Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-27-1990 Council Packet
LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 25.1990 Aimee Meyer has finished her contract service as of 7-25-90 She helped organize the computer reporting for tiie weekly weed harvest reports. Strommen reported a search for office locations in the area continues to be explored. 2)Cochran and Strommen will make a management plan presentation to the Wayzata Rotary Club.A flip chart has been prepared for the presentation. 3)The Executive Director will make a presentation to the Hubbard County Coalition of Lake Associations,Saturday, August 18,at Little Sand Lake,Nevis.The program is sponsored by the Mississippi Headwaters Board. 4)The Executive Director reported he attended a Corps of Engineers meeting on the Federal Manual on Wetlands July 25 He had an opportunity to make contact with the representative of the regional and also state Fish and Wild Life Division of the Corps.He has material from the meeting available at the office. 6.Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business to consider. 7.New Business There was no new business brought forward. 8. Adjournment Pillsbury moved,Boswinkel seconded,that the meeting be adjourned.Motion carried unanimously.The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. David Cochran,Chair Jan Boswinkel, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 22. 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 1. Call to Ordej 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 7*25-90 Regular Meeting 4. Public Consents * from persons it. attendance not on agenda 5. Reports A. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 8-11-90 b)Temporary low water variance extension to 100' with a change in configuration to accommodate canopies, and 1990 dock license renewal for Clay Cliffe Homeowners Association. c) 1990 dock license renewals for Eagle Bluff Association and Windward Marine, recommending approval. Park Hill/Park Island Apartments request for decrease in license application fee tor 44 slips, to 3 usable slips; recommending denial of fee allowance request, and order removal of boats within 30 days. e) Re-affirm operating policy of no refunds on multiple dock license application fees in the case of licensee Lyle Berman, Wayzata Bay, wherein he renewed and psla application fee, then used less than 5 sJino Recommendation to draft an ordindnce to clarify the code definition of a commercial marina per 7/2/90 letter from attorney. 2) 3) g) Additional business recommended by the committee ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 8-2C-90 (over) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda August 22, 1990 Page 2 b) Deposit refunds; reconnnend approval for Lake Masters Swim Club, Minnetonka Challenge 5-Mile Swim, and Zuhrah Shrine Skippers Boat Parade, both having met conditions of their permits. c) Recon*’«deration of water ski ordinance amendment to reduce the observer rule for all forms of towing persons on the Lake, based tpon committee recommendation of 8/20/90. d) Additional business recommended by the committee. 5. A. 4. ADVISORY, Chair Rascop a) Management Plan review status. b) Response to public comment on Management Plan. B. Chair Cochran, report C. Financial Report, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions, month ending 7-31-90 2) Audit of vouchers for payment 3) Second quarter financial summary and year-to-date budget progress D. Executive Director, Strommen 1) Report on office space requirements. 2) Additional reports. 6. Unfinished Business 7. New Business 8. Adjourmsent 8-16-90 I State of Muwvesota Office of the Govermor ST. PAUL 55155 RUDY PERPICH GOVERNOR 1S90 August 17.1990 Dear Transportation Safety Supporter; Some time ago you indicated your support for transportation safely by attending a public forum. Your interest in this serious matter is very much appreciated. Our goal is lo reduce highway fatalities 50% during the ne.xt ten years. Following are some of the actions which have been taken to date: / An additional $7.6 million is being spent lo complete highway safety improvements identified at the safely forums. These include hnghter edge striping, enhanced highway sign visibiliiy. added turn-lanes, and lengthened pedestrian crossing limes at intersections. / Railroad crossing safely is being enhanced with installation of new reflectonzed material at 700 crossings this year and at all 5.400 crossings in the state during the ne.xt three years. / Truck safely inspections are being doubled this year. / Aggressive enforcement of DWl and speed limit laws is under way. / Driver, pedestrian, and bicycle safety is being promoted. Insurance incentives for safe drivers are being encouraged and ihe needs of older drivers addressed. ^ A comprehensive report on the safety forums has been presented lo the Transportation Study Board which will make funding recommendations to the State Legislature next January. Major salely improvements identified at the forums will require approximately $500 miMion additional funding from the State Legislature in the future. Thank you for your ongoing involvement in transportation safety. We will continue to keep you advised concerning this important issue. Governor LEONARD W LEVINE Commissioner AN equal opportunity EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 ■ * l! cirr OF ORONO CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota S5323*Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 20, 1990 Mr. George A. Johnson 879 Brown Road North Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Johnson, The City Council has reviewed the letters of intent and questionaires from candidates for the Citizens Task Force on Highway 12. You have been selected as one of the four candidates to be interviewed by the Council at their August 27, 1990 meeting. At this time the agenda has not been finalized in order to give you a time for the interviews. Please call the City Office on Mond: y, August 27th for the approximate interview time. me. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact SIncerely, 'jL,/ -1 / ; I '(j,^ark E; ^&e«ihardson City Administrator cc; Mayor and City Council BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINLSIRAFION A UNANCE - 473-735* EAX 473-0510 PUBLIC - 47.V7««» CVTyr OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 56323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 20, 1990 Mr. Stephen M. Johnston 900 North Shore Drive W Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Johnston, The City Council has reviewed the letters of intent and questionai res from candidates for the Citizens Task Force on Highway 12. You have been selected as one of the four candidates to be interviewed by the Council at their August 27, 1990 meeting. At this time the agenda has not been finalized in order to give you a time for the interviews. Please call the City Office on Monday, August 27th for the approximate interview time. me. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Sincerely, E. Bernl^ City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council BLILOIMi A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSKSSING MIVUMSTRAIION A nVANCE - 473-735H FAX - 473-0510 PI BIJf IMIRk-S - 473-7350 t cirr OF OROIMa CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 20, 1990 Mr. John Massopust 440 Brown Road South Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Massopust, The City Council has reviewed t^e letters of. intent and questionaires from candidates for tne Citizens Task Force on Highway 12. You have been selected as one of the four candidates to be interviewed by the Council at their August 27, 1990 meeting. At this time the agenda has not been finalized in order to give you a time for the interviews. Please call the City Office on Monday, August 27th for the approximate interview time. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Mark E. Ber'l City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council BLILDINC; A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING AUMl.NlMR.M ION A UNA.NCt - 473-735* fK\ - 473-0510 PI BLlt MOKKS - 473-7350 I ....ct'nr-:^? rfeORONO^ CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 20, 1990 Ms. Eleanor Winston 765 Spring Hill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Ms. Winston, The City Council has reviewed the letters of intent and questionaires from candidates for the Citizens Task Force on Highway 12. You have been selected as one of the four candidates to be Interviewed by the Council at their August 27, 1990 meeting. At this time the agenda has not been to give you a time for the interviews. Please call the City Office on Monday, August 27th for the approximate interview time. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me Sincerely, ^:.!rk e; Her rdson ^ City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council BLTLD:NG 4 ZOMVG - 475-7357 ASSKS81NG AOMIMSTRAriON 4 I IVANCK - 473-735« IA\ 47341510 PI Bl K V30RKS - 475-735^ CITYof ORONO CITY OF ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal OfBoes t On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING: August 22, 1990 Dear Mr. Bob Bruce Alan G. Carslon Mark F. Engebretson Michael J. Hilbelink Sandie Larson John H. Merideth Kc/in Reilly Melanie Rose Donald C. Wildman Robert Hare David Floren Joan Floren Roger M. Zeeb The Council is very appreciative of your willingness to serve on a Citizen's Task Force regarding Highway 12 and your willingness also to submit a questionnaire regarding that possible service on an advisory committee. The City received a letter of interest from 17 parties. As the City could only nominate a primary and an alternate to the Committee, it was determined that the field should be reduced to four individuals for interviews. At this time yours was not one of those nominated, however, the City is ..‘st appreciative of your willingness to serve and will retain your name on file for possible other openings with the City. Sincerely, imes R. Grabek Mayor cc: City Council BUILDING 8l zoning - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMISISTRAnON & nSANCE - 473-7351 FAX-473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ^ .1 1 * • *1 • • i . : ■ •’ - •* . •• '^vr‘- < •• f. :5:^ : . Mrt. Whitney MacMillan 1560 F« Street, Wayzata, i lUJ^fV\au^cr> Cftioe-cJ c Aona^ Cjcxj>f\cju_Q C>J\UN\C^ ^Wrsv,\vvAC| ^ 'V^ja_ Cj^ 'o-:>crvi<.v(rvc, (c>c. Q X" OvjlJX. Ao>lc^C^vO\'^CoV\ V/AC5o^ W-aAt-a^v3X_<i2^v\rs (<rx-C»a:A CS> Ou-r-i_ ••• m \/ o\ojo\*X'-<2-a^O^Vrv\ ->oo ctvna— C^3omvv^ j^v/^ ro *^sX“ JU^CL^Vxc Q ^ V C^cOr^ -Xj^ J>V »•' 0>fNVL\rN C3JLj>rx ■•>:■.•• ••• • ] • •» ■ • ■‘■k'Ji •j. •• •« V/A NtVxo^ir L5—»C3x5LcS, . Cl^v_>rNVs\,’<t_f^ CTn^ .. i . i A ,^J-UN "v T^LcL^ ^ oV<^ VN'T‘-Q.SL>^ VJJV>.^ J CZJNo^T^O _:^c>v^c5iirvJ^o...iJ^ ^Vocji. tTi r. * V_^_\»_ r^ Q/:!^gb L5^^_^CEus3r' ”VZ3 C-Oaxjva ^gcm^ V ’fese.cA ^OX^vv\CCn VJ V'NcYve/:^ JiooV cs^iLiu^ csLk-^-O ^^/^2-c3J!>^ 'Ax::> Ul^ . ip CtXaJlC. Oo O Q ^ WVcCw^^ (i Vsc^ujb ••;4*' -•-. '•# ^ ! •. > \ f -.r.» • ■•■^ ■ •' ■• ' ••(•;*" '• • ■■ •' . • •;;/• ■• 7. “ ■•v *. # . • • '- V'*' • • ' ■ '•' '• •• • •• , ' r :-v. i..- .^,.r.r^-.7v . ••, ■ , • . -V, -' -.«■ . ~ r.V'- •■ • -T-.. -. • • •• ■ ' V.*- . ■ - •. : ■. **-.• ..* "• . %>■• •!.'*’■ ■ . • ;• -V-‘V^v’ • •‘I* ^ • • . • ■*' . .*. .• ■ • '•• » —. r*. . * •• ! -*. 4-..- ■*... "•7 *.• « V ;.•. .' :77v :':"•’7 7;v:7 •• - ■ •■;.' r‘.. ••4. .J ■i-: .'■■■■:;*7. r: ■7*''i .1 ’ . •■M.--.-, •-. 1• ...•• »,• •'. .:! To ' O/o^'io T^/aioin[«.^ Ccy>i*^.sS>o*'i Of Cb'^v^Ci I X W.*bh +A j: C^o..,5.on Gkw C cu .c I “r J77o ai/s..tx ipj. ^o-\c a f/ty-f pl^c^ I\iy9 07 ^**7 ^ Sn,»/> k,,JWoe. ^ 6« #4* rcvttcJlell,' , n\diAy aws^a^a's if fiu.. iD «c,-kv j7 , |.. ^.- V; %, ’..'W I ,y,.-,..vv i’"’V .' '.•••■'' ';-;!.'’-;;'vC': .'. •' ■‘ •. */X.- (■•'.> »: ” - ■ • ..• -i- ‘w..**.. *■; t r.», ..-?,•> ~ »•* . . V.- .-*. •, •. » j.-»'-.-.^vr7.'' ■ • ■ >■■' •• ■'“.. i .".-•.."'t *.'• • ' *'..W*'. • r, ■ .• '■ : - • ■•- ‘ 7 - *<•...• «..• .r ...- 1 *, -.»f v> .,••■• V • ■* • " . ‘‘{r 1 : '■ . •• •? ’ r:' »■ ••-’i.- • r . « . *• ; , -I- ' ‘ ■ -.vv..'-/ *•• >■ V* .V" V- > ■ ‘ • „ * ' ^ ‘ ♦•.V-V--V V V- • ■ . ■'•-.'•* ■T.'’'■^^ ^ ’■.■,• . ■ A '*-. *.* • i .... Pz-S-V-’r noA; I yj' X1 O Clw Ksrpi 'fa tv €.1 ci cfSi •iAxjt^OC % yc-i {i^ yov{»"f ‘*«t 3^iy<S Ga^J,^ m Arnbassador j • ».A- - .:A.-svA- * V V ‘ ‘ ••■ .•’ • *. A; A?? A;;: :.*.'.•*!• ' * *•' - . * - j- , ._• . - . ' . • . ■ VTU 506Q ■ ............................................................................... «» : ',. • •.'-•rv,; .... -»-*, A' ■.. ■ .’ ’ • • ". »■ ••■.,..“..'' r. :'v . ' Vi ^ ’V ■... ; •,.#. Jr • ♦.^/'.. -.^.v •*■ * ■ »y ’»• * liM) Action Report: Moeting; LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Use Committee Anr\p\AUG 2 4 1990 Monday. August 20, 1990, 4:30 p.m., Shorewood City Hall Members Present: Robert Pillsbury, Chair, Minnetonka; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; David Cochran, Greenwood; James Grathwol, Excel:iior; Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pillsbury, declaring a quoiam present. 1. Review Wator Ski (Towing Persons) Ordinance Amendment The committee received a draft of an ordinance relating to towing persons by watercraft as re-worded to reflect changes discussed at the July 25 Board meeting. At that meeting the proposal was tabled and returned to the corunittee when it was apparent there were not enough votes among tie members present to pass the Ordinance. Grathwol said he is ambivalent about the proposed change in the observer rule. He does not see the need for a change, but he recognizes the "sunset" provision allows for a period to see if there is a safety risk. Cochran does not favor a change to accommodate a small group. Babcock said he has decided to favor the change. Reese expressed the opinion that the change would encourage people to use the lake during off hour.s and will be helpful to people who do not live on the Lake. Grathwol moved, Pillsbury seconded, to return tlie re-worded Ordinance Relating to Towing Persons by Watercraft to the Board without a recommendation. Motion carried, Reese did not vote. 2. Critique of Public Officials Boat Tour of August 4. The Committee agreed the tour was successful. Cochran said he would prefer one boat in the future by either cutting down on tlie numb-^r of people invited or using a large boat. Pillsbury said he would like to see the tour begin at 10:30 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m. Pillsbury also suggested beginning the planning process earlier. Grathwol forwarded a comment from a guest that there might be better participation if invitations were sent out forty- five days in advance with a follow-up. Strommen reported there were 97 reservations and ten no-shows. The Executive Director is to explore the availability of the Lady of the Lake for next year’s tour. Lake Use Committee 3. Deposit Refunds August 20, 1990 Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend to the Board the following deposit refunds: a. Lake Masters Swim Club, Minnetonka Challenge 5 Mile Swim (7-21-90) b. Zuhrah Shrine Skippers Boat Parade (7-15-90) Motion carried unanimously. 4. Water Patrol Report Chandler said there have been five personal in.iury and four property damage accidents reported to the State. There have been 79 BWIs issued. 76 by the Water Patrol, two by the DNR and one by the City of Orono police. The total for Hennepin County is 84 BWIs. Chandler detailed the circumstances of the burning of a 22' boat in Brown’s Bay, and a personal in.jury accident when a boater fell out of a boat. Of most interest was the sinking of the charter boat Paradise Princess on August ll^*" It was caused when the entire party » nt to the stern end of Uic* upper deck for a wedding ceremony ro.'ulting in the stern taking on water unnoticed by the pilot, the boat filling with water too fast to pump out. The Water Patrol response time was two minutes. It was aided in removing passengers by a pontoon from tlie Minnetonka Yacht Club. There were no injuries. Chandler said the Water Patrol is meeting with r.hc Lake area investigators to break a suspected boat theft ring. Responding to a question from Cochran, Chandler said the County Attorney will not prosecute felony charges against the hit and run boat operator who struck a 16’ boat off Casco Point in Spring Park Bay. The Water Patrol is talking to the LMCD prosecutor about pressing misdemeanor charges. Reese commented on the quick response from area rescue personnel and the Water Patrol when he assisted a personal watercraft operator who had been injured after losing cortrol of his watercraft. 5. Meeting Date of Subcommittee It was agreed the subcommittee to review the Hennepin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Sheriff’s Water Patrol and the LMCD will meet on Wednesday, September 121h at 7:30 a.m., a place to be determined and committee members to be notified 6. Additional Business Recommended by the Committee Inter-Agency Agreement on Dredging. The Executive Director reported that following a meeting wich DNR and Watershed District representatives, Foster, Cochran j*nd himself, the DNR was to respond with a further revised drat.