on Lake Minnetonka. The LMC .nnoc prevent it, even though it does regulate access points vithin its Code. The Management Program promotes the establishment of recreational destinations whether or not they include upland areas. But since the LMCD has authority over all lands used for access to the lake, it would have authority over any such areas created. Is Orono opposed to creation of destinations? If so, it would have been helpful if Orono had sent a representative to the subcommittee which discussed these issues. We could have addressed those concerns at that time. Perhaps having Orono's position available to us at a timely point in Program development, we cduld have had the kind of communication that would have prevented so many of these misunderstandings and misinterpretations reflected in Orono's letter of comment. We are willing to meet with Orono to review the work of the subcommittees that led to the formulation of the policy on destinations, access and continued growth of use on the lake. We are confident that that meeting will result in a very different view on the part of Orono. Page 2, paragraph 4. "Further review of the plan and further consideration of it leads the City of Orono to the belief that not only is the plan misdirected in those regards, but that in essence such actions as just referred to, are simply beyond the power of the LMCD." RESPONSE: This is not the first time that we encountered these arguments. Several other cities held similar beliefs one year ago. Once they became active in the Intergovernmental and Funding Subcommittee, the resulting communication lead to agreement with our approach. Initially, representatives of the cities, and we averaged about seven per meeting, were of the erroneous opinion that the LMCD sought significant new powers beyond its traditional legislation (not true); sought authority over cities, particularly in the area of shoreland management (equally untrue), and had gotten too close to the DNR and Metropolitan Council (similarly untrue). Initially, many of these municipal representatives expressed the same sort of outrage that permeates the Orono response. Now we encounter it again from the cities that were not, or were poorly, represented throughout the planning process. What we are trying to do cannot be digested in a cursory reading of the Management Program. It is all explained there, but it is explained, necessarily, concisely. There are no hidden agendas, no secret compromises, and no power grabs. It is simply a program to better protect Lake Minnetonka from the adverse effects of development, redevelopment, government programs and recreational use. No traditional uses of the lake are displaced, no user groups are banned. There is no change in the traditional authority or power structure. Instead the plan focuses on full use of the authority already granted under law. It identifies areas where enforcement could be improved and'suggests ways to achieve that. Primarily, though, it lays out a framework for improved cooperation, coordination and communication. It attempts to get each organization with authority on the lake and lakeshore to work toward a common set of objectives. There is no force beyond that already in existence in the laws of the state. In this partnership, the LMCD is the weak partner when dealing with programs above the 929.4 contour. Below the 929.4 contour, the LMCD is usually the dominant partner. We seek no changes in power, but we seek significant changes in the way programs are administered by the cities, the Watershed District, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the DNR. But a change in authority or power, no. Page 2, paragraph 5, first two sentences. "It is clear that the powers granted by S Chapter 907 are essentially powers of limitation, the power to regulate, the power to limit and the power to police. The‘^ are limited also, no doubt, by constitutional and coinmon law rights of various persons.” RESPONSE: We recommend that the LMCD continue to rely on its own counsel for interpretation of its powers. The LMCD counsel has reviewed the plan and does not reach the conclusions of the City of Orono. We recommend no change in approach or emphasis. Page 2, paragraph 5, sentences 3 and 4. "It is likewise clear that the words "recreational management, user enjoyment,' and eve. the word 'access' (except as part of a modifying phrase) are absent from the enabling legislation. Nowhere is the piCD given the power to spend money to reach the goal of 'rectifying past inequi' and [sic] access growth'." RESPONSE: We fail to see a constructive point to this entire paragraph. The phrases may or may not appear in Chapter 907, as amended. But the LMCD clearly has powers in each of these areas. The powers of the LMCD to spend money are clear. They may own real property. But we do not recommend that the LMCD own access or other recreational lands. We feel public corporations already in existence are better prepared to do so. We recommend no change in approach or content. i^Page 2, paragraph 5, sentence 5 and 6. "Nor is there anything in the statute to suggest that it is an 'essential function of the LMCD to assure that other agencies have the resources to implement their programs'. Even the proposed extension of zoning \and land use control is probably not authorized." RESPONSE: That quote comes not from the statute, but from the Management Pro<^ram. The fact that it does not appear in the legislation does not lessen its veracity. Two years ago, we were charged with the difficult task of getting 14 communities, various sub-county and county agencies, regional entities and the DNR to agree on a common set of goals for the lake. Before we started two years ago we knew that significant'changes in authority would not be permitted by the vested interests in and around the lake. Therefore, we developed a set of goals and objectives to be implemented using existing powers and author*ties. To do that requires cooperation, coordination and communicat The LMCD legislation specifically gives it authority in t’ ^reas. We believe that when the Management Program is adof. id it will be), it will succeed. There will just be better ation, coordination, and communication with come legal enr.iuies more than others. 38 F Specific to zoning and land use control, the LMCD has very limited power now and seeks no new authority. The 14 cities, the Watershed District and the DNR have programs that directly affect zoning and land use. The LMCO, through the Muiiagtment Program, is trying to get these groups together to work toward a common goal. For Orono to feel that the LMCD seeks power in this area is simply unfounded. We cannot force Orono to cooperate, coordinate and communicate. But we will continue trying. The fact that it is so difficult provides more evidence for the need for the LMCD, not less. In conclusion, for the record, Orono appointed members to most subcommittees. But very few attended. The shoreland subcommittee was well represertted. Later, Councilperson Goetten attended. We remember no other participation. Orono seeks collusion where there has been open, frank discussion. Orono seems to believe in secret deals where there has only been open exchange of ideas. It sees parochial goals where we have spent two years exchanging information, seeking understanding, and forging compromise. We are accused of exceeding authority and usurping power where we have spent two years emphasizing cooperation, coordination and communication. The LMCD will have no more power or authority after the Management Program is adopted than now. If there is any change, it will be in stature and clarity of purpose for Lake Minnetonka. We have developed a very credible course of action over the last two years. And we have done so in open public forum. It is unfortunate that Orono chose to be minimally involved in this open and profitable process. Letter or Comment, submitted June 6, 1990. y Page 1, A. "The City of Orono opposes the LMCD plan as 1) failing 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." RESPONSE: The Management Plan focuses ONLY on the purposes for which the LMCD was formed. Nowhere does it go beyond the broad powers granted it under Section 3, to regulate the lake and portions of its shoreline. Further, Section 3(j) empowers the District "to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution". That latter clause provides extensive authority to foster coordination, communication and cooperation beyond the 929.4 contour. We find the City of Orono's contention misdirected. The environmental controls included in the Draft Management Program exceed those now in place and being implemented by the 14 cities, the Watershed District, the Metropolitan Council, the DNR and the PCA. The City of Orono's contention is unsupported and erroneous. The Management Program is not focused on promoting and encouraging increased boat densities and additional access points. Nowhere in the Management Program is increased boat density encouraged. Exactly the opposite is true. The Draft proposes a broad, comprehensive program for limiting growth. But we do not attempt to stop further growth at this time. That is the result of a conscious decision on the part of the Advisory Committee and participants in plan formulation. If the City of Orono seeks a policy of no further growth in access, the City should formally convey that decision to the LMCD and its Advisory Committee. We have received no such communication. The access standard of 700 car/trailer parking spaces is that of the Metropolitan Access Committee. The member organizations of that committee have established a standard for access to metropolitan lakes, including Lake Minnetonka. They have full statutory authority to implement that standard on Lake Minnetonka, and indeed, have indicated their determination to do so. This Management Program accepts that standard, only after attempting to get two of the three members to accept a lower standard. Those meetings were held over a six month period, in open public forum. It is absolutely untrue that the Management Program attempts to remove land use regulation from local control. Nowhere in the plan is there a call for a change in traditional authority and power in this area. Right now, under Minnesota Statute, land use controls are the shared responsibility of the local city, the Watershed District, and the DNR. This Management Program merely recognizes that shared responsibility and attempts to set a consistent set of standards and criteria to be implemented by those three organizations. The LMCD is to act to foster coordination, cooperation, and communication. That is something that has been missing far too often in the past. We are guilty of seeking to raise taxes to pay for essential regulatory and coordination activities. We do not seek to dilute or eliminate and lessen local control over the LMCD and surrender it to state agencies. Orono cannot support that charge with any specific from the Management Plan. For the past twenty years, the LMCD has maintained a close working relationship with the 14 cities. According to the findings of the "1999 Conference" the LMCD did that relatively well. But they were weaker in developing an equally close working relationship with regional and state agencies. The Conference findings state that they could have done better in the latter area. Right now, the LMCD maintains a close working relationship with individual cities. Some LMCD Directors meet routinely with their City Councils; others do not. We believe it to be true that on most issues of great import, the level of communication between the individual city leadership and the leadership of the LMCD is very high. The Management Program currently maintains that close association. Each of the cities will continue to appoint their director, just as they do now. But they will sit on the Board with four new members. Those four new votes will be added to the 14 votes of the cities. We see not diminution of local control; we see increased coordination and communication between organizations heavily involved on the lake. Page 1, 1. "The LMCD was created to be the agency immediately 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 implement environmental protection only after it accomplishes these goals." RESPONSE; That position is certainly not reflected in the LMCD enabling legislation. The LMCD was formed under The Laws of 1967, Chapter 907, as amended. Nothing in that legislation indicates that the District was to restrict its activities and concerns to pollution. Indeed, most of Section 3 addresses the powers of the LMCD with respect to recreation. Throughout its history, the LMCD has given attention to both controlling pollution and recreation resource management. Which received primary attention was determined by the needs of the times. The City of Orono is wrong on a second count. The Manageme-.t Program set goals and objectives for both environrantal and recreational management. Implementation of the goals a w objectives is largely determined by the funds available to the LMCD, and when we believe additional funds may be forthcoming. Again, this Management Program does not focus on increasing recreational use. The City has simply misread the Management Program. There is a world of difference between allowing access to continue to grow and taking an advocacy position to increase use during peak hours. We suggest the City of Orono review the L Chapters on Recreation Management and User Experience and Satisfaction again. Page 1, Paragraph 2, a. "The LMCD plan is inadequate in its concerns for conservation because it fails to recognize: *a. That existing usage of the lake has already r•'ached the average density of 10 acres per boat established by the DNR and other agencies (8 usable acres per boat);” RESPONSE: The City of Orono is wrong. Neither the DNR nor any other agency in the metropolitan area has established a density standard that applies to Lake Minnetonka or any other lake. Had the City better participated in the Lake Use and Lake Access subcommittee meetings when this issue was discussed, they would understand that the 20 acres per boat is a standard established for determining the appropriate amount of access to metropolitan lakes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a density standard for recreational use. To verify this, we suggest the City of Orono call Del Barber or Mike Markell at the DNR. Page 1, paragraph 2, b. "That peak density is nearly twice that;” RESPONSE: The City of Orono is correct on this point. Page 1, paragraph 2, c. "That planned for increases, e.g. Hennepin County Park at 168-170 new boats - Minnetonka Boat Works 42-48 new boats, etc., plus unplanned others will bring the average density to between 7 usable acres and 6 usable acres per boat by 1991 it is not there now;" RESPONSE: Again, the arguments of the City of Orono are based on false information. The regional park will result in a net increase of 75 boats, 100 at the park, less 25 at Kings Point. Kings Point access is to be converted to some other use when the park is opened. We have no knowledge of estimates that boating density will reach between 7 and 6 usable acres per boat by 1991 if it is not there now. Given the low water, albeit recovering, we think it will be closer to between 8 and 7 acres per boat. We request the City bf Orono to provide us with the data that leads to their conclusion. Page 1, paragraph 2, d. "That the reports of current users indicate serious and dangerous conditions of near misses; dangerous acts of intoxicated boaters, high wakes, ignoring of navigational rules, etc;" RESPONSE: We believe the City of Orono is seriously overstating the case. We have firm evidence that such events occur on this I'e. The Hennepin Sheriff's Water Patrol does not accept Orono's contention that the lake is unsafe. Indeed, it issued a challenge at our December 2, 1989 meeting for anyone or any organization to come forward with data that demonstrates that the public is not safe on Lake Minnetonka during peak hours. To our knowledge, no one has taken up the Sheriff's challenge. We request that the City of Orono provide us with the data demonstrating that boaters on the lake are unsafe. That data does not appear in our Management Program or supporting documents. (j Page 1, paragraph 2, e. The numerical majority of the bays are already drastically overused (Tables 6 and 8). RESPONSE: Tables 6 and 8 do not demonstrate that the bays are drastically overused. They simply report what the average acres per boat is by bay. "Drastically overused" is a judgement that cannot be supported by fact. The issue of crowding and displacement is simply too complex to review in this response. It is unfortunate that the City of Orono did no better participate in the Management Program process. If it had, we believe that it would be in agreement with our Management Program. Page 1, paragraph 2, f. "That there are indicators sailing may be being crowded off the lake, etc;" RESPONSE: If emphasis is on "may be", then we concur. The data are not conclusive and future monitoring is needed. (See Implementation Plan for a discussion of the monitoring program.) Page 2, paragraph 2, g. "Some boats are more environmentally harmful than others - e.g. large power boats vs. sailfish; yet the LMCD plan does not consider the environmental effect of these conditions or establish a standard for density or even consider the possible necessity for numerical limitations on particular types of boats." RESPONSE: The Management Program does not attempt to limit the types of boats that use the lake. All alternatives were considered, and these were specifically rejected by the subcommittees involved. We Know of no evidence that large power boats, when operated correctly, create a significantly greater amount of environmental impact. If Orono has such evidence, we would appreciate copies. Had the City of Orono better participated in the development of this part of the Management Program, it would understand that these points were considered by the participants, and rejected. The determination was made to continue to keep the lake open to all types of watercraft while significantly increasing patrol hours, boater education, and other regulatory practices. Page 2, paragraph 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 particularly as a first priority, and as a precondition for future regulations." RESPONSE; Again, nowhere in the Management Program do we promote increased use of the lake. Orono is wrong. The establishment of new access points is the result of the policy established by the Metropolitan Access Committee, not the LMCD or the Advisory Committee. Orono is as powerless to stop that program being implemented as the LMCD is powerless. We tried for at least three months to get two of the three member of the Metropolitan Access Committee to change the policy for Lake Minnetonka. They would not. If Orono believes it can accomplish what we could not, we want you to contact Mr. Mike Markell, DNR central office and Arne Stefferud, Metropolitan Council. Please keep us advised of your progress. Recreational land destinations are clearly within the purview of the LMCD as long as they are on the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. Again, it is unfortunate that Orono did not chose to better participate in the preparation of the Management Program. We would not be faced with these false and misdirected accusations. Page 2, paragraph 3, a. "These matters have been the subject of several previous reports as stated in the plan, and are the special concern of other agencies, and are not part of the mandate of the LMCD;" RESPONSE: We are unaware of the reports referenced by the City of Orono. Specifically, the concept of destinations is unique to this Management Plan. If the City of Orono has such references, we are keenly interested. Please provide us with a copies. Attached is a copy of the Laws of 1967, Chapter 907. The LMCD clearly has jurisdiction over recreational use of Lake Minnetonka. That is a responsibility shared by the DNR. The LMCD is not subject to DNR review in these matters. The law also clearly gives the ^CD authority over access points. They may regulate them, police them and control their use. That power is shared with the DNR. The Metropolitan Access Committee obtains its authority over setting policy for access points in the metropolitan area through an interagency agreement between the DNR, Metropolitan Council and the Department of Trade and Economic Development. That Committee is not subject to LMCD review. It has independent authority to implement its policies. Again, Orono is in error. The LMCD clearly has jurisdiction in each of these areas. It is unfortunate that the City chose not to be better involved in the development of the Management Program. P V, Page 2, paragraph 3, b. "While implementation of those plans will have an effect on the environment, an environmental plan is needed now, not afterwards;" RESPONSE; We have indeed analyzed the environmental consequences of our actions, including increased use of the lake, additional access points and creation of destinations. Within the context of the entire Management Program, the conclusion is that there are no significant environmental effects. If the City of Orono has data to support their case, we request that they provide it to the Advisory Committee. r;- \ Page 2, paragraph 3, 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 RESPONSE: All of these issues were considered by the subcommittees dealing with Lake Use and Lake Access. It is unfortunate that the City of Orono did not better participate since they would be better informed at this time. We spent six months discussing who should have access to the lake, whether there should be a density standard, and what types of watercraft that should be allowed on the lake. In brief, the subcommittees determined: 1. That the lake should remain open to all citizens of the state. ■ 2. No limits would be placed on boat density, but that as density increased, increasingly strict regulation will be imposed. 3. No growth in access in any form will be allowed once density reaches 7.0 unless the water patrol hours are effectively doubled during peak hours in the summer. 4. That there will be no limits placed on the types of boats that will use the lake, instead, the emphasis will be on more patrol hours, better boater education and improved licensing requirements. We considered each and every issue raisea by Orono and we did it in open public forum that Orono chose to avoid. Page 2, paragraph 3, d. "So far as the environment is concerned, the LMCD should immediately: 1. Establish the permissible density standards for optimum environmental protection and for purposes of boating safety;" RESPONSE: We considered and rejected density standards at the meetings that Orono chose not to participate in. The reasons are too many to here. Basically, 15-20 years of research on carrying capacity yielded little or nothing for planners preparing a Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. The field of recreational research is now pursuing other management strategies. Your emphasis on a density standard is outdated and not supported by current recreational thinking. Again, we wish that Orono had opted to be involved in the planning process so these types of issues would not arise now. Page 2, paragraph 3, d 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);" RESPONSE: We specifically call for increased enforcement in the Management Program. Orono's opposition to additional funds for the LMCD ana their opposition to the tax district, means no increased patrol hours on the lake if that view were in the majority. Unless the LMCD uses its own money, there will be no increase in patrol hours on the lake. It is shortsighted for Orono to oppose the tax district on one hand and call for increased patrol hours on the lake. There cannot be one without the other. We considered, at length, the use of local police agencies on the lake. Orono proposed this in the Public Safety Subcommittee. That proposal died for lack of a second. Not one other police department on the lake supported Orono's proposal. Two primary reasons were given for the lack of support: 1) insufficient enforcement resources; and 2) increased liability. Page 2, paragraph 3, d 3. "Require and encourage boat users education in right of way rules, etc., and in safe operation of their boats through licensing of boaters and certification requirements - e.g. power squadron certification is available." RESPONSE: This is specifically incluaeu xn the Management Plan. What Orono is overlooking is that the DNR must support efforts to require licensing of boat operators and they do not at this time. If Orono thinks that it can move the DNR from their current position, we will support your efforts. We were unable to do so over the last two years. Again, it is unfortunate that Orono did not participate in these same discussions. Page 2, paragraph 3, d 4. "Adopt appropriate rules relating to noise pollution, 'quiet waters,' speed, wakes, etc., and ensure enforcement." RESPONSE: These are all covered in the Management Program and, indeed, are largely the subject of current regulations. If Orono has specific recommendations, we are sure the LMCD will consider such without waiting for implementation of this Management Program. Page 2, paragraph 3, d 5, "Give parallel consideration and regulation to the effects of wintertime use - ice houses, snowmobiles, cross country skiers, etc.;" RESPONSE: The Management Program and the LMCD Code already address these issues. The Management Program calls for improvement in certain areas. Page 3, paragraph 3, d 6. "Encourage parking in areas away from public access points by users." RESPONSE: That proposal originated here on Lake Minnetonka in our Management Program planning process. We are especially provd of its inclusion in the Management Program. Page 3, first paragraph. Safety, a pollution free lake, and enjoyable user experience, and aesthetic consideration affecting the lakeshore, and its roads, and the watershed are basic considerations." RESPONSE: All of these are advocated in the Management Program. But unless this Management Program is implemented, which Orono currently opposes, it will not be accomplished. A pollution free lake, for example, cannot be accomplished without strict shoreland ordinances adopted by each of the 14 cities, improved regulation by the Watershed District and better enforcement of existing regulatory programs. This is what the Management Program proposes and this is what Orono opposes. There is not a lot of logic in this situation. Page 3, second paragraph. "Milfoil is a distinct LMCD problem and LMCD should have control of it on the lake." RESPONSE: Milfoil is everyone's problem. The IKCD is to be complemented for its leadership role. But it cannot address the problem alone. Page 3, paragraph 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 desirable to have all communities agree with our standards, we are not willing to part with ->cal control of our lakeshore. Neither is it acceptable to . for the UfCD to make decisions regarding dockage or other utilization which in effect force Orono to depart from its iar. .se standards to accommodate parking, tree removal or haracover limitations.” RESPONSE: The Management Program supports Orono's position of keeping land use regulation under local control. The Program merely seeks to work with individual cities and the DNR to assure a consistent set of regulations for the lake. We complement Orono for its strict ordinance and standards do not wish to see those weakened. The other problems listed are those too often encountered with abutting or overlapping jurisdictions. A clos» r partnership, better coordination and cooperation are goals of the Management Program. Page 3, paragraph 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 lakeshore cities and the county and through existing organizations already providing the training programs," RESPONSE: These cannot be achieve within the 1 mill levy limitation imposed on the cities. 1. Item 3 d 2. of the Orono letter of comment requires an additional $300,000. The existing limit can only raise $100,000 more. 2. Item 3 d 3. requires additional staff for the IlfCO. The Executive Director cannot assume major new responsibilities. 3. Item 3 d 4. seeks to "ensure enforcement. There cannot be additional enforcement without additional patrol hours. Additional patrol hours cost money. 4. Orono seeks "safety, a pollution free lake, an enjoyable user experience, and aesthetic consideration affecting the lakeshore, and its roads, and the watershed are basic considerations" with no new assessments over $100,000 (the existing limit. In 1982 the Governor formed che first Task Force on Lake Minnetonka. Their findings included a recommendation for ma. ig the IHCD levy independent of the city's limitation. In 1986 che second Task Force was formed. They concluded that the levy limit should be independent of the city's limitation. The Management Program recommendation is consistent with past studies into LMCD funding. Present expenditures on the lake are approximately $600,000. This includes the LMCD funding by the cities, donations to the LMCD exclusive of milfoil, Hennepin County expenditures for lake improvement, and funds for the Water Patrol. In order to accomplish what Orono wants accomplished, it will take an additional $400,000. Three-fourths of that is for more patrol hours on the lake. The rest is for the increased regulatory and enforcement programs needed for the lake. Page 3, paragraph 6. "While the present makeup of the LMCD board has inequities built into it which are readily apparent to the different communities, all members are essentially concerned with 'pi s^'rving the lake,' and that is the sole reason for the LMCD. The suggestions that other agencies which are not directly and immediately affected by ti*e lake and which have other purposes and priorities, plans for its future be given position on this board, is unacceptable to Orono." RESPONSE: The organizations that were added to the Board were selected by the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee members after protracted discussion of alternatives. O •ono chose not to participate in those discussions. On the average, we had at least seven of the mayors in attendance at any one time. Other communities were represented by council members. The reason for adding these foui’ agencies is specifically because they have essential programs on La' e Minnetonka. Their stake in the lake matcnes that of the 14 c .lies. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District is the largest single landowner on the lake. The Watershed District has regulatory programs that are essential to protect the lake from pollution. Hennepin County commits more money to Lake Minnetonka operations that the combined 14 communities. The Metropo.itan Council controls capital and operation funds for regional’ park and open space programs. In addition to these firianc'.al anc! regulatory commitments, the addition of the four new agencies reflects the desire to obtain county-wide funding for la;-.e programs. The other cities have expressed a strong desire to have all persons who benefit from the lake and lake programs contribute to the ost of operation. That is the basis for the county-wide tuX. We believe the same close relrttionship between the city and the city-appointed Director will be maintained under the proposed board structure in the Management Program. The four additional members 'ncrease coordination and communication. We do not see it as a significant decrease in local control. The cities will still have 14 votes. 49 OF QRONO^ CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 19, 1990 This letter and attachments were mailed 6/20/90 to: Manager, Mayor and individual Councilmembers of LMCD member cities Orono Planning Commission members Orono Park Commission members Department Heads Re: LMCD 25 Year Comprehensive Plan Jabriel Jabbour LMLOA, P.O. Box 596, Exce .sior Dear On behalf of the City of Orono, we appreciate the way you have helped your community by participating in the review process for the LMCD's 25 Year Plan. As noted at the meetings, several issues were raised. The attached information is the City of Orono's additional submission as part of the public process. As mentioned previously in our preliminary draft, the City of Orono is concerned as to the LMCD's traditional role vs. the emphasis we see in the Plan. Additionally, in the attached letter, we have raised the concern as to the authority related to the 25 Year Plan objectives and its review process. It is our understanding that the LMCD Board will be meeting to discuss comments and direct a consultant to develop a final draft. We encourage you to undertake the following steps; Spend the time with your re^.resen tati ve to ensure that he or she is reflecting your concerns in the final draft of the plans. (The Advisor*-- Board is presently scheduled to meet at 7:00 P.M., :r, vday, June 28, 1990 to discuss the comments received.) If there are substantial changes, encourage your representatives to vote for another review period. If substantial changes have been made in response to the cities' comments, such a rehearing may gain critical support and stop submission to Metropolitan Council as a "comprehensive plan". BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION i UNANCE - 473-7358 FAX-473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 City June 19, 1990 Page 2 If submission is made to the Metropolitan Council as a comprehensive plan, continue to present your position for review, and together, we as cities, can then take further steps to protect our rights and the future of the lake. We appreciate your timely reviews of these documents and all the work that it entails. Again, we remain available for your comments. Sincerely, James R. Grabek Mayor ! f rt., . ' i OF :- loRaNC^ CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, MinnesoU 55323 • Municipal OfSces On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 18, 1990 Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 400 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Comments on Draft - LMCD 25 Year Plan Attachment:A. Commentary on Authority and Scope B. Commentary Response on Long Term Managerial Plan C. Lake Use Management Dated 5/7/90 Dear Board Members: On behalf of the City of Orono, we would like to thank you and all the volunteers who have spent so many .hundreds of hours in developing the plan we see to date. As noted in our attachments, we think this draft is of considerably clearer value than the previous individual drafts and gives us a much better understanding of the proposed direction of the LMCD.^ It has been no secret in our attachments and in our comments on june ®th that this is not a direction that we feel is appropirate for the LMCD. We feel that the LMCD and its role with a strong environmental emphllis is needed in the plan to fulfill its original statutory purpose. Its statutory powers are narrowly described in the enablini legislation. It is vital that the LMCD understand and perfor;n chis role in its agencies and in carry, - out the duties entrusted to it by the legislature. Confusion of roles with those of other agencie will cause serious unfortunate consequences to the Lake in tne future. In the Attachment A, we have raised the concern as to the authority related to the 25 Year Plan review process. This issue relates to whether the appropriate statutory authority exists for the Metrpolitan Council to review the Plan. The question has a direct impact on the nature of Metropolitan Council s review, is it intended to be just a review for comment, or in fact, a review as if the Plan were a comprehensive use plan like a comprehensive plan for the cities. If treated by LMCD as a comprehensive plan, LMCD by going through this process is giving , statutory authority to, particularly, the Metropolitan Council. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 assessing ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-735« FAX-473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 I/-v-rrfv^mncTVT H June 18, 1990 CITY OF ORONO COMMENTARY LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT !5 YEAR PLAN ^TUriORITY AND SCOPE AUTHORITY FOR PLANNING Planning is an activity that LMCD can undertake on its own statutory authority. Unless more specific statutory authority can be cited than that contained in page 8 of the plan, that authority does not come from the Metropolitan Council. The act of planning does not require the permission of the Metropolitan Council. The plan developed (provided it deals with matters on which LMCD is empowered to act) can neither be prevented by nor embellished upon by the Metropolitan Council. This is not to state that the Metropolitan Council cannot make plans of its own for its own purposes. And in fact, we understand that the Metropolitan Council has a committee about to engage in a repetition of the planning which you have attempted to complete in your own plan. With this in mind, we believe that the section on Authority beginning on page 7 of the draft and continuing through page 8 should be revised in its entirety and that any other areas of the draft purporting to rely upon the Metropolitan Council to give validity to actions of the LMCD should also be removed. If LMCD chooses to submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council as a courtesy, it should clearly state that it is only done with that in mind. What the LMCD chooses to do with any comments it receives is up to the LMCD. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW While the City of Orono believes that LMCD*s enabling legislation is its sole authority, if the LMCD believes that the authority or approval of the Metropolitan Council is required to give its plan force and effect, (and discussion with the members of the LMCD who were present at the public hearing on June 6th at 7:00 p.m. indicates that such a belief may exist in the minds of the LMCD,) it must follow that the LMCD believes that the Metropolitan Council has control of its actions in implementing the plan. The question then arises as to what portions of the plan will require the approval of the Metropolitan Council before a change can be made. Would such changes and additions in the opinion of the LMCD, require the approval of the Metropolitan Council and would the LMCD have to go through the lengthy and formal review process involved in obtaining such approval? it the approval is denied, would the LMCD be without authority to proceed in these matters? The City of Orono believes that it is beyond the power of the LMCD to submit itself to such control, and we suggest that this draft not be submitted to the Metropolitan Council except as a matter of information and courtesy. If it is submitted, we believe the plan should contain a clear statement that it is being sent as a matter of courtesy, and that the LMCD does not concede the right of the Metropolitan Council to regulate its affairs in connection with the matters in the plan. However, if the Board of the LMCD disagrees with the views of the City of Orono, on authority and nature of submission, we believe it is essential that the views which the Board does have on the ability of the Metropolitan Council to control it be explained to the interested public and the statement specifically included in the plan before submission. In particular, the LMCD should state in the plan both the legal and intended effects on future actions of the LMCD and the rights of other interested parties once the plan is submitted to Metropolitan Council's control. In this connection we believe the LMCD should also spell out what the compromise was that is referred to on page 5 of the report. What was LMCD's position before its position was compromised? Why did it compromise? PLAN FOCUS AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY In our original draft submission, we noted that we believe that the LMCD’s plan is misdirected in focussing on the promotion of increased use of the lake and the establishment of new access points and recreational land destinations. Further review of the plan and further consideration of it leads the City of Orono to the belief that not only is the plan misdirected in those regards, but that in esse, ^e such actions as just referred to, are simply beyond the power oi. the LMCD. It is clear that the powers granted by S Chapter 907 are essentially powers of limitation, the power to regulate, the power to limit and the power to police. They are limited also, no doubt, by constitutional and common law rights of various persons. It is likewise clear that the words "recreational management, user enjoyment," and even the word "access" (except as part of a modifying phrase) are absent from the enabling legislation. Nowhere is the LMCD given power to spend money to reach the goal of "rectifying past inequities and access growth". Nor is there anything in the statute to suggest that it is an "essential function of the LMCD to assure that other agencies have the resources to implement their programs". Even the proposed extension of zoning and land use control is probably not authorized . The City of Orono believes that the plan should be reconsidered and measured against the actual authority of the LMCD,^ clearly separating plans and activities related to its authorities and function from those which it cannot perform but for which it may ultimately hope to seek some legislative approval. LMCD AS LOCAL IMPLEMENTER FOR OTHER AGENCIES Finally, the City of Orono is more deeply concerned than before at the apparent desire and plan of the LMCD to give up its role of protection of the lake on behalf of the 14 member communities to serve the interest of other agencies. This again points to the fact that LMCD apparently believes that this plan is ultimately under the control of the Metropolitan Council so the LMCD implementation will be guided by the Metropolitan Council checks and balances. To illustrate its shift in roles the LMCD has applied to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) for planning monies to undertake a program to "develop an action program for public access to Lake Minnetonka", while the 25 year plan is being reviewed and apparently may disregard what is ultimately adopted. This program is to have the DNR as the program manager and LMCD as the local or subservient organization. It was reported to LMCD that this was fully in accord with the management plan. We note that further credence to this fundamental shift and its ramifications were given by the representative of the DNR- Shoreline Management group at the 7:00 p.m. hearing on June 6th, explaining in substance that the DNR group he represented particularly favored the plan. He stated that by using the LMCD plan the DNR would be able to achieve control of the shoreline in a manner which it has been unable to accomplish alone. Under the plan the DNR is going to effectively control the shoreline through its agent the LMCD, and control public access to the lake by being the supervisor of the LMCD, with the Metropolitan Council having ultimate control over the rest of the activities in the LMCD plan. If this scenario is correct what is it that the LMCD as an advocate of the lake intends to advocate on its own authority, except for increased taxation and watered-down local control of the Board? CITY OP ORONO RESPONSE TO LMCD LONG TERM MANAGERIAL PLAN A. The City of Orono opposes the LMCD plan as 1) failing 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. The LMCD was created to be the agency immediately 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 implement environmental protection only after it accomplishes these goals. 2. The 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 for increases, e.g. Hennepin County Park at 168-170 new boats Minnetonka Boat Works 42-48 new boats, etc., plus unplanned others will bring the 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 misses, dangerous acts of intoxicated boaters, high wakes, ignoring of navigational rules, etc.; e. The .merical majority of the bays are already drastically overused (Tables 6 and 8); f. That there are indicators sailing may be being crowded off the lake, etc.; 3. g. Some boats are more environmentally harmful than others - e.g. large power boats vs. sailfish; yet the LMCD plan does not consider the environmental effect of these conditions or establish a standard for density or even consider the possible necessity for numerical limitations on particular types of boats. 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 particularly as a first priority, and as a precondition for future regulations. a. d. These matters have been the subject of several previous reports as stated in the plan, are the special concern of other agencies, and are not part of the mandate of the LMCD; While the implementation of those plans will have an effect upon the environment, an environmental plan is needed now, not afterwards; 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; So far as the environment is concerned, the LMCD should immediately: 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 rules, etc., and in safe operation of their boats through licensing of boaters and certification requirements - e.g. power squadron certification 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.; 5. 6. 6. Encourage parking in areas away from public access points by the users. Safety, a pollution free lake, an enjoyable ^ser experience, and aesthetic consideration affecting the lakeshore, and its roads, and the watershed are basic considerations. Milfoil is a distinct LMCD problem and LMCD should have control of it on the lake. 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 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. 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. While the present makeup of the LMCD board has inequities built into it which are readily 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. 62990.