-. The Executive Director will follow up on the draft Agreement status. Lake Use Committee August 20, 1990 Gayle's Harina - Storage of Barges. Thibauit reported an inspection was made and a letter sent to Gayle’s Marina advising him barge storage on shore is in violation of his dock license. The City of Orono indicates they have no ordinance prohibiting of barges. A dredging license from the Watershed is required, but Gayle has not made application. The Director reported there have been complaints from about the visual impact of the barges one of which a large land crane. He reported Gayle has removed a 6* y the use District Executive neighbors holds 24’ gas promotion sign he had erected on his docks. Thibauit has been working with Hurr on the dock inspection at Gayle’s Marina. Administrative Technician Report. Thibauit reported noting a number of temporary low water extensions that are going beyond what was approved, one as much as 100’. She has been writing letters to the offenders advising them that 1991 low water variances will be strictly enforced and only allowed where full need is demonstrated. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m, FOR THE COMMITTEE; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Robert Pillsbury, Chair LAKE MINrJETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., WeJneaday, August 22, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 1. Call to Order 2. loll Call 3. leading of Minutes: 7-25-90 Regular Meeting 4. Public CoBBMnts - from persons In attendance not on agenda 5. leports A. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 8-11-90 Temporary low water variance extension to 100* with a change in configuration to accommodate canopies, and 1990 dock license renewal for Clay Cliffe Homeowners Association. c) d) 1990 dock license renewals for Eagle Bluff Association and Windward Marine, recommending approval. Park Hill/Park Island Apartments request for decrease in license application fee for 44 slips, to 3 usable slips; recommending denial of fee allowance request, and order removal of boats within 30 days. e) Re-affirm operating policy of no refunds on multiple dock license application fees in the case of licensee Lyle Berman, Wayzata Bay, wherein he renewed and paid application fee, Chen used less than 5 slips. Recommendation to draft an ordinance to clarify the code definition of a commercial marina per 7/2/90 letter from attorney. 2) 3) g) Additional business recommended by the committee. ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 8-20-90 I (over) il LAKE MINNETONKA CONOEKVATION DISTRICT Actioa Report: Meeting: AUG 2 0 tQcy\Water Structures and Env'ironment Committee Saturday, August 11, 1990, 7:3U a.m. Shorewood City Hail Members Present: James Grathwol, Chair, Excelsior; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach (as noted). Also present: Rachel Thibauit, Administrative Technician. The meeting was called to order by Grathwol at 7:30 a.m. declared present. a quorum 1. Park Hill and Park Island Apartments (Spring Park) Regarding Multiple Dock License Fee. The Park Hill/Park Island Apartment complex is licensed for 44 boats. Earlier this year they paid a $25.00 fee to maintain their license status because the docks were not usable due to the low water. Sii.'re then the lake level has risen and there are three boats docked at the location. This violation was called to the attention of tHe Comi. tee at the July 14th meeting. At that time the Committee concensus was to charge the full fee if any of the docks are used. Michael Gorra, the licensee, requested reconsideration. He offered to pay the dock fees for the three boats, but considers requiring the full fee for 44 boats as being unreasonable. Grathwol explained the LMCD Ordinance does not allow a partial payment. Rascop moved, Pillsbury .seconded, to recommend to the Board that the boats docked at Park Hili/Park Island Apartments be removed within thirty days. Motion carried unanimously. 2. License Renewals. A. Clay Cliffe Home Owner Association (Tonka Day) Rascop moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of tlie Clay Cliffe Home Owners Association multiple dock license and to approve a temporary low water variance to extend to 100 feet with change in configuration to accommodate cariopies. Motion carried unanimously. Staff was instructed to place a tickler on the Clay Cliffe file as a reminder to obtain an as~buiit of their permanent docks when temporary extensions are no longer needed. B. Eagle Bluff Association (Minnetrista) Bjorlin moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the Eagle Bluff Association multiple dock license, without change. Motion carried unanimously. Page 2 was omitted when placing this document on mylar. Water Structures and Environment Committee 6.Tonka Day Marina (Tonka Day) August 11,1990 Tonka Bay Marina is considering applying for a change in the location of slip Cl to the dock opposite slip SV9 because the Cl location interferes with the use of the ramp. Boswinkel moved,Bjorlin seconded,to recommend a temporary low water variance to allow Tonka Bay Marina to change the location of slip Cl to the dock opposite slip SV9.Motion carried unanimously. It was recommended that if Tonka Bay Marina wants a permanent change, they indicate it on the application for 1991. Rascop suggested signing and roping off the location at the ramp so it cannot be used. 7.Deicing Application Progress Status Thibault reported the 1990/1991 deicing applications will be sent out the week of August 13. Rascop was excused. 8.Fee Study The Board has referred a study of the E.A.W.application and deposit fees to the Water Structures Committee. Pillsbury moved,Bjorlin seconded,to recommend following sub-committee to study the fee schedule: Boswinkel,Robert Rascop and James Grathwol. The staff is prepare background information.Motion carried unanimously. 9."Peterson Structure", Smithtown Bay,Victoria Thibault reported the DNR has an interest in pursuing an after-the-fact violation of shoreland regulations on property in Victoria identified as the "Peterson Structure". No action was taken, Grathwol offering to follow up on the matter. 10.Excelsior Day Associates/Excelsior Day Gabies Grathwol reported a technical violation of LMCD ordinances resulting from the purchase by the Excelsior Bay Gables Homeowners Association of the multiple docks licensed to Excelsior Bay Associates.The docks are licensed as commercial docks,although they no longer meet the code definition of commercial docks.There is also the technicality of licensing the docks on an outlet. Boiiwinkel moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend to the Board the drafting of an ordinance to clarify the code definition of a commercial marina, per the letter from Attorney Lel'evere dated July 2,1990.Motion carried unanimously. tho Jan to LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Board of Directors Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 25, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Foster at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call. ^ . o ^ tr 4.Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Charles LeFevero, Counsel; Norm Paurus, Project Manager; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Marvin B.ioriin, Tonka Bay; John Malinka. Victoria; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert Slocum. Woodland. 3. Reading of Minutes: Reese moved, Grathwol approve the minutes of the 6“27~90 meeting as showing Babcock voted aye on item 5.C.2.e, Water Rule. Motion carried unanimously. seconded, to corrected by Ski Observer 4. Public Comments: There were no comments attendance not on the agenda. 5. Reports from persons in A. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Minutes. Grathwol moved, Reese seconded. approval of the minutes of the 7-i4-SU meeting as submitted. Motion carried, Rascop abstaining, not being in attendance. b) District Mooring Field Temporary Low Water Variance - Wayzata Yacht Club Robert Albright, Vice Commodore, WYC, presented a site plan of the mooring field as of 7-25-90 showing the 600 line and three moorings in site 2, requesting the variance ^ix moorings in site 2 as submitted on the application. Albright also submitted a written approval of the relocation from neighbor Grathwol moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of a temporary low water variance adjustment as shown on the site plan dated July 25, 1990 (6 moorings in site 2), subject to being in accord with the City of Wayzata Conditional Use Permit granted to the Wayzata Yacht Club. Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. LMGD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 25, 1990 f) Lakeside Marina Dock Location The Executive Director reported he has informed the owner of Lakeside Marina that their floating docks as installed do not meet full compliance with the application regarding exact reconfiguration of the docks being replaced. The owner will advise whether he needs more than the ten days allowed for correction. 5. A. 2) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese Reese reported the milfoil harvesting program is running behind projections. A flexible plan is being developed to work ten hour days, Monday through Thursday, eight on Fridays through August. It may be necessary to shorten the season to stay within the budget by ending in August. Rascop complimented Paurus and the harvesting crew for the cutting they did during the Olympic Festival in the lower lake. Reese identified the weed harvester hydraulic system as creating major operating problems. The manufacturer is involved to assure warranty coverage is provided wherever applicable. 5. A. 3) LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) Minutes Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, approval of the minutes of the meeting of 7-16~90 as submitted. Motion carried. b) Sub-conunittee Appointment Foster moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of a subcommittee to review the Henneoin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Sheriff’s Water Patrol and LMCD consisting of JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Bert F>ster.Deephaven; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park and Sgt. Wm. Chandler of the Sheriff’s Water Patrol or his designee. Motion carried unanimously. c) Deposit Refunds Pillsbury moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the following deposit refunds: Minnetonka Bass Club, American Scholarship Foundation, Minnetonka Crossing, and Mound City Days, all having met the conditions of their event permits. Motion carried unanimously. . . d) Water Ski (Towing Persons) Ordinance Amendment The Executive Director submitted an amended copy of the proposed ordinance which will allow for exceptions to Sec.3.10, Subd. 1, of the Ordinance governing towing of persons by watercraft. The copy submitted clarified the clause regarding the code provisions before Memorial Day and after Labor Day. LMCD Board of Directors July 25, 1990 2) An Inter-Agency Dredging Agreement meeting with MN DNR and MCWD is planned for noon, Friday, July 29 Rascop and Foster indicated they would attend 5^ C. Prosecution Progress Report, Attorney Steve Tailen, Holmes St Gravens. Steve Tailen £ -bmitted a summary of his prosecuting attorney activity and court fine revenue from November 1989 through June 1990. It was noted cost of jail time was not included in summary. Staff will include that. There was discussion of ways to approach the judiciary to make them more cognizant of the importance the District places on safety violations. If practical, the Board would like a report on the fines being levied for various infractions. 5. D. Financial Report, Treasurer Lewman 1) Lewman submitted the statement of cash transactions for the month ending 6-30-90 and it was ordered 2) Lewman submitted the list of bills payable, c'eck 6302 to Prof. Fundraising Services in the amount of for a Save the Lake address list is a recommended settlement with the vendor. The original list of 4800 names was not satisfactory to some Board members. The vendor has agreed to review the list and identify 1000 prospects for the district. check 6288 to Smith and Nephew in the amount ot $973.20 for U.F.O. - General Supplies. It appeared more than the quoted price. Staff agreed to re-examine the billing. Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of checks numbered 6228 through 6302 in the amount of $51,blK67, check 6302 to ba held until the vendor has furnished a list of lOUU names not on the district’s current Save the Lake mailing list and check 6288 subject to an audit of the bill to determine its accuracy. Motion carried, Hurr voting nay. financial have been3) Lewman reported the second quarter summary and year-to-date budget progress reports returned of^Tonka Bay has requested someone from the Board be present at their August 14 meeting to discuss the 1991 budget. Lewman will attend. 5. E. Executive Director, Strommen 1) Staff progress Strommen reported newly hired Admini'itrative Technician Thibault has been introduced to a variety of her duties. She is working daiiy on multiple dock Ucense renewals for inspections. The dock license renewals should all be in the mail by the end of July. Rascop said there should be a cost accounting of the time spent on licensing the information furnished to the "Dock” committee. THI USA IN SPORTS \VV .,'■■•'raVNl I/aj \ M I ‘ H. >V«A& T:«>iln(l In 0i» wptfr In ] own honi hn» alwnyn nooi Ithofnttn*. Fvon toi a (tin you rliarl ymir own m rnmmnnd your n»n «lp Bill on Ihf irroft popular nr' irnd hoys, that «nn!» o( I doni him bnnn imdnrni) hy nr frrrn' ovnrrrowd nlrnhnl ahuae. rarelessi nod Inconipnlnnrn An4 hnp< ns wnll, Oy author! ynal to annp thn jid on b(~ ifari-BLlit' '■ annp thn and In « llh Insra and trea that I honlnrs * ■Wn rn not Mhnml by lhal crnnin pmrrstnnl tor t>.' says t-nri UiurtardaH nr Jane CresrI. "Wd w pnsnd to Minis making lhal don I do anything for ly nnd disrrimlnale •( honlnrs V Among the potential | Indui.-nrs * h I ovmr speed llmttij nnd nrsignnd arena forj| wnlnr skiing and peo^ (Hull water cmB (jelaklsl ^ More frequent stop sirprsind almhol abuse near entry ports popular srnuggleis, stnppertmp (lunrd boardingr P Inrrnnsed reglslra Ires personal property I nnd snies and hiel tains P A nrw trdnral tee for VHF radio llrenses. P And coming soon, per- higgnsi mgulainry I boot nperalors II- I predict the premuie will bulM Inr It In the neat 10 I -I'." ty'). l*i Boaters) are ip with the ronment they to boat in ’ t the drunks le uuter, at rongesthm, at )tlm guys ' don't know rules of the iV* k« Sclullg, of Boat ft AMoclallon of nlMStaloa. ' Total foglslefed hoiiti AccIHonli fatal arridcnis 'MSiobl sin ‘ premme jnnra — maybe In Ove." snys MInnewrIn’s Anting and safety ; rfwrdlnnlof. Kim Elverum Itonlcnlly, mutii of the call lor regulnlinn comes Irom^, J tM>alers themselves • They era ‘ b * no »!Ui the nnvironmenli Ihny have In boat hi at lb rr.nKbecnn- <T’nCiiUfiaMhpi'itc-: f-'rt',i.w.'ttrlLiI?M I uiriWl, 4- . aever receive." 1 Stale lax cotlectocs Ska to taiget boater^ k Xccordini to a IM« ■■«rvey by KJAT/US. s are almoM ns many ereni charaa as there ire states. While some pay a nominal tee to heir borne alalea, nth lay out Kveral bun- >llart for the aarne preanira and ei i«en bcaleri with a th- fiolce:.lt Sm.expert- ________ rib H7 Apparently so Though new 'tt: ' boat antes are dosrn nation- "19W wide, boat reglstiattuiu have - Increased by shout <00,000 ev ery year In the last decade |> Maybe H I lust tealtsm." . ' ->1 ‘ "Free and unfettered use ol ' • ' 1 the •alenrsys? Thsl'i gone < t" the wsy of the Model T," ssye BOATfUS-i SduUs And de diunka rln Ihe water,i gc .linn, nl Ihe other guvs who don l know the riles-, of the SttsKSi A SMiei£^■>1'"’"piMlWliMlagSi So with the Memlngs of bohUPI-. ri-iylnles h-.ve pasted stUferilv InvifTpnd Increased law tn-f/ other bonlers; SR percent wsnl- Inmlly Is thinking about selling silt 1 ed Increased penalties and their home la South IlntMa af IH."1^ penalties a Trent ol laws “ InrqaiVienl eltnrls One result 1 ed 1 trurbra the Inst decade, falall- V Wrt tics p«' loo.oon bonis have de^ 1,1 Onerallv. says nnrtdn Mn- rllned tS% "A tesmmchl lAjN rine IWtrol Ihreclor I>oo Fit more regulnlinn nnd more to ' Itupra''boaters want more en- ciis on safely nnd safe equip lorcemenf nienl," says Sclulln enlorcemeni lhal Elverum says Minnesota look a survey In 10*0 nnd were pirprised by some ol Ihe re sults price isilhered by the behavior nt "Am.