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator ------------ DATE: July 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Additional Comments Regarding LMCD Public Review Draft INTRODUCTION - The City feels that its previous comments remain appropriati~to the plan and that they should be addressed by the committee and in the document. Additional comments include the following areas: Clarity of Plan - The plan and its intent must be clear and un'am'biguous on its face. It should not be a plan that recuires participation in the process in order to understand or one that leads to multiple interpretations. The consultant may feel that the background of the work sessions and previous drafts would lend clarification to that. A plan however that is going to exist for even 10-11 years, long past the corporate recollection and memory of those who developed it, must be clear to the "unintiated reader". If it is not, it can have substantially different interoretat ions. One of those ambiguities not abundantly clear in the plan and raised by several of the cities both at this review stage and at the previous review stage, e tailed the LMCD's review and comment "authority”. It was news to many of us, including people who had been participants in the plan, that the review and comment authority was strictly a voluntary undertaking which each city could choose to undertake or reject. While a reading of the plan with that information can lead one to that conclusion, it was not abundantly clear from the plan. LMCD Authority - While the City may have previously 7aised the issue of the authority of LMCD to plan, its written support and LMCD's authority in its public comments. It may still however, challenge the appropriateness of implementing some of those objectives . Metro Council Authority and Plan Review - ! iile the ETHiTltant may dismiss this as irrelevant, this issue is very central to the plan review process and authority or LMCD. (I do not feel that the statute cite given in the Plan correctly gives Metro Council authority in the matter. It may, in fact, have authority but such would be under 473.165.) This issue is key for the City and should be for LMCD, not only as it relates to the present review of plan and what changes Metro Council can require be made in the plan, but also future changes in the plan and what changes by LMCD would be subject to C: Metro Council's further review. (The thrust of the City's comments in disc*.submission of this document to Metro Counci' - =erring to the "final review submission" bi* Council not the informational submission back ; » April.) To illustrate the City's point on clarity of authority there was still confusion on this point as to the exact role Metro Council had in its review at the Advisory Committee, June 28th meeting, when it was not clear by the consultant as to what effect Metro Council and its review would have. Thrust of Plan - The basic tenant of the plan is to develop means of increased regulation as the density increases. The plan however, did not address the following: Basis for Determining Density - The plan does not soecifically outline methology used as the basis for determining the density which is central to triggery the reviews. Issues include whether it is; a.) peak density or "average" peak, b.) total acres or "useable" acres, c.) how surveys are done (weekdays, weekends, nights, morning, afternoons, type of weather etc.) Once the consultant is no longer with LMCD does LMCD know how it will be determined. (Page 50 cites the busiest day 2,256 active boats 6.2 density - useable is 5.2. It goes on to state the average peak is 8.0 density but not methodology for determining it.) Active Promotion Versus _Reg u I a tion - In addition on ■the”thrust of the^plan the consultant has indicated the plan is not an active promotion of any powers that currently do not exist for LMCD, but a coordinated effort with LMCD regulating growth. Whenever an agency however, takes on as an objective for action an item, whether they have authority or not, this becomes a goal to which they work to attain. The "promotion by saying they are going to establish such goals for access is a different thrust than stating that there are these issues out there, there are other "actors with authority relating to them and that the LMCD will exercise its authority to appropriately control when they come into play. It should also be stated what activities, as far as access points that they specifically do not control. Review Process - Orono did participate in the process and provided substantial comments from August thru February to the initial separate drafts. In fact, the jresent public review document reflects suggestions made by this city in those reviews. Regardless of whether the city participated or not, the plan still needs to be abundantly clear on points so that those in the future may use it with the clear understanding of those who developed it. Authority Beyond Current LMCD Policy - If the document only encapuslates LMCj's current authority and that the plan in its objectives does not envision LMCD seeking any further authority it should clearly state that. This is not abundantly clear from the reading. In fact, the LMCD would need to attain additional statutory authority to undertake the revenue sources that it is proposing. Data on Density - unsafe Condition - The plan specifically states on page 40 that over 50% of those boaters identified unsafe situations in the survey. Ahile it goes on to state that they expect such conditions that expectation doesn't make it safe. Limitation on Boat Types - :^hile this may have been discussed and rejected, the City may go on record stating that in fact we disagree and that the plan should include that. l : I To: Proa: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members 71190.2 /eMark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrate July 11, 1990 Request for Site Visit Attachaeiit - . ^ ^ /oaA - City of Wayzata Letter dvd 6/1/90 ISSUE - 23 1990 nry of Determine if Council Members would desire to have a meeting on site with Wayzata Council Members of the land in Orono fo their proposed site. INTRODUCTION - Contained within Attachment A was a notation for a site visit by the City Council should they choose to do so. While i it appeared to be an open ended offer, the City of Wayzata by phone has indicated they would like a meeting with the Council on the site in the near future. DISCUSSION - The following represent considerations for such a meeting: A) Discussion with Wayzata Council^ This may allow ^or exchange of ideas" between both Councils as to relativ'e position, interests and concerns regarding such developmen . Discussion of such a facility may be premature,^ Given tL general issue of the location oi other gHTeTnmenta 1 facilities within Orono boundaries, it may be premature to discuss a specific facility prior conclusion of general policy to determine wnat conditions and controls would be attendant to that. Once that is done, it may be appropriate to have the facility considered within those parameters. C) Allowing a Wayzata facility., meeting were to encourage the Oror ^uncil to allow t of together with negative impacts on pending and future annexations of such facilities or at least the attendent land. I 'i Request for Site vic3»t July 13, 1990 Page 2 of 3D) Possible joint facility. Raised as a possibility byWayzata at the May 1990 meeting, the followinc; comments by the citizens committee at their June meeting, that may be relevant: - Location prcv^ldes difficult access to Orono* Such a site would require Orono vehicles to go either through Wayzata or Long Lake to reach destinations in Orono. - Community of interest. Historically sharing of services have been related more closely to cities of Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach and Long Lake and such a facility would make that more difficult with those cities. - Organizational savings. The savings the City may gain by a joint sharing of facilities with Wayzata may well be offset by not being able to share those facilities with rne balance of the City of Orono organization. Additionally, there may be ways to handle sharing of equipment and contract back and forth to gain many of the advantages that a joint facility may have. (An alternative would be to have Wayzata have a facility located further in Orono with a small sub ­ facility in Wayzata. J E) Highway 12 future corridor. As was pre* noted at the Council, Mr. William Crawford of nnesota Department of Transportation stated that thert iOt a pre ­ conceived corridor and that they have given no assurances that the p"o| ^rty sold tc wayzata would not be withiu -^he future coT ’^idcr. riowe* r if Wayzata were allowed to construct the facility, this may effectively forestall a southerly option or at least inclusion of this property in the corridor because of the potential expense to replace the public workt facility, particularly if they cannot locate a replacement in iffayzata. ^wfille Orono may w< ' - ij consider a moritorium in either the cc rridor study arei .. an eventual recommended corridor, it - o i only control the land in Orono ai.d Wayzata could sti i ^ . erhaps unwisely, build on the portion of this property w thin their own jurisdiction.) Request for Site Visit July 13, 1990 Page 3 of 3ALTERNATIVES - 1. Schedule an on-site visit. 2. Scnedule a joint meeting with•the Council, not necessarily entailing an on-site visit. 3. Indicate a willingness to do so once the general policy Issue has been discussed*and acted upon. 4. Table further consideration. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the general policy at least be discussed before Council has a meeting. It is anticipated that this discussion be presented to Council at its August 13, 1990 Council meeting, and a joint, on-site meeting be scheduled if Council is interested at that meeting. seconded by that the CouncilProposed Motion - moved by ___. _ ___ table discussion of this item until its August 13, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. MEB/tln cc; A1 Orson, City of Wayzata Administrator r " ^ CITY COUNCIL Rober: D. Ciivold Mayor Robert R Ambroic Richard C Harmon F. Retcr Herfurth Greiory D. Ryt CITY OF WAYZATA 600 RICE STREET. WAYjZATA- MINN. 55391 )[niniscio^^ij JUN 8 1990 Allan Often City Manager June 1, 1990 Mayor James Grabek City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Grabek: Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before the Council last Tuesday evening to informally present our proposed plans for a public works facility. We did rot expect support or approval of the proposed plans at this fxrst meeting, but also did not anticipate a nine- month moratorium. Our intent was to present the options available for development of the site and with direction and input from your Council develop a facility that would benefit both communities. Generally, an actual visit to a site provides a feel for the lay of the land, thus resulting in an even better exchange of xdeas and information to assist in the decision-making process. We would be more than happy to arrange a tour of the site to point out property lines, proposed building locations, and respond to any ques' .ons or concerns you or the Council may have. r> Mayor Grabek Page 2 June 1, 1990 Please contact City Manager A1 Orsen or Joan Smith of his office if you would like to arrange a time and date convenient to you and your Council. Sincerely, Robert D. Gisvold Mayor RDG/js cc: Council Members Eo Callahan J. Diann Goetten Alan R. Nettles Barbara J. Peterson Mark Bernhardson TO: 71890.4 79 Mayor and City Council I " * FROM: Mark E. Eernhardson, City AdministratoX^^ jUL23i990 DATE: July 19, 1990 -IT? Cr SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Process Attachment: N A. 1991 Budget Process Memo Dated 5/31/90 B. Strategic Planning Memo Dated 6/14/90 C. 1991 Budget Guidelines Memo (To be presented a Council meeting) D. 1991 LMCD Budget ISSUE - 1. Presentation of guidelines to Council regarding the 1991 budget. 2. Selection of a date for work session on budget and strategic planning. INTRODUCTION - Attachments A and B have previously been submitted to you and it is requested that a date be set in advance of the August 27th Council meeting on which the tax levy needs to be adopted. As you may recall from before, this is a maximum that can be established and that the Council can subsequently reduce that tax levy should it choose. This requirement is part of the 1991 Truth in Taxation requirements. DISCUSSION. - Possible dates include: Tuesday, August 21st Wednesday, August 22nd Thursday, August 23rd Saturday, August 18th Saturday, August 25th RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Coucil select a date for an initial budget discussion and goal setting. The LMCD Budget is for informational purposes only. Consideration of it will be during August. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Council establish as the date for consideration of Initial budget discussion for 1991. Ayes , Nays cc: Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director 53190.8 TO: PROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrat May 31, 1990 SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Process Attachment: ISSUE A. League of Minnesota Cities Excerpt/Truth in Taxation RequiLoments 1. Presentation to Council of the budget process for 1991. 2. Presentation to Council of initial estimates for budget consideration . INTRODUCTION - Given the alterations to the Truth in Taxation requirements Attachment A is presented for Council information. As a result of that the City's budget process dates will be as follows; * Preliminary budget information to 'ouncil by August 13, 1990 * Proposed 1991 tax levies and budget resolutions must be adopted at August 27, 1990 Council meeting. Also the City must select dates for the initial and continuation budget hearings to be held between November 15 and December 20, 1990 after receipt of infrcn^^tion from the County * Budget work sessions(s) with City Council and with staff in September - October * Publish notice of proposed property taxes before the hearing to be held between November 15 and December 20 * At budget hearing(s' Council must adopt final budget and property tax levies. (Note property tax levy adopted cannot exceed amount adopted at August 27 Council meeting, but may be lower at Council's discretion.) * City must certify the final budget and property tax levies adopted at budget hearing(s) to the County Auditor by Friday, December 29, 1990 DISCUSSION - It is anticipated that during this process the total General Fund tax levy increases the City would be limited to is $62,260 over 1990. Initial estimates place personnel/increase which make up about 70% of the budget at about 2 1/2 to 3%. Special considerations for the 1991 budget include: Financing of a new facility if any Introduction of flexible benefits Additions: Compliance with changed Comparable Worth mandates In addition there will be other specific items that will be identified for the 1991 budget as staff goes thr ugh the process during the summer months for presentation to Council with the preliminary budget information. Given the changes the City of Orono will be limited to 3.9 percentage increase in levy limits although there would be no penalty any more for exceeding the levy limit because the City has lost all of its Aid between the 1989 special legislative session and the 1990 regular legislative session. {The penalty for exceeding the levy limts was a loss of aid at the $.33 for every dollar exceeded.) ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Provide direction to staff if not in concurrence with their present direction. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It iS' recommended that the Council accept the information directing staff to establish initial bugetary numbers for the Council for consideration at the first meeting in August. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by_ _that Council accept the information directing staff to bring back initial tax and budget numbers at the first meeting in August. Ayes , Nays ~ ..-;-r^- ”;T . =Iji . i • •.". ■'.,3; l99pHruth in Taxation Timeline Requirements for ALL Cities l-'-L. - -;/ By: August 1 September 1 November 10 November - December November 15 - December 20 December 28 ...................... Department of Revenue notifie notifies cities of LGA amounts and allowable levy for cities under levy limits Cities certify proposed levy and budget to county auditor Cities select initial and continuation hearing dates Counties mall generic notices of proposed property taxes to all property owners, parcel- specific notices sent in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties Cities publish newspaper ads of their proposed levy All taxing jurisdictions hold public hearings Cities certify final levies Cities certify compliance with truth-ln taxation requirements to Department of Revenue V League^f MinnMbta CItlesiS/go rrrm:r ir^ iasiijiiirr,..__- " 61490.6 TO; Mayor and City Council VVSFROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoi^ DATE; June 14, 1990 SUBJECT; 1991 Strategic Planning t , Attachment; ISSUE - A. 1990 Adopted Strategic Plan B. Possible Ideas for 1991 1. Initiation of the strategic planning process for 1991. 2. Determination by Council of format that they would choose to use for the planning for 1991. INTRODUCTION - During the last several years in the late summer or fall Council has engaged in a strategic planning process to set both its short and longterm direction. This past year it was done in conjunction with the budget process so that the objectives to which there is a dollar cost may be decided upon during the budget process. DISCUSSION - Issue £1. - Process Initiation - In addition to presen'-ing the currently adopted goals Attachment B outlines ideas that could be possibly incorporated in a plan for next year based "initial brain storming" done on a staff level.' In addition the process is to generate discussion by CounciImembers on what objectives they would like to see in 1991. Issue #2 - Format for Strategic Planning include; I ternatives for this 1. Holding a separate meeting for full review of the strategic plan. 2. Do in conjunction with the regular Council meeting which would primarily focus on an update of the objectives currently found in the plan for 1991. 3. Handle the strategic planning in conjunction with a special meeting on the budget either prior to or subsequent to submission of the maximum for budgeting for 1991 as requried by Truth in Taxation. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information presented. 2. Select the desired format. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Suggest other objectives and/or modifications for the strategic plan in advance of further discussion on the matter. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council provide addrtTonal ideas for strategic planning for 1991 and either have the discussion as part of the regular Council meeting to update objectives or incoporate in the budget process at a special meeting held for that process. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Counci-l accept the information giving to staff additional ideas for 1991 and that the matter be scheduled in conjunction with the budget process. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Department Heads u OP OROHO 1939 STRAT egjj , prji„ statement - cmV”° 1° provide ................... /rrmt^ineur / «s rn an effect!communlt^" -^enTiL-i-..^. P-=eaa .. . -j nenn„ °°'"munltie currentProce, ®==™Plisf3, “* ^ selfish ^^stomer nri L«?^°yee?i “li^-tralned, exn».. _ — Vices; e I •" PersonneT , “ A selec^ ' customer orf^ '""‘"tenance of all - The an r Adop* 11/10/86 Revib-d 10/09/87 Revised 08/30/88 Revised 12/01/89 CITY OF ORONO EXTERNAL ANALYSIS - Increased private businesses delivery of traditional public services - Selected demands for service increases including mandates from external agencies such as soild waste management, comparable worth, truth in taxation and a restrictive financial climate - Increase communication and information links - Increased duplication of authority in selected areas - Increased development pressure due to transportation link upgrade and saturated second ring development Fluctuating State anJ growing metropolitan economies Pressure for jurisdiction increase by multiplicity of agencies (County, LMCD, Metro Council, etc.) Increasing development/ re-develop'^.eiit pressure ■'n lakeshcLe property INTERNAL ANALYSIS - Expertise in Contracting business both in and out with other entitites both public and private - Strong history and orientation of responsiveness to local citizenry/consumers Strong environmental commitment Need to strengthen continuity of staff through training and on-going information management systems Need to strengthen the organizational image both inside and outside the organization Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/09/87 Revised 08/30/88 Revised 12/01/89 CITY OF ORONO KEY STRATEGIC ISSUES 1. Ensure appropriate continuity and development of organizational members. 2. Determination of community development direction and process for the next five years. 3. Appropriate utilization of contrac.ting entities together with future exploration of improved sharing of services. Wh. .i such organizations are willing to cooperate on a mutua1 beneficial ba~sis. 4. Provide for the effective marketing and delivery of services. 5. Ensure appropriate comn .mications and information provision together with improved community identity. 6. Development of an appropriate financial policy. 7. Determine direction foll'owing completion of City facilities analysis program. 8. Achievement of goals for soild waste manar»emerit through improved recycling efforts. - Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/09/87 Revised 08/30/88 Revised 12/01/89 CITY OF ORONO 1989 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 1990 KEY ISSUE OBJECTIVES 1. Community Development Direction and Process - How Should We Develop? - Change Around Us - Storm’ Water Management - Commercial and Residential - Navarre - Highway 12 - Land Use - Potential Corridor for Upgrade - Safety Improvements - Re-zoning - Process and Control 2, Environmental Protection - Protection of significant lake and other natural amenities 3. Organizational Development - Stratrgic Plaritlng Direction 4. Service Delivery - Utilization of Contracting Ei»cities Provider Police Building/Zoning Inspections Utility - Public Works Back up Adrai”.: ration Asae^- 12.VI Garage Street Maint'?nance Recipient (Review Date/Frequenc*. I ' rial Fire (1992/10 yrs) ' "" (Police/Mutual Aid) Attorney (.1990/5) Engineering (1990/5) Planning (1991/5) Inspections (Back up) (1990/As appropriate) Auditor (1991/10) Assessing (1989/5) Managemer:t Irformarion Service (1992/5) Recyclinj (1990/5 yrs) Contractural Service isi.cn Review Criteria - Financial - Legal - Service Caperity - Adrii-' ir ion - Mai. ?• Human Resources Continuity and Staff Development - Maintain High Level of Continuity - Department Head Teamwork - Selective Hiring/Targeting/Flexibility - High Level of Staff Competency - In-House Training - Targeting Development - Overlap/Continuity - Policy Body - Staff - Management Information System Market/Delivery Level of Service - Realistic/Palatable Cost Market - - Other Communities - Within the Community - Means to Market - Alternative Delivery System - Targeting Communication and Information - Effective Delivery/Identity - Type of Information - Required (State/Local) - Desired - Media - Cable - Newspaper - Newsletter - Brochure (Parks, etc.) - Market - Available - Access - Information and Referral - Image - Means for Current Information S. Service DeliveryA. Golf course * Develop * Determi-je 5 year direction B. Assessing * Implement revised contractor/ arrangement C. Financial * Complete financial strategic plan D. Facilites Upgrade * Determine direction 10/89 03/90 01/90 01/90 10/89 (See facilities . ‘n ^ I * If undertaken commence construction ii/89 timetable) E. Service Reviews * Engineering * Legal 03/90 06/90 Human Resources A. Personnel Development * Formulate City Employee Development Policy * Explore performance incentive program * Explore IRS 125 * eompiy with IRS Section 89 requipemcnts * Implement Employee Recognition Program Marketing 04/90 06/90 02/90 Congress Repealed 01/90 61490.7 STRATEGIC PLANNING 1991 IDEAS Community Development Lake Use Selected Areas Witin City Authority Shoreland Regulations Lake Minnetonka Other Lakes Within the City's Boundries * Comprehensive Plan Revisions Accessory Structures Revision Navarre Area Beautification Decorative Christmas Lighting Signs Master Planning Transportation Highway 12 Corridor Selection Completion • Coordination with Community Transportation Plan Updctte Services Electrical Territory Determination Development of Geographic Base Data Explore Development of Ultimap System Development of Capital Equipment Replacement Policy 0 . - /lrTfm4ia/r'}) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERV/i 40? FA=-,T lake street WAYZATA MINNESOTA 5S391 I EUGENE R STnummt BOARD MEMBERS Oavid H Cochran. Chair Greenwood Albert O Foster, Vice Chair Oeephavon Jan Boswmkel. Secretary Minnetonka Beach John Lewman. Treasurer Minnetrista Douglas E. Babcock Spring Park Marvin Biorlin Tonka Bay James N Grathwol Eiicelsior JoEllen L Hurr Orono John G Malinka Victoria Thomas Martinson Wayzaia Robert K Pillsbury Minnetonka Robert Rascop Shorowood Thomas W Reese Mound Robert E Slocum Woodland June 28, 1990 fJUN 2 9 1990 TO: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES Your Board is pleased to enclose the 1991 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District budget. It has been certified by the LMCD Board of Directors at its regular meeting June 27, 1990. Revenue projections show decreases in Court Fines for 1991, reviewing forecasts based upon 1990 experience. Boating While Intoxicated citations tend to produce less revenue and more prosecuting costs. Licenses and permits will fall back to 1989 levels due to the morato­ rium in force through 1-31-92 on new dock licenses. Increases projected for 1990 will not materialize due to the moratorium. Shore- land Rules grant addition reflects the LMCD responsibility on facili­ tating the lake municipalities shoreland rules adoption process through 7-31-91. Budget expenses reflect a strengthening of staff through the addition of a full time administrative technician position which is effective in July 1990 as budgeted, and carried forward for a full year in 1991. Professional/Contract Services are similarly reduced reflecting con­ tract savings with the new administrative technician position. Office lease expenses reflect a provision for a new office lease in anticipated larger quarters. Consulting services for the long-term management program will be complete. Public information budget is being reduced, shifting a portion of that reliance to the non-profit "Save the Lake" funding potential. A contingency of $10,000 represents three (3) per cent of the budget, . viewed as exceptionally modecf. Eurasian water milfoil weed h'.-vesting obligations are continued at the 1990 level of $63,000, considering 5% for Inflation. Your Board representative. Chair Dave Cochran, and the Executive Director will welcome discussion of this 1991 budget. Your advance invitation to do so is encouraged. , (continued) LAKEMINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Municipalities June 28, 1990 Page 2 Minnesota Statute Chapter 907, Section 4, provides: "Expense of the district shall be borne by the municipalities. The portion of the expenses borne by each municipality shall be in proportion to its assessed valuation." Section 5 provides: The board of directors of the district shall on or before July 1 of each year, prepare a detailed bud"*»t of its need for the next calendar year and certify the budget on that date to the governing body of each municipality in the district together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The governing body of each municipality in the district shall review the budget, and the directors, upon notice from any municipality, shall hear objections to the budget and may, after the hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the municipalities of modifications or amendments. It shall be the duty of the governing body or board of supervi­ sors of each municipality in the district to provide the funds necessary to meet its proportion of the total cost to be borne by the municipalities as finally certified by the directors, the funds to be raised by any means within the authority of the municipalities and to pay the funds into the treasury of the district in amounts and at times the treasurer of the district may require. The municipalities may each levy a tax not to exceed one mill on the taxable property located therein, to pro­ vide such funds. Said levy shall be within all other limitations provided by law. Thank you for your positive support. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT John Lewman Treasurer enc » {•Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET 1989 1989 1990 1991 Budget Actual Budget Adopted REVENUE LMCD Communities $ 99,032 $ 99,032 $ 89,490 $103,825 Eurasian Water Milfoil •. -0-82,653 60,000 63,000) Court Fines )31,317 40,000 35,000 Licenses & Permits )65,185 80,000 65,000 Interest ) 119,990 7,716 10,000 8,000 Deposits on licenses & j>ermits )3,860 4,000 2,000 Other )1,679 3,000 1,000 Shoreland Rules, MN DNR Adoption, Grant -0--0--0-45,000 Shoreland Rules, MN DNR Admin/Cons.-0--0--0-15,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $219,022 $291,442 $286,490 $337,825 *Total LMCD communities = $166,825 DISBURSEMENTS Administration Personal Services Salaries $ 68,172 $ 70,196 $ 84,060^^^$100,500^*^ Auditing Services 650 750 750 775 Total Personal Services 68,822 70,946 84,810 101,275 Contractual Services Telephone 780 1,391 1,400 1,475 (c2,280'Postage 1,900 2,597 1,900 Printing, Legal Notices 2,850 ’ 930 2,500 2,000 Utilities 360 450 360 600^^ Maintenance, Office Equipment 900 1,206 1,500 1,600 Provision for computer equip, maint.-0--0--0-1,800 Janitorial Services 780 637 720 9,080^^ 900^^^ Professional/Contract Services 10,800 4,-111 5,800• Total Contractual Services 18,370 11,322 17,460 16,455 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET - Continued 1989 Budget 1989 Actual 1990 Budget 1991 Adopted Commodities & Supplies Office Supplies 2,100 9,285 2,500 2,625 General Supplies 380 1,472 400 450 Subscriptions 490 180 210 210 Total Commodities & Supplies 2,970 10,937 3,110 3,285 Lease, Insurance, Employee Benefits Office Lease 3,600 3,600 4,140 5,400 Provision for new office lease -0- -0- -0-4/200 Insurance and Bonds 3,300 4,077 3,500 5,050 Employer Contributions 12,300 10,548 13,810^^^14,800 Mileage, Expense, Training 1,360 1,151 1,300 2,360 Total Lease, Insurance, Employee Benefits 20,560 19,376 22,750 31,810 Capital Outlay Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment 1,800 350 2,500 3,000^ Total Capital Outlay 1,800 350 2,500 3,000 Total Administration 112,522 112,931 130,630 155,825 Legal Legal Services 18,000 13,643 18,000 20,000 Prosecution 14,500 20,043 13,500 20,000 Process Service -0-206 1,400 500 Total Legal 32,500 33,892 32,900 40,500 Consulting Services Long-Term Management Program 30,000 145,011 42,960^^^^^^-0- Shoreland Rules -0--0--0-12,500 Total Consulting Services 30,000 145,011 42,960 12,500 Committees Studies, Lake Inspection, Reports 4,000 1,696 5,000 4,000 Public Information 15,000 2,457 15,000 5,000 Total Committees 19,000 4,153 20,000 9,000 ' 1 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET - Continued Contingency Contingency Total Contingency Deposit Refunds Deposit Refunds Total Deposit Refunds Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program EWM Harvesting Program Total Euraaian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program Shoreland Rules Shoreland Rules, City Reimbursement Total Shoreland Rules, City Reimb, TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS ^^^Transferred $3,000 from Consulting Service to support salary for Administrative Technician position addition. ^^^Average increase figured at 5%. ^^^Projecting 20% postage cost increase. ^'^^Includes provision for enlarged office space. (^^Transferred $1,000 from Professional/Contract Services to Salaries. (f) 1989 Budget 1989 Actual 1990 Budget 1991 Adopted 25,000 -0--0-10,000 25,000 -0--0-10,000 -0--0--0-2,000 -0--0--0-2,000 -0-82,653 60,000 63,000 -0-82,653 60,000 63,000 -0--0--0-45,000 -0--0--0-45,000 $219,022 $378,987 $286,490 $337,825 Transferred $2,000 from Consulting Service to Employer Contributions to support Administrative Technician position. (^^Anticipating-computer equipment addition, partial donation, plus software and operator training, office furniture and files additions. 6-28-90 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland Total Net Tax Capacity $ 5,558,790 2,526,823 1,116,512 67,212.191 1,593,049 4,767,438 6,941,044 12,892,214 7,197,406 1,922,112 2,694,546 2,094,664 8,003,606 1,670,620 $126,191,015 7. of Total Net Tax Capacity 4.41 2.00 .88 53.26 1.26 3.79 5.50 10.22 5.70 1.52 2.13 1.67 6.34 1.32 100.007. % of Budget Resulting from $33,365 Maximum to Minnetonka 7.55 . 3.43 1.49 *20.00 2.16 6.47 9.41 17.49 9.76 2.61 3.66 2.84 10.86 2.27 100.007. Share of $166,825 199i Budget $ 12,585 5,718 2,526 33,365 3,605 10,784 15,706 29,173 16,287 4,349 6,097 4,740 18,110 3,780 $166,825 *Maximum of $33,365 6-28-90 r coateeJUL 23 1990 ?’»ry nir n^Qf^Q Table until the August 13, 1990 meeting. 71890.1 -i' / ■1 TO:Mayor and City Council 1 4 FROM:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator\A^JUL 23 1990 DATE:July 18, 1990 s-ilY OF ORCMO ..SUBJECT:Assessing Services - Contract Addendum Attachment: A. Assessing Services Contract Dated 1/1/90 B. Assessing Services Contract AddenduirTTl - Proposed ISSUE - Insertion of a termination clause in the contract. DISCUSSION - Mr, Smith has agreed to an addendum that would insert a 90 day notice of contract termination as outlined in Attachment B. Staff would recommend approval of this. PROPOSED MOTION — Moved by _, seconded by _, Council approves adoption of Addendum #1 of the Assessing Services Contract as outlined in Attachment B, Ayes _, Nays cc: Paul Smith, Assessor 12/22/89 [ ttpoM A ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 1st day of January, 1990, by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Paul Smith & Associates, hereinafter called "ASSESSOR". 1, Employment. The City, which is a separate Assessment District in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, does retain and employ the ASSESSOR to perform all functions required of local assessors by Minnesota state statutes, cooperate with the Hennepin County Assessor by supplying the needed information for each assessment year, and maintain a fair and equitable assessment for the CITY and its taxpayers . 2. Functions of Employment. Functions of employment shall include; 1) Effective communication with residents, business people, and city officials regarding agreement practices and policies. 2) Physically inspect and revalue 25% of the REAL property as required by law. 3) Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and renovations. 4) Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review. Approximate dates - March and April. » 5) Attend Board of Review. Per Board request, make all necessary review appraisals. 6) Keep updated filed card file - current values, homestead and classification data. 7) Print, mail and post full year homestead cards. Process midyear homestead applications. 8) Respond to taxpayer regarding assessment or appraisal problems or inquiries periodically during contract term. 9) Make divisions and combinations periodically during contract term. 10) Initiate, for the taxpayer, abatement application periodically during contract term, as requested. 11) Make appraisals for, testify or negotiate all district court or tax court filings, periodically during contract terms. 12) Post values from appraisal cards to assessment rolls. 13) Valuation of all parcels in the City each year. 14) Analysis of property sales. 15) Preparing assessment runs. 16) Reviewing properties at taxpayer's request. 17) Attend, not to exceed, three council meetims in addition to the Local Board of Review meetings. 18) Provide when requested appropriate information and/or referral for persons requesting property appraisal related information. Sucn may in conjunction with the City be provided on a fee for service basis. 3. Performance of Services. The manner and the method used in the performance of services to be provided by ASSESSOR shall be under the exclusive control and direction of the ASSESSOR. The ASSESSOR in performance of services shall not (1) be required to maintain office hours, (2) receive retirement benefits, (3) health insurance benefits, and (4) any other fringe benefits. 4. Equipment. ASSESSOR shall provide- 1) His/her own transportation as he/she deems necessary for performance of services. He/she has 2 telephone lines (1 incoming/1 outgoing) for his/h*ir business and will provide the City with a FAX number if one is utilized in the business. CITY shall provide: Necessary filing area for purpose of maintaining required city assessment records. All c : the equipment and supplies necessary or required for performance of services set forth in this Agreement, including a 1979 or later set of aerial photographs. Pay for all direct expenses, including those forms and supplies, film, aerials and other miscellaneous and homestead material and postage. 5. Compensation. The CITY agrees to pay the ASSESSOR for such services the sum of $33,848 for the period 1 January, 1990 to 31 August, 1990, payment shall be in 8 monthly installments of $4,231.00, commencing the last day of January, 1990, and continuing on the last day of each month thereafter through August, 1990. For the period 1 September, 1990 to 31 August, 1991 payment shall be in 12 monthly installments of $4,442.50, commencing the last day of September, 1990, and continuing on the last day of each month thereafter through August, 1991. 6. Minnesota-Statutes. This Agreement has been entered into in consideration of the obligations and requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes as the same apply to real estate assessing procedures. Both parties agree that any major changes in such requirements during the term of this Agreement shall necessitate a renegotiation of the compensation called for herein. 7. Representation by Assessor. w • 1) ASSESSOR represents that he/she is a Certified and Licensed Minnesota Assessor under Chapter 273 of Minnesota Statutes and that he/she is a qualified real estate appraiser; further, that he/she will during all times this contract is in force maintain such licneses and qualifications. 2) ASSESSOR agrees to attend the Local Board of Review Meeting on a date selected by the CITY, plus attendance at not more than three other City Council meetings in any one year. 3) ASSESSOR certifies that he/she has vopropriate liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000. 8. Effective Date of Agreement and Term. This Agree­ ment shall be effective as of January 1, 1990, and employment of the ASSESSOR to perform the services to be rendered hereunder shall commence as of January 1, 1990, for the performance of the 1991 and 1992 real estate assessment, and continue until August 31, 1991; subject, however, to extension as hereinafter provided. 9. Agreement Extension. This Agreement may be extended from year to year on terms to be agreed upon by the parties hereto by the parties agreeing in writing to the same on or before the first day of of August each year thereafter. If this Agreement is not so extended and terminates according to its terms, ASSESSOR agrees to deliver to CITY forthwith such records in an up to date manner as he has in possession concerning assessment of the CITY’s real estate. It being understood that such records are the property of the CITY. 10. Independent Contractor. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the re 1«jtionship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the ASSES'SOR as the agent, representative or employee of the CITY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. ASSESSOR is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. ASSESSOR represents that he/she has, or will secure at his/her own expense, all personnel required in performing services in this Agreement. Any and all personnel of ASSESSOR or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required from the ASSESSOR under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the CITY and shall not be considered employees of the CITY and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the ASSESSOR, his/her officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the CITY, and ASSESSOR shall defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the CITY including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave. Workers' Compensation, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay and P.E.R.A. 11. Hold Harmless. ASSESSOR agrees that he/she will hold the CITY, its officers and employees harmless from any claims, suits or damages resulting from or caused by any act or omission of the ASSESSOR, his/her officers, agents, contractors or employees in the performance of the responsibilities provided by this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the year and date above stated. CITY OF ORONO 1A 1 City administrator ADDENDUM #1 Section 8 Assessing Services Contract is deleted with the following clause submitted. 8* Date of Agreement and Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 1990, and employment of the ASSESSOR to perform the services to be rendered hereunder shall commence as of January 1, 1990, for the performance of the 1991 and 1992 real estate assessment, and continue until Augu-c 31, 1991; subject, hoeever, to extension as hereinafter provided. Either party may terminate this agreement on 90 days written notice. CITY OF ORONO Mayor Date City Administrator ASSESSOR Date Mayor and City CouncilTO: FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: July 18, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information 718^0.2 \ V 2 3 i930 19 72 SHADYWOOD ROAD - To date the City is still awaiting word from the Judge on tin is matter. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES TERRITORIES - Staff met with representatives from Wright Hennepin on July 11, 1990 to discuss the possibility of territorial shifts and rates. Wright Hennepin outlined that given the various credits that can be taken, that in the period from May through September, that their rate schedule is not substantially different on average than those of NSP. However, NSP has a lower rate as noted in the attachement between October and May. Wright Hennepin has not changed their rates for 10 years and does not expect to change rates for a considerable period of time. NSP on the other hand has currently an approximately 7% increase and unsure as to what increases they may have in the next five to ten years. The reason Wright Hennepin, which used to be lower than NSP's, are where they are at is because Wright Hennepin together with 13 other Cooperatives went together as United Power Association and built a power plant and transmission line from North Dakota. With this move they feel will last ther for a considerable period of time. On the other hand NSP whi > generally has older generating plants and nuclear plants may be faced with higher rates in the longterm future to update or replace and/or mothball such facilities. As far as territory, Wright Hennepin indicated that they had no desire to give up any territory and there did not seem to be any present possiblity of territorial swaps. A discussion with NSP's representative in a subsequent telephone conversation indicated that in the near future the two may get together to see if such could be identified. Staff will keep Council apprised cf any developments. PETERSON/STODOLA - As you may recall the City denied the owners of this property to have a stand-alone dock. They were directed to remove it in the spring of '89 and after they failed to remove it warning tickets wore issued. This subsequently came to court OR July 13, 1990. The defendents attorney attempted to make a motion to have the criminal matters delayed until a civil matter that he had filed on July 10, 1990 could be considered. The Judge denied that, and the defendents have agreed to remove the dock by August 13, 1990. Attached is a copy of the civil lawsuit which was received by the City on July 18, 1990. This will be referred to the City's insurance company. HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY - Attached is the timetable presented Ey the consultant at the Technical Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 1990. In a related note the staff has delayed until the August 13, 1990 meeting consideration of a transportation consultant for the City in relation to an upgraded Highway 12. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Other Civil uISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT - - - - - - - File No. Richard Stodola and Merritt J. 066T 9 T Tnc Peterson, ***• Plaintiffs, vs. City of Orono, ij^^QEMsnn)rn SUMMONS Defendant. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: You are hereby summoned and required to answer the Complaint of the Plaintiff in the above-entitled proceeding, which Complaint is attached and herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer to the said Complaint on the subscribers at their office, 305 Brookdale Corporate Center, 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430, County of Hennepin, within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service, and if you fail to answer the said Complaint within the time aforesaid, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. DATED:1990 CARSON AND CLELLAND Carson; ID #1543X Attooiiey for Plaintiffs 305 Brookdale Corporate Center 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430 (612) 561-2800 ! STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Richard Stodola and Merritt J. Peterson, ther Civil DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT File No. Plaintiffs, vs. City of Orono, COMPLAINT Defendant. Plaintiffs for their cause of action herein state and allege: I. That Plaintiff Richard Stodola resides at 5709 Bluebird Lane, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 and Plaintiff Merritt Peterson resides at 4722 West Farhills Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345? that Plaintiffs are partners in the partnership known as Coffee Landings and that said partnership owns the property conunonly known as 1895 Shadywood Road and legally described as: Lots F 6 G of RLS (Registered Land Survey) 1216 (hereinafter "subject property"). II. That Defendant is a Minnesota municipal corporation duly organized and constituted under the laws of the State of Minnesota with principal offices at 1335 South Brown Road, Orono, Minnesota. III. That Plaintiffs have owned subject property since 1987; that at the time Plaintiffs purchased the subject property there existed on the property one boat dock; that said boat dock had been constructed by a previous owner and was a lawful, non­ conforming use on subject property at all times relevant herein. IV. That the existing boat dock on the subject property was used by an adjacent neighbor named Glenn Tillotson whose address is 1875 Shadywood Road; that Tillotson used the boat doc on Plaintiffs' property with permission of Plaintiffs. V. That sometime in 1988 Plaintiffs caused a second boat dock to be constructed adjacent to subject property; that thereafter in May of 1988 representatives of Defendant contacted Plaintiffs and advised them that the second boat dock was not a permitted use; that following meetings with City staff, including Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Plaintiffs were advised to apply for a "lot area variance" for subject property; that Plaintiffs were advised by Mabusth that this administrative step was necessary for consideration of the second dock; that administra­ tive memorandum issued by Mabusth indicate that although Plaintiffs were advised and directed to make the lot area vari­ ance, there was no real possibi.lity of the application being successful, that the purpose of the application was to bring the issue to the forefront and to determine what beneficial use of the property would be permitted by Plaintiff. VI. That Administrator Mabusth advised Plaintiffs that Defendant's existing Ordinances required all boat docks to be -2- constructed as accessory uses and that principal structures would first be required; further, Mabusth advised that no principal structure could be placed on subject property; nevertheless, the variance procedure was recommended and followed. VII. That during the administrative review process, Zoning Administrator Mabusth, through memorandum, recognized that other non-conforming docks existed within the City; that Administrator Mabusth recognized that the pre-existing dock on subject property was a legal, non-conforming use; that Mabusth recommended against approval of Plaintiffs' application citing the requirement that without a principal structure, the dock should not be allowed. VIII. That Defendant City has allowed and continues to allow the construction and use of boat docks on parcels of land that do not contain principal structures; that these parcels of land that contain boat docks do not qualify for principal structures but have nevertheless been permitted by Defendant. IX. That on August 22, 1988, the Orono City Council passed a Resolution of Denial to Plaintiffs' application citing, among other things, that the adjacent neighbor (Tillotson) had already established a boat dock on the property; that Defendant also supplied Plaintiff with a memorandum from the City stating that it would be lawful for the City to consider Plaintiffs' applica­ tion as a "non-use variance" and that this type of variance would not violate the purpose and intent of the City Code or State -3- statute; nevertheless, Defendant did not consider Plaintiffs' application in this light and in fact Defendant never considered Plaintiffs' application other than as a lot size variance; that administratively Defendant had indicated in its inception that this application could not be granted. X. That Defendant's Ordinances relating to the issues herein are vague, confusing and ambiguous; that Defendant itself during Plaintiffs' application process interpreted the Ordinances and regulations under which they were considering Plaintiffs' appli­ cation in contradictory ways; that Defendant has interpreted the same Ordinances under which Plaintiffs' application exists to permit boat docks on land without principal structures. XI. That Defendant did not, in accordance with its original application instructions, determine a reasonable use for subject property, but rather directed Plaintiffs to combine their land with the land adjacent or, in the alternative, told Plaintiffs to use the property for picnics. XII. That following the Resolution of Denial in August of 1988, Plaintiffs applied for a "shared use dock" with the adjacent property owner Tillotson; that the pre-existing dock used by Tillotson but located on Plaintiffs' property was a lawful, non- conforming dock being used by Tillotson with permission of Plaintiffs. XXIII. That at a City Council meeting in December of 1988, -4- Plaintiffs were told that they would not be granted a shared use with Mr. Tillotson but advised Plaintiff to nevertheless proceed with a lot realignment so that the resultant parcel would permit Tillotson ownership of the property upon which the non-conforming dock existed. XIV. That the lots that are found in RLS 1216 were lawfully created and recorded and retain non-conforming or grandfathered rights relating to their use. XV. That during and following the original application process by Plaintiffs, Defendant determined that the original dock (used by Tillotson) should be removed and so ordered removal by Tillotson, this, even though Defenoant recognized and was aware that said dock was lawful and non-conforming and that the dock was located on the property owned by Plaintiffs and not by Tillotson. XVI. That Defendant ordered Tillotson to trespass upon the property of Plaintif s and remove the pre-existing dock; that Tillotson was threatened with criminal prosecution for failure to remove this dock even though Tillotson had been advised by Plaintiffs not to remove said dock; that fearful of criminal reprisal, Tillotson entered upon the property owned by Plaintiffs and removed the pre-existing, non-conforming dock from Plaintiffs' premises; that this was done sometime in November of 1989. -5- XVII. That there are no specific standards or criteria in the City for applicants to meet in either of the applications Plaintiff made; to-wit lot area variance or shared dock proposal; that the act of denial by Defendant in these applications was arbitrary and capricious and in no way related to public health, safety and welfare concerns; that Defendant ignored advice by its own counsel that it could permit Plaintiffs a non-use variance and never advised Plaintiffs of this opportunity; that Plaintiffs' application was never considered in light of a non-use variance and Plaintiffs' application for shared use with Tillotson was not considered in light of any specific criteria or standards. XVIII. That Defendant unlawfully demanded removal of the valid, non-conforming boat dock on the premises of Plaintiff by Mr. Tillotson. COUNT ONE Illegal Removal of Non-Conforming Boat Dock 1. That Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs I through XVIII above. 