-ng "ur bonlers, at •rrenl biillrnled they were gels alco hol abusers nod speeders In congested nreas the problem comes with bninneing fairness nnd icasoniWcness wllh brood law enforcenieni gosK Cresrl. for Inslnnce, says her ler her hushnnd. Inhn. w-ns nr rested and hauled Into crtml- nnl rnurl for crenling a IlSInch wake In lornl waters 'It you especially plend gullly," she snjrv "you Inrgels airo- have n criminal record “ Angry vncht ownfr^ mean while, are nl war with the U5 rpen- rt or conHsraled In IrulUess drug searches Water skiers are (onq C.uatd alter their ex dve boats were lom npni aplle all the worries aboul care lessness and Incompetence, moat boalera appear willing lo obey reguintlonn '■ ll’l a good thing It even a •Ignincih' mlnorlly ol Ihe USA's IS million hoalers tbumhed their nones al Uie law, there could never be enough cops to catch Iheia Floclday lor Instance, has only tboul 900 ot- Bcers patroUlag IJSO mltea of I consume,'JnUUMI koM ol< Inked end ponds and 11,000 miles of rivers and streams In Michigan, about Uie same num ber are responsible lor more than 39,000 square rrUles ol wa ter. new X.n vhi- iitetise. mm are ' Foihmalely, snys Michigan considered more general reve- ,, marine Safety oBcer Erk Ol nue enhancers than lee-for-aer- ' sen, "You're not deaUng with vices charges bank robbers and derelicts It bothers me more and i, here. You're deaUng with hon- mote," says Tennessee River ' esl people, wtm people who, bonier John laclk, 'thal ■' when they break the tew, don I they re making a poor sItuaUon realize srhal they're doing la smrse by taxing us lor services ! wroigp''; Ighling speed IF Oval would all bul kill Iheli rl on favor- lie laSes nrvd rivers And lax- weary Nmt owners are grutrv bitng aboul tees, such as the; Morula sees ruii|j|i seas ahead with recrcallonni booling In Inlllles on Ihe decline - de spile more hunts In use hool Ing olfirlnls In iiinsl slates allow ihpuisnives a sense of np llmism nlsiul Ihe Immcdlale liiliire Mm those in Murldn, however According lo U S. rnasi Guard makings. Florida Is No. 3 In regl-.leipd bonis "Bill II we counleil hunts Ihe way snitie mher stales do nnd If we coulil icgFler nil Ihe niilol stale ImkiLs lhal are permanent ly loraled In l-Torldn. we'd (iitnp In No I ovrrnighl." snys Ivon rillniren. dlrrclnr ol Ihe I lorlda Mmlne Iblrol F.ven wllhniil ndding Ihe shadow iMialers, Florida s mim hots me rnpidiv cllnrhlng 'We have n lliimsnnd new tesldenls a dnv moving Inlo this stale. ' says Hllniwrn ' Ahmil ion nl them will bring hunts nr buy one here ' l»v Ihe end of Ihe dermle, well doiihle Ihe number of boi.rs sTatewIdP .Some cnunlles will triple And Ihni Increase Is nm going In Ite In rnn**es II s going lo he In Ihe high perlor mnnee cnltysitlcs where we nl- teailv hnve problems In Ihe most rongevtrd areas " Altenriy. honls oulnmnlier stale, rminlv nnd < lly marine ameers hv i.Zno In I 1 Ihink lliey h.ad heller raids nl Ihe AInmn than we da on n hu«v weekend,' says Mllngrcn. Boating ininlllles hnve dipped In Hoihla. as they hnve Ihroiighoiil Ihn USA Ilul since 1991. ncridenis hnve Incte.asid • dinwlne, bnniing ro :. skirts. I opernh hv SR'T, Ihe dale Is ronslder- Ing a tcq-iltemenl lot homing opeinints licenses, and conn lies f cp the s-i -ran swimmers nnd hshermen from one nnolhei's IhroaVs The familiar, unnvoldnhle problem money Revenues finm a new sail water Bshing license fee me supprrsed lo he spill among Hshrtles. lesenrch and In-* en foir emenl But Fit his otere h,as noi lerts ■'We n'krd lor inn new post lions We got 11. nnd none weie Itom the sivllwnler Urease fee' A luuk at.boatingjysuetys' figures aaiiss tliejl^lSA,.?, A qitick look al natnnwlda boaNrvg an] bogtlnaMMy laclg, bast'd on 19B9 U S Coaal Guard alaltstkte;fifl|ki5(l,’'rq -, Calhnaled number ol boate: 17 8 mSkoo-jIriru..,'. ’ ui, rartenlaga ol boata undm IB toot 576$~\" i4'kl> -r> Parcanisga ol boala IS lo undof H iMb Percenuiga ol boala 28 laol and ovan 3 78. ', Moil typlcil hu« conibucHon: llbatgiMI (53.9)IT f* v Mom typical propulikm: OirHmatd (mort jign W ,, 2 Fmallly rala par 100,000 bMM ki rmmity rala par 100,000 boat* kl ,*«: l ength ol boal 'n moll kcctdanta^ 18 lo 28 lam''W, iS « Length ol boll In moal lilalliai; Ibis ihin <8 fool ’'TV'I; Mom lypicil accident eomHori wHIv another boal '.'if' ' Accident most likely lo cauea lateltVit: r:aps>ilrvg 'T >: r Molt hequeni ceuio of eccldenti: ImpropAr lookout ' ‘ Mom comiTvoo ege grovip ol oporalarw 28-90A 7 Month moll accidenit happen July - -u ' ■ f \ ' ( Dsy ol week wllh motl accldenle: SurxJay ' . u , Time at day moil accldenti hippod-. 23^4 30 0 m " For ttvsa iriiotmairop coniad JhaUS CoallOuaid. 2100 Sacood Si. SW, Washnqlon OC 2O59J-00OI; and BOA- VUS 880 South fhckartSlteolAiesandda Va. 22304 I manrrs gklrts htryenhed one of tree clinic al 1» Sunday, SepI J. the titiwnhlll mtes because Ihey all inviled *#•«*» an»rv nhiwii n Ttu>. tSiKUr romm«>nl r loiMimnifnl lhl« »rpkend The I ntiWant — Ourlnn r (he refitoe nnd •ma Whfflrhiilr Ten- huNrr rnmp1n« (n (h^ KKn( pripylnr dumflnt ground iJnce ».»« r»IWmfv»,vneM« •*« 1*1 Ol.-dld-^ W>,*lme.wl r.meseeW I. _ ^ •. d. > ... CD-FO-3895 1990 -V AUG 2 4 1S90 Research Summaries mm CENTER Minnesota Extension Service University of Minnesota No. 8 Boating Safety in Minnesota Introduction Minnesota is first in the country in per-capua boat o>vnership. Nearly 700.000 boats were registered in I9S9—about one boat for every 6.3 people living in the state. With so many boaters, questions of boating .safety arise. How safe is boating in Minnesota? What safety problems Jo boaters encounter and what should be done about them? To obtain answers to these and other questions relcued to the quality of boating in Minnesota, a statewide survey of registered Minnesota boat owners was conducted in 1988 by the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). funded by the DNR. The research summarized tn this report is based on a survey of 2,^90 boat owners, projected to the entire population of Minnesota reg istered boat owners. A description of the study design and methods ap pears at the e,id of this report. MlnnMa*& ll OEPUTMENT OF MTURM. RESOURCES by Leo H. McAvoy, David W. Lime, Curtis Schatz, and David G. Pitt is Boating Safe in Minnesota? In general, the survey indicates that, among Minnesota’s 286,000 pleasure boat own ers, boaung is relatively safe. Over 95% of the resptindents have not been involved in any boating accident in the past five years. Fewer than 2% have boon in an accident resulting in significant property damage (over ?2(X)), and less than 1% were in volved in a boating accident resulting in injury re<|uiring more than basic first aid. Although few accidents were reported in this survey, boat owners in the mjtro region reported an xci lent rate twice as high as that of owners in the north and 'Outh regions. One reason for ihe low overall accident rate among ill Minnesota boat Figure 1. Percentage of boat owners who have or have not taken a boating safety course owners may be the high level of boating experience among tho.se responding to ti e questionnaire. The average Minnesota beat owner in this study has 22 years of boating expenence. .As indicated in Figures I and 2, slightly more than 1/5 of the boat owners have over completed a boaung siicty course offered by the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary (9%), Minnesota DNR (4%). U S. Power Squad rons (5%). or other training agency (7%). Metro region boat ow ners were more likely (28%) to have taken a boat safely course than wc.e those from cither the north (17%) or the south (19%) regions. Need for Increased Safety Even though boating in Minnesota is gener ally safe, Ixiat owners believe that there is a need for increased safety on 'Jie slate’s lakes and nvers. Inappropriate boating be havior of others, the increasing amount of boat uaff^c. and the level of enforcement of boating rules and regulations arc problems iliai boat owners see as a threat to safe boat .ng. More than 80% of the boat owners indi cated that poor behavior by other boaters is a problem, 68% viewed the large and grow ing numbers of boaters on lakes and streams as a problem, and 57% agreed that there is a problem with enforcement of boating rules and regulations. Boat owners in the mcuo region perceived these safety problems as being more prevalent then did respondents in the other regions. Figure 3 Figure 2. Percentage of respondents who have takeii a safety course 12 - c o £ 0 1uI 10 - 8- 6- 4 - 2- 0-*- MNDNR USCGA USPowsr Othei Boating Safety Course* MNONR 3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources USCGA 3 U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary USPower 3 U. S. Power Squadrons Other 3 Red Cross, U.S. military, Scouts, private club, etc. indicates that metro region boaters were only slightly more likely to view boating behavior as a more serious problem. But they were much more likely than boat ow ners in either the north or souih regions to view boaung numbers and cnforcemer.t of regulations as problems. This indicates there may be more safety-related problems in the metro region lakes and rivers. Boat owners who had completed a boating safety course are also more likely to view the boating behavior of others as a problem, and they aie more likely to view these problems as severe. Some of the boat owners’ respon.se*: regard ing boaung behavior of others and the number of boaters on Minnesota lakes and rivers may be related to aesthetic as well as safety reasons. But there seems to be a strong indication that boat owners view the.se as problems that need to be addrcs.scd to improve safety and boating quality. Management Actions to Improve Safety Minncsoui boat owners support improving boating safety through stricter regulation of certain boating activities and improved boating facilities. Figure 4 indicates that the safety measu.es preferred by at least 50% of the state boat owners arc: restrict the speed of boats on heavily used lakcsand rivers (80% support, 10% oppose, 10% no cpiii n);rcsu-ict certain types of boating to speciiic parts of heavily used lakes and rivers (64% support, 18% oppose); enforce safety regulations more aggre.ssi\cly (58% support, 15% oppose); increa.se penalties for violating boaung rules and regulations (58% support. 17% oppose); and provide protected harbors on large lakes such as Supenor and .Vlille Lacs (52% support. 10% oppose). Several additional safety management steps received support from 40% to 50% of the boat owners, and litUc opposition. For e.xamplc. 48% favored requiring boaters under 12 years of age to wear a personal llotauon device (36% opposed); 42%? fa vored development of suicter safety regu lations (25% opposed); and 47% favored rcstncting certain types of boating to spe cific limes of the day on heavily used lakes and rivers (31% opposed this measure). Mccro region boat owners generally were the most supportive of increased regulation and enforcement on Minnesota lakes and rivers. The seven most-supported manage ment safety steps in Figure 4 all received stronger support from meU’O region boat owners than from those in the other regions (with the e.xccpuon of “protected har bors”). Eighty-four percent of the meyo respondenLs supported resuiciing speed of boats, compared with 76% in the north and 16% in the souJi. .Mcuo respondents were also more supporu vc of increased penalties for boaung law infractions (64% meuo, 52% north, 55% south) and more aggres sive enforcement of btiaiing regulations (65% metro, 50% north, 54% south). Metro respondents also supporter! restricting boating use to certain limes of the day and developing stricter boating regulations more than did respondents from the other Figure 3. Boat owners' perceptions of safety problems 1 Enforcement of boating regulations mmmmmmm I;:: ' .'i. -o. A . Number of boaters mmmmmmm^ 51 B Northj 70 □ Metro 1 57 EJ South B Slate mwMmmmmmmmm Boating behavior of 1 others 20 40 60 80 Percent of Boat Owners Indicating Problem Figure 4. Boat owners' opinions about management actions to improve boating safety Require ooerator's license for all boat operators Require safety course for power boat operators Restnct number of people using heavily used lakes/rivers Require license for power boat operators Require personal flotation device for all boaters Require operator's license for boaters under 18 Require safety course for all boat operators Develop stricter safety regulations Restrict types of use to certain times of day on heavily used lakes/rivers Require personal flotation device for boaters under 12 Enforce safety regulations aggressively Provide protected harbors on large lakes Increase penalties for safety violations Restrict types of use to certain parts of heavily used lakes/rivers Restrict speed of boats on heavily used lakes/rivers iim I 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent Supporting Management Action regions (49% meUD, 39% nonh, 45% south). Metro region boat owners appar ently see a more senous set of problems on lakes and rivers there than do outstatc owners, and they are more willing to im pose sine ter regulations on boating behav ior to help solve those problems. Another segment of the boat owners sup portive of stricter regulation were those who had completed a boating safety course. These boat owners seem to expect a higher level of safe behavior by others and they ore willing to accept a higher ''*vel of manage ment to ensure that safety. i hose who have completed a boating safety course (regard less of who offered it) are more likely to support management actions such as re quirement of boating safely courses, more law enforcement, increased penalties for boating infracuons, and the provision of protected lu rbors. Minne.sota boat owners support the uevel- opment of protected harbors on ! rgc lakes and the placement of buoys indicating water depths and hazards as means of en hancing boating safety. Figure 4 shows that protected harbors were supported by 52% of the boat owners (and opposed by only 10%). These protected harbors on larger lakes would include a breakwater, launch ing facility, and lic-up spots. Protected harbors received a higher degree of support in the north region (56%) dian in the mcuo (52%) or south (43%) regions. This is not surprising, since large lakes (Supenor, Red, Lake of the Woods. Mille Lacs, etc.) arc located in the northern part of the state. Over 60% of the state's boat owners also believe that providing buoys to mark navi gational hazards and water depths would enhance their most frequently occurring boating outing. Boat owners also responded to boating safety-related issues regarding Lake Supe rior and the Mississippi River. A numberof owners stated mat they didn ’t boat on these waters (or didn ’t boat more often) because they didn'^ know enough about boating on Lake Superior (58%) or on the Mississippi River (39%). Almost half (43%) of the state's boat owners believe they lack the skills necessary for boating on Lake Supe rior and 27% of the respondents are con cerned about the locks and commercial barge uaffic on the Mississippi. Additional safety-related data regard; boating on Lake Superior and the Mississippi River can be found in the research reports on these two resources {Tourism Research Summaries No. 5 and No. 6). Summary While Minnesota boat owners suffer rela tively few ser*''Ms boating accidents, many owners do think safety-related problems exist on Minnesota lakes and rivers and they support direct regulation of boaung through enforcement of existing safety rules and regulations. Management actions that appear to be the most supported by Minnesota boat owners are the restriction of the speed of boats and the rcsunciion of certain types of boating to specific parts of heavily used lakes and rivers. Boat owners in the metro region arc even more supportive of stricter management actions than those in other regions. They favor more aggressive enforcement of regulations and increased penalties for vio lating boating regulations. Safety-related problems seem to be more acute on meuo region lakes and rivers, and boat owners in the metro region arc in favor of manage ment steps to solve the problems. A majority of boat owncis support placing buoys (statewide) to mark hOiUird areas and providing protected harbors on large water bodies in the north region. Based on the response to this survey, it appears that management efforts to im prove boating .safety in the state should fo cus on programs that will encourage .safer boating practices, enforce existing regula tions. and improve boating facilities. 1988 Survey of Minnesota Boat Owners—Study Design and Method Access to Minnc‘C*.T’s lakes and streams is provided through many vatc and commerciaj facilities as well as through innumerable public canoe launches, beaches, and open stretches of shoreline. More than 2.200 free pub lic water access sites are managed by federal, state, couniy. and local govern ments. Minnesota ’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages nearly 1.200 of these sites. Although a primary DNR activity is ac quiring access to water bodies state wide. recent discussions have focused on managing these resources to be tier serve the boating public. What should the future direction be for managing the state ’s water resources to offer safe and rewinding boaung opportunities? In 1987. the authors, the University of Minnesota, and five units of the DNR (Boat and Water Safety. Fisheries, Planning, Trails and Waterways, and Waters) entered into a partnership to conduct a statewide survey of regis tered boat owners to determine how boaters use their pleasure boats on Minnesota waters and what they think about (1) safety problems and issues related to their current boating, (2) bar riers to safe boating and high quality boating experiences, and (3) removal of barriers by imfMOving or providing information, management, facilities, and services at or near free public water accesses. The study invesugated these con cerns for the slate ’s waters as a whole and with specific reference to two of our largest water resources—the North Shore of Lake Superior and the Mississippi River down stream from the Twin Cities. In March and April, 1988. a mail-back questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 3,2(X) registered boat owners drawn from the pool of 286,000 pleasure boat owners in the state licensed through the DNR. The survey sample was selected to enable comparisons to be made among the three regions of the state di.splayed in Figure 5, and among six major types of licensed pleasure boats: canoes and kay aks. other boats under 14 feet in length, sailboats 14 to 20 feet, sailboats more than Figure 5. Stutly regions ..