2. That Defendant's conduct in ordering removal of the lawful non-conforming boat dock on the premises of Plaintiffs was illegal. COUNT TWO Unconstitutional Taking 1. That Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs I through XVIII above. -6- 2. That the unlawful removal of the boat dock by Defendant, together with the unreasonable manner in which Defendant has restricted Plaintiffs' use of their land amount to an unconstitu­ tional taking of Plaintiffs' property without compensation in violation of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and the Constitution of the United States. COUNT TERES Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct 1. That Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs I through XVIII above. 2. That the aforementioned conduct by Defendant amounts to arbitrary and capricious conduct towards Plaintiffs and is there­ fore unlawful and unenforceable. COUNT FOUR Vague and Ambiguous Regulations 1. That Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs I through XVIII above. 2. That Defendant's Ordinances relating to the permissible use and construction of boat docks are vague and ambiguous and therefore unenforceable against Plaintiffs. COUNT FIVE Denial of Equal Protection 1. That Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in paragraphs I tnrough XVIl^ above. 2. That the actions by Defendant toward Plaintiffs have been done under the color and authority of the Government in violation of §1983, Title 28, of the United States Code for -7- ; which Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages as a result of said conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgment of this Court against Defendant as follows: A. Determining that the actions of Defendant in ordering removal of the non-conforming dock from Plaintiffs' property was unlawful and ordering lat Plaintiff be permitted to reconstruct said non-conforming dock. B. Determining that the actions by Defendant City were arbitrary and capricious towards Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs have the right to keep their existing dock on subject property, in addition to reconstructing the non-conforming dock that was unlawfully removed. C. Ordering that the actions by Defendant are a denial of protection afforded Plaintiffs under §1983, Title 28, of the United States Code; further, that Plaintiffs are entitled to money damages for said violation in excess of $50,000.00. D. Determining that the Ordinances and Regulations of Defendant City pertaining to permissible use and construction of boat docks are not enforced uniformly against against all persons amounting to an equal protection violation under both Minnesota and United States Constitutions; and ordering that Plaintiffs have the right to keep and maintain their existing boat dock and reconstruct the lawful non-conforming boat dock that was unlawfully removed. E. Determining that the unlawful removal of the non- conforming boat dock by Defendant, together with the manner in which Defendant has restricted Plaintiffs' reasonable use of -8- their property amount to an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs' property without compeiisation in violation of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and the Constitution of the United States; further, ordering an award of money damages to Plaintiffs for said unconstitutional taking in excess of $50,000.00. F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair, just and equitable, under the circumstances hereof. DATED;/7, MO CARSON AND CLELLAND Jeffrey^T Carson; ID #1543X Attoi^ey for Plaintiffs 305 Brookdale Corporate Center 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430 (612) 561-2800 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action herewith acknowledge that this Court may award costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees and witness to any opposing party if it is found tnat a party and/or his attorney has acted in bad faith, asserted a claim or defense that is frivolous and which is costly to another party, asserted an unfound position solely to delay the ordinary course of proceedings or to harass or commit a fraud upon the Court. DATED: CARSON AND CLELLAND Jeffye;^j^%. Carson; ID #1543X Attorney for Plaintiffs 305 Brookdale Corporate "enter 6300 Shingle Creek Parkv,'ay Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430 (612) 561-2800 -9- STATE OF MINNESOTA) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) VERIFICATION Richard Stodola and Merritt J. Peterson, being first duly sworn upon oath state as follow: That they are the Plaintiffs the above action; that they have read the foregoing Complaint, know and understand its contents, and, to the best of their knowledge, verily believe the same to be true in all respects. Richard Stodola / Miitt J. Peterson JEFFREY A. CARSON NOTABV PU8UC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COONTY CooimlMtoo Exptns Jun# 11.19W jjjffffn r ................................................... TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY - TH 101 TO TH 25 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES Activity Estimated Completion Date 1.ORGANIZATION Establish Committees/Roles/Process Aug. 1990 : 2.IDENTIFY STUDY AREA GOALS/ISSUES/CONCERNS Meet with representatives(s) of affected agencies, cities and groups Aug. 1990 3.PREPARE EVALUATION CRITERIA (Based upon goals, issues and concerns) Aug. 1990 4.IDENTIFY POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE CORRIDORS (500 ’ wide) 5.DATA COLLECTION/M.APPING Sept. 1990 6.SCREEN CORRIDORS Preliminary evaluation of potentially feasible corridors based upon evaluation criteria (reduce number of corridors to maximum of six) Oct. 1990 7.PREPARE PRELIMINARY LAYOUTS OF REMAINING O DORS Nov. 1990 8.IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF EACH CORRIDOR Dec. 1990 9.PREPARE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT (SD) (Project need, alternatives considered, issues, potential impacts) Jan. 1991 10.PREPARE DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT (SDD) (proposed alternatives, issues, impacts and special studies to be addressed in EIS) Jan. 1991 i 1 1 11.REVIEW DRAFT SD AND DRAFT SDD Feb. 1991 j 12.HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING I March 1991 | 1 13.REVIEW/REVISE DRAFT SDD May 1991 j 14.APPROVE SDD June 1991 | 15.SELECT PREFERRED CORRIDOR July 1991 1 UlTO/SOIEOULEXMO ______________________i LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF July 23, 1990 CGlIffCfL [*JtEEslHG JUL 23 1990 -ir/ nr oROf’O No licenses . • I i ;^ i ' • ^ : .-.^ ..< <„.--------vr■'•^ t-V '^-.■.-■r.*.,-. '■r. - ■•• ■ ■•.■■• ••.■•■•I■ •'3Ul-23-t99r)- ••■'■■ ^'-^r::C>....v ... ''■:* «».?. >,.. •• i' v-f •■ c * ■ v-‘•'i- CURRENT GROSS V . • '• !>A •.* y... •> . ....'. » 't r* ‘ . ^ • YTD GROSS •/•C.■*'■ , ' -—'J. > • '.* r '/.i: •• •.. :;;v: lUo < lU 3o z 5 2 Vi <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzsisififssffssfss CO CO_i -to<<<<<<u13 3 333 3mZZzzzZ ««a SSS <mmXXXXXX« zzzzzzzzzzz I 0 oo 1 a. «>o m > z in ►-< «n l> lO Z in 3 r» O ^ U Io< o o 0 1oo 0 1oo>o 4^•Hmn<*>mr>r><9mo)o>a> • I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I ooio>oia>-4in-4u>^tno>oo>orio Nnin<oo»>^^CNi(Mh«eo^o^(no) 00000-<*-<-H-<-^-^<MiM»n«riin I I I I I • I u • I I I I I I • (M CM <M (M rv CM eg CM (V CM CM (M fM (M rvi I I I ) I I I I I I I I I I • I •g OOO to -M cn OOO o C 1 1 i I 1atOftOOOoOftCMOOOo>o —c OOO l/>1 t i ) I 1cnoOCMCMr><<OCMCM ncnCMmCMCMro< 1 < 1 CnCMCMIII •—1 «<CM< O O CMCn^mr*--g»ig-g-M»g-g ^ ^ ^ ^ _4 (o, r>) m cn f«i cn I I I I I I I I I I I o>oo»o>p>'gtn>g<D^«* cn «» m ID o> >4 ^ CM CM r» r». • I I I I I I I I CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM . . . . . .I I I I I I ooooooooooo zo DCo Vi UJo X ID DC<z l-l X ID Vi te iii CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM —I ^ tM -4 ^>4 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I I I I I I I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ID CO ID-iD CD ID CD ID CD CD ID CO CO CO CD <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< OOOOCJ<JOOOC,MJUOUCJOi-cc-gi-ci-ii-ci-ck-HiHMi-o-ii-ti-o-ti-ti-t lklkli.U.U.U.Ii.U.li.li.U.lJ.U.li.li.liL ocooo Vi oom <<<XXX XXX<<< locncn ID ID ID <<< cnenen CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM lOCDCDCOCDCDCDCOCOCDCO <<<<<<<<<<<oouoooouuoo U-U.lkU.li.li.U.U.lDlkLl. o ID DC 0 ID 1u 2 Xu o UJ 2 ozoceo ll.o »-*u o Oft Oft OCo Clz ID> Vi 3v>- X ID I oooo mm< < z 3 < <a 0 01 <a cncooo Oft Oft r^c». </)C/ft(/)l/)C/>(/ft(/)C/)(/)C/>(/>(/)(/)(/)C/)C/I5c:i£:xxx5c::«:xxie:x5c:«::c:c:^ CDflDODOLODCDCDGQCDCOGDCDCDCDCSCD ssisisiiissssiii </)(/>i/)tnin<n(/u/)</)in</>D)(/>(n(/>m OcMO'^r^CM«o-^OcMm*-icoc»ooOcD oeooeocn<t<m^coo<c*i'4«t<o> <cDCMCDioc*ftmf*><-ccoeer»mcomf^e> ■-•CD ID m-H CMOO>^COO<OMCMC« **» CM < m-« CM-^ o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o>c7)o>cnoicno>o)C7i<noftO>oftaio>oft mmmmcoiocDcDcDcocDCDcococDCD 0)0>0)0)0>D>OftOIO>C7>0>C7)0>a)OftCTI CDCDCDCOIDCOCDCDCDCDCDIDCDIOIDCD coeooooocooooocoeoaftMeoooeoeooo UOCJOOOCJUOUOOOC OOOO OOOO OOoo CD CD COO <cMm-c oo -gcM-nm ^ < coco mmcDcamcDCDODmoDoa <<<<<<<<<<<zzzzzzzzzzz c/)(ncnto(n(n(/i</)(/)i/)c/) -*<r».OCOOO»CDCOCOCO COIDCDCMm<CM<a0CDlD OOCMCMmmcoCMCD-4COCO CO mcMm-g cmoo CO CM mm oou I XX cn <lOiTun (Ot»Oft o> o> o O) CO ID U»<0(0 (DeoM00 oo oo OO O o OOO UXIXIIX OOOOOOOOOOO OftOftOftOftOftOftOftOftOftOftOft CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO ooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOO eocoooeooooooeeoeoeoeo OOOOOOOOOOO o lii U. S C9 to < to o m at rt d CM• o. o m lA Xo to o to o to o to to o >z oz ►“z=>oo <T>uo oo CO CO (MCMCM O) o> O) fM«MCsl I I I CJCOCO OCOCO« ^ «c t I I •~4 —4 —« ooo 00 o> 00 oo t I 0)0 O-M 0)0> 1 I 00 CM CM <O«0 1 I (0(0 <*«» o CM n<* CD CM CMo 00 1^ CO —« —4 0)0) <D CD OO • I COCO CO CO OOO OOO I I I m in m (0(0(0 I I I (0(0 0) ooo> CO CO CO -MCM I I OO) Om» CM CM t I MCinoo coco ) I —4 —4 oo zo»—»—»—ooo Z ►> 1zoooo(/)tO-4Z(/> o h*uuo ►-4 H *-4 CD CD 1 1 Oa UI lu Z >-) C ) 1aU.U.U.-M —4 o a.O^-tCLoU-tUtL 1 1 z o QC (/) XQC(/)cc <<<OO OO to 4 —1 -J-J U. UJ Ui(J CO —1 -J UJ ft: cr ck: 1- ►-1-»-»-UIz Z V, o. UI>OO< <o XUJo<m H’<eetea: zz 4-4 4—4 0 1 u ►-4 X UJ UI O zz o>-<^z r u. Z ►M 4-4 4-4 4-4 <<<oo a. UI o u mz r zz </4 00 UJ30 Q1UJ-J Q.Q.(L zz _i z z o -I < <Z (/)O <UJ LJ UJ oo UI <o 4—4 4-4 a: Q£3 O UJOocacKmm1-to U to U.ooo oe Ui h- i o UI o o b. to to ae u.z ooo UI <o to to~l 4-4 4-4 4-4 4-4 Z ►-2 2oa:acae o z o OOuO<4—4—4—UI o u.to c/>UI 4—OOO JCkC UJ o to3»O o UlUl UI zz •J o O'O'■4 *0uacto-JO-J <4 £*-•ae *lJ XoeQ.UJ UlUI UI mm £CD m oOoae zz acora:zz u 1z z 4 UJz 44 4-4 (—4z UJ <*-4-4 X <<< 4-4-4-44 OO ►-to o to u o 88>to 1 tocnto 4-4 4-4 UI a:Nl XXoa: ft:•a l-t LlJ —I H-OO—J a:_i_i_i LUUI o o a:< <_i u -j-i-j XX ►-o z 4 •J —J—J<<<<<44 <4 4 UI CD CD CD to to to (ijUiUJ »-»—H- <<< »-4 1-4 »-4 888 (/unto to to to •O*0*0 zzz IIIcrcKoe<<<OOOcomm tfO. oe< ujO ZU UJLU ft: to OOzz («JUJ zz to to<< LUU4zz LJUi to to ooocas 88 acoc *- *— cnto UJtJ 88mm oo m m 04 CD O) CD ^ -Hin r>« r-oo oooo a>r)(Nj in m (0(0 COM •-I-M COCO <0(0(0 40 (0(0 <0(0 r> O o r)oocg mcM» CDCorsj 44 ««a a €a OO OO COCO (0(0 OOO O m CO OO CO o in in (0(0 oo ooo O C- -MOO CM CM <0(0 4 4 •M-M r>oo-^in CO CD o COCO 00 00 4 4 m m iD ^cMMtnr^ CM CM COCO ooo-ho OCn. 0(0 Ooo Or^ o o V. Z oo O -4 fe uj 's. O c» < o O ® >- oh- Z U Z in U O O LlI O (D I (DUO CM O <D OOO O CD CD OO CD CD OO CD CD C- C-. oo (Oo O*»o CM oo CD CD ooo OOO (mcmcm m oo •■00 CD ft 4 in in «OOO ftm<M CM ■ft CO n n ft CO CO CO ft f- I-. I>-ftmOOftoftoooftOo o ft ooo ft«4 4 «ft 4 4 ft 4 4 4 ft 4 4 4«OO ft o ft O o O ft O oo ft OOO ft•4NCM «rsi ft CM CM CM ft CM CM CM ft CM CM CM ft oo CM CM CO o COae:o 111 C9< o o> ro ^r»Oooooaoooeoeo I I I I I I I I • <7)Ooor~n««l»»co^- «»^Otor)corororo I I I I I I I ■ < imntnm«o<o<o<0(Pooooooooo roroofofooforon I I I I I I I i I >4>4^(0<0«OiO<D(0 OOrsl(M<M<M(M<N»(M —< fO rofo -H I I I (7> « 0> rsit>«. o> -H-<0 csMNro •9^ ^ ooo r> -H ro ro V o> rg • I o>o> 0>9> OO ■ I roro roro I I (Mro —«ro I I O)^ n r~ o-« I « lO (O OO roro^ «» (NirgfM IMIMINuotntn ift ro O <o ro O-^oro I I oo> OIM 0-1 I I -40 (O-H (NJCM -4^ I I OO IM ro CM zo M K (L o ^ Z4>-4 ►4j:<r w> < CD ►-XX CO UJ ec*- z </) CO ►4 QC 0-JC/)-l UJ ►4 !-• _l OOoOODO X zz o zoe CO t-</)CO(/}>>-UJ>->-tn < UJo U. U. X «r o CL X 001/10 UJo o.a 0.0. oox 1- I- CO cozzoe UJ (/>oOi3c/>i/)Otnv>oo<«t<•-4ZZZZZZZZ XIQC oe —1 OUJUJUi^^*^Ui*^^^n. CL K-*— < Zoco ilCu. Z "O. ►40 to< Q. Q- UJUJ KOC ►4 >-4 U. U. OO oc ec OO ►4I-4 ZZZ Q£<I Ul»-zz Oiu LlJ oto O 03 -- K.) 5 SC o Ui Xo ft: O z UJ> zzzzzzzzz COCOCOCO(/M/)COC«CO<<<<<<<<< llJUJUJUJllJUJUJliJUJzzzzzzzzz COC/)C/100CO(/)(/U/)CO OOOOOOOOO OEOCocoift: ft.oca:Qe OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOft:oeaeo:Qco:a:KK UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ uJzzzzzzzzz OOOOOOOOO CD OD OD CD CD CD CD CD CD OO OOO\—ooo>- > > XIX XX XX (/)(/) CO UJ Q. O. CL ZZZ QC <<< ocecoc OOz z OO 1 —1 L4 U. U. ►4I-4 *-«<o S88 1- H- »- OOO t—1 -4 *-1 — zz *-4 L4 ODCQ XX -l-J 0.0. OO oca: OO i—t t-i LIFELIFELIFE1- UJ o. ►4 1 —1 oc oc 0.0. COzo U4 XXX CL Q. CL OC K Q. a.33 LlI UJ X X t-t- _j_(_j «C<4 z<0.0.ox CO CO CO CO 1C ieooo <<< _J _i _J UJ UJ OO OO30 H4 L4 >> >->- ►4 l-» 0.0. UJ UJ OOZZ OO ►4 1 —1 • OOO -J-l-Jooo ccoo QCo OO >->• O. Q. OO UJ rsjz< 003 03 mm OO OO ooo o OO o a «c ««a «« 000CM«>r^0r^0a> OOOOroooOtoo) OO o OO (M in r** CM <o CM»^^ cr>oo> CO n Orur. oi nO-4 4t OO OO OOtO OOO oo Or-OOinruOr-ini^ r^mcMOXDinrMinooco -4 m rs- O rsi —1 r\i 4 CO <Nj iD<o OiA^O ^ ro CO CD CM —< C7> O (£> CM O ^ 4-H ooo O) 0> 00 10241143CMOS*o o in oooo o n —4 z O -4 < OzooeO u.O OOOOOOOOO ooooooooo ooooooooo ooooooooo rg(NJ(MfsjrgtSirsi(M<M €0 00 00 ooo n 4» ^ ooo n CM rsj OO a> o) in in OO 00 OO OO rsi rg OO o>o> «» OO (Sir si OO 0)0> »a —< •«» • OO * IMM « OOO n n r> OOO rsimiM OO 0)0> 4»4» OO ISJtM o UJow < (9 (/> < c/> a. UJ Z o m at t at j 04 (/>)£ O tA O at u 00 CA o lA O z -<CM-<CMCM CM^^rstr)CO o•-«f*) *9 O) O) O) 1 b * a a ^ ro o) o> 1 1 1 1 1 CO COCA 0>9> 0> 1 1 1 1 a>o 1 V 1 1 1 at at at at at o>o> o> o o> o CD 0)0 o> O) O) o>d odCM 9 CD CD o>o»CM«» CDO>CM CM O)40«9^CD o>oz—ccMmmm o CM *Hm CAlf>—< —' m m m m m m o o ►-CM CM CM CM ^—< ro '-c —<—<JcJa CD CD CD CD CM —<-H z c*j CO n 1' j cA r>CM «» CM CM CM m m m OOOO o CM 3 CM CM CM CM CM <M CM CO CM CM CM CO CO CO CO OO CO CDoCOo• 1 1 1 1 1 till)1 • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u —< IM n CA -H CM n TT <-* •CM CM CM CO —H<OOr^r>«c«o O O r- r-OO.-r-.c-.p-.h.o o (A UJ lAtAtA-l ceckroea. o:<<0 WO.O. 0.00 •tOOOQ. UJOOtAOOO _J X UZZZOO Q£ UJ 00 00 00 ZZZ oeoea: _ OOO U. 00 u. u. u. •-t O Z3ZZZ 00z q: O 00 00 00 zzz OOO 303<<< > I > Ik oe u : UJ (/ • 00 ulilli' UJ z z 3 3 !►» UJ Xo00 UJo ►H -1 -1 oo_l -i o UJ O <«<o.oc IE O o 'O t—<o. OOOOO O OOO UJ UJ I < kC uuouu 3 zzz z z o ►-*—o UJ lACACACACA •-< t-c *-c o o t-t UJ lAlACACACA _i ■ ■ 111.1 111 1 1 1. t o >-UJ X o OOOOO III UJ UJ t-►-u.o CECEOeCEIE z •-< t-l l-« .-t 4- *-a-t~)-<ee oc. IE <<<<<»-•>>>>>_i _j _i <<t—UJ Oo11.0.0.0.0.CE CE QC CECE < < <t-*—o a.u. Qz 111 i 11 1, j 1.1111 0 UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ lACACACACA UJUJUI XII ut t/t Q.O cr d UJ zzzzz Q CE IE to Q.o>*-• »-l >-C )-< l-C 3 Quo. a.UJ UJ >- 33333 Z 333 X X Q.♦—z ZZZZZ UJ •3-a«a-a«a OOO o. o. CL a.z ujujujujuj _J CE CE OC o o <UJ UJ ooooo O ooooo OOO o o X a X oo fN.h»iSi«ijoco moo ^0)10-H m ro oo ro oi —< (Nj <o ^ tn OO (M fSI coco r- CM CM CM n 00 -H csi o OO OO CAO OO CO r.. r--4 r-«oo^o OO a»aj o>o> «0)CMOcDa»om^to a*'CD O a»^t-- r- at h.. CO m h** ^ ^ in(D(MfO «-4 (M ICO CD CICM CNCM •-4 ^ 'kJ ozo IEo u. O <a ooooo cn o> o> o o> ooooo CO m (A ID lo m uo m m m CM fSI (N (M rsi ooooo CM CM CM CM CM O at m CM O ooooo cf) o) o) at at OO OO OO CO OO r>> r-> OOOOO M CM CM CM rj CM CM Cv' CM CM ooooo CM CM CM CM CM m m m r» CM CM CM OOO CM CM CM 00 OO 00 00 CM CM CM CM TJ ^ <I» OOOO CM CM CM CM tu O<a. oo» CM Ui(3<C/5 CO o CO u CO o CO L> CO o to o o m >aj rsifM >4 CM CM CM CM-H CM o CO CMCMO « 005 • 1 • 1 1 1 05 • 1 0> o>cr> V 1 • 1 1 1 O O o o> o>O o ro n CM r>cnrxrguD 05 z 00 1 1 •H I 1 1 1 1 1 • IT OO o 2 •o (M 3 CO ro fo f*i CM o «*»f o(J 1 1 ^ '-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •H —^ ^ n 1« <oo O ooooor^r* O) o ^ ^ ^-CCO CMin—CO CM o OOOO cno5 -H-HCOfO^ 1 1 1 ■ 1 0 1lilt ^ «4 050 C7) 05 05 ^ 05 o O) O O) O)CM 05 O to CMC- «o minmiA ^ m 1 1 OO—C'^tM 1 1 C 1 1 0 11 1 1 1 lT> ID iD ^ —«CNI OO-^^•o <o IT5 to IT51T5 in CO OOOO00 00 coco CM 1 1 1 1 1 itill^ ^ ^r> he Or^OOOOO fN. OO V. z r«-o 1 M m 5-CM oo O.v»'s, »H cor- O'1 Qu-Jin O to QCM in UJ OV. o <£lO ec. Z <<< UJ zZ o. 5~oo UJ »-i *-M-C oc ooo o UJ ui QQOZOZ ZZZ=>Z3 (M CM rsl <M < 1-C5C o.CO CO 1/51/5 1/5 3 1—UJ a:zzzzz UI u?a: >-«►-I I—« t—O—1 »-H CO oo K a: fic O <OOOOO2:UJ UJ Ui Ui OQ.o ZD UJ UJ Ui ck;Ouj ooooo o mCDODCJ 1/5 QC <<<<<< flC lii K-*5->- o (/)</) UI OO oe KQC o^-^-o: iC < o *-1-Q UJ zz Z X zz < o UJUI h- oe cr Q£l/i O »-H »-* o 1- 5-(A z UIUI Z UJ QC OC UJ>Z<<XzzUJ oo o»-• (-*5c: liJ Lxi txJ <<<<<< oo aouu zzzzzz oooooo U. U- Ll. U. U. U. OOOOOO I-* *-H oooooo ooz:o z i CO (/) CO CO t-l oooo >>>> CKocoea: toco CO to UJLU acoc;oeoc<<>> zz QC OC UiUiUi^Ui <r a:o£Oi UJ UJ UJ UJ IIXIX O'oca: oca: OOOOO ooooo 1111 ■ 111J t < i 1 i 1 UJ Z (<«■■m « 1 1 «m CMCM^63631 OOOlOO-<r- OOOCM^OCO OC3 in in oooo ooomin i/> (O (D ^ O oo O oo oooooo to to too to-» LTIn i 1— o 00 0)00 •H 293293r»r«r-r«^05r» 05 05 <75 '-comO ^ in r-r- CM CM roo ro o pH ^ ^ O ^ OOOenr^ «H ^ ^893589805 05 05CMO ”^ OOOCMIMr-^ ^ ^ n o m z -H oofsl CM CM CM tn oo o <75 <75 C7>o •V.'M.\ z OO OO OOo■H oc u 'V.'M. o ♦—r-.<OO O u.ao >o 1-z •-C o K OO «m o ro r>m O) o UI men •CD <75 X -7 -7 « 05 o OO €o •M CM CM ■CM OOOOOO 0> 0> 05 05 05 0> oooooo fo CO n ro CO n « «» «» n ^ ^ ^oooooo CM CM CM CM CM CM oo 05 C» OO OOOOO 05 05 0> 05 05 oo CO 00 00 CO r— t-. r-- r- r- OOOOO «lT>oooo C CM CM «€-7 o «•CO to to (o c COCO «UD <0 (D UD • ««7 -7 -7 m -7 «^ ^ ^« •«-7 «7 «7 -7 •«7 «7 €^ <r ^ ^« o c o «oooo «OO «ooooo «o CM «CM €CM (M CM CM m CM CM «CM CM CM CM CM CM UJ a<a. o o> r> rj UJ O<<A (/I LU T. (/) U </> O v> u (/> JC o (/> :ico in o >2 (M(NI —»f'J *-4—4 o cn o»r>^ a i r> O) o> 1 • 1 1 r)r>r> 1 1 o O) 111 1 <7> O) 1 1 CD CD • til o> o> o o O <7>o o o rg«»CD CM 4» CO cvj rg<>j o O) z in CM CM —4 rg o -4inm till •-« U 1 o•m 111 1 OfO CM CM «» 4J o OO rg 2 o r>r>CM CM CM CM flj oooo n fo rsjc^rifo f->r>oo r>on ID CM O 4» 4J 4» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r> 1 1ut\ 1 1 t —4 —•-4-4fMn *H—4 w<oo OO OOf'-r-o OO o r>r»t^ —< (\j —« O < M ^ ‘ <7> I • I I I I t ^ o> o> o> O) r-. o> CD rg »» CT> ^ -«oo-^cMO»n I I I I I I I Org <Ni CM n tNj •H ro fo n n «» n rgrgcsi (NCNincM «» 5T ^ ^ t I I I I ( ) ^ -H«M OOOOOOl^ zo oc o in uio X Ui tK UJ O oe << IX 0.0. v)in<< UJUJ oo<< CEOe ocoe 3=>xr UJUJ OQ in mi/) in UJUJ UJUJ »-( l-H Z>Z>=)Z> UJ I o UJo UiC _J *->o m 3*-*UJ i— UJ tJ^3 QC tn z UJ UJ O < O 11 1—a. I UO ►H a.UI at UJ 1/) W I—UI _i UJUJ oc 3 UJ oo O 6 t-oo u X in in in in in in in I I. I l.H.I i.tl. I l« I 1-4 l-< »-4 l-t M l-H l-H o. o. a. Q. Q. a. o. o. o. o. a. a. a. o. ir in in in in mm ooooooommmmmmm 1-4 1-4 t-g »-4 »-g i-(xxxxxxx I *-• f tt* 1— ►——1 o -I.J oo UI u <<oo H- IIo0.0.zz K oc z mm UJUJ oooo <o ►4 <<oo oooo o >•>•mmmm O 2 <1— *-X <<<<—J UI ca 00 00 oo oooa>UJUJ UIUIUJUI UJ IM 33 mm ZZZZ L> I—OO -j-j zzzz UI 1-4 1-4 0.0.»-4 1-4 »-4 1-4 Z X XX XX XXXX £ zzmm<.< mm u. u. UJUJ ►H 1-4 XIoo UJUJuo t-t t-t _l _J ooo. a. z z XX UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ K Qc Qc oe oe oe oc <<<<<<< ooooooo a: oe o: K 0£ a: Qc <<<<<<< IXIXIII UJ UJ UJ UJ UI UJ UJ QC oc K a: o: CE 0£ zzzzzzz «««•€«•«« m oo mr^cM ooo ^in^oo OC.O OO 4» -r o coco <*>4(0 omm CO (D oo O 00 *i4 —•ooo CM CM t*> c*> m fur-.r- Or-r- n o UMDVr> CM cn O CM CM CD CD —4 CM rg in CM CM ——4 00 ^n r>r j n U><D n n »-N-(oroo —4 —4 —4 z *• o O 4» m iMr- oorgcgior^ r> oo CO fo-4 CM m -4 CT)—• o oo oo OOOO o OO o o CD CD CD CD CD mmmm CD 0)0)0)o> O \'M'n.'s.'M.w \ Z CO CO oo OOOO OO oo oo 00 OO 00 00 oo oo o -4 —•-4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 •4 —4-^ (X.UI 'M.'S.'VV.V.'v.'M.V.o I—r-r-~ r--r-r-r-.r-.r--r-1^P'4.h— <O OO OO OOOO o OO O o u.oO >-O h-z 1-4 o X.in ■OO «lom «OOOO «oo «—4 —4 «00 c (M o r-.•00 oo m oooo «mmmm «<D •—4 •«CM o UI m ^ 4»n 4t«»«-»«»««»«4»m in in «in «in CD X 4f m »» -»m 4» 4i «4J 4» 4» 4J m 4t ■•K CD o o €OO m OO C OOOO m o «oo «o «o -4 rg «CM (M €CM CM «CM CM CM CM m CM «CM CM «CM «CM ooooooo O) ^ CD CD CD OOOOOOO ITI 1/1 ITUO in OOOOOOO eg CM rg CM CMCg rg o o< o O) Ui a<u>w V) 1Co c/1 u (/J oz ♦-z 3ou < —icsin (7> 0> O) I I I O>0)O ^<DO> *n m in I I t ncM nnn rsirsifM »»«»'» I I I fM M ^ IM oi I at to in t CMn C' ICM ^o» I • 05 at <a to CM in CM CM n m • I —«n Or^ o o> o —*<M(M •H tp tn tn 'g o m at ^ 1 o 1 O) 1 1 1 at at at at ooooooo o rsi CM ^OOOO QO oooo 00 oo o 1 • "• CM CM in ooooooo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -H ■ 4 ■—1 •—< -H -^rsincnncnn <n to ^ ^ *<t oooooooonnno CM ^ ^•»^ ^ ^ 1 1 • 1 1 1 1)111)1 CM o o ooo OOOOOOO >-< o <Z Ul>- 'N.z :g 1 (OLO< -joo1 coomX _)*-#O)OiZ'MX 1 1-in CO tn cn X UJMOOt- h~a.UJ UJ UJ •-4 OO ZOZ Z-ICl.J )-4 )-)•-) »-4 05- C75 M UJ >-« < z> o: 3 K -J-J-l 00 09 )COMO < CO q: tr CO O CO u 0-0-0-CO CO UJ m 3r-.►-OXuZ z l/J 0-0.0-tu UJI-U ♦—CM in COM X ujocuj OOO UJ 333 *—)►H t—z UJ in in CO oeo.z>>oujOot/u/tt/t )—t- t~t h~»O to z mo:qe <►- o)-)t-l _J <K-)M MM 3 _J J _J «J __Jzooo_i _J»-UJ <<< UJ tncntn a:(3 0.0.0.a:ooO C5 Ct O)—)-(»-t»-»»-t-l-o UJ 3 uiujuj UJUJUJ>— UJ < UJ I-)zzz 3 33 OQ £O-<oiocoe o ec UJ O UJoe aco UJ Xo <zzCO oc.tac.oe.o ooooooo CO MI-IM z OOOOOOOz<<<<M </) in CO CO CO tn CO UltUUJ z 0-0.0.<n CO CO in CO t/i CO oe 0£ QC M 1-UIUJUJ CO <<<<<<<<<<z Ul ceKae Ul 333 0£a:•ei*0*t3<4*d«d*d OOO tc le: ji:3 oeoiae z —1 ooo 1-^ ^ J): 1C 1C 1C i£ <t<<<Q.333 Z M M M M >'4 M )^ XXX 03 Ul Z O' o: q: ►-I-H- Ul <<<<<<< -J Ul CO >XXZXXXX UIUJUJ )—>z ceocQc KKoe CO UJ _J o M M cotnco>->->•CO><<<3 z -J <a: o: a:oc IIXXXII>>>Q-o. o.Q£<oa q:OCOCQC oc Q. Q. o. a. Q. a. o.<<<CO CO CO o z 3 UJ UIUJUJ Ul OOOOOOO ZZZ z zz z o Q-0.0.0.a.a. Q. a. Q. a. a. a. ««€■««.m « «4iom<o DIDO)oo OO )*.oo ootrun OO otommOMin CNJCg UD oo oo w oo O O CM rsj OM«a tomoo OO mhioo oo nro to ID otat f^Or-O 0)Mi-«0>(M^ 9 n <D (M mH ^*^m<D oo «!» *»OO oo cni -H in oo ro <M oo m 05 CT5m•*4 ^ <NJ imn oo ^ in —• n r- lo CM 1^ , vt <«»4»MOM <M ooo o oo 05 05 0>at 05 05 O •M.—z woo CO W oo OO o M —« —»-.4 ac UJ V.V.V.•V.V. O H-N.<ooo o oou.QO >-O*-Z M o 1£WWW m <M m mm U «to m to tooUltnmin«m m mmatX«» M •«^ 4»cat o ooo •o c OO M (M(MtM •tM m CM tM o at ooooooo C7) 05 05 05 O 0> O) o n r*5 rn (O to (Orr ^ ^ ooo rj rj CM ooooooo <0 CO 00 00 OD CO oo fsi rj rg C4 r j lo to <D ID (Oo ^ ^ ^ ^ ooooooo (Nj r*j r J fs4 rsj rsj rg ■r) UiO UI <a v» < <A a. UI X 0 m o» 1**• O rgI a. o m (/) u (/) o </1 o to u I to u (/)(/) X (J *0000(\»^ nh>OOOOweo o>o«ri/><o«H«iD «»«v I • I I • r I I rofooiOMHoiforo 000»0)0>0>00 ror'>€’>ron>cocoo I I I « I I I I -<-H ^ ^ ^ ^ «o lO oonfMCMCMnrj m (O «n o» CMa< n O) CM »» CM e»oo CMWtO •HCMin I I • n nn ^ ^ ^ ron ro I I I CM O oo><n O) tn CM t*. o 0 1oo 0 1 CM CM CM C*! t~$ I I I I I ) i • oe CO CO CO i/» CO toco to U ZZZZZZZZCO oooooooo UJ ououooou o z <<<<<<<< OC50C30000UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ LiJ»- UJ IH _J oz o> CJ UJoe UJz 3»-> CO UI Q. Q. 3 CO I XIX to CO to <<< aeocQc K-I-I- I I I cc h-a >- I-o CJ<oeae 3Z tu 0 Q£<1 O oe 5{ Z CM V oo UJa: 1C. CJ UI X CJ 88888888 to CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO to CO CO to to CO<<<<<<<< ^i.0*a*0>0*0«s«9 ICICICIC'ClC'C'C <<<<<<<<nzzzzxz ZZZZZZZZ<<<<<<< 5 a. Q. Q. Q. a. Q. u. cv. OOOOOOOO a. Q. la. o. c^ o. a. a. O O O O u. Q- 3 CO au. c3oazzz zzzzzz UlUJUl CL a. a. UIUIUI Qc:ia uiuiuj ocococ zzz CkCCEQCooo O CJo<cao >a: UI CO io (J oco Z uJ Xu Iooc ♦— tiJ a. «a «a a 00*M^CMin00*H 00>^CMCMCn9<9fx.oooo •yiOi oo OO in m oooooinoin ^'Cr>f0c»)OOO-< ocMCMOOJOtnmo •HOOm^^uCMCMIMO) oo oo CM CM imn n rj OrxxOix.0«e-ac» —< —< CM <7)CM CM oo fx-r-. r- rx.^ «» c*ir*> ^xrx. oo CO coin OO oo oo com oo oo in m o. com nco oooooooo 0> 0> 0> OJ 0> 0> CJ o oooooooo oz co UJ Xu oocoeoooooooeoeo CMCMCMCMCMCMIMCM lOCOCOUJCOIOCOCO oooooooo CMCMCMCMCMCMIMCM «•oo •ooo •<N «(D «O •a»«r>m iT)m «<0(010 «O m <D «o>««CM«<o 9 (D CO «CO (O (O «CD «CD m CD c Na «rx. C m a»«a» a» a»€«m <«o m O O fl OOO «O «O c O «o «o«CM «CM CM €CM CM CM CM m CM «CM «CM «CM a (U 1 o « ut <« <9 tn m <tn o. o «• at cn O CM 1 a. o m >z wM ^ ^cn at at at O) o m in m CN z ooo t 1 1 1 h-Ol^-^' <4 Z ^Ofi i =5 CMcn I-.1 o -Jo• o • < <OOO o fNi in —«—«fsir>^ -»o>o»a> I I • t I •o> o o> o> O) —• cN/ O m m m I I I • I • o o in O m lt> (M(Min<Ninm o r> n n n n —< —l »-< (Nj CM m O OOi*»r>*t>» cn u r> cnsco tno insc O oo o in o> CM r> o> o o0 1oo 0 1«o <M CM CM ►-tn O OCJ o.re o QC Q.UJ tn tntn Ul z m 1 —1 tn tn tntn o f-o X OC _j !C UJ UJ UJ ><»-i CO O Q->o ujuioujOO V Q1 3 >—o < tn Q-o:<zzozoo i.in UJ o.o o o lU OUiUI —1 OODcOoto:cn »—tt:*-l ►-CO < o tntno tn X X a xo. Q.K UJ Ul 1 —o:C3 QC </)<0.0. o.UJ X Z O O sc < £o >- *-O'UJUt <Ui< <•—tn tn o <UJ Ul in —iin a._J _J (— 1 — 1 —tn <a:Q m o lA.a.z»-»-»oo UJ UJ < UJ < <O _j Z 3 O'Ul o t-4 CM t- 0»“00 03 u.3:<M in *-<M OC 0 OC lU O uj a: SCo Ui Xo 888 cn </></) i/unin <<< •9*e»6 XXX mcninw 3=>3 <<< a. 0.0. z 15 V> Zcc o zzzzzz iiiiiloooooo OOOOOD <n cn (/) C' ' tn t»i111 111 111 i.i iij 533333 tntntntntntn 8 o tno< i-i a. ►— z Z5o o 3 O UJ Xu CM o in oo O CM -1 CM CM CM cn ID CD —« -4 fsi <M oo OO OO oo OO m o m ID 'U ^ CM in in OO O U>oo oo mm oo OO in'H.^flo 0)0)oo tj> CM m in ID CD «-4^ID CD mm ror>mm <M<N *-zoo u>r) o) CM CM CM CM in CM CM —1 CM —* -* m in m m oo rjCM CM CM —1 —1 r*.c~ CM CM 00 oo r>o —1 ^ 00 CO ooo O OOOOOO O O O O O o o» w o>o 0 0 0 0)00)<n O)o>O)O)O)o \ \ \ \\M. z ee 00 M 00 00 coco 00 oo CO CO CO CO 00 oo OO o -4 >4 •4 •>4 ^ ^ «-4 ^ ^«-4 •■■4 -4 —t OC UJ M.'s.'v,,w\ W'Ns,o t-C".rw r«<.r^."N.r*^1-.. <OOO O OOOOOO O O o O O o u.ao >-o 1 —z o sc CM CM CM «iO •i/) m m m m m ««in «C4 c —4 CJ u cn CO cn m O)€-H ^ ^ ^ ^c «c «ooUJ1- f>»■«OO gO 00 00 CD 00 <oo «CO «oo OO 0 -j at o>X <f «»c «^ ^ ^ ^ ^««m m «» <n o ooo «O fl OOOOOO m O ■o m O O «o o CM CM CM m CM •fMfVJ (M rMfMCM m fSJ m CM «(M CM «IN CM o at o tu <a. r> o o a! m t/> u (A O oz z 3oou< fM O) I I£> m I ■<r r> O o>in o o> CvJ O) C7) «NJ»» ^in I I «#o* cMin n n —■ rg or- a* <M o> rsi <NI o> (D m t-_lo.< •-I >oeo; oc:o KI­>z SS CO <Ul Ul (£a:KOCoCOQ.»- K Ul 1-»-to a.OO —t t-lz<Z CO 3 z Ul O Ul 3 OO Ul ©(X t-—I Ul r-zz 3 O UluODcor«jcM O z a. U.UUOZZ O Z30 >->U3uC0 u <<ZU (/luiOOZ 000(/> uju-u.< >ZO> oc a^ujozujoauj CD r-t*-*© Q©t-iiiioc ZixiO.>»-a.»-<«tui 3 <03Z3o:kc/) a.*aUK I >-■ I UJUJCE a q: o: q. o. 3-»ujor3»o3000 O z ♦-«(/)»»<.</) o o:00 • ococ UJQf-iZOXOClUJUJUu 2Q.«-tQCOO(D»>—I tuZ:3uJO>o>axujO QC UJ ) s Ooz Ul> z UJ*-« o(/) a: OXoz< Xo oe UJ V) z Xo UJ X —I X<o UIUJ << C30zzoo OCJ uov> c/>< QC (Ju CO Q<3o CO COo < <x «r < < < tf < < < oooooc o> «oo OOOOOOQOOOzzzzzzzzzz uuuuuuuuuu. C •«•« OO (0(0 OO o< >o oo in in oo OOoocnrsiOintnooryoo(0 to . (liV ircxi.3 0 o>o oo nooo—4 —lorjcocoo tn « n CO oo A 00>OO oo OinoOnO—<nn—<cnoo rsjcsi CO -H —<*oto r • mo>< ■(» to oo ^—4 <0(0 oor-f-mcoOoeo«irt in(MO(or-tn(Ni«»in—« CM (M—*(Nj«»oon—(—< <NJ 00 o o o OO o O oO)o>o>CT) 0><7>o>oOV.V.\V.Z to M oo oo 00 CO 00 00o-4 —4 —H -H K Ul V,\o K t-r- r-r- r-<o O O OO O o ou.oO >-oz o X «o r«.00 0»0)O «L/1ooOoOO0oUlO)Ol o>oo>o>O)■cr>O)X «»'f tf «■o o o o o OO O o «o—1 (M CM CM(M <N fM € f pm & cla d s J!JL 23 I9°n }*^V .->*• fpn?:r'5 TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE Wednesday, July 25, 1990 Maple Plain City Hall 5:00 p.m. AGENDA I. II. lU. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Call to Order Approval of Agenda Discussion of Roles and Membership of TH 12 Committees Presentation/Discu. jion of Schedule of Activities - Larry Dallam Discussion of Project Issues/Concerns - Committee Members Other Business Next Meeting Adjournment LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES 6e ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEEAGENDA 7:30 am, Saturday, July 14, 1990 Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road *Please note change of location*J9S0 1. Wayzata Yacht Club District Mooring Field temporary low water variance application to relocate 3 moorings from Site 1 to Site 2 to reduce the impact of the 800' extension on Site 1, to include internal mooring relocations within Site 1. 2. Village of Deephaven Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of fact and conclusions (draft pending final comments allowed through 7/11/90). 3. Special Density License ordinance amendment as prepared by Attorney LeFevere amending LMCD code Sec. 2.05, Subd. 4b relating to public amenities. 4. Dock license renewals for the Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay, Orono and Harrison Harbor, Harrison Bay, Mound, Harrison Harbor being back licensed for 1989, including late fees for both renewals. 5. Chair Grathwol explorations for continuing the committee plans on its priority items study. 6. Additional items recommended by the committee; ENVIRONMENT 1. Weed harvest progress report through 7/6/90 and interim update for the current work week \.//9-13); 2. Equipment performance review and its affect on operations; 3. Overview of the operations to date; , " - 1. 2. 3. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE COMMITTEE AGENDA 4:30 pm, Monday, July 16, 1990 Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road isiaD ★PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF LOCATION* Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Sheriff and UlCD for the annual law enforcement services on Lake Minnetonka, proposing a sub-committee appointment to review the agreement in advance of the January 1, 1991 renewal. Charter Boat new registrations received and processed: Elizabeth Ann, Charles E. Gross, Excelsior Holiday Fair, David Witther, Plymouth Water Patrol Report: a. Citation incidents to date b. Observations on lake use density and July 4 holiday activity level c. Additional reports, information 4. Additional business recommended by the committee; LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612M73 7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. fc XECUIIVC OinECIOM BOARD MEMBERS David H Cocluan. Cluiir Graonwood Albert O Foster. Vice Chair Dooplinvon Jail llnnwinhol. Serrr'lary Miniiotonlia Bench John Lowman. Treasurer Minnetrisla Douglas E. Babcock Spring Park Marvin Bjoihn Tonka Bay James N Ginihwol Excelsior JoEllen L Hurr Orono John G kialiiika Viclr ria Thomas Marlinson Way/ata Robert K Pillsbury Minnetonka Robert Rascop Shornwootl Thomas W Rense Mound Robert E Slocum Woodland YOU AND YOUR GUEST ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS LAKE TOUR AND LUNCHEON ON LAKE MINNETONKA hosted by the LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT . ‘A • I V. .a All Aboard at 10:00 am Return to Port at 1:00 pm Saturday August 4,1990 LAFAYETTE CLUB DOCK County Road 15, Minnetonka Beach (please observe designated parking areas) Please RSVP by Tuesday, July 31, Including guest's name, 473-7033 —..-ry.-.jr .XI- T. ■; ^ ^:rsssu^-;:y ;-v;.................. r ■ rv.-'r--; • MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON JUNE 11. 1990 JUL 11 1990 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, June 11, 1990. Present:Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William Fenholt UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent agenda was approved as follows: 1990 special meeting; 1990 regular meeting; social studies teacher at - approved the minutes of the May 23, - approved the minutes of the May 29, - approved the appointment of Sarah Dv’hlgren as the high school for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of Maureen Gibbon as English teacher at the high school for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of J. Darren Wolf as mathematics teacher at the middle school for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of Pamela Brinkhaus as science teacher at the middle school for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of Ruth Larson as mathematics teacher at the middle school for the 1990-91 school year; - agreed to participate in Chapter I and authorize an LEA representative in conjunction with the District Advisory Committee and School Advisory com­ mittees of the District to execute and file application for the school district and to otherwise act as authorized representative in all Chapter I related activities; - approved the listing of seniors, as presented by Orono High School admi­ nistration, for graduation; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 066421 through 066398 and building construction bills as covered by vouchers 1022 through 1036. Dr. Mich reported that graduation ceremonies were successful and he expressed appreciation to everyor. who worked on the reception as well as the senior party and that he wanted to express congratulations to the seniors; that he wanted to express appreciation to the OEA for the retirement breakfast held on June 8 and especially to Marlys Burr and her committee and to Evy Zacher for their work/efforts in organizing this event; that the committee to review the scholarship committee has not met but will report to the Board at a later date; that summer school is in process at the high school with 420 plus students in attendance; that construction on the new building is approximately three weeks behind schedule due to the inclement weather; that congratulations are in order to the tennis team and Coach Moynihan for their success in the state tournament and special congratulations to Tim George as the top Class A Individual tennis player in the state; that breakfast will be held on June 20 with Kitty Crosby; that breakfast will be held on June 21 with Marvel Bongart; that the reorganiza­ tion meeting is set for July 9. Or. Mich stated that he wanted to express appreciation to Is her final Board meeting, for the support, she has tonally as well her fellow Board members, the enthusiasm with which she has ™ded to her ^sponsibll^ « a Board nember and her dedication to the OroSo School District and Its students. Individual Board members commended Mrs. Crosby for her years of service/dedication and Marge Gasch expressed appre­ ciation on behalf of the community. Appreciation was also ^Pressed to Mrs. Crosby on behalf of the faculty from Jeff Brown, President of the OEA. iiDOM MHTTON hv Klttv CrosbY, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education aS^ov^d ?Se ?e'^daU forth by the Middle School Study Committee as follows: Middle School Study Recommendations on file in District Office. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education approved the 1990-91 Community Education Budget as follows: Community Education 1990-91 Proposed Budget on file in District Office. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education called for bids on milk and related dairy products for the 1990-91 school year. Dr. Mich addressed the Issue of the Mission Statement/Instructional Goals which, according to law, the Board must annually review and/o*' revise. He stated that he had been approached to make language revisions in terms of addressing the role of cocurricular activities In our schools. The consensus of the Board was that this should be done and brought back to the Board at the next meeting. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education approved the Improvement Goals for 1990-91 as follows: Improvement goals on file in District Office. By way of explanation. Dr. Mich stated that the school district has three sets of goals by which they operate, those being: 1) Mission Statement/Instructional Goals which pertain to the philosophy of the district; 2) improvement goals which relate directly to curriculum areas, to the curriculum review cycle and the visitation by North Central which are recommended by the P.E.R. committee and become the working goals for the coming year; and 3) improvement goals that are not of a curricular nature but are of a more general nature such as the successful completion of the construction, implementation of the middle school study, etc. The goals approved at this time are recommended from the P.E.R, committee. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the contractual agreement with the Assistant to the Superintendent. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education approved the appointment of Mrs. Marjorie Gasch to serve a two year term on the Intermediate District #287 Board of Education as the representative from the Orono Schools. Appreciation was expressed by Dr. Mich and the Board of Education to Mrs. Gasch for her willingness to serve on this Board and her dedication, not only to Orono Schools, but to Intermediate District #287. Kitty Crosby, retiring Board member, capsulized for the Board her thoughts/feelings regarding the Orono School District and "its commitment to «vcellence or to the best educational system that we can produce." She stated uiat "together the faculty, the students, the administration, the community and the school board are unique in their dedication, their perseverance and their permanence" and that the cohesiveness that makes Orono is a sense of "shared commitment, shared concern, and shared optimism." She stated that "the bottom line - the shared commitment - is kids, self-confident, responsible human beings equipped with critical thinking skills to perform in an ever changing world." Mrs. Crosby stated, "I thank you for allowing me to participate in this process. It has been my great joy to serve in this capacity. It would be impossible to name the people who have given me support, encouragement, friendship and advice. Therefore to all - simply, thank you." UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by John Maresh, the meeting was adjourned. Dave McK )wn, Cnairman MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 held on JUNE 21, 1990 A special meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Thursday, June 21, 1990 at 7:00 a.m. Present: Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William Fenholt UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent ag-tinda was approved as follows: - accepted the resignation of Shannon Wiseman, speech pathologist at the Orono Primary School, effective at the close of her 1989-90 contract. Dr. Mich reported that he will continue to update the Board In regard to the situation at the high school. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the principals' negotiated agreement. Board members expressed appreciation to the Negotiation Team. With regard to the lease purchase agreement with JLC Financial, Dr. Mich stated that approval was initially granted for this when the Board approved the 1990-91 budget in that funds were set aside for technological improvement. By a, proving the request before them, the district will be able to "buy into" a network owned by Jostens which will provide a library of excellent software which is continually updated. Discussion ensued with Board members asking questions for clarification purposes. UPON MOTION Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education authroized William A. Fenholt to execute and deliver a lease purchase agreement with JLC Financial, a Division of Jostens Learning Corp., on behalf of the school district. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the meeting was adjourned. ORONO COMMUNITY EDu6ctiON,_.^/^ ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES“ MAY 17,199%^ The Orono Comm unity Education Advisory Council Meeting was called to order by Chairman, Dianne Gibney on May 17,1990 at 7:30 pm. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dionne Gibney, Cathy Harju, Steve Cramer, Ludnia Gorman, Dan Daly, Mitzi Overland, Toni Bergland, and Brian Bergstrom. MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Hultmann, Gay Radloff, Nancy Shaver, Cindy Trudell, Marge Provo, Marie Gorman and Marion Zavitz. MINUTES: The minutes were corrected (Marge Provo and Dam Daly were not present at the March m leting). A MOTION was made by Cathy Harju, SE(tONDED by Ludnia Gorman to approve the minutes as corrected. The MOTION CARRIED. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Ludnia Gorman reported on the new Sv. lior Citi/ ens' Center at St. George Church in Long Lake. OLD BUSINESS Spring Qasses: A final report on Spring dasses was handed out and discussed. Summer Qasses: Information was handed out on Summer classes. Multi-State Conference: Toni asked the coundl membeis if they were interested in going to the Multi-State Conference at Maddens Resort in Brainard. No counal members were able to ■■'■’d th^.; year. Budget: Toni reported on the proposed budget that the budget committee worked on. Ihe , ’ budget contained salaries and salary items from our current budget, pending the result of co.' negotiations for Toni and Brian. There, was a 10% cut in the level of finandal assistance th«*: w. to Athletic organizations, the Community Resource Pool, and Suburban Community Services. Discussion took place. A MOTION was made by Steve Cramer, SECONDED by Cathy Harju to approve the budget as presented. The MOTION CARRIED. Membership: Toni asked for names of people who might be interested in joining the council next year. Names that were mentioned were: Marsha Ackerly, Elaine Goldsmith, Mary Anna Massey, Mark Nelson, Bruce Olson, and a teen representative from the High School student senate. -over- NEW BUSINESS •School Age Day Care: Toni reported on the proposed School Age Day Care program. Discussion look place. A MOTION was made by Dianne Gibney, SECONDED by Dan Daly to approve the School Age Day Care Program. The MOTION CARRIED. Aquatics Prr ;ram: Toni stated that she will be researching aquatics programs with other school districts. Program Review: Toni reported to the council on the local program review that Tom Fish, the Associate Dean of Education at St. Thomas, has been working on. Toni and Dr. Mich had asked Dr. Fish to do a review of our program. He is currently working on this with Toni. ECFE Program: Mitzi gave a short review of their program highlights for the year. She is working on plans for next year. She asked the council for ideas for parenting classes for the fall. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. The next meeting will be held on Monday, August 13,1990.* Brian Bergstrom, Secretary to the Advisory Council ORONO COMMUNITY EDUCATION 795 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD • LONG LAKE.MN 55356 (612)473-4879 Toni B«rglan<l, DIractor Brian Bargatrom, Aaat. Dlractor July 18, 1990 Mark Bernhardson P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 553S3 Dear Mark Bernhardson, The Orono Community Education Council will hold a Compliance Meetiny on Monday, AuQust 13th at 7il5 p«m« in the District Office of the Orono Middle School. 685 Old Crystal Bay Road, Long Lake. This meeting is being held to provide information about Community Education activities and give those present an opportunity to discuss the program. This meeting is being held during the regular school board meeting so the time may vary some. We would like to invite you to meet wi^i u'.. learn what is being done and offer suggestions for impravement of programs. We hope that you can be present. If you do have a conflict, please send someone from your organization to represent you. Please call our office by August 1st, 473-^079 and let us know if you plan to attend. Sincerely (y-t'tc Toni Berg 1 ant Director of* Commup- TB xc; Dr. Mich Education Indapandanc* • Long Laka«Mapla Plain * Madina * Minnatonka Baach* Orono Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 56331 • (612) 4^ DATE: TO I FROM: RE: July 6, 1990 LMCCC DIRECTORS A MEMBER CITIES Jennifer Watts UPCOMING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Enclosed are the materials for oiir upcoming Executive Committee meetinc Tuesday. July 19. at S o.m. here at the studio. At our iaet meeting* the 1969 Financial Review was made available to committee meT.bars. Discussion of the document was tabled until members had an opportunity to review it. It appears on the agenda this month as a discussion item. If any member of the committee has any questions about the document* please call me with them prior to the meeting* so I might attempt to consult with the accountants who prepared the document fo. further clarification. It was agreed that some lon^**r' conjunction with the preparav committee was selected to Committee members agreed thuL* at an axecu^.ive committee meet^i.-^* planning should talce place in the 1991 budget. Though a jdgct proposal* the Executive range planning could be done and it is therefore included on this moptri's agenda. Both the proposed 1991 budget and long- r:»nga goa • 9 will thei^t be presented to the full Commission at our meeting Ir. August for discussion and action. If any Commission* er has a goal statement he or she would like to include on the draft of proposed LRP goals* please call me or drop a note with youl ideas. On Juno 20 I received noti- ><* ^'fom tne Minnetonka School District that tenants at the Excelsior Community Center would not need to vacate until March 1* 1991* with the possibility of an extension to June 6 (to be decided after Jan. 1). This eases some of the p« tre we've felt while researching possible sites for the ".y and office; however* it does not aid us in our efforts .i^and services* as we* desperately need additional space to »mmodate editing and studio production isolation* and •OiTCspace for staff. I am hopeful that we will continue our search and initiate a wove as soon as an appropriate and accep* tao.re site can be agreed to by Triax and the LMCCC. Finally* you may have seen the "Alert* from NATOA 1 mailed out to all directors. It seems this cable legislation is a tricky item to keep tabs cn. Following a couple of attempts to con- .£■ LMCCC MEMO PAGE TWO tact representatives on the House Subcommittee on Telocommuni’ca- tiona and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have been told the subcommittee marked up a draft regarding cable on Wednesday, June 27, but that a date had not been set for the full Committee to review and mark-up their own. There is, therefore, still time to write or call members of the full com­ mittee, one of whom is our own Gerry Sikorski. Lot him know how you feel about cable service, programming services, rates, programming changes, installation and repair service, customer service in general, and competition and rata regulation. In case the full Committee doesn't got to this issue before ad­ journment, Sikorski will be in several of the lake area com­ munities during the summer for his community service meetings, and you might be able to discuss the cable legislation with him then. With the proposal to tier the LMCCC basic programming services yet this year (see attached tentative proposal from Triax and noto prices), along with the possibility of a system redesign within the next six-nine months to provide addres­ sability to those subscribers who wish to pay for it, I hope you viill seriously consider and comment on the activities at the federal level with our congressmen, address your concerns with the cable provider at our upcoming meetings, and comment to me whenever you can, so I can better share your views with those who want to know. I look forward to seeing the Executive Committee members next week and would be happy to discuss these cable issues witl any of you at any time. Gerry Sikorski ^ 414 Cannon Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 <202)225-2271 House Committee on Energy & Commerce (202)225-2927 Congressman Markey Chairman, House Subcommittee on Telecommunicatiori3 (202)225-2836 Congressman Dingell Chairman, House Committee on Commerce & Energy (202)225-4071 Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, VIINNESOVA 55331 • (612)474-5539 LAKF MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1990 5:00 P.M. EXCELSIOR COMMUNITY TV STUDIO EXCELSIOR COMMUNITY CENTER 443 OAK STREET EXCELSIOR AGENDA I. Call to order II. Approval of June minutes III. Reports: a) Officers b) Administrator c) Triax IV. 1989 Financial Review V. Long-Range Planning Discussion VI. Unfinished Business VII. New Business ■» VIII. Adjournment - ■■ rMS T. I. 5:05. P.M. MINUTES LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 19, 1990, 5x00 P.M. EXCELSIOR COMMUNITY TELEVISION STUDIO CALL TO ORDER Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at t; DIRECTORS PRESENT Tom Anderson/Medina Barbara Brancel/Shorewood Otto Wilczek/Mlnnetrlsta Jim Olds/Excelslor Howard Bennls/Deephaven OTHERS PRESENT Jennifer Watta/Admln. Rlc Hanson/Trlax Kathe Ehlert/Adm.Asst II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Anderson asked for discussion of the May mlrutes or a motion to approve. Motion 6.19.90.1: Brancel moved to approve the minxtes. Olds seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Ill REPORTS Treasurer*a Report Commissioner Wllczek presented the Just Claims for June. Anderson asked for comments or a motion to approve. Motion 6.19.90.2: Wllczek moved to approve the Just Claims for the period 5/16/90 through 6/19/90. Olds seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Administrator's Report Administrator Watts introduced Jim Schindler, the new production coordinator. She indicated that he will be develop­ ing a schedule for summer workshops and video camps, producing the Tonka Report and attending the July NFLCP conference in Washington with Commissioner Wllczek. Re: space relocation. Watts reported that she and Rlc Hanson had met with a leasing agent and had looked at new studio/ office apace in the area. Administrator Watts introduced a Tetter from Patricia Ploetz, media specialist for the Minnt.-^aJca Public Schools. Ploetz was interested in using the X-Press X-Change which is a communica­ tions service some cable companies offer to their entire service area. This system allows schools to access educational materials attached to CNN Newsroom, etc. Since the commission was limited in dictating programming or services. Watts had directed this inquiry to Ric Hanson at Triax and ho will respond formally. Watts referred the board to their copy of the studio report for an access summary, however, Hanson noted that ho had not picked them up but would supply them later. LMCCC MINUTES Juno 19, 1990 Page two Trlax Report Ric Hanson provided the monthly report; Homos passed 11,770 Basic Subs 5035 Total Pay Units 3793 Total A/O's 3502 Total Remotes 2650 Hanson reported that the new subscriber drive has been success­ ful, with an increase of 37 subscribers, some paids were lost, but AO's and remotes were up. Hansen presented a construction schedule indicating they are behind on construction because of the rain and that he will have a more formal presentation of the proposed Lifeline service next month. The Lifeline service, ho said, had an advantage for the elderly wh^ might bo hesitant to subscribe to cable. Watts asked what tht advantage was to pricing Lifeline higher than the Basic, when it includes less programming. A complaint had been received about the blacking out of Twins games after the games had started. Hanson explained the black­ out contract guidelines and stated there had been a problem with the timing of the blackout, which led to some confusion on the part of viewers. Hanson noted the updated plant maps for the LMCCC franchise area were at the Mound office. IV FINANCIAL REVIEW Admin. Watts presented the financial review from W.F. Denny for 1909. She explained that it is different from last year's in that on page 3 the line items under operating expenses more closely match those in the budget, and on page 4 the fund balances are more accurately represented. Motion 6.19.90.3: Brancol moved to -able discussion of the Financial Review for one month to allow commissioners time to study it, Wilczek seconded, motion passed unanimously. V. BUDGET PLANNING COMMITTEE The Joint Powers Agreement states that the Budget be ready for submission to the full commission by August 15. Two commissioners are needed to prepare the budget. Wilczek and Brancel were appointed to prepare the budget. VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was none. VII. NEW BUSINESS Admin. Watts indicated a need to do some long-range planning. The Executive Committee agreed to address this, and Commissioner Olds suggested that this should bo done before the budget is sent to the member cities. LMCCC MINUTES June 19, 1990 Page three Admin. Watts requested consideration by the commission for the use a sgnature stamp ter certain approved budgeted items, and other unapproved items not to exceed 0500.00. This would not necessitate a change in by-laws, only a resolution by the Executive Committee. Watts felt that a signature stamp would facilitate payment of approved expenses in a more timely and efficient manner. Anderson asked what the problem areas are. Watts replied primarily PERA, tax deposits, payroll and conference fees. She also indicated that after the move, we may have to pay rent and uitiltios. Olds said that the current method is inefficient and will become more so now because of the change of officers. He also said that the need is there. Motion 6.19.90.4; Wilczek moved to approved Resolution #61990 approving the implementation of a signature stamp for use by the Administrator to issue payment of conditioned expenses and claims. Olds seconded, motion passed unanimously. VIII Adjournment Motion 6.19.90.5 t Wilczek moved to adjourn the meeting; Olds seconded and the meeting adjourned at 5:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted. Kathe Ehlert Admin. Asst. LMCCC JUST CLAIMS 5/16/90 TO 6/19/90 CHECK» 10220 10221 10222 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 10223 10224 10225 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 PATE PAYABLE 5/31 Aaron Blechert 5/31 Jennifer Watts 5/31 Kathe Ehlert 6/1 NFLCP 6/1 PERA 6/1 The Bank Excelsior 6/19 Tonka Printing 6/19 PERA 6/19 Bernick & Lifson 6/19 Paychex 6/19 U.S. West 6/19 NFLCP 6/19 PERA 6/15 Aaron Blechert 6/15 Jennifer Watts 6/15 Kathe Ehlert 6/19 Multichannel News 6/19 Skads Travel 6/19 Wagers 6/19 Grand Hyatt-Washing^iV^ 6/19 Jennifer Watts ( 6/19 Jim Schindler 6/19 Petty Cash 6/19 Aaron Blechert 6/1^ Postmaster TOTAL CLAIMS BANK EXCELSIOR Beginning Balance Claims Interest V—Ser^vic^e ' amount ACCOUNT $ 161.63 Payroll 5/31 808.15 Payroll 5/31 51.72 Payroll 5/31 430.00 Conference 104.52 PERA Bnft.n 774.98 Fed. Taxes 108.65 Office Supp. 9.00 PERA lif*> 55.00 Legal Serv. 39.75 Ger'y f.'^rv. 66.80 .Telephone 175.00 Memhership 104.52 PERA Pnfts 217.09 Payroll 6/15 799.15 Payroll 6/15 45.25 Payroll 6/15 49.00 .Subsr r 1 pM on 498.00 Con f er«^nce 30.00 Offl^.e r.iipp. 401.16 Conferenr-e 200.64 Hlth ins/mlg 231.00 Health Ins. 72.07 Various 21.58 Mileage 50.00 $5,504.66 Postage 42,243.82 (5,504.66) Charge (36.76) ENDING BALANCE 36,904.70 SCCU ACCOUNTS Balance Share Acct. Balance Preferred Acct. Certificates of Deposit 1,100.41 1,250.49 26.000. 00 (7/10) 20.000. 00 (6/23) 20.000. 00 (9/23) 10.000. 00 (9/23) ENDING BALANCE TOTAL FUNDS 78,350.90 115.255.60 VICTORIA ORONO ST BONIPACIUS LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION CONSTRUCTION UPDATE June 19, 1990 COMPLETED Narciccus Street N, Brown Road Valley View HOMES PLANT/M: .33 .12 .69 LOTS COMPLETED 15 7 7 6-12-90 6-06-00 5-17-^0 CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS VICTORIA Deer Run 3rd Addition 7 .32 VICTORIA Green Crest Drive 6 .19 VICTORIA Bay Cliff Drive 7 .37 SHOREWOOD Silver Lake Trail 13 .68 VICTORIA Sunny Shadows 2 • -.13 SHOREWOOD Tiffany 9 .13 SHOREWOOD Wedgewood Drive 10 .21 ORONO Silver Meadow Drive 8 62 2.i\7 2H 18 7 ill 9 9 16 in mm CHANNEL BASIC SERVICE $7 loo 22 CINEMAX »Pay Service 23 Reserved 2^PNN P-’ nancial News Network 25 MTV Music Television 26 VH-1 Music Television 27 TNN Nashville Network 28 TLC The Learning Channel 29 CNN Cable News Network 30 ESPN Entertainment Sports Programming 31 Nickelodeon Nickelodeon 32 TPC The Pamily..Channel 33 ETWD Eternal Word TV 3^Bravo/TTC Brs-o/The Travel Channel 35 MSC Midwest Sports Channel 36 EPG Electronic Program Guide 37 HBO »Pay Service 38 39 DISNi.Pay Service ^10 SHOWTIME ^Pay Service 42 43 TDC The Discovery Channel 44 TNT Turner Network Television 45 AMC/TBN American Movie Classics/ Trinity Broadcasting CHANNEL LAKE MINNETONKA LIFELINE SERVICE $12.95 2 KTCA PBS 3 KTCI PBS WCCO CBS 5 KSTP ABC 6 Local Access Regional 7 WTBS Ind. - Atlanta 8 Public Access Local Government 9 KMSP Independent 10 KTMA Independent 11 KARE NBC 12 KITN Independent 13 WON Ind. - Chicago 1^Public Access Promotional Ad Channel 15 Public Access . cation 16 Public Access Future 17 C-Span 18 HSN 20 Reserved 21 Reserved ••H U o iJ a>z c o •r^ V) •t-l r—io>c M •H c 3 O Vj c oo Eo £ Q>x: 4J U O U-l o in •Oc «0 iHx: 4J c o E Vj o;cu (TJ Z m 00a< C •rH O'c •-4 E O O 0» > •»-« •—I 0) E 4J I 0> E •r-l a fe o O'c •r^ CQ t4 0> <U>•.-« XJ O to U <U c •H U) 0 E <0 O' 1 rH rH <0 c O' •r-4 x:ou (0 Q) V) (U U (0 ( 0>o > <U U) 0) aJ 0) O U-l a« V) X) •-» o>u 0)x: U-l -i-i V4 (Uu Id 01 rH X) Id •H •H Id> Id E<ux: 4J o Id E a "H D .-H in rH E 0) Idin fH •H C (U T) ? O Q jJ C<u (A (U Ua <uu •fH > Vj 01 (I) 0> O' (w O y c yo •D 0) E O O XJ (A 3 E XJ 10 O O 4J •H c 3 o;x: fr* 'O C Id E 01 •o xJ co •H o •»H IM U-l 3 W >1 Id 5 O y XJ 3a •o 0) V4 «■ -H •o 0 xJ <0 01 u 0) xJ c •H 01 •H (0 t4 01 X) •H 1-1 uw x> 3 (0 0» rH JD Id o 4J W) O E 3cr 0> U XJ Oc 10 •H XJ C Id Q> r—I X) Id 0 01 x: xJ U-l O c o •>-4 XJ Id> •H XJ O Id XJ C 01 Vj U 3 O 0^u Id 10 0^ 10 Vi 3 oo c o • H XJ Ido 3 TJ OJ O'c •iH 3 C •H XJ C ou c o •H *J Id o 3 S 01 dP in CM x: XJ •rH y >4 rH •H ki Id Vi 8, E 0) XJ *oc Id to OJ in i-i 3 O O XJ u Ox: to 0) XJ •H OJ XJ Id to U-l O (0 -v: u O 5 xJ OJc o •H O' TJ Id H *o OJ Id XJ to to •rH XJ ••H 3 O X= XJ -_r n 8, Z E-i U< Vi OJ>o OJ rH X) Id rH Id> Id •oc Id to OJ to Vi 3 Oo OJ O' OJ x: XJ •rH x:o 3 O XJ C •H a 0) OJ rii rH •H y xJ Id in Iyo Q Idc o •H to to OJ U4 o Via Vi o u-l to OJoc OJ Vi OJ UH c oo OJ rH OJ XJ 01 Id •J OJx: XJ O XJ V. OJ •H XJ •H c 3 XJ Vi 8. Or O Idc o •H XJ Ido 3 T3 OJ OJto OJ XZ XJ mc •H Vi X) TJc Id Id OJ VI Id to •H x: XJ 71990.2TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATS: July 19, 1990 0^ SUBJECT: Business Cards If anyone would desire business cards please let me know Thanks. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA cr-0^- D“* Regular Meeting. 30 p.m. , Wednesday, July 25, 1990 g q ^<000 Tonka Bay City Hall 49Cvl fcj«*.itou Road (County Road 19) 1. Cal] to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 6-27-90 Regular Meeting 4. Public Comments - from persons in attendance not on agenda 5. Reports A. Standing Coramittees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 7 14-90 b) Temporary low water variance adjustment for Wayzata Yacht Club District Mooring Area, relocating six slips to Site 2, recommending approval subject to being in accord with Wayzata CUP and neighbor Rosekrans . c) City of Deephaven Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) recom­ mending that an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. d) Dock license rene\-’ls for Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay, Orono; Harrison Harbor, Ha risons Bay, Mound, to include back-licensing to 1989; and Seton Twin Homes, Mound; recommending approval. e) Additional business recommended by the committee. 5. A. 2) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese a) Proposal for extending hours or weed harvesting operation to accellerate production during peak use month.s of July and August, ;prrainating production early to meet existing or adjusted ope-ating budget. b) Additional business recommended by the committee. 5. A. 3) LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 7-16-90 bj Hennepin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between tiv Sheriff s Water Patrol and LMCD recommending a subcommittee to review the agreement consisting of JoEllen Hurr, Oror.c, Bert Foster, Deephaven; and Sgt. Bill Cliandler, Water Patrol. c) Deposit ref mds, recommend ,r. ' approval for Minnetonka Bass Club. American Scholarship Found ion, Minnetonka Crossing, and Mound City Days having met conditions of their event permits. (over) . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda 7-25-90 d) Water Ski Ordinance Amendment reconunending approval to reduce the observer rule for all forms of towing persons on the Lake as detailed in the 7-16-90 Lake Use Committee minutes. e) Additional business recommended by the committee. 5. A. 4. ADVISORY, Chair Rascop a) Public comment review still in process - no report. b) Next meeting (possibly final) 5:30 p.a., Wednesday 8-1-90, Tonka Bay city hall (RSVP for box lunch). 5. B. Chair Cochran 1) Public Officials' lake inspection tour, Saturday, August 4, 10 a.m. to 1 pm, reservations invited at this time. 2) Inter-Agency Dredging Agreement followup meeting with MN DNR and MCWD, planned for noo.. Friday, July 29, place to be announced. 5. C. Prosecution Progress report. Attorney Steve Tallen of Holmes & Graven 5. D. Financial Report, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions, month ending 6-30-90 2) Audit of vouchers for payment 3) Professional Fund Raising Service recommendation for payflent 4) Second quarter financial summary and year-to-date buoget progress 5. E. Executive Director, Strommen Staff progress 2) Management Plan p^esen^-cion to Wayzata Rotary by Cochran & Executive Director 3) Mississippi Headwatei'S Board s uisored seminar for Hut Sard County Coalition of Lake Associations. Saturday, August 18, Little Sand Lake, Nevis. 6. Unfinished Business 7. New Business 8. Adjourranent 7-19-90 WWW i ' i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., June 27, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Call to Order. Cochran at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chair 2. Roll Call. Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Jan Boswinkel,Secretary, Minnetonka Beach (as noted); David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; John Malinka, Victoria; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound, Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Charles LeFevere, Counsel; David Arndorfer, Consultant; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: None 3. Reading of Minutes: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 23, 1990 regular meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Public Comments Duane Markus, 405 Bushaway Road, Wayzata, requested a poll to various yacht clubs, out of order, and members of the members to show who belongs Cochran responded that the request is are selected to vote their conscience based on the best interest of Lake Minnetonka. Markus was advised he could contact the various organizations at his own initiative to obtain the information. 5. Reports A. Chair Cochran 1)Agenda Order of Business. Cochran requested consideration for amending LMCD By Laws or an administrative prerogative to change the order of business for Board agenda to allow public participation earlier in the meeting. He also suggested institution of a consent agenda for certain items in committee reports. A consent agenda lumps non-controversial items in one motion, allowing any board member or member of the public to request removal of any item from the consent agenda for individual consideration. Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to move items 5A and 5B for consideration after 5C. Motion carried unanimously. The Executive Director is to report on a restructuring of the Board agenda to allow a consent agenda. LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 5. C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol Grathwoi reported there are no minutes as the Committee did not meet in June. a) Temporary Dock Extension Requests. Grathwol moved, Hurr seconded, approval following temporary dock extensions: of the Hary T. Kreslins, Greenwood, St. Alban's Bay, for 8’ St. Alban's Bay Marina, Inc., four foot dock platform for gas dock access from boats. Shorewood Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., eight foot dock platform for gas dock access from boats. Tonka Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., four foot dock platform for gas dock access from boats There is no navigation carried unanimously. interference involved.Motion 2) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Minutes. Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the minutes of the Lake Use Committee meeting of June 18, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. b) Wayzata Chamber of Commerce - Permit - July 4 Fireworks Special Event Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, approval of Special Event Permit to allow the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce to present a July 4 fireworks display in Wayzata Bay from a barge, maintaining 1,000’ clearance to and from spectators, subject to approval by the Citv of Wayzata, Water Patrol and other applicable laws. Motion Ccrried unanimously. The Executive Director noted Water Patrol approval is still pending. c) Deposit Refunds Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, to approve refunds of the Special Event deposit to Westonka M.D.A. fishing contest, no incidents reported and to Lord Fletcher’s, the special event Canoe Race application denied by the Board. Motion carried unanimously. LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 the water level Motion carried d) Water Level Reference Point Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, to approve the Committee recommendation that the Water Patrol use the 928.6' figure in determining how far down the water level is at a given date. Hurr indicated concern that use of that figure could lead to other uses by the public such as filling. Babcock could see confusion with the normal reference of 929.4' for determining property lines. Foster expressed his opinion that 929.4 is unrealistic because that is a normal high water line and does not reflect the actual lake level. Grathwol moved, Hurr seconded, to table j[*0f©x*ence point back to the Committee. unanimously. . Rascop asked about a contra<- . with MCWD for managing the dam. There was no answer to his question. Staff will research the subject. Boswinkel arrived during the following discussion. e) Water Skiing Observer Rule Foster moved, Reese seconded, to rescind the Board action of 5-23-90 denying a Code change to modify the waterski observer rule for certain low-use days, with a further recommendation for staff to develop a waterski-observer rule modification under certain low lake-use conditions including a requirement that the operator be 18 years of age or older. LeFevere explained that under Roberts Rules of Order a motion to rescind at the same meeting action was taken requires a motion by a person on the prevailing side. At a subsequent meeting any member can make the motion. Cochran ruled the motion in order. , .. DISCUSSION; For information Chandler stated currently operator and observer mu t be 12 years of age (for watercraft 24 hp. or less.) . - , i Babcock: Safety requirements shoui'.l supersede suggestions of convenience. Hurr: Believes safety standards of the proposal questionable. It subjects other people who would like to be the lake to a hazard for the convenience of a few. The City Orono Council opposes the change. , x Slocum: His area is quiet in the evening and he would favor the change. Martinson: Believes there is good visibility behind a mirror. Bjorlin: The Gideon's Bay area is busy in the evening skiers from the Excelsior area. Reese: Submitted draft language for an amendment could be adopted. “ continued the of any are on of good with which LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 Cochran clarified the motion as being a motion to staff to prepare an amendment. direct AMENDMENT TO MOTION; Rascop moved, Bjorlin seconded, to amend the motion to have the code amendment sunset at the end of the 1991 boating season. The Chair declared the motion carried on a hand vote. . , MOTION AS AMENDED; Motion carried, Hurr, Rascop, Boswinkel, Bjorlin and Babcock voting nay. f) Personal Watercraft Information and Education Program Request Pillsbury moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the Committee denial of a request by Kawasaki jet ski dealers for a personal watercraft information and education program. It could be a violation of the Prolonged Operation section of the Personal Watercraft Ordinance. A Special Event permit application was not submitted by the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. the for g. Charter Boat Liquor License Requirements The Executive Director furnished members with a copy of notice sent to Charter Boat operators regarding requirements serving intoxicating liquor and non-intoxicating malt liquor. h. Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol reported as follows: * Twenty-five of the twenty-si> Boating While Intoxicated citations issued by the Water Patrol this year were on Lake Minnetonka. * It takes about three months to receive the reports from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension but indications are that activity is up. * There have been no serious accidents on Lake Minnetonka. , , , i * A detective has been assigned to the Lake to work on thefts. The detective is coordinating activities with the cities. . r jIt There are problems with the Sun-Kat rentals at Lora Fletcher’s. There have been incidents of equipment malfunction, inebriated operators and inexperienced operators. Pillsbury moved, Babcock seconded, to authorize a letter to the fee owner of the rental operation advising him that there is a sunset on his operation and there is a possibility his permit could be rescinded. Motion carried unanimously. ^ The safety broadcasts have been well received. The Water Patrol will respect LMCD directions and use 928.6’ Normal Outlet Elevation when indicating the how far down the water level is at a given date. LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 j. Liquor License Transfer - A1 & Alma's The Executive Director reported A1 & Alma's I has been sold and has been replaced with A1 & Alma's XII. Rascop moved, Bjorlin seconded, approval of the transfer of the liquor license from A1 & Alma’s I to A1 & Alma's XII, subject to inspection by the Water Patrol. Motion carried unanimously. The Executive Director will determine the disposition of A1 & Alma's I charter boat. k. Letter of Appreciation Rascop moved, Cochran seconded, to send a letter to Sheriff Omodt expressing the District’s appreciation for the assignment of a detective to Lake Minnetonka. Motion carried unanimously. 5.C.ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Rascop a) Progress on Public Review Comment to the Long~ term Management Program Arndorfer reported nine communities have sent in comments following the June 6 Public Hearing. Five communities cited areas of opposition,and four communities offered supportive comments. The Metropolitan Council and MNDnr are supportive of the study. The three main areas of concern are Shoreland Management, Board membership and the tax district. All of these issues were addressed in preparing the Plan, Arndorfer added. The MNDnr indicated an interest in including something on upland wild life habitat. Arndorfer sees a need to spend time with the cities in opposition within the next thirty to sixty days. Rascop said the Advisory Committee will respond in writing to the comments received. He encourages Board member participation, particularly those whose city has a problem. He offered to meet with the five city councils which cited areas of opposition. Martinson said reasons for the program’s positions have to be detailed. His sense is the Program will not work if adopted with less than unanimous City agreement. Hurr asked about the final disposition of the plan - where it goes after final approval of the LMCD. Arndorfer responded that it does not come under the land planning act, although it will be used as a reference. b) Advisory Committee Review of Public Comments The Advisory Committee review of the consultant’s response to public comments is set for 7:00 p.m., Thursday, June 28 at the Tonka Bay City Hall. LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 5. C. 4) ENVIRONMENT. Chair Reese a) Reese reported milfoil is spreading throughout the area lakes. It appears there will not be any funding for 1990 from the Corps of Engineers. Their participation is still unconfirmed. Rascop moved, Bjorlin seconded, that letters be directed to representatives in Congress detailing LMCD efforts and needs for financial assistance- Motion carried unanimously. b. Reese reported $39,000 has been received in the private fund drive with $16,000 need to meet the goal. There has been cooperation from the DNR and Corps of Engineers with computerized mapping. c. A research project with slow release aquatic plant herbicide technology, approved for funding with over $60,000 by the Greater Minnesota Corporation is now being finalized. Lake Minnetonka is anticipated to be part of this study. Lake Independence has had success with treating 18 acres with 2-4D to eradicate an isolated Eurasian Water Milfoil infestation. That method is limited to 5% of the total lake. Babcock reported Sonar was tested on Grays Bay. The results have not been conclusive. d. schedule because breakdowns. Reese reported the harvest operation is behind of rain and severe weather and equipment e. The Executive Director reported insurance premiums for 1990-1991 will be $15,662 covering Worker Compensation, equipment liability and the general liability insurance for equipment operation. This coi t was not fully anticipated or known in budgeting for 199J. Approximately $13,000 will be charged to the $25,000 contingency allowance. 5.A.2) Public Officials Lake Inspection Tour Cochran reported the Public Officials Lake Inspection Tour is scheduled for 10 a.m. to ] p.m., Saturday, August 4, from the Lafayette Club docks. The guest list is the same as last year and it is planned to use two boats from A1 & Alma’s. Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to limit the guests to public officials and not include spouses or guests, thereby using only one boat. Martinson suggested using one boat but having two tours, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, encouraging Board members to be on both tours. Upon taking a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion failed. LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 5.B.Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions Lewman submitted the Statement of Cash Transactions for the month ending 5/31/90 and it was ordered filed. 2) Audit of Vouchers for Payment Lewman moved, Rascop seconded, approval of bills in the amount of $38,784.62, checks numbered 6146 through 6227. Motion carried unanimously. Later in the meeting, under the Executive Director’s Report, it was noted Check No. 6213 to Wausau Insurance was billed unclearly and it should be $3,182.00. Lewman moved, Rascop seconded, to void Check No. 6213 and replace it with Check No. 6228 in the amount of $3,182.00 for a final total of $40,375.62. Motion carried unanimously. 3) Annual Budget for 1991 Lewman submitted a draft of the 1991 budget along with an explanation of the major changes. He noted the $45,000 grant from the MN DNR is shown as a receipt and as a disbursement to the cities for their costs. This is to facil?tate bookkeeping. Reese said the $60,000 Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program budget does not reflect an inflation factor. Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to amend the proposed budget by increasing the EWM expense budget by 5%, for $3,000. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop moved, Martinson seconded, to approve the 1991 budget, as amended, and authorize its submission to the cities. Motion carried unanimously. D. Executive Director’s Report, Eugene Strommen The Executive Director reported as follows: * A clerical assistant, Aimee Meyer, has been employed to perform E.W.M. clerical duties and assist in bookkeeper and administrative secretaries responsibility during their vacation absence. * Rachel Thibault will join the staff full-time on Monday, July 9, as LMGD’s Administrative Technician. An announcement of her selection was provided to the Board. * Joan Mansk will be on vacation in July. Strommen will take two weeks vacation in August. * Strommen will attend a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers meeting 7-25-90, 2:00 p.m. to 5 p.m., regarding Federal Manual Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, at the St. Paul campus. - continued J LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 * Starting in July another location will be found for committee meetings, requiring use of •‘‘he conference room in the office to accommodate the Administrati.e Technician. 7. New Business 1. Rascop reported his observation that harvesting equipment is being stored at launch areas on weekends. It not only is blocking the launch accesses but it could be climbed on and create a liability if someone is injured, as well cause possible vandalism to the equipment. Strommen said he was not aware that this has occurred, and it is not to be allowed. He will follow up on the report. . 2. Cochran will ask the Lake Use Committee to examine the possibility of requiring the use of adequate mufflers on all watercraft. Foster reported the new decibel meters have been helpful to the Water Patrol. 8. Adjournment There being no further business to bring before the the Chair ordered the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Board, David Cochran, Chair Jan Boswinkel, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Meeting;: Water Structures and Environment Committee Saturday, July 14, 1990, 7:30 a.m. Shorewood City Hall Excelsior; BertMembers Present: James Grathwol, Chair, Foster, Deephaven; John Lewman, Minnetrista; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Rachel Thibaul^, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Grathwol at 7:30 a.m. 1. District Mooring Field temporary Low Water Variance Wayzata Yacht Club. The age.nda called for consideration of a temporary low water variance application from the Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC) to relocate 3 moorings from Site 1 to Site 2 to reduce the impact of the 800’ extension on Site 1, to include internal mooring relocations within Site 1. , , Robert Albright, Vice Commodore, WYC, presented an amended application. The amended application is a compromise with neighbors and the City of Wayzata to meet the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit for the Club facility issued by the City. The CUP originally called .or all moorings to be within 400 of the shoreline. The City requires moving some moorings to within 600'of the shoreline for 1990. The present relocation would place six moorings at 450’ on Site 2, eight moorings at bUO on Site 1, and eight moorings along the eastern side of property. This should enable the WYC to retain its existing Lorings currently moored at 800 ’ . The locations include the swing of the boats. Albright also explained the do not allow a swing into the public access channel. The mooring field will have to be within 400’ of the shoreline in 1^91 thereafter. Albright said the WYC is not sure about the water depth in all reassigned locations. It may have to make some re assignments, or possibly eliminate some moorings,and thus oome members could lose their Club access to the Lake. , , . The Executive Director reported the LMCD mooring field is not restricted to its dock use area but should be within reasonable proximity, the LMCD Board given discretion to decide its location. Foster said the neighbors o , ■ 4. ’ Rosekranz and Eastman, have no objection to Rosekranz asked that the boats be kept within a sight line away from their dock use area. Reese asked for the neighbors do not object. Duane Markus. 4U5 Bushaway was present in the audience and offered no comment. Reese moved. Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval temporary low water variance permitting relocation ot - continued that Road, of a the Water Structures and Environment Committee July 14, 1990 district mooring area from Site 1 to Site 2 as shown on the site plan dated July 12, 1990, subject to receipt of written approval by Rosekranz, and also subject to the conditions governed by the Conditional Use Permit issued by the City of Wayzata. Motion carried unanimously. 2. City of Deephaven Environmental Assessment WorKsheet (EAW) The Executive Director reported the MN DNR comments on the EAW submitted as a part of the review of a new dock license for the City of Deephaven. Reese questioned the MN DNR comment that no treated lumber is to be used that would contaminate fish or other aquatic organisms. He would like further rationale for the restriction. The MN DNR also recommends the LMCD consider developing a long-range plan for dock expansions. The committee would like a more detailed explanation of that recommendation. Foster moved, Lewman seconded, to recommend that an Environmental Impact Statement is net needed, to recommend approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as submitted by the Executive Director and approval of the new dock license and special density license for the City of Deephaven. Motion approved unanimously. 3. Special Density License Ordinance Relating to Amenities. Public The Executive Director presented the amendment to LMCD Code Sec. 2.05, Subd. 4b relating to public amenities. Changes are underlined. Foster stated he could not vote for this amendment until there is an evaluation of the effect on multiple dock licenses which have been granted special density allowance in exchange for various public amenities. Foster moved, Lewman seconded, to table the special density license ordinance amendment until the committee receives examples of how the change in amenities would affect recent multiple dock licenses. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Dock License Renewals Reese moved, Lewman seconded, To recommend approval of dock license renewals for the following: Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay, Orono Harrison Harbor, Harrison Bay, Mound Seton Twin Homes, Mound Harrison Harbor is being back licensea lor 1989. [lat-?- fn^is are included for the renewals with Seton Twin Homes beii.ti credited for the $25 fee they paid earlier when low water prevented the use of the docks. Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures and Environment Committee July 14, 1990 ENVIRONMENT (Taken Out of Order to accommodate Chair Reese) Reese reported an improvement in weed harvesting progress as the weed harvester repairs are solving problems encountered in the early weeks. The weather is also improving. Reese had two recommendations for committee consideration. He would like information on costs vs. budget on a more timely basis. He also recommends accelerating the harvesting during and August by extending the hours of operation. This would require paying overtime. The funds so expended could be recouped by stopping harvesting in September. The Executive Director said trucking costs will have to be reviewed for overtime considerations if hours are extended. He said the program is within budget on all aspects except equipment Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend the Executive Director prepare a more flexible plan of operation. Motion carried unanimously. Foster was excused. 5. Priority Item Study Grathwol noted there are eighteen months left in the multiple dock moratorium. During that time ordinances are being reviewed which affect multiple dock installations and operations.. He suggested the following as priority items to be studi^ Wetland Protection. A review of the national wetland inventory and definitions will be made. It is necessary to define the good wetlands and the bad wetlands. Aerial photos have been taken in conjunction with the milfoil studies. It will be necessary for someone to interpret them. 2. Two boat four boat rule. A physical inventory ot properties with more than three boats should be made and cross checked with the aerial photos. . j + 3. Inventory of permits. An inventory of permits issued to docks in excess of 100’ and 200'should be made. 4. Assembling Information. There should be a collection of positive information which could be used to statistically support the assertions about the Lake use. It was sugpsted applications for special event permits, for example, show the use with a follow-up to show actual use. The oheriff s Water Patrol, charter boat manifests, and reports from parks were suggested as additional lake use data sources. , , . • j 5. Lake use laws from comparable states should be acquire for study, such as Georgia, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin. Grathwol will appreciate input from other committee members. Water Structures and Environment Committee July 14, 1990 6. Additional Items 1. Reese said he believes the Personal Watercraft Ordinance has had a positive effect on noise. 2. Reese commented that he has noticed there is a decrease in purple loosestrife this year. The Executive Director noted he is aware that wetlands now filled with water have diminished its growth. 3. The Executive Director reported an apartment complex, Park Hill, did not renew its dock license. It has started putting boats in now that the water is up. The owner has responded that he expects only at ut 12 of the 44 slips for which he is licensed to be used. He dc ^s not wish to pay the full fee. The consensus of the committee is to require the full fee if the docks are used at all. 4. The Executive Director reported on a dock use area conflict in Smithtown Bay is under consideration for a variance application. The committee recommended the neighbors continue to work among themselves 7. Adjournment Grathwol declared the meeting adjourned at 9 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director James Grathwol, Chair i Action Report: Meeting: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Use Committee Monday, July 16, 199U, 4:30 p.m, Shorewood City Hall Members Present: Robert Pillsbury, Chair, Minnetonka; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Lt. Larry Peterson and Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pillsbury at 4:30 p.m. 1. Hennepin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Sheriff’s Water Patrol and LMCD The Executive Director presented the Joint and Cooperative Ag eement between thr County of Hennepin and LMCD providing for the annual law enforcement services on Lake Minnetonka. Pillsbury recommended JoEllen Hurr, Bert Foster and Sgt. Chandler to serve as a sub-committee to review the agreement in advance of the January 1, 1991 automatic renewal, requiring a 90- day advance notice of an intention to change the agreement. charter 2. Charter Boat New Registrations The Executive Director reported the following new boat registrations have been received and inspected: Elizabeth Ann, Charles E. Gross, Excelsior Holiday Fair, David Witther, Plymouth He also reported Jacks R Wild charter has been advertising for trips on the Lake but has not been registered. In talking to the charter owner, he wa.s not sure he would have any bookings Jhis season. Chandler stated the Water Patrol is aware Jacks R Wild charter has not complied with registration and inspection requirements. 3. Water Patrol Report a. Citations - Citations appear to be up over the same period last year, Chandler reported. A computer tally is not available as yet but the Water Patrol has been making weekend to weekend comparisons. b. July 4th Holiday Activity - Six BWIs, twenty-five citations and forty warnings were issued. There warrant arrests. There were two personal injuries. Chandler commended the deputies for their prompt action in handling one ot the personal injuries which required removal of a propeller to free the injured person in cruiser cove, Big island shore rafting area. The injured party is surviving remarkably well. Lake Use Committee July 16, 1990 c. Other - Chandler reported fifty-one BWI citations have been issued by the Water Patrol on the Lake and one citation by the PNR conservation officer. Responding to a question from Rascop, Chandler said he will check on the prosecution of the citation issued by the conservation officers. d. Chandler reported Smith's Bay Marina is renting personal watercraft. Safety inspection is required on all rental units, which is being processed. He also questioned inclusion of the requirement in the ordinance for oar locks, oarj or paddles on personal watercraft. A committee member thought it was eliminated from the ordinance. (Sec. 3.08, Subd. 3 appears to require either oars OT personal flotation devices. Wording is being checked. Reese asked about a specific "cigarette" boat which is very noisy with exhaust ports above the water line. Chandler responded that the Water Patrol is tracking its operation. Chandler said they have had many calls on the water iski observer ordinance, and inquiries about including parasailing in the ordinance to eliminate the observer. The committee consensus was not in favor of recommending a change for parasailing. Chandler said they have not had any further complaints about the Sun-Kat pontoon operation. Pillsbury has talked to the owner/operator. The Executive Director reported an inquiry from the LaCrosse County Harbor Commission requesting information about LMCD speed enforcement regulations and radar equipment to enforce the law. Strommen will furnish them with pertinent information. Strommen asked about the number of citations issued for speed violations. Chandler responded they frequently cite for speed and that it often ties in with BWIs. 4. Deposit Refunds Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of refunds to the following for special event permits on which there were no negative reports: Minnetonka Bass Club (6-9-£u Tournament) American Scholarship Foundation (6-10-90 Tournament) Minnetonka Crossing (6-16-90 Wind Surfing) Mound City Days (6-17-90 Fire Works) Motion carried unanimously. 5. Water Ski Ordinance Amendment The Executive Director distributed a proposed amendment to the waterski ordinance, Lice. 3.10, Subd. 1, which would set out exceptions to the observer rule for all forms of towing persons on the Lake. The committee discussed the days and times for the exception as stated in the proposed ordinance and amended it to except the observer rule from Monday a.m. through Friday noon which are not holidays and to eliminate the Memorial Day through Labor Day clause. Lake Use Committee July 16, 1990 Lt. Peterson advised he will make a referral to the County Attorney regarding Subd. l”b) "Sheriff May Order Observer , to assure the County is not taking on a potential liability with this provision. Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of an amen-^ '^^nt to the waterski ordinance as corrected subject to revlf .. by the Hennepin County Attorney, voting nay. Motion carried, Rascop The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Robert Pillsbury, Chair David Prass 1774 Fremont Avenue South liinneaoolis, Minnesota 554G3 (612) 374-1575 cm{,(L muM JUL23i990 ■ »'iry OF OriGfjo July 16. 1990 Jeanne A. Mabusth .Building and Zoning Administrator City of OronoMunicioal Offices Post Office Box 66Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: (Variance Dear Jeanne A. Mabusth: Thank you for your assistance re the directives of the Council. As per our telephone conversation toda^ I am uroently requesting specifically orawn plans that address this matter from the contractors involved to submit to the Orono City Engineer for consideration and recommendation. The response from the Cit/ Administrator as related by you is very encouraging and 1 will be submitting an additional alternative plan for consideration. All materials should be in your hands by the first week of August prior to the August 13th Council Meeting. Syrcerely. David Prass 0 i i V i:: A. WfKKmi^SKK^^^'^^ -!B'.mi ,: V '^^ISC:,: - 11 ifII m ILpp ifu M if ;i llililllilinUzU: lilii!=fe — •Uk. 3U3WJ'»‘', if5|'iljillii!;im :ilf} !lpiii h!liK!L ^ I !S|hM| f ini ii< Hi .til tit.^mm fr'' {lift' '■■*«>■ ■-,.«(liw fy.^ mm 'kt. s "I..' . ■ tiMMiSm IA:. ^: >if . Certificate of Survey •■ for Qpggopy C-_ Peterson :; of Lot 2. Slock 2. Markville Hennepin County. Minnesota ^5^ 7/^5/?0 ... M-Am '...I--**' <s = >\. V 9 ^00/ J :/V.< J..J /«.« S/*^W 5 /W-l ’« J;' L..•T'-r ■ TMt ' wj <?*«>€ t '# ,- •■«<'> jr- •'W3*i K;', ■'ntation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 2, Block 2, Markville, proposed location of a proposed house and pool thereon. It does not • COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. ■* • . ' ■HarK b. tironoerg nn. cic. No.12735 ....Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners ! , ».-J-ong Lake. Minnesota '*7 |;v- ■ •' 1 . . . -:L V S ' ■ is-'-' ■ ■ ■^:c '• -r\ :\, .. ■ .. .■•'•;•■ •, ''A : r:: are . assumed . ^ ----- ;:aa® mmmm-wm . ■ V •.• 'i-'. - -. . ••■:.••"■ ^r-. •*■' ■■ t '■■ ■ a wm: ■m%A. t«c' ' •■*sSia ' <<. •'r-MV- ■“ 3^.. .- -. i MACMILLAN ADDITION 1iio4«hkn«C«M«l»M4n 1^ TiSijfei—s. is: IM oer oTHit NT iM ^of»h*M.iM " •" *.#'• v'" S“"~‘ ._,,,j.«-^---.c..c=..^«H.^^ i| // A':-.,, V?s?.v,v SLSitft- V. ■* •-™-- ^7;^ /ESI"■>■'*'”“ ■" i '\|.. ' PI.IW Mill %i DETUOFI- AIJMiTION ‘I SMITH •U* Ji! Ill Kt^Mjr r«« «Mn ^ g«»^l« si^. »Uof>.«wiC«nu rtlWU«^S«0t ««■»» : ,. .'2®o I l&Vi V- '^M bo« oTik* NW iKoTHie ^.tKefSce-ft ’UslJlijSsati ttiMf««M ta<lC4t»«.>Mirf «dj«tatat yjU |•Ulllf llr«*t •• ____ ^ 1 r* *• -:r7-"i;ai^5?J±"L,i, Mq tMleoK «TM* tand cwMwad fin 5Mk I W hbtM C. 3mw« r<te.i»A»a«> I .-' ITHtlT ». L-'''•*•• * d • ■ L‘ SCHOELL&MADSON.lNC-r..- :.:, r .... ■ . ; : ■ ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS. -.4- SHEET 3 OP:3 SHEETS •; . '.-• .^ •:' X''. ' '■ : ■'.*' x:-'.'..‘■■■■.. ' . . !t>i ,ii-'S:a.... ■ ■ ■,'^'.- ^ • : -^mi '« - mm liKspj ;^^§|l'!if3 p« .J'-? iiil & ’1Bm,r r' Mfe. • ' = .1 ^/=!3/?o #155 Aec,i^«i. Da^/** 7~i'«-C > ^ ^ysriiAi MJic*. ^ oBcA /m | 4««^Mi> Or«iMC. ^ilC4>. //b X A^£. (*//«jI. A£. M>aA Z’ / m. /A//t4ftiS.sJUUCXJUUUfc^ r ,••-- • ■• rv-^:^ v.VV;'-;^vOvvV V 'Zv.^' l/4</AiUi ^ xCcSi/esr /»< To/* rwt -^!£T4/a//MS. ^4U~ 'X^ 'V V ■.>. • ... ...,: I- ;>.r> :>-;v g-&U>-^ ^ ^ €icTO^^#A^ *fc ^(€yf»isj^ euln^ p»^li(e>^S s4X/“ O- /oArv»si-^ (JU//r \r{.;■'■ i^y m- MK'^M mss yx J4 ■z ^"3 fe' iareby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of . the bound k.ot 21, SHADY-V/OOD, the location of all existing buildings, if any, thereon, and the pr p |ation of a proposed building. It does not purport to show any other improvement or encroac.- l:s.. COFFIN A GRONBERG, INC. .