-A___ North South This study was funded by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 20 feet, other boats 14 to 20 feet, and other boats more than 20 feet in length. Other comparisons, such •'s those be tween boat owners who own or do not own riparian property, are also possible. The questionnaire was comprised of 45 quesuons and took about 15 minutes to complete. The initial mailing and two follow-up reminders resulted in 2,490 owners returning the survey. About 100 surveys were eliminated from the origi nal sample of 3,200, resulting in an overall adjusted response rate of 80 percent. Thi s excellent response reflects Minnesota boat owners’ strong interest in expressing their views, as well as the importance they place on the slate ’s free public water accesses to achieve quality boating experiences. Survey respondents may not be repre- scntaiive of the typical boat owner. The survey questionnaire requested the indi vidual in the household "who goes boat ing most frequently" to respond to the survey. Therefore, the typical survey re spondent may be somewhat older and a more experienced boater than the state ’s typical boat owner or boater. Deiailsaboui the study design and meth ods, the raw data, and the data summary tables arc available ' rom the authors and from the DNR’s Office of Planning, 5(X) Lafayette Rd., St. Paul. MN 55155- 4010 (612-296-0565). Minnesota Extension Service U niversity OF Minnesota Authors:Leo H. McAvoy. Associate Professor, Division of Recreation. Park, and Leisure Studies David W. Lime. Adjunct Professor and Research Associate. Department of Forest Resources and Tourism Center Curtis Schaiz. Research Assistant, Division of Recreation. Park, and Leisure Studies David G. Pitt, Professor. Department of Landscape Architecture Technical Assisunce: Minnesota Center for Survey Research. University of Minncs4)ta (administration and processing of survey questionnaires) Editor: Louise Jones Tourism Center. 48 McNeal Hall. 1985 Buiord Ave.. l;:-..vcrsity of Minnesota. St. Paul. MN 55108; John Scm. Director Copyright by Minnesota Extension Service. University ol Minnesota. All rights reserved. Issued in i of coo|x:rative extension work in agriculture and home economics, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Der . A griculture, Patrick J. Borich. Dean and Director of Minnesota Extension Service. University of Minnesou. St. Paul. Mir.ncsa' . The University of Minnesota, including the Miruicsota Extension Service, is committed to the pobey that all persons shall have equal access tc ts programs, facilities, and employmenl without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age. veteran stanis. or sexual orientation. A Tmm€t>r /! Hark Barnhardaon City Adainiatrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 AUG 1 1880 July 3®, 1990 R.E. Article # 0 of the asaeasment agreenent Dear Hark, I would like to exercise my rights to terminate the aaseasaent agreement in accordance with Article 8 (effective date of agreement and ter^). This notice will serve as the required written notification and run from August 1,1990 thru October 31, 1990 in compliance with the 90 days. Respectfully, ^dJLL Paul I • Smith 1‘I To: Mark E. Bernhr.rdson, City Administrator Proa: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 24, 199C Subject: Temporary Employment Golf Course COliKCll MEETING «UG27 1990 CITY or ORONO With the start of school and the fact that one person will be gone during September, we will be short two people as temporary helpers at the golf course. A past employee has agreed to fill in on weekends and a groundskeeper helper has agreed to fill in during the weekdays. Recouendation To employ John Ross as a temporary counter helper effective August 28, 1990 at $5.00 p.m. per hour. It is further recommended to fill the position of groundskeeper helper upon completeion of interviews at an hourly rate of $5.00. Proposed Motion _____ Moved _____ 2nd to approve the employment of John Ross as temporary counter helper effective August 28, 1990 at an hourly rate of $5.00. It is also approved to employ a temporary groundskeeper helper upon completion of interviews at an hourly rate of $5.00. Mayor Grabek and Orono City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Proa: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 24, 1990 Subject: Disposal of City Property 35. COUHCiL MEETIflG AUG2? 1990 CITY OF ORl Currently the City of Orono owns a 1980 Ford LTD that is used by the Public Works Director. The vehicle has approximately 150,000 miles and has had several costly breakdowns within the last three months. The most recent breakdown included the need to replace the water pump. The estimated cost of the repairs is $150.00. The estimated value of the vehicle is $400.00. Typically the City disposes of vehicles through the Hennepin County Auction which is usually in the spring of the year. Storage of the vehicle until spring is a problem due to shortage of space and security. We can dispose of the vehicle by selling to the highest bidder once the vehicle is designated Surplus Property. In addition to disposing of the vehicle, the Police Department has experienced damage to confiscated or found bicycles in the Public Works storage building. The damages to the bicycles are a result of the leaking roof at the lumber yard storage building which has caused rusting of the bicycles beyond repair. RecoHMendation To approve of designating one 1980 Ford LTD and 14 bicycles as Surplus Property. The 1980 Ford will be sold to the highest bidder and the bicycles will be destroyed. Proposed Notion Moved_ _ _ _ _ _ 2nd to approve designating one 1980 Ford LTD and 14 bicycles as Surplus property and that the 1980 Ford be sold to the highest bidder and destroy the 14 bicycles. Mayor Grabek & Orono City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. 83390.4 -^1 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato August 22, 1990 CniiNC'iL MEETIMfi AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Administrator's Information HIGHWAY 12 - Attachment A is an initial list of objectives prepared by the consult for the first meeting. Attachment B is a newsletter for a newly formed group - Concerned Citizens for Highway 12. RESERVIST STATUS - Two City employees are currently in the reserves, both in the Police Department. One is in the Naval Reserves and the other in the Marine Corps. It is expected that only one might be called. The department is currently making contingency arrangements should either be activated. PART-TIME SEPTIC POSITION - As you may be aware the staff is recommen*3Tng the current part time septic position be made full time in the 1991 Budget. The current person has the credentials for the full time position. The funds for 1990 will expire the end of September. Staff will bring forward a request to entend this funding for the balance of the year at the September 10th meeting. Please communicate any thoughts or issues you may have on this to me. LONG LAKE'S GOALS - See Attachment C. DRAFT T.H. 12 CORRIDOR STUDY T.H. 101 . T.H. 25 CITY/STATE GOALS PROJECT ISSUES/CONCERNS A Mn/DQT Goal 1. Accommodate through trips by auto and trucks at a high level of service along T.H. IZ Goal 2 Provide for the safe movement of vehicles along T.H. 11 Goal 3. Enhance the economic vitality of the State of Minnesota. Goal 4. Preserve the quality of the natural environment along T.H. 12. Issues: • obtaining political consensus on preferred corridor availability and source of funding for design and construction characteristics of new roadway (freeway vs. expressway) access to T.H. 12 (t>'pe and spacing) Goal b. Provide a high quality of life for Long Lake residents. Concerns: impacts on local businesses impact on tax base (existing T.I.F. commitments) impacts on the natural environment (lakes, water quality, wetlands) congestion on T.H. 12 Orono Coed 6. Provide a high quality of life for Orono residents. Concerns; • impacts on residential property • impacts on natural environment • safe, efficient movement of traffic • impacts on local businesses and tax base Medina Goal 7. Provide a high quality of life for Medina residents. Concerns: • impacts on adjacent property (economic, access to T.H. 12, relocation costs, noise, visual) • mitigation of impacts on adjacent property • impact on local roads (cost to City of upgrading, relocation) • characteristics of upgraded T.H. 12 (freeway vs. expressway) Maple Plain Coal 8. Provide a high quality of life for Maple Plain residents. Concerns: • impacts on local businesses (loss of highway iraffic/sales if bypassed - quantity and convenience of access - adequate visibility and signing for the City.) • safe and expeditious movement of local traffic within the City • improved accessibility to Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Independence Goal 9. Provide a high quality of life for Independence residents on large lots in a rural setting. Con eras: impacts on residential property local road continuity and access to T.H. 12 (upgraded T.H. 12 could be a barrier and divide the City) impact on CR 6 (in terms of existing conflict of through traffic with local traffic) impacts on City Hall (historic site) impact on "big woods" remnant community provisions in T.H. 12 R/W for future mass transit Delano Goal 10. Maintain a small’town-urban quality of life for Delano residents. Goal II. Enhance the City of Delano as a service center for surrounding areas. Concerns: • conflicts between local and through traffic on T.H. 12 (ability to cross T.H. 12 in peak periods) • impact on residential tax base • improved accessibility to Twin Cities Metropolitan Area • impacts on existing businesses and industrial development POw MUD-II^IVCan^.W (revised 8-21-90) HNTD C-T*' CP ^fn] I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Uno/COMPOU.MIN AUG 1 5 1990 TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 POLICY COMMITTEE MEETLVG NOTICE Wednesday, August 22, 1990 Maple Plain City Hall 5:30 p.m. AGENDA Call to Order Approval of Agenda Status of TH 12 Citizen Committee Appointments - Committee Members Presentation of Preliminary Project Goals/Issues/Concerns -- Larry Dallam Other Business Next Meeting Adjournment [£zni] Til 12 Corridor Study Policy Committee Minutes ■ July 25, 1990 Maple Plain City Hail Members Present: Alternates Present: Others Present; G. Wetter, M. Johnson, A. Kunze, M. Alger, G. Acromite, J. Grabek, D. Lorsung, R. Bauman, T. Humbert K. Gabriel S. Hay, L. Dallam, R. Harris, R. Scheuer, P. Swanson, A. Vande Vegte, G. Johnson S Hay called the meeting to order shortly after 5: .'0 p.m. There were no changes made to the agenda. Hay discussed roles and membership of the three TH 12 Committees and their continued evolution. He also discussed an approach to conduct future meetings that would focus primary interaction with committee members seated at the tr )le, with input from their alternates seated in the audience. Others (citizens, technical committee members, etc.) attending the meeting would be able to have issues/concems addressed at the “Other Business" item of the agenda. Ensuing discussion: - Process to be used to ensure that compromises made by committee members will be equitably treated? - Who has authority to select corridors? Hay stated that the purpose behind the scoping process was to narrow the range of possible corridors, from input by all project participants, to a manageable and feasible number. L. Dallam added that these foible corridors would be addressed in an environmental impact statement (EIS), along with the issues, concerns and impacts identified in the scoping process. Dallam then presented the schedule of activities. He said it would be helpful if a preferred corridor was selected by July 1991 so that the corridor could be protected and uncert^nty in the community removed. He said it woul ' 'ilso be helpful to discuss the project with key people in each city -- and requested each member to mail or phone a list to him as soon as possible. Questions followed, addressed by Hay and Dallam: - G. Acromite asked whether the schedule of activities was for the Policy Committee or the entire study. Reply: Entire study. - A. Kunze asked whose goals/issues/concems would govern the process and how each would be rated to determine importance. Reply: Three segments may be individually studied to concentrate "micro-studies" within the project between neighboring communities. All evaluation criteria would receive equal weight. The sooner the key individuals, issues, goals, ^d concerns are identified, the sooner the consultant can begin to evaluate. An informal list of these items was requested. HISTTB Kunze asked about funding for the (preliminary engineering), who would proceed with EIS after HNTB completed thw list of activities, and the State’s priority for this project. Reply: Hay explained the process for the project budget and that an additional funding request was made for the consultant to complete the EIS (to provide short-term supplemental stafO, and that this project is Mn/DOT’s number two priority in the Golden Valley office. - Kunze also asked about estimated costs per mile of freeway vs. expressway and when costs (for the project’s constru'^Mon) will be known. Reply: Project costs depend on the design, number of interchanges, grade separated crossings, frontage road needs, etc., and that the freeway to expressway juncture, when l^own, will assist in defining costs. - Acromite asked whether the Policy Committee would have input in redefining, as necessary, the 500 foot corridor width. Reply: If agreed upon, yes; but depends on issues and concerns identified in the scoping process. - M. Johnson asked what the ordinary width of a freeway is (for future protection and preservation mapping purposes), and if frontage roads must be parallel to the corridor. Reply: A roadway may require 3(X) feet of width, depending on whether it is an expressway or freeway section, and that frontage roads are not necessarily parallel. - Acromite asked for a clarification between "corridor” and "right-of-way", and whether Mn/DOT wanted formal documentation of goals, issues, and concerns from each representing jurisdiction for the next policy committee meeting. Reply: "Corridor" implies planning/search area, while "right-of-way" concerns land acquired for the fctual operation of a roadway. No formal documentation of goals, issues, and ccncems is necess^; but a list is needed for the consultant to stay on schedule, by the next meeting (or sooner). Other Business Hay opened the meeting for questions from the audience. - G. Johnson asked if the uncertainty on the design of the highway (expressway vs. freeway) means that Mn/DOT has ruled out the option of toll road financing. Reply: No. However, there has been no decision to study this option for the TH 12 project, and in all likelihood, it will not be studied. The primary focus is upon the selection of a corridor with minimal adverse impact on each city. - R. Sc^^euer discussed Commissioner Levine’s 1989 announcement for a 1-year funding project and how it affects the current project schedule; requested an ebb..»: ji. iWi obtaining funds for the consultant to complete the EIS; and asked about the impact to the project if mutual agreements are not possible between rticipating jurisdictions (at the end of the scoping process). HIMTB Reply : The funds for the scoping project have been allocated. Even though contract execution took six months, a new schedule will not limit what will be accomplished in the study. T. Humbert explained how Mn/DOT obtains and uses funds to hire consultants. Hay stated that Mn/DOT seeks City Council approval on final design plans and geometries, and that if continued support for the project cannot be generated, it may choose to either by-pass the local governments involved (case of extreme need) or place the project on a lower priority, which would indefinitely jeopardize its completion. Humbert added that Mn/DOT does not want to waste expended scoping/EIS efforts, and therefore seeks to obtain as much cooperation from affect^ jurisdictions as possible throughout the study to ensure a project’s completion. Next Meeting August 22, 1990, 5:30 p.m.. Maple Plain City Hall (all Policy Committee meetings wUl be held the fourth Wednesday of each month). Meeting adjournment - 6:30 p.m. RDH/mst l4IHM:<»iMia.7:S LONG LAKE'S GOALS, CONCERNS AND ISSUES regarding RELOCA'rlDll OE tRDllk HlMftlAY 12 I. GOALS. Long Lake is an area of gently rolling, wooded hills located 15 miles west of llinneapolis, in western Hennepin County. The city has a general rural character with natural amenities which many people find attractive. It presently consists of 475 acres, has twelve miles of road and a population of just under 2,000 people. The town slogan, adopted by the Cl)amber of Coninerce several years ugo is "Where the west, begins". One need only to drive west on Highway 12 out of Minneapolis to learn the meaning of this statement, .'s soon as the roadway now known as Highway 12 narrows at the westerly edge of Uayzata from six down to two lanes of highway, one finds him/herself on the easterly doorstep of Long Lake. As one continues westerly on Highway 12 through the city one first sees single family residences, then multiple family residences, then a commercial business district substantially lining both sides of Highway 12, then an industrial district on the left side of Highway 12, and then, on the westerly edge of the city the landscape opens up into gently rolling hills and open rural spaces. Long Lake has always been self sufficient in terms of its own utilities. It has its own volunteer fire department and contracts for police services with the City of Orono. It is an attractive place to both live and work. Houses which go up for sale in the City of Long Lake generally sell quickly. While housing is mostly moderate in price there are also areas where housing is expensive. Access to such places as Ridgedale shopping center or downtown Minneapolis to the east or wide open spaces to the west is extremely good. Long Lake has as a primary goal the continuation of the present quality of life as above-described. The advent of the 1-394 improvement project is deemed as both a substantial benefit and a substantial threat to this quality of life. The benefits of easier access to the metropolitan areas of Hennepin County are obvious. However, the growing stream of traffic occasioned by the 1-394 corridor development, which is constantly creeping westward is viewed as a substantial threat to the public safety and welfare of the residents and business owners of the City of Long Lake. To a large extent the business community depends upon the traffic which is presently generated on Highway 12. Of course, much of this traffic is coming and goirjg to other places. The latest MnDOT traffic counts at the intersection of Highway 12 and County Road 146 in the center of the town’s business district are upwards of 20,000 cars per day. At this level Long Lake's business district should continue to thrive and do well. Howeve", since so many of these vehicles are headed elsewhere and merely are passing througfi the city the higher the traffic count gets the more dangerous the situation becomes. There is a point at which the number of cars passing through the city per day begins to make a diminishing return in terms of the quality of life within the city. It is believed that most people who live within the city recognize this. Thus, a major goal of the city is to relocate Highway 12 out of the city but in such a way that the existing two lane Highway 12 will continue to be used as a collector route for persons travelling east or west. In other words, the city does not find the present traffic counts objectionable except at peak hour periods. If the traffic count could be maintained between 10,000 and 20,000 cars per day, the business coniuunity would continue to do well, the threat to public safety and convenience would not become overwhelming and the present quality of life would be substantially maintained. According to neighboring Orono's comprehensive land use plan and its zoning ordinances, the generally rural character of the City of Orono is intended to be maintained indefinitely. Long Lake supports and enjoys this position. Ultimately, then, the goal would be to keep the situation as near as may be in its present configuration so that one driving westerly on what will become old Highway 12 will see substantially the same things that are presently seen from the easterly boundary of the city to the west. Long Lake is substantially developed so there is little opportunity for further traffic flow increases generated from within the city on the highway. Long Lake, since 1980, has been going through a redevelopment program in its downtown business district. It would like to continue with deliberate redevelopment efforts to eventually provide a quaint atmosphere in the downtown which is appealing to the eye and to those who work, live and do business there. Long Lake preceives the threat of Highway 12's bulging traffic counts as potentially detrimental to this continuing redevelopment progress. More importantly, it perceives the r aspect of use of the existing Highway 12 corridor to upgrade the highway into a four lane freeway or expressway as devastating. If the scoping decision document picks the present corridor as the preferred corridor, and if the environmental impact study is then conducted and the four lane highway results, the consensus of opinion among those living and working in Long Lake is that it will ruin the town. Such a highway would destroy the existing quality of life as we know it. It would destroy existing businesses and eliminate existing jobs. It would destroy the business district and the redevelopment efforts that are underway. It would destroy existing property values for residential landowners. It would, at a minimum, create incredible noise pollution in an urban area which is now relatively quiet. It is deemed absolutely critical to the future of the city that Highway 12 be relocated oTulside' Ihe LIty ot Long Lake. Thus, an equally critical goal is to maintain Long Lake's right to self-determination in all these areas. II. CONCERHS. A major concern associated with Long Lake's desire to have Highway 12 relocated outside of the city has to do with its redevelopment activities. In order to accomplish redevelopment Long Lake has employed tax increment finance techniques. Tlie city has sold substantial bonds in order to acquire properties for redevelopment purposes. Payment of these bonds depends upon real estate taxes paid and payable upon the properties included within the district. The heart of the district is the downtown area on both sides of Highway 12 near the intersection of 12 and County Road 146. Should the highway come through the existing tax increment finance district causing substantial parts of it to become part of the right of way and, hence, tax exempt. Long Lake's ability to repay its bonded indebtedness would be severely and substantially cor..promised. Long Lake considnrs the tax increment financing district to have been established as a "superior public use". It, therefore, would consider any attempt to condemn property contained within the district as being subject to this superior public use. Thus, for financial reasons as well as the quality of life concerns discussed under goals above. Long Lake has a vested interest in protecting the viability of its tax increment/redcvelopment district. It I would strongly oppose any attempt to acquire property for right-of-way purposes within this area. Still another major concern is the environmental impact upon the lake which an expanded highway would have if constructed through the existing corridor. To accomplish this bridging or extreme rip-rapping would apparently have to be constructed on pa-^t of the southwesterly shore of the lake. Pollutants from this portion of the highway would drain directly into the lake. Moving westerly, that part of the expanded highway within the downtown area would be buffered by only a jcouple hundred feet of land in an area sloping radically toward the lake. This would cause further water quality problems. Long Lake is already hypereutrophic and recent studies of the quality of run-off into the lake from sources witliin the city have shown it to be poor. The city has constructed sedimentation ponding areas to combat this problem and will do more in the future to fight it. A major highway through the middle of town would likel*' undo these efforts and cause irreparable injury to the lake. III. ISSUES. The greatest issue concerning the relocation of Highway 12 lies in the question of where it would be relocated. Long Lake recognizes that other municipalities also have a strong and vested interest in this question. It has been suggested that other municipalities lying within the limits of this study have had difficulty in conducting any sort of planning process because of uncertainity as to the relocation of the future highway. Long Lake has received conwents and complaints from landowners, home builders and realtors concerning what appears to be a de facto moritorium developing because of public uncerta'nity as to the location of the highway. In other words, land values have frozen or have become depressed in some areas and people have been reluncent to purchase properties for fear that it might ei.d up within the corridor selected. Timing of the selection has, therefore, becomi an important issue. Given these circumstance' it appears as though the basic issue revolves around the fact that everybody recognizes the need for an upgraded highway system in this area but nobody wants it in their backyard. Long Lake, obviously, supports relocation outside its city as above stated Beyond that Long Lake is willing to support any relocation corridor which (1) causes a minimum of disruption of existing hones and businesses, (2) causes minimum disruption of environmentally sensitive areas and (3) maximizes the potential for each municipality affected by the highway to meet its goals and objectives, to maintain its comprehensive municipal plan and to continue to effectively and efficiently administer necessary public services to its residents. VOL.1, NO.l AUGUST. 1990 VOLUNTEER GROUP FORMED OVER HIGHWAY 12 ISSUE The Concerned Cinzms FbrHwy. 12 'CH12) is both the name of this j’Adetler and of a totally v oluntary dozens action group that has come :getherovCT a single issue: the extension 'f Highway 12 as an expressway/freeway uhrough our community. and state decision-makers as possible the Minnesota Department of about the Highway 12 route. Transportation. M of them. By acting together, all Orono residents The point of view of the group is equally stand a greater chance of influencing the The group began with a handful of Orono rosiuents late last winter, and has grown as people became increasingly concerned about the future course of Highway 12. It is now open to everyone who shares that same concern. direct We agree, for reasons of safety, effident traffic flow and the economic well being of communities to the west, that Highway 12 should be improved possibly to four-lane, linuted access status. .And we agree the time to start the process is now. It is our position that future course of Highway 12 than if we divide along any geographic line. The time to act is now. You can make an important first step by sim.ply returning the membership application below, along with any donation you can make. Plase CCH12 has a simple three part charter l)To gather and disperse contemporary and accurate, information about High way 12 exteridon developments. considering all things fiom environmental join your neighbors now in a process that impact to dismption of ndghborhoods, will affea all of our residential futures for the best route is closely aligned to the many, many years to come, current route of Highway 12. ^ — I Yes, I want to join the Concerned We believe this is a position that all Orono Citizens fc: Hwy. 12 residents, both to the north and south, can ■ and should firmly and actively support It I 2)To use the resources and influence of Orono residents to help*determine the fiiture course of an upgraded Highway 12. is important, fc: all obvious reasons, that Orono citizens act together on this issue. The residents north of today’s Highway L2 can no more feel secure about their “clouf ’ than the residents to the south should take comfort from the notion that the Luce Line Route has been squelched I City. I State -Zip. With this application I am contributing $100 $50 $25 Other__ I I Note: Connibutioo is NOTnecessMy for tncmbnstip. MAIL TO: Cbncemcd Gdzms For Hwy. 12 745 Spring Hill Road 3}To contact and persuade as many local All corridor options are still fully viable to Wavm Minnesota 55391 I FROM HUBERT’S SUPERHIGHWAY TO THE 394 EXTENSION 'There is nothing pardculariy new in the idea of upgrading Highway 12 west horn Wayzaia. 'The idea has been discussed for perfij^ 25 or 30 years by one group or another. Many of you will remember that Hubert Humphrey both as Senator and Vice President spoke openly and often about making Highway 12 at least a four-lane roadasfarasWaverly. Ironically, for all of his well known ability to get things done, Humphrey was never al' to produce a superhighway veision of Highway 12. Communities and other interest groups to the west have taken up the cause from time to dme, but never with much effea Now, however, there is reason to believe that events are moving toward real action on the four-lane freeway extension of Highway 12. Here's a quick rundown of key points to date: l)MDOTs decision to ftmd a conida study. $100,000 has been budgeted 'The process will take approximately one year to designate the “conidor'’. 'This is the key decision period. Iftheconidor strays off the present Highway 12 alignment, it will drastically effect property values and salesability along the conidar for many years until the highway taking actually occurs. 2) FoUowing corridar designations (from the study and with the agreement of citizens and municipalities involved), environmental impart studies are required on one or mere of the most promising picks. 'I\vo to three year timetable. 3) Once en\ironmenial impart studies are cleared and a final route chosen, property acquisition begins. Could be a 3 to 4 year process or longer. 4) There are no ftmds appropriated for this project, or the necessary property taking atthistime. To repeat the point here is that once a oortidor is selected at the end of the MDOT study, property values of (}rono residents in that corridor will be permanently affected. The time to act is now. ,\nd the best way to act is as a unified front making it known that the best route for the Hwy. 12 four-lane upgrade is along the current route of Highway 12. Please send in your membership. Sheer numbers in this effort will count We will be notifying all members via this newsletter of the time and place for coming meetings of Concerned Citizens For Hwy. 1.'’ and Orono council meetings that pertain to highway 12. Please attend whenever possible. Mayor Grabek Urges Unity; WiUSeek Engineer Consultant 'Ihe April meeting of Concerned Citizens for Hwy. 12, held in the Fred and H Winston home, was well attended and the stage for lively discussioa Perhaps the most significant infonnation was a rqxTt to the group by Orono Mayor Grabek. The mayor urged that the time has come to upgrade Highway II He also oicouraged all Orono citizens to present a unified fiont ” Now", he said, "is no time to divide along fractional or geographical lines". Th^ mayor also indicated his desire to have the Qty of Orono engage a transportation consultant to help educate the dty about the process the state takes in proceeding with a project as large as an upgraded Highway 12. The consultant will also assist the community in coordiiiating its transportation network relating to the upgrade. Results of such work would be available to the public. Concerned Citizens ForHwy.l2 745 Spring Hill Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 COUNCiL MEETIHG AUG 27 1930 LIST OF LICZHSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OP August 21, 1990 CITY OF OROMO Cigarette License - William Wear .Orono Self Service 2160 Wayzata Blvd. Solicitors License - Fabian Seafood sell at - 2160 Wayzata Blvd One Day Set Up Permit - Smith College Club 9/7/90 Art Center of Minnesota I . CITYofORONO Port Office Bo* 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesou 553^• Municipal Officea On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka ADMiMsm^TioN - 473.735s lAX - 47341510 APPLiaiTI<»l FOR LICENSE TO SELL CIGARETTES AT RETAIL Orono Municipal Code Section 5.24 CITY OF ORCSO 19 YQIJ 4iciiOrO COOl ROl T09:54 03/20/90 2. Sales Location: Name Street Address Mailing Address Phone Number j. yL£/ 2^ V C~/r? ite In ''AUG 2 0 vwa • j 3. Principal business carried on at this location 4. Method of Sales: Over Countec Other I hereby make application for license to sell cigarettes at retail at the above location subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Orono during the following quarterly periods: Feb-Mar-Apr May-June-July ____ Aug-Sept-Oct X Nov-Dec-Jan X LICENSE FEES Expiration date of license, Jan. 31, each year. Annual license fee is $20.00. Where applicable, as in the case of seasonal sales, this may be pro rated by quarters, at $5.00 per quarter. r License No. APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION - $20.00 fee CITY OP ORONO 1335 BROWN ROAD SOUTH BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 Organization; r/^^//?/0 SEAf-ocQ_ _ _ _ _ Address; PC ^>^t^acvQr^ rv Date R< Date Expires Representative; Address; />?£y/9 'AUG 1 5 18» Phone ‘/C7-y‘/V-^3S.S Phone ^35-^ ^O/ (^At^uerrrc^i^ T< Check One; Business Solicitation i/^ Contribution Solicitation Number of People Solicitating within the City Provide list of Names of Solicitors on back of this application. Type of Product to be solicited ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM APPROVAL DATE. POLICE CHIEF SHALL HAVE FIVE (5) BUSINESS CAYS IN WHICH TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION PURSUANT TO ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.30 SUED 5(a). ORONO MTNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON SOLICITORS v/' OF^C^O Subd. 3. Prohibited Solicitation Practices. *A. It is unlawful for any solicitor to engage in solicita|fi-^p-£o^ unlawful business or organizational purpose or activity. - .-aa| zr-i B. It is unlawful for any solicitor to practice harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation. C. It is unlawful for any solicitor to enter, or attempt to gain entrance, to residential premises displaying at such entrance a sign with the words "Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited" or "Solicitors Prohibited". D. It is unlawful for any solicitor to refuse to leave business premises when requested by the owner, leasee, 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. The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional requirements the City staff may have. Signature of Applicant;Date; FOR CITY USE ONLY; After review of application, staff recommends the following; _ _ _ _ Approval of application _ _ _ _ Denial of application Signature of City Official;Date; Intero-f-fica nemo Data: August 14, 1990 To: Mark Barnhardson, City Administrator From: Mai Kilbo, Chie-f of Polxce Set Up Parmit - MN Art Canter/Smith College ClubRa: This Department has chackad records of yaars past and have found there to be no problems encountered in the past due to previous permits being given out to this organization. I do recommend issuance of this permit. L DATE: TIME: ONE DAY SETUP PERMIT September 7, 1990 - SMITH DAYS 0*v*«l»n UuiUH»« «M CMtar Zummt <11. Kluw»*wia «9I0I STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY f.VfW M900tflW LfmE118cm m mn 03/11'^ APPLICATION FOn PERMIT TO ONLY ALLOW CONSUMPTION & DISPLAY OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IThii Applirslion Sh»H 0« Tvp**«f»iupn imd Sultmiiierf Dtlor* Jun* In ol Mch V#«) ' In 4n*.«M<r)nq ihn loHowinq (ni<'n>oni "APPLICANT'* ihall be governed at loMowi: Fat a Partnetthip, one nl the parincM tbalt eimiie Ibit appitraiion for all memhcn ol the patin^/h'K OF OltlXO Fot a Corporation, arm olfierr ihall everiile thii applitalitm lor all oHiceri, direclort. and Horkh^J^.^t£ OFFICE For a Club, one nl ihe club ollicert ttiall execute ilui .u'pltcai'on lor alt the memiieri Ili^i/iljilAQK tpace n remu'crl. ute a leparaie iheel ol paper mdicaiinq by ntunher ihe qiietiion amwered 01 SH i'E>C9 »» EVS fL :5.» IEEE FOR PERMIT-WOOXUSl S25.00 Rti£IPl~fWB< YOU EVERY QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED U137WO COOl KOI TQ9i\ 1. I Ccr\"y - f-lopilt ________. n* Go-^^iQt-* -f CM\e<v uI retaking •«.(! lor and in Iwhnll of v5^<ti, OhE. CUk /nj (Myteil namptf el i»etf« Ol cw«f»O*0l*OW. »f newto ol dulil hcrehy OPPlY,* for a pctmii .tHowmc] consumption anil rlisplay ol iotoxicatmq liquor to be located at -Af T iT?!** >/ . Municipality ol ______Q Tortra , tHirool iVil aimI IHocfe r«ttml»e«l ||tHirool wl«M Poll Ollice ol IM« 1^1 AIMl III ^c\^Z T Vy-~. County ol ITawnthie «ne SKiianI State ol Miniipsota. m accordance with the provisions ol M.S. 340.119. 2. Will business Ihj o()praled as a private club or public place A|ukAOR~ O T^<T/i, d/\. 3. State type of Inisinpss A»\nuc^ <l»-ol>i^ Q . ti-» t\/vd +-V>€( r '* 4. FOR A PUBLIC BUSINESS II a parmcrship. state name and address of each r^errtber ol partnership; il 8 corporation, state name ami address ol officers and directors. lAlWtwiI ^ f 5. FOR A PRIVATE CLUB Dale club was onvinized I number ol members ^ , lenqih ol time in present location rcntcfl A//A- membership fMitK>»irv-r. Does club maintain lockers olliccrs and/or directnis ol ihe club . what is the memljership dues "* /J . wtia I'/ -Sm ■ ■ l/AIA • Kers (o lx* used by niumhcrs (or stonnq iilkoxicating liqu m/t/ cv^ nu^ _ is club incorporated . 0 /A* , is club bU'Iding owned or what are the requirements lor CafO^.> UdCi’C TTI oxicating liquor . Names ol all Oo->V-^cjm ?1 Sec lAfftfEMtl tAiJ(|tC«ll ^ , \CjL1> hv\ • Cu.vv<- Ave Enclose with this application a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws ol the club and current list ol bona lidft members. 8. II applicant or any partner, corporation qflir^r or director, club oKIcer or director, il not a citiien of the United Slates, list such non citizens _ oHir^r o A//A- 7. Slate name ol person who vvill operatic or manage business:or manage business: 8. On what floor is the establishment located, or to he located flfao**-* in^i\>/2, A'Ar- A~\ r*\AJ- 9. How arc the premises classilied under the zoning ordinance _i_ AppinveU lor VinUlinni by DO NOT USE Check C«ih _ Rrr'd ■ 'T ' F\< i :1.1 i 1 .J 10 Siatfi ndmt and addrm of ov*ncr or ovMtcrs of tiuildinq whorom the will be located -Ae-V ^r>W _Ci J) J>tUn . *0^-J /»OV 11. Has a|i|<licani. if parinot%hi|i, .my |>aiiiicr; if corpar.iiiun. any olliccr or director, il club. ai<y iluli officiir dirricuw. rrver h »l ^ liciMtse under thi Mmncsot<i Lipnor Control 'Vet revoked or siistmnrled .w l*een cnnvicie.. lot .iny viul.ditm ol Si.do L.iws or local oidinomus. if so. uivc ..idc and details A'Oi~<._invicif 12. Is ai>|iliruni; il portnersbip. any p.irtnoi. d toi|iOf.ition. .iny olliccr or director; if club. .»ny club hIIii .m or rtirrndor. a inomhr.-r of the qu*/Rrning Imdy of llio muriiia|tafily or county in which this (MMinit is lo itc issui;d. if to. m what capacity •>_____| 13. M.iS attplicant; if parinc'ship. any p.iMnvr. if corpor.ition. any officer or director; d club, any emh officer or diriKtor. any interest wliatsoover. directly or indiicctly, in .uty liouur usiablishntcnt m die wi.ne ol Minnr*soia Vlwu>.j/\ Givi: name and i.ddrcss of tii';li esl.ihlislmient___________________________ 14. Furnish the name and address of at least three Imisiiiuss rclercncos. includimi one tvmk reference W. «sW- flyj i Cjb-.^c'tv-.^'^**^ '"•a^V Li M/Q OoX^ 6rtc<- SA /n^Au- c)2^^0 iJdr ^tvor<- yKa/- IS. Will intoxicating liquor he solrl on the premises (JV- eJo^m-o ~Krt</*W~ t-f 18 la) State wlieihct applic.iiion is: 1. 0rir|inal J\ 2. Renewal Owncs^ ** j»^AvZ3 I 1^0 ux- Transicr lb) Slate whether dancinii will he iiormiiied on the itrenmes A/O i 17 Are the premises now occupied, or to be occupied, entirely senarate ^d . xclusivo from any oiliet busiiir^s r^ialiti'.limcnt ur-c- f; ^ Av-A "Tt-v \d< IB. State liado name to lio tiscrl • 19. State whether an "On-Sale" or "OH Sale" Non lnioxic.ilini| Mall Reveragn License has or will bo qr.inii<d in coniunciion to this Ixisiness and lor ilie same piemises A/cs________. 20 Has rlicre Itcen issued, or ivill tbero be issued. ,i Sr>4.00 Feiler.il Retail Lirtuor Dealer's Special Tax Si.tinp lor the liilu ol li<|uor on these premises_______A/O_________________________________________________ 21. Has your lrx:al i|;ivciiinH:ni .in ordinance legul.iiinri the cr.osiiinpiion and depl.iy of inioxicaiinq liquor 22. II o{iera:irii| un-.ler ^ornmi nnlinaiH:i! Iicvr is Ioc.iikmi ol IhiiIiIuiii classified :•} -.5 I !».•<•» rmi.ly iXal I •.-j.l x>a HmiMtIj.Kl mmv ................... 1I..1 jyn>i>€tuan. »..rt il<«i iIm s..imwi «>• iiim ol my umo S..4.»tMl«a I l.utlfW undMsivui (Ml inonf al loltm mluinuiMM m« iIhi 4ui.i'cjii<n.. m il»> IjtliM* la giva aMiincni .nlo'inaiMn canii.luia* c<um lot ika .nuntauia .irMKul.nn lira eaimii. ir IS ruilllltn UNOtRSTOOn tll.sr ANY RCRMIT ISSUiO MinCUriOkR OOfS NOT AlLUtV Til* SAL* or INTOXICAIiMQ LIQUOII. EnclataU n iMvmaAl al SIOO 00 aavkWa lu lha Liguai Caniial O.taclar •• piotiOt^ Sv M S IM/ Sacitaa 1*0.113. NO CONSIDFRATION WILl RE GIVEN TO THIS APPLICATION UNLESS APPROVED AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED. II applicant is located in the County, the Chairman ^ of the Board of County Commissioners or his Representative shall approve both copies of the aiiplication. |N*m« sfl C lS<tn«lsa<« •! Awm«rii«0 A^OM«.*AII 13^Suliscrilied and swum to before mo this day of f^AniA^ h_____________19 9 U. If aptilieani is located in o Municipality, the President ol the Council or his Representative shall approve both copies of this a|»plication ir.MuUMi al llta Caun... a. it.< Uxtu-o. IN«lA*«r ^ulaiKl My Cuiiunission expires ^ ~ III ctMlMlM •■•••• i V.-- vv: J ‘y. I y^i •‘V,- ir • * t ■■■■■■!, u- • v^. . .-’•.r V4-4 • . ^ • COUNCfL MEETING AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO 08/19/90 PR; S4 CB PRREGOR YTD CURRENT NAME OPT GROSS GROSS ABRAHAMSON, FREDERIC 93 1002 27 86.50 ANDERSON BRUCE L 31 28849 60 2415 44 BERNHARDSON MARK E 12 39200.73 2221.36 BOBZIEN. SUE A 31 15904.18 921.84 BOSMA. JAMIE L 12 10076.20 688.95 BOWMAN. ERIK A 61 2696 00 504.00 BRAUN. ROBERT R 93 1396 54 273.13 BRINKHAUS. JOHN F 42 24347 25 1391.12 CHESWICK. GARY B 31 25327.59 1591.86 CHRISTIANSON. SALLY 31 3818.36 205.84 CORNICK. JAMES L 31 27504.45 2683 10 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C 31 9784 08 1183 50 DENNISON. TROY A 35 255 00 10.20 ENGLISH III. IRVING 31 29748.36 2338.63 ERICKSON. DOUGLAS J 93 296 13 103 50 ER:C^SON KURT R 31 24808 26 2109.48 FISCHENICH. DAN T 31 24739.59 2335.70 FRITZLER. JOHN M 31 25091.88 1534.90 GAFFRON MICHAEL P 33 22732.52 1338.73 GERHARDSON, JOHN R 42 29899 89 1760.80 GREGORY. JAMES D 42 22701.49 1285.26 HALLIN. DOROTHY M 12 19580.89 1153.12 HANSEN. STEVEN C 42 18672.96 1157.59 HANSING. CAROL J 31 9126 88 582 80 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 26286 68 2245 87 JOSTROM. FOREST J 93 1410.77 182.88 KARNITZ. RICKY D 31 4506.49 445.68 KILBO. MELVIN H 31 33357.04 1964.40 KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A 15 15642 03 921.85 KUEHN. THOMAS M 15 31768 63 1870.88 MABUSTH, JEANNE A 33 28467.92 1678.47 MILLS JR WALTER H 93 1237.50 180.00 MORAN. MARK F 31 23235.25 1337 28 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES 31 30161.30 2557.53 NAAB THERESA L 12 15783.19 921.84 NELSON. DAVID D 35 719.10 58.65 OBRIEN. RANDY L 92 17771 96 1060.94 OMAN. LYLE E 33 20466.63 1271.76 PALMER. GREGORY A 42 6269 58 962.14 OUAST. WAYNE A 92 22930.22 1356.19 R.'.THBUN. BARRY J 62 18318.94 1024.32 SASS. JOHN J 42 17952 41 1069.04 SKREEN. DALE S 42 18284.03 1134.51 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 93 19606 71 1154.64 STEVENS. BETTY G 93 1683 00 162.25 THOMTON. MARK R 31 24223.38 2091.87 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F 31 26293.30 2252.35 TOMCZYK. MARK W 31 24550.45 2156.04 VANG. BRUCE L 33 17000.88 1095.52 VEE. LINDA S 12 6660 64 783.61 WALSH. KEVIN L 35 3497 38 174.27 WALTERS. LINDA Q 15 15159.02 923.35 WECKMAN. STEPHEN J 33 3026 00 640.00 YEAGER. DONALD C 93 1107.78 78.75 63,622.23 8. mm mm r- O K UJ o lUo: u UJ Xu o -• »r» X -< UJ «» O X UJ j— c/1>- tn oc O O O u.z z Ul *-• > < (/) it:u CMCMcg^in—<-Hnn<MfM I I I I I.......................I 0)0)0)CT0>0»CT^^0)CJ> nnnLr)cocvJC\ir^r~^'» OOOOO—<—<—‘-^CNCM I I I I I • I t I I Iooooooooooo fMCMCMPsIfSIfMCMC^JCMCMCJ I I I I I I I I I I I 0^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ooooooooooo </)(/> C/U/>(/1(/) UJ Ul Z UJ UJ UJ UJ <—t »-< I—< >-11—« »-H *—I Q. CL'vcL Q. a. &. i^ujQl aLQ.a:a.a.ca.Q.QeaLZa. 000=)00000*-'0 c/)c/)i—(/ic/iooc/)i—</>m(/> < < < UJUI-IUJUJUJUJ-JUJUUJ CJOOU'JOOOO o U.U-IU.U. .U___lU-----lU.u.u.<u.u. ^u.4uu. OOOOOOOOOU.O oooaoooooooooooooooooo aeaeatoeatKaeocaeotit:a.a.o.CLa.a.a.a.a.cLa. C/1C/)(/H/)(/1C/1C/)(/1(/)C/1C/1 ZZZZZZZZZZZ (/)(/)(/) U)</)(/)(/)C/1C/)(/)C/1 OQ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C/M/500C/1C/1(/)C/)C/)l/1C/1(/1 1 111 ■ 1 11 J1 . 1 111 ■ 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 ll 1 1 333333333:* 3: OQQQQQQQQQQt—II—I xxxxxxxxxxx it:z<CO z<o (/) u in -1 •H 3X 'N.•-JO OO < 1 ►-•Ul —1 CO ZOC3 cn Oi-'n zuiuix; »-<3 00 U CL OQ CM cnociL o UJ X UU--ICU Ul (/>z Q >- Ul OOUJQ Ul X 3 H-oz>o u.o u a. a.L- Mi-c O ZCJ l-l Ul XX -IZZ 3UJ»—3 o:Ul Ul 330 CM Ul CM z o cn2»-<»U.Z w LlI z cn OO zZ<n _i cr l-l _j C3 <z i-i-OOuj 0300<CO I—1 XX OOO >CJCJ> CO i OZ3 otCO Izo C/1 oc UJoz< UILU Ul UJ u u u uoooo QCzz 33 —I —I CL a. C/)C/)<< C/J(/1(/) UJUIUJ ►-*—»— <<< »-l t—I »-l ooo OOO c/1 (/)(/) </)C/)CO zzz Hi oooozzzz OOO CQ CO CD UlUIUlUtaaac3oooo O «»cMr>OOO CM o <71 r>m OOO ^cncncn fx.cn -H -H —1 1 1 i 1 0)00^<71 o lA CM r>f^m in m CO CM rsj cn <71 in •H IDCOtO O ^ ^o o CM CMCM cocoon CM CM CM CM o cn o in oooo OOCTl CM CM CM CM —< CO 00 r> r>cn cn cn CO n n n CM «7 xr ^ 1 «>4 in in in .H ^ ^—4 1^o OO —1 —1 —1 OOOO o >- oc< J — Oz nim 3ec «c « «««€ oo CMcocncMCM^mcMcnmoitn oo COCO oo OOO ooOco«>r^^moco O (£>0 OfMr^<oco^Oinr^<M-^m OO •H *-4 coo mo^o O OO •Hin^0000(X>fMO(M*«t(OO oo COCO OO rxcs.<71 o m m o> CMCM COO 00|/>(0«^«H in CO *H CD CM <o ^ m mm ncn COCO •>4 5r«o»OlOfMCM cn —1 c7) oo^cnm-H CM 00 CM o <31 oooaooooooo O01OO1O1OSO1O1OIO1O1 r>mo<*>r>fondnnri r-JCMrM<MtMCM(MCNI<>4(NICM oooooooooooooooosoooeeooooooooooo o o> oo <7101 oo oo OO o O) <D<0<0<0<0<D<D(0(D(0(0 OOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo OliTlOlOlOlOIOlOlOOlCl ocnof-inconoonri CM <M <N r J r-j <M CM <N cj rj CM CM o o <71 cn on CM CM OOO OOO (7) <71 CJl n n cn CM CM CM in m in u“' 00 00 CO oo oooo C71 C7> <71 C71 cn cn cn cn CMC'JCMCM Uio i/i>co o o» n n n I I I —< (O cj> fM rg (M >4 I I I >4 —• irtinm ^ x* <«»«»»» I I I O O) 0<NJ 0-* I I-«o u>-« Psi (M CM P> QC U(/) UJ O z Ui o h-z a(/»z UI »-< o 1 —*-•-1zO3 O o<Z (/>z z oe 3 Z 3 3 (/totcfl <U o u.u.UJzzza___t UJ u Ui Ui o >-■ (—1 </)<oe oe oe < Zi->-1 — OOO <Z (0 _j 10 to (/> oeui z 3 z z o<<<t-oe >->•->»-<l-H Q. oe UI o UI oe O UI Xu o ooot-uuo Q.X t-a to to CO 3 oe (O •d z zzz o UI»-<oo —I O oe o Q zz o a z Ui >CD Z UiUiUi t-MH-l CO oe I-z UJ m oe z Ui U.U.U.UI <c oe 1-4 to GO <>1-4 oeoe:z X 3 >to oe 3 a a._J _J _l a. a.<to z oe UI o o:<>-)\»-4 z o 3 -l-t^CL Q.V.z z z -1 u Ui O <<<33 X Ui o X to UI o i-i t-t u t-l oo o oe Ui to to >t-3 >zzz ►H a tc »—4 UJ 1-4 to >-<ooo >->-z —I o _l oe o.UI t-8 _l —I -I 0.0.oe X t—<o <X 1-4 ooo oo O <oe z >e o u o u ooo oo o o Ui UI UI ««■«■«C c ««« oo OO mm oo OCMCoOt OOO OO in i/>OO OO oo oo oo CM CM toco -MO-4CM ooo CM CM Oteo CMCSJ CM CM oo m -4m cjmr^oo con oo oo oo -in mm tom O) M»rt otoot <D <0 oo 00 (OO (0(0 -M —4 ort -4 CM Cl ozo oe O u. O o o> at o o o o ooo oo o o o O O)at o>at CT> O (7>otot O)o>(A Oi V \\\•>rt n Cl CO Cl on cn r>CO CO kx CM rsj CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM\■V •x*. w \'V.\ CO oo oo oo oooooo coco 00 00 OO OO o o o o ooo OO O o O O ooo rtort oi at at dcori CMCSItM at at nn CMCJ c UJ o UJ < O t/5 < 00 OL UJ X 0 « o> 1 I*, o CMI a. ooo * (/> O 00 o 00 o 00 o 00 o (/) o >z —4 -4 nnn n Cl CM CM CM 1-4 O)r>0)0)0)CD CD 0>III o>O) 1 -4 1 -4 ^ 1 11 O) 1 CD ooo (ocno ■ o cn <7> O o 0)0)0)CMCMO)ui cn ClCl z m «-4 mmm —< —< m in m 1 0 1 CM OO 1 1»—1 1 (O CM CM CM -H —4 -4 Tf CM o OO z n in «f mmm Cl O CM O 3 (M Cl nnn CM OO CD o>—4 o rr «» oo 1 (M i 1 1 1 ^ 41 4T 1 1 1 1 <M 1 i 1 -4 —4 —4 <r**o r«.p*r^OOt»»r*«*o o OO IT) —« «r O 1-^ O)z o c/>o a.n 1 -H \ IHHI —t n m ^00 >4-4 >4 UJ OO o (or«.-4 m UJ 1 ^ c/>UJ cn —t mmm —I u.mo Ui o O) -•zzz <UJ 'vO O H4 zzz 1—1 ►—11—*u O C3 00 < QC mmm »-•lA <Z x o )-)— t—o.)-*-4 IIUIoao:ck:a:0.0.0.UJ 1-4 m t—<<<UJ UJ UJ X X O t-4 OO »-4 u.X UOCJ mmm u o o.U.1-41-4 </»z oe ui O UJ OS bC o UJ Xo 01(/) </1 O.03 1-4 X m Qso: o u ooo o X 4 4 ►-H* QC (j mmm zzz o u »-UJ h-UJUJUJ »-4 *-4 1-4 oc >— ►—UI z >-_)o 5>-t—zz -J o UJ ooo XXX <t—t—XX o o »-4 1-4 t-4 o 4 QC >UJ Ui < QC _J XXX -J-J-i t-4 t—UJ t-QCOC QC o UJ <<<<X o a z l-H ^CD Q H->OC QC o:UJUJUJ UJ CL O 3 h- z H-4 <<<XIX X QC O UJ UJ z UI QC z uuu o m (X.O Q=oe o>UJ 0.0.0.></i O Ui Q_i U.U.U. _l _l -J 3ZJOooo X o o.o.h- O. zz II z X Ui O ooo DCOCQC 4 4 UJ UJ OO o u.a aou uuo X X O X >-4 oooo uoco <na> cDoooui COfM^lT) —* CM coco O m —• CO •“< o> moDCMro OO CM CM mm mm OO oooo CM(M« m-<<o cn —I o 0)00 00 OO Ozo OC UI V ° <V U. O O >- O h- z o o ooo ooo o O o cn cn 0> 01 O)0)0 01 at at o>\w X.*S. n n CD CD ri CD fO CD n n CD CM CM fMCMCM CM CM CM CM CM CM ■M.W V.\ oo OO OO OO OO OOOO 00 oo oo OO O o ooo ooo O O O o ■o ■n m €mmm m O ««rr « u «CM m m UMDCO U ■OO •OO «o « o UI «(M CM €CM CM CM «CM CM CM «CM «CM €CD Cl I II cn «cn «010)01 «0)0)0)«O)<O)41 O)« o>(J «n «n ■CD CD CD «CD CD CD <CD «CD «CD « €CM «CM «CM CM CM m CM CM CM «CM «CM m CM m OO cn o) com CM CM 00 00 OO ooon nncno) nn CM CM to p> pj UJa<a. oat toa Ula< CO(/) UJ X > Z Oz z 3ooo< oe UJ zu UJ Xu ozo ac O u. O <o o at o> a z UJo>—t t-4 I CO OL >• > >Q l-«_l _l —1 z QC 333o 3</> UJ LUUJLU UJoaoau<<<< X UJ UJ UJ —1 UJ a a. t—t-UJ»-•z ZZZ Q£ Q£<*-> UJZ 0£ <<< < <K-t-«a.a-a.ujuuo o-o o- o zxa.Q.Q.i-<oooaoc3«i.ooQ.ooi-ia:333oeQiQsa:zzz3oe23Q:z KUJ</H/)l/>3Q.a.Q.*-<»-*'-'(/)0u»-*C0CL»-ia.»- o zzz z Z oo CO<z coooo _l >-4 ^ ^o Q£>o _J w o O UJ o UJ XXX >:z z >—►-»—< UJ )• 1 1 —1>o ;r zz OQ XXX a —i UJUJUJ z ►-<oor>o —i oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo rorororortnnrofocococonrororoforo UiUiUiUJUJUJUiLiJUJUJUJUiUJUJUiUiUJUJ 333333333333333303 lOtO(/)(/></)</)(0(/)CO(/)t/)(/)lO(/)(/>(OCO(/» I I I I I I ■ I I I I I I ))• I I lOCO(/)00</)C/)COOO(/l</)COl/)C/></)tO(/)(/)(/) 88§888888§S88SSSSS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cn CM <M<sir^c^csifMfN(Mr^<Nj<Nj<NjrsjrsirM<^«Nf'i oooooooooooooooooooooooooooocoooaooooooooooooooooooooo o»r> f>4 o o> n CO o> cn o> n CO CO fS4 r4 irunmuominwrumni/'muomimnimrjin rorororonronromrororonrommf'on 0> O 0> ^ O O O O CT> 0)0<7)<7><7>Cn<7kO> CD ororororomroronrorororororomroro C4 rsi rj <Ni 04 csj fvj C4 CN rvj cj cj C4 fsi rj 0)0 0 n ro r> ^ ^ n o o o roforo (Nirgoj coo lOin o o m cn rioj inocM cn -Hcoin —<nuiui-^niD-<fo-^-H-HCM<Mrj <M<M—1 mm CM in C*>-H CO o cn oon—<r>n—<—'oro—<nno)a)0)a)0)0)wto 1 1 1 mm 1 1 1 11 o 1 1 1 0)^0) 1 a)^o>o><*o)oio)>ao)0)^0)a>o)0)0)oi otcrio 0)0) CM lor^ (O <Mf^ca{Mr^iotOf\jr^CDfMr~^^^iototD m CO 0-4 •“4 <O'^-^u0Lomciinin eg rj CNJ III ^ —4 1 1 00 1 t1 ip 1 1 1 ^1 oocM(NjcNjrointnm<a<o<o<Ntn(0<'Jin<o rgcNi (M CO-4 in oo oo oo ^^iDir>»nuoif>i/oin«r>irtirur»«r>mi/tirun rococo in oo mm o CO r> CO cn ncortrororororocoororocortrorococo CMCJCJ mm •4 —4 ^ ^•»«»»» III « 1 1 111 1 1 -4 ^ ro ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -—4 "-H —< ■—< ^ CNJ <\J C*J fO CO CO —1 -H ^ —4 •4 —4 o OOr^o OOOOOOOOOOOOr~f~r^r^r^r~ooo oo oo 0.0 zz CO CO XZ 1-4 1-4 UJ UJ UJI-I Qt-Q ►-)- <a:<OQ£CLQ. -i<-t UJUJ 00 0. oa ZOL mco octexooo UJUJ »-i-t-ocoeouo<<<<<OO ockq : t-t-i-UJUJ IXzzt-l- OOO zz -l-i ecaioc <<<< OOO UJUJ UJUJu. u. u.►Oin 1 1 II 1 t XX oeae _l _l -J ►-*—H- 1-(/)(/)oo OOO 33zzz00 03 oo OOO UJUJzz roOtneo coco lOOiocMOOoeoooooOior^iCt^aiiriio oooo otoot OO •4 —4 at CO«« at CM eg cr)inooir><OfM4»tniD4»rMrsi —«rMr^O-44»o>oor>iTt coco <OCD (MOO-4 CM >-4 CMcocoi*too<«in-Hinooa)<Jim-4rMCJiJ>ca4*CM 1^ 1^CM -4 4T 0)0»AMOUNTCM CM 4T -4CO OO CM CM aeooor»tn ^co«—400c»CMr>^ »—4 m oo at CO CO CM ^-4 CM—• coti cm —4 oo lO lf»-l —1 -H n CM-4 CO oo •4 •4 ooo oo oo on O O)oto<0)01 m m cn n cn Oft CM CM CM CM CM CM CM 'V.-M. oooooo oooo 00 oe ooo oo OO 0)0) r> n rsicNi ^rvicvjn O) o> <D c\innr~ • III -H —« ^ * m Lf) i/> ID oooo (D 00 (/)(/)zzzz »-) »-H l-l 11.0.0.0. UiUJUJUJ 00 00 (DU) oo ooo r» f^ > K UJ (D O) iD (M O 00 00 a <MfM I I cn o) fM <NJ I I roro coco (M »NI I I II a. o. 00 CD << to o o<zo: UJ0£ XUJoo (D o f.. -4 (M CO r)cn —<0 0)0)0 11 1 a>a> 1 1 1 1 0)0 0)0)o CMCJ O) fsi<r (D O) O -< ID ID ID 11 1 CNCsJ (M CO ^(MtMDJCJ CO <\IC0 CO CO CO CO CM «*• Tj •1 1 .H-^CMCO OO oo r-r~ CD o Qz 3 00 o —(f... —«ro (D —TOCO till O 0)0)^ OTO)csir*. (NJ O I I • I —•rsKNKM CO coco CO <N»(MtMCsl I I I I oooo CD 00 (DU) LUUJUJUJ 0.0.0. a. a. 0.0.0. 00 (D 00 CD U'CiJUJUJ ocacoco:<<<< OOOCJ nil oe O Oz UJ> <<<< CUUJUJliJ aeocoeae OOOO oooo UJ UJ Ui UJzxzz o -I.J oo(.><<oo II UJ a 0.0.zz H-z CD CD UJUJ CD ►-4 <<OO<>->-5 <X X oa (D CD oo o UJUJ Q£ISI 33 CD CD h-H-OO -I-) UJ UJ •—4 ►-<o. o. Z Z zz zz oooooooo CDCDCD U) <<<< oaoca UJ UJ UJ UJzzzzzzz:: ZZZ2 H- 00 00z>- M 0a oe 1 3< UJ Q£ oe<>< Z UJUiUiUJ ococoea: OOOO oi'icocoe << << nil ujujujuj OiOCOCO£ocococoe zzzz ooooo (0(0(0000 o>oia>(MO OOOfMlD «4 >H >■« tD(D <nco (D ID f*.c» oo oo 0)0) (O (O (M (»«0 0Q -JOCJ Co ID oo CM(M^ €««•« -4 CD U> OiD<«oor«. ^(0(0 coco c*c«- CMCM OO 4T «0 O) O) CM CM J)—4 00 0) (/)00>4« 00 CO -4 ID "4^ CO CD CM (DO) -H (7) —t >4 OO (0(0 oo (D CO •-4 529529(M00«^ ID CO OO oo OOOO o»o»cn o)oooo \ V.*'N,'Xfc’v,* cn r>coco cncncnm CM CM CM Csl CM CM CM CM w 'V. ^*S, oooo OO oo oo 00 oo oo oo oo oooo o lA «OO €lAin m oooo «CM « o oo oo m 00 oo «0)010 01 «CM « 1 ^«m •^ 4» 4» «»«m « o o o o o m O) cn «(J) O) <3) O)«o>« m m m men m men «nnr)cD «m « CM CM m CM CM •CM CM «CM CM CM CM •CM « eeooeeoo tO C7) C7) 0>r^mcnm rsi Ul o< QL O<to to CO a CO o o o» r* O (M -H f\( O <»0>0)0> till o) O) cn o (oo> (Muomm till (M«r (MM rococo CO (MMMM ■ III -«MCOM' Or»r^^ MM«3«OMM 9^00 00 00 00 I I I I I I (7> 0)00 0099 9 9 CO CO CO CO MCM9999 I I I I I I 0> C7) CO CO CO CO CO CO in if> (T* i/> I I I I I • -H CMMCOCO OOf^r*>r-r*- OOoo OOoo 00 1 I cocooo MM -*tncoco I • CTin MOO •H «-l I • •H -H 99 COCO 99 I I -H —* OO OMLO-h—<-HC0M-<M o>H^cororoco9a)(7> I I I I I I I I I I o<no>'H(o<n9o>o>a> OC0«DMMMr~99«O ooo-<-*-<-<Minin I I I I I I I I I t r^mininininminmin (0999999999 I I I I : I t I I I <^-4^-4 —<^(MC0 OOOOOOOOr^n. M(0 ♦^co I I (7)9 COIO. 0-* I I MM MM (0(0 O)m Mo ae O in Ui o zUJ ►— to 00 coco to 00 to 00 UJ UJ UJ UJ (LO.a.a. a. a. a. a. X X X X (/) to UJ UJ UJ < ZQCQcaeoe 'X to to to to H-OO <r ZacKoca: 3 3 3 Q >— to (/) to (/) O) 0 “» OC'v >-00 Ui I a: o to 00 O*-•< —I oc. O to 0.0. eea. UJ 8“ (/JUJ>— oe<hn3 <-i Q. >-t UJ< oototototocotncototozzzzzzzzzz a.a.o.a.a.o.a.a.Q.a. UJ UJ to to to to to to to to (nu)(n(n(/)uitn(n(n(n zz OO ►-« t-H ooto to to to o:ae O •4 >• oz<u iOtOUJUJ aeacatoE:<<<<3333oooooco^ocoe<<<<zzxz to to to to 0£0£0cae ecacocac <<<< <<<•zzz: to CO to to to «n OOOOOO ocecoioeccoe OO OD 00 flO flO OD zzzzzzto to to u__no OOOOOO zz wOtOto to to to ococ 0.0.zzto to oo ►H >-« -J —I ODCO 03 0.0. KQS << 0.0. toco oca: ^ sc oo to to ceae aco£ iiixxixm to to to to to to to to to toxxxxxxxxxx totototototototototozzzzzzzzzz<<<<<<<<<< oooooooooo t<toy)tototototototo xxxxxxxxxx o.o.o.o.0Lo.o.o.a.aL to to tOtO U.U. U.U. oo to to oca: ►H (-1 << a; O' ao. ooo< 00o >- az<o oto to ec m 0 «««m « ^cn^cocD cof^ini^r^ oomm 1 1 ootnm^^o O tn 00 oo CO oo u> o>Ocn Ooooo 099 ooooooooooo 000m'-<r-m09-«M oor^iA <7> CD 0> o M •<4-4 CO oooo m oo CO o 69.69.O ^00 oooo 00^ m cn CM CM CM CM CO cn CD cn 4»noo 0)00) OMM oei»m -4 oo-JMooOMOinmM(c mooMoo<7)M9mir>(*)9 OOU39M-4—4MO-4M9 ^-4 cn 49^00 <o -4 i< —^ —• «n Ozoae to O >- < to a CO M OOOOOO O) 0> O) (7) O) O) CO n c'} c'o CO CM (N fMCsKVIfvj 00 00 oooo«ooo OOOOOO oo oo r> CO CM CM oo 00 oo 00 001 cnc^ CMC^ 00 oo oo oooooooooo O O O O O O O O 00 OI ncor)r>r)cor><n<ncn <NjCMrM<NI<MCM?MCM<Mr4 OOQOeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo oo 0)0) MM MC'J oooo oo c €0 00 00 eo m to iP i/> o> cn O) cn m cn n CM CM CM CM OOOOOO O O O) O) o> iO lO iO m in io (7) <7J O) C7^ Qf) <n cn n m cn cn CM CM ^4 CM CM CM Oi O) in tn a> cn cn <n CM CM cncn -4 —« u> o <j> cn cn m CM CM CMCMCMCMCMCMfMCMCMCM COM90<OC4><DCOiOiOCOo)cno>o^cno^oioi cnmcnmcncnmcncncn cmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcm oooo cncn CO iO CTMTkmen C'MfM UJo UJ < O </) < in a. tii X. o «o> 00 O (/> o in o 00 o 00 o 00 O 00 o z o coco •>4 04 —4 4^04t-t 01 otat 1 1 at -H ^ III r)n «4 r>o> o oo Ol at o> at o>o>O) 1 t »H o>d o 0)0»muvn 04 04 r)04 o»z o 1 woin in OOO •>4 o m CM t- 1o d--*ot or^*H 1 04 1 04 1o 1 •-4 1 m 1ozU)CM n cn —• O CM ro CO oo <M 3 04 CM ro CM CM CO CO 04 04 ro •-4 00 04ouu •a ^ ^ CM ^ ^ ^1 -4 1 —4 1 «-4<o OOO o o o o Oi.o »—in OQa.Ul ztoUlasK-j z ouUJUla.z00UJ»-o Q. >t/)u.3 UJ z -i <3a: Ul UJ _j it. Q •-*h-l 0£(/tuio QC <Ul -J_i •u oe co<»-4 X oc U4Zo3O 1-Ul h-a:00 UJ 00 _J _l Z mooo Z 9 in Ul UJ»-<*-H HI Ul l-t30 o o z UJ H4uOOOZ<a-a CM *-•03 O atuoc iC O Ul Xu 888 Z 1/) 00 00 z OCtninUlto to to 1-4 oozzX<<<XuoooUlt- 00 to •a-d«4 ae 3—1 d «ta;•avj oc XXX 00 t— O o t—l-l-t-a:Uj O oc oc 1 —•Ul z 1—z «/)UJ Ul zzz X <•tUJzmcoin in in o 03 OE.>t-l ofoe UJ OC -J <<•-«_) _i _j Ul 3 z_J X X X 333 oc 03 U3ouu>-4 <<<h-3 3ocintnoa.o.OL to 00 00 QC I z 0 1 UJ Q. OC O X ►- C «41 m «m 4 c ««« O OO Ooooo OO f^OOf^OO OO oo OO mm oor>oo o> ^ cn OO u>Oo0 4»at at coco OO 00 oo r». c-oo <o in in <omcsi m m <0-4 0)f^otcn coco OO oo oo OO OO —4 —•*4 -M—4 oocnrsj^ rsj CO CM CM —< —« in in mm -n ro m m OO at at O OO O OOO o O o Cat0)0 O)0)0)0)«at O)O \\z cn mm m mmm cn cn m moCM<SJ C4 fSI CsltMCsl CM CM CM CMa:UJ 'V 'N.'Vi O 1-M oooo OO 00 00 40 a*«0 00< O o oo O OOO O O O O o ►O t-z U ««m ««Ol •rsiruru c O «CM •Kf ••0 41 (O «u «41 O)0»««mmm «4 m «>r*••r*«.• O UJ ««•<0 40 c «m r-•41 r.•«« at X 41 at fl O) Ol «Ol 41 0)010)m at «ot 41 Ol •Ol 41 01 « at (J «cn O mm •m 41 mmm •cn •cn «to m to •ro «-••CM •^4f^4 fl C4 m r4r4C4 •CM «CM «fM m (M 41 CM « o at rsi «■o CJ lU < O (A < Vt a. ujr o m at rl. 6 I flL 00 u ui o 00 u z 3 Ooa< •H -itsim-JtM CM —j •4 ro CO 00 •H CM r>CO OV-JO)0»o>at (*»ro COO 00 0 1 at 11 CO 1 CO 1 I 1 1 1 O) o> at at at pH o>at o>OO 0 at <SI CM (Stto ^ to o><M r^0 0 IDUO CM to •H fsj O in lO m CM m pH CM m 1 1 1 1 pH 1 m 111 pH OOimnin m pH (O pH pH (7>a>CO m in (sjcjtotnio pH r>rt Tt in or>o) at 0 CO CO ro fo fo o CO CO (SI CO ro cncn CO ro cn CM«» ^ ^«»»» 1 1 1 11C• 1 1 f 1 —t —« (SJ (O JI4 (SJ -4 ■pH wH CO o o OOOr»r>»0 0 0 01^CM CM 0 OLi LUzz zo >-4»- a. t-t aeo(/> £ ui LU LU LUzzz UJUJ OCX OO IX to to to u to to ae tot/uo t-t < 0 i 3 LU LU LU t—liOUO Q.z 3 ^^888 to I h->— h^r*. OO 00 u.u.OOoeoeae X to UJ UJ com <to LU UJ X X CL OL a.UJ <0 oe Ck:Q.O.X to 3 to <<OO ►—z UJ(U<< <oe to u-to h- ►—oeoe ae i-t 00 <n Ui <oe 0:<OiOC <<0 ae z z ujiu< < <Ui —i <<—1 OO OO 0 ►H •-H-OOQ QQ bL a.0 0 a. a.txjoa 0 to oe LU t-</)»-«o UJ oe zu UJzu oe O z Ui> 1C oe I 1C> M >• ae X< ic 0 Ui 1 % I 00 to 00 00 C/) UJ LU UJ UJ LU 33333 to to to to 00 ZZ Z£ U.U. OO to to LU LU OO *-« >—• >> oeoe LU LU to to zz II ^ JC OO LULU cots zz XI OO •"I*-* LU QC< 3 0 oe < 1 Z Otoz Ui 3to ■««««a m a m «• 00 OO OfMpHCMCMf^mm OO 10 <0 OO mm 000 f^oom OO 0 p •* p ^i»<O^^CMO o>o>Lom o>a>OO OO Oiotn oeoor^OO CM 00 OO •0 OB CM r»«H 00 00 (0(0 OO com incMfx.mm ^CM CM P (O to -4-4 10 to •M >4 ^(MCMCMOCO pH pH pH pH pH CMrj coco tfttrt pH pH pH pH lO ^ (5> CM (M d> OB dB (MCMm 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 OO OB o>01 dl OI 0 dB 0B 0B OB CB 0B OBdB 0 Ms w w \Ms \MsM, z CO cncncncn r>ry cn ry CO ry ry ry 0 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM ae Ui <>*.MsMs'SsM^'Ss Ms M,M^V.Ma*M.M, 0 ►-00 00 00 00 40 00 OO 00 00 m 00 00 00<0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 OO OO at at rofo r-j rvj 0 01 c lOlO iD t/1 ^ ^ ^ ^ •o OO OO 00 OO Acnc^oidi CO O CO O 04 CM CM 0I<9I r> r> CM n CM OO (9» (J» r-»m CJCM mo di luo<a. oa r» (M ZUJ «/)>-C/) Z »-4 U. z ztilo O oooooo oooooo o o <(/) ot- oc z O 3 a. Qc UJ ae o <ui o -I -i < 3 *-t-t O oe O UI Oz X a.< U UJ z C/l QC oe 3 O oe a. UI o a: u >- 3 t- O > X«-• oh- «/)o< a: O Q. UI oe o o <o o o _J I- < oe oe 3 O UJoe a. I- U UI (/> O os< O>- UJ I- h- oe »-H *-« U. >UI uZ H- UJ UI U X 00 < o zUJ I— UIU UI H- Z UJ < < X H-_!(/)(/><00 UI UJ O 3 -I z z< < UI *-• _j > oe < UJ H> CO oe u> t- X UJ I- je: I oe oe S 3 I- QCa. O u u. U < UJoe aUJ Oa. 3 O to i/i p- h- Oz z 3 O O OCJ UJ U oe< u. u O UI ►- o 8 oe O a. 00 oUI a: I- O < O O UIae O —I oc u a.5 i oc O < O UJ 3 >• 00 O O O o o o(M ID UJ UI > >> > §.Q L. mtm COli'NCIL MEtTING AUG 27 1950 CITY OF ORONO >'. MIV'JTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON JULY 9, 1990 The annual meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, July 9, 1990. Present: Dave McKown Don Anderson Lucie Taylor James Franklin Peg Swanson Thomas Mich William Fenholt John Maresh arrived while the meeting was in progress. The meeting was called to order and nominations for chairperson were requested by Dr. Mich. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, Dave McKown was nominated for chairperson. Lucie Taylor MOVED, Jim Franklin seconded that nominations cease and Mr. McKown was elected by unanimous ballot. Board member Maresh absent. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, Don Anderson was nominated for vice chairperson. Lucie Taylor MOVED, Jim Franklin seconded that nominations cease. Lucie Taylor MOVED, Jim Franklin seconded that a unanimous ballot be cast for Mr. Anderson. Board member Maresh absent. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the yearly salary for Clerk was established as $500 and for Treasurer as $100. Motion carried. Board member Maresh absent. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, Lucie Taylor was nominated for clerk. Don Anderson MOVED, Lucie Taylor seconded that nominations cease. Jim Franklin MOVED, Don Anderson seconded that a unanimous ballot be cast for Mrs. Taylor. Board member Maresh absent. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, Jim Franklin was nominated for treasurer. Don Anderson MOVED, Lucie Taylor seconded that nominations cease. Lucie Taylor MOVED, Don Anderson seconded that a unanimous ballot be cast for Mr. Franklin. Board member Maresh absent. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education authorized the signature plates of officers for 1990-91. Motion carried. Board member Maresh absent. UPON MOTION Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the June 11, 1990 regular meeting; - approved the minutes of the June 21, 1990 special meeting; - approved the appointment of Laurie Lind as a math teacher at the middle school for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Jodi Hoff as 5th grade teacher at the middle school for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Adair New as an EBO teacher at the middle school for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Susan Heidt as a part-time business teacher at the high school for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Julia Chalfant as a part-time Spanish teacher at the high school for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Julianne Ohmann as social worker for the school district for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Lois Zak as speech clinician for primary and elementary level students for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Deanne Petersen as home economics teacher in the middle and high school for the 1990-91 school year; approved the appointment of Jo Potter as Child Care Coordinator for the school district; approved the appointment of Lucinia Gorman as a teacher at Schumann Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year; approved continued membership in E.C.S.U. for the 1990-91 school year; approved continued membership in AMSD for the 1990-91 school year; approved continued membership in the Minnesota State High School League according to the following resolution: L. Approved by the Orono Board of Education - July 9,1990 RESOLVBO, that this governlnf board of School District I 278 and School Namt Orono t County of Hennepin f Stato of Klnnesotaf delegates the control» supervision and rcg\jlation of intarscholastlc athletic and other extra-curricular activities (referred to in Hlnnesota Statutesi Section 123.38) to the Minnesota State High School League, and so hereby certifies to the State Connissioner of Education as provided for by Minnesota Statutes, Section 129.121. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the high school(s) - (naae all schools In the district) Orono High School is (are) authorised by this, the governing board of said school district or school tot 1. (Check either A or B) A. Make nev application for aeabership In the Minnesota State High School League, and X B. Renew its aeabership in the Minnesota State High School League, and 2. Participate in the approved inter-school activities sponsored by said League and its various subdivisions, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that this governing board hereby adopts the Constitution, By-Laws, Rules and Regulations of the said League and all aaendaents thereto as the same are published in the latest edition of the League's Official Handbook, on file at the office of the school district, as the Binieun standards governing participation In said League sponsored activities, and that the adeinlstratlon and responsibility for supervision of such activities are assigned to the official representative. directed administration to certify to the State Demographer the following population estimates for Orono Independent School District No. 278 which will serve as the basis for the Community Education levy for the Early Childhood program: Total: 127 '• 140 •' 140 " 145 •' 180 Total 732 - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 066399 through 066705. Dr. Mich reported that a successful three week suinner school program was just completed with approximately 420 students in attendance and that he wanted to thank Ron Gilbert who was the director this year and Connie Fladeland who served as the on-site principal; that work on the construction remains about three weeks behind but every effort is being made to improve the situation; that he has been appointed to serve on the ECSU Executive Board and was also elected to serve on the TIES Executive Board for the next three years; that as work progresses on the budget, it might be necessary for the Board to have a workshop session to study/review this area and that Bill Fenholt had prepared for the Board a levy calendar for 1990; that he and Bill Fenholt have spent considerable time with an attorney from the Attorney General's office regarding the equity law suit; that he wanted to inform the Board of three district level goals that he secs for the coming year, those being: 1) successful completion of the construction, 2) implementation of the middle school study/recommendations, and 3) public relations for the district; that there will be approximately 20 new teachers this year and an orientation workshop will be held on August 24; that he wanted to express special thanks to Lunds for their program of free computers and also to the community for their efforts in helping the district to obtain 7 Apple IIGS computers at a value of about $1,500 each; that he would like the Board, after the meeting, to peruse the samples of interior colors for the new building. Peg Swanson stated that she would be attending an all day workshop for new Board members sponsored by MSBA and that she had attended another evening workshop which had been most helpful. She expressed appreciation to all those who have helped her in acclimating to her new position. UPON MOTION BY Lucie Taylor, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education approved the Mission Statement/Instructional Goals revision as follows: Approved by the Orono Board of Education - July 9, 1990 MISSION STATEMENT The Board of Education of School District 278 recognizes its responsibilities to the residents of the communities served and acknowledges the continuing suppc of the citizens. The most fundamental of those responsibilities mandates the development and implementation of a sound educational program which promotes Intellectual curiosity and assists each student to reach his/her potential. As such, the curriculum seeks to meet the needs of individual students by means of a coordinated program of studies based on the instructional goals of the District. The curriculum is implemented by each teacher's responsible selection and use of sound methods of instruction. Additionally, the educational responsibilities of the Board of Education require the development and implementation of an effective program of cocurricular activities for students and the availability of self-development opportunities for all residents. The latter is accomplished through a program of Community Education. In order to meet its educational responsibilities, the Board of Education is dedicated to continued growth and learning for all who serve district students: staff members, teachers, administrators, and members of the Board of Education. The stated instructional goals, listed in priority order, define more specifi cally the mission of School District 278 and its educational commitment. The goals are promoted within established fiscal policies according to the priori ties, limitations, and obligations of the School District. r i *Approved by the Orono Board of Education - July 9, .990 INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS 1. Develop good character, self-respect, a feeling of self worth, and self- discipline. 2. Gain a sound education in the basic skills including reading, writing, arithmetic, speaking and listening. 3. Gain the skills necessary for critical thinking, creative problem solving, and the systematic inquiry c i valuation of information. 4. Gain a general education providing appreciation for and achievement in the humanities, the sciences, the fine arts, and vocational studies. 5. Learn to be good citizens who appreciate, understand and practice democratic ideals. 6. Learn to work in groups and to respect and resol human differences. 7. Learn to meet the challenge of dealing effectively with one's own strengths and weaknesses. 8. Develop skills necessary to use and to take advantage of modern technology. 9. Develop skills, attitudes, and understandings necessary for the management of money, property, and resources. 10. Learn safety and good physical/mental health practices. 11. Learn about and understand the changes in the world and the global inter dependence among people and resources. I Motion carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education accepted the low bid of Meyer Bros. Dairy for furnishing milk for the 1990-91 school year. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education established the regular School Board meeting time at 7:00 p.m., (except the May 21, 1991 meeting will begin at 9:30 p.m.) to be held in the middle school vocal music room on the following dates: July 9, 1990 August 13, 1990 September 10, 1990 September 24, 1990 October 8, 1990 October 22, 1990 Carried unanimously. November 12, 1990 Decerroer 10, 1990 January 14, 1991 January 28, 1991 February 11, 1991 February 25, 1991 March 11, 1991 April 8, 1991 April 22, 1991 May 13, 1991 May 21, 1991 (9:30) June 10, 1991 UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education designated the State Bank of Long Lake and the Bank of Maple Plain as deposi tories for the regular funds of this school district and the officers of the Board of Education are hereby authorized in the name of and on behalf of the Board of Education to open or cause to be opened or to continue or cause to be continued accounts with said banks and to execute and deliver to said banks, signature cards supplied by said banks containing said banks usual customer agreement applicable to such accounts and the signatures of the officers or other persons hereinafter name^ are hereby authorized to act for «nd on behalf of the Board of Education or otherwise to endorse or cause to be endorsed, to negotiate or cause to be negotiated, or to deposit or cause to be deposited in such accounts any money, checks, drafts, *rders, notes or other instruments payable or 'eld by this Board of Educatic . Said officers are: Dave McKown, Lucie Taylor and Jim Franklin. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education approved the following investment depositories and authorized George Stubbs and William Fenholt to transfer funds -imong tnese financial institutions for invest ment purposes: 1) Marquette Bank 2) No,-west Bank of Minneapolis 3) First Bank of Minneapolis 4) First Minnesota of Wa zata 5) Minnesota School District Liquid Asset Fund Plus 6) State Bank of Long Lake 7) Bank of Maple Plain 8) Eaton Vance Investors Fund, Inc. Curried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Idylor, seconded by John Maresh, the LAKER/PIONEER was designated as the official publication of the Orono School District. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the official office of the clerk of the School Board will be the District Office in the middle school building. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the auditing firm of Froehling, Anderson, Plowman & Egnell, Ltd. as school auditors was approved. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the renewal of surety bonds for all employees was approved. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, Board members were appointed to the following committees for 1990-91: Teachers Meet & Confer Minnesota State H.S. League A.M.S.D. E.C.S.U. P.E.R. TIES Community Education M.S.B.A. Local Legislative Liaison Chapter I Continuing Education Negotiations Parents Meet & Confer District Staff Development Dedication Committee Carried unanimously. Don Anderson, Peg Swanson Jim Franklin, alternate Don Anderson Jim Franklin, Dave McKown, alternate John Maresh, Jim Franklin, alternate Lucie Taylor, John Maresh, alternate Dave McKown Peg Swanson, John Maresh, alternate John Maresh, Thomas Mich, alternate Jim Franklin, Peg Swanson, alternate Don Anderson Lucie Taylor, Jim Franklin, John Maresh Don Anderson, Lucie Taylor Lucie Taylor Lucie Taylor, Dave McKown UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Ji«*'> Franklin, the Board of Education approved the low bid from Ryan Ford fo? af* tght-passenger van. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education accepted the bid of M & S Roofing, Blaine, MN for roof replacement on Orono Middle School. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education accepted the low base bid of Snell Mechanical, Inc. with alternate #M-1 for burner and boiler modifications at Orono Primary School. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education adopted the following fee schedule for the middle and high school athletic programs to replace the schedule adopted in 1982-83: L.. V ■>'*4r. High school football and hockey All other high school athletic programs Middle school athletic programs $50.00 25.00 15.00 Administration assured the Board that arrangements are made for students who are unable to pay the required fees. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the Master Contract for custodial personnel for 1990-92 as negotiated by the Board Negotiating Committee. Lucie Taylor commended Bill Fenholt for his work/efforts in obtaining this agreement. Jim Franklin expressed appreciation to the custodial personnel for their realistic approach to this negotiation session and he requested that administrate jn convey the Board's appreciation to the custodial staff. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the ice arena lease for the 1990-91 school year as follows: GENERAL LEASE ThiA a i Irav This l(w rs datrd July 19.^ Ii IS a kfjl ifrrtmcm lo rent the pro(>rn\ denribed hel«>« The «orld I. ANDLOR D as used in this l ease means and the Landloid’s address 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ndlord The Asoed TENWT as uted m this L.ase means ORONO Public schools INOCPtNOENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 ilso known it This Lease is a lepi contract that can be en/oretd m coun apinsi the Landlord or the Tenant if either one of them does not compK »iih this Lease I Oevripfion of Properl). The Properts o located at in the Counts of _____Hennepin----------------------------- Coflynereg Blvd.. Hound. HN SST64 Sute of Minnesota, on property described as fonoms Conmenclng it the Northeast corner of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 117, Range 24; thence southerly along the east line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 225.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence westerly, parallel to the north line of said South Half of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter, a distance of 398.63 feet; thence deflect to the left 90 degrees, 00 uinutes, 00 seconds, 158.39 feet; thence deflect to the left 89 degrees, S7 minutes, 22 seconds, 390.86 feet, more or less, to the east line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 14; thence northerly along said east line 158.39 feet to the point of beginning. This lease is being executed contemporaneously with a sim1.)ar lease with Independent School District No. 277 for the same term, it being understood that the two school districts will share occupancy by mutual agreement. 2. Term of Le&s«. This Lease is for a term of______________________lepnnini on _ 4pr11 1_____________^ 3. Rem. Three Thousand One Hundred Fi ftva Amount. The icni for (he propeny is *tS -B.ISO______) per Six months payable at the rate of iS2S per month DoHars bcolnina April 15.1991 and ending September 15. 1991. b. PaimenC. The rent paxmcni for each month musi be paid before the 15th Of each month at Landlord's address Lartdiord docs not base to five notice lo Tenant to pa> the rent. 4. Quiet Enjo> mem. If Tenant pa>s the rent and complies miih all other lenrn of this lease. Tenant mav use the Propenv for the lerm of this Lease and during said hours. 5. Rifhl of Entry. Landlord and Landlord* s agents ma> truer the propen> at reasonable hours to repair or inspect the Propeny and perform any %ofk that landlord decides is necessary In addition, the Landlord may shorn the Propeny to possible or neu Tenants at reasonable hours dunng the last ---------------da>s of the Lease term. Esetpt in the case of an emergency. Landlord shaO give Tenant reasorubk nona before entering the Propem. 6. Anignmeni and Subletting. Terunima^TlIm'aavi^^ Lease, lease the Propeny to anyone else (subki). sell itus Lease oe permit any mher per^nto use the Propenv miihout the prior urmlti'COQj^of the Landlord If Tenant does any ofihese ihinfs. Landlord mav terminate this LeaK. Any assignment or sublease made wuhouTTyndl^j^ mntten coruent mill not be effeciive. Tenant must get LarsdloftTs permission each time Tenant wants to assign or sublet Landlor3YpacqT^tbn is good only for that specific assignment oe subleaic. —^ 7. Surrender of Premhet. Tenant than gjveLaodloftTpossession of the Propeny when this Leasrends.<Wher "^efuni onovts owl Tenant shall leave the Propeny in as |og(L»<oT^f)r»on as u was when the Lease oan^. with the exception of reasc^bk wear and tear t. Default. If Tenant docs not pay the rent or other amounts ^hen due or if Tenant violates any agreement in this Lease. Landlord may take possession of the Property. If Tenant does not move out. Landlord may bnng an exiction action. The Landlord may rent the Property to someone else. Any rent received by Landlord for thi t-renting shall be used first to pay Landlord’s expenses for re-renting the Property and second to pay any amounts Tenant ovm under this Lease Tenant shall be responsible for paying the difference between the amount of rent owed by Tenant under this Lease and the amount of rent, if any. received by Landlord from the new tenant plus the expenses paid by the Landlord, including court costs and attorneys fees If Tenant violates a term of this Lease and Landlord does not terminate this Lease or evict Tenant. Landlord may still terminate this Lease and evict Tenant for any other violation of this Lease 9. Abandoned Personal Property. When Landlord recovers possession of the Property, then Landlord may consider Tenant's personal property on or in the Property to also have been abandoned Landlord may then dispose of the personal property in any manner that the Landlord thinks is proper. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for disposing of the personal property. 10. Heirs and Assigns. The terms of this Lease apply to the Tenant and Landlord The terms of this Lease also apply to any heirs or legal representatives of Tenant or Landlord and any person to whom this Lease is assigned. LANDLORD: Itestonka Orono Sports Assoc.,Inc. w. ^_________ TENANT: Ranaggr STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF------------ Chalraan of the Board The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by —--------------------------------------------------------- day of . 19 (Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgement) (Title or Rank) THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY; (Name) (Address) GENERAL LEASE ----------- . 1^ .SO It It a kpl If rttmrniThis It a ki>< Thiv I o>< in daicd ------July - 10 rent (hf propen> Jc'^nhcd beUm The mofid L \^DLORO at used m thit Lea'< m<an% and ihf Landlord'N addrest» -------------------- AdlOfd IC. Thf ttofd TENANT at used m ihit leata mcam ORONO PUtUC SCHOOLS mOCPENOCNT SCHOOL DISTRIC1 NO. 278 also known at Thit Leata it a IcpI contract that can be enforetd m coun apinst the Lartdbrd or the Tenant if cither one of them does rtot comph «ith this Lease I 0«rip.iono(P.op«i>.Th.P.op.m.!«.>«)« 2121 Commerce Blyd.. Hound, W SS364 __________ in the Co«ni> of __------------------------------------------------------- . Suit of Mmnooi*. on pioprny dticribcd as fcOoos 213 hours of Ice sheet skitlng, at the Westonki-Orono Sports Center located In part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14-117-24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Including but not limited to physical education classes, hockey practices and games and community education skating in accordance «1th the times presently scheduled or as may be rescheduled by nutual agreement. (NOTE: The Westonka-Orono Sports Center Is now known as the HAROLD J. POND SPORTS CENTER.) 2. Tenn of Lme. This Leas« w for a lerm of_S ja months bcfinning oo . October 1 3. Rem. a Amoufii. The rtm for ihe properly n Eighteen Thousand Thrgg Hundred Ninety Sirr________Dollars I) TB.396 _______)pet sIx lonths at the rate of $ 3,066 per month________________ hoq-inntng October IS. 1990 and ending Haixh 15 1991. b fijmenl. The rent paymcrki for each monih musi be paid before the ISth Of each month of this Lnse at Landlord's address Landlord does not ha\e to |i\c notice to Teruni to pa> the rtiu Quiet Cnjotmeni. If Terant MNsihe rent and compbes miih an other urms of this Lease. Tenant mat use the Property for Le«s< and during said hours. he term 5 Right of Entry. Landlord arsd Landlord's if enis max enter the propenx at reasorvabtehoursiorrpair or mspen the Properi) and perform any »ork that landlord decides a necessary In adduioA. the Landk^ may shou the Property to possible or new Tenanu at reasorsabk hours dunng the last days of the lease term Except m the case of an emerfcncy. Landlord shaH five Tenant reasonable notice before emenng the Property g. AtsignmenTYnd-Su^U^g. Tenant may not assign tha Lease, lease the Property to anyone ebc (sublett seDijusXcasE or permrt any o^^>cr person to use theProptrtvAMbounhe prw^ mntten consent of the Landlord If Tenant dots anx^pfaheti Landlord may termirsatc thb Lease Any assignrrseni oTsub1tasc.4Z^ade^ Landlord's nniten be effective Tenant musi get Landlord*s permission each time Tenant v ams'' assipToP^obkit^^a^lor^sjye^imssiof^^ onK for that speciTic assignment or sublcAic 7. Sunender of Premises. Tenant shan^u4.aTWnord possession of the Property *hen Tenant shall leave the Propem^aargdod'a condition as it «as nhen the Lease surted. «ith the cxocptioo When Tenant moves out wear and tear S. Dcfauh. If Tenant does not pay the rent or other amounts \shcn due or if Tenant violates any agreement in this Lease. Landlord may Uke possession of the Property. If Tenant does not move ouu Landlord may bnng an eviction action. The Landlord may rent the Properly to someone else An.* rent received by Landlord for the re*renting shall be used first to pay Landlord's expenses for re-renting the Property and second to pay any amounts Tenant owes under this Lease Tenant shall be responsible for paying the difference between the amount of rent owed by tenant under this Lease and the amount of rent, if any. received by Landlord from the new tenant plus the expenses paid by the Landlord, including court costs and attorneys fees If Tenant violates a term of this Lease and Landlord does not terminate this Lease or evict Tenant. Landlord may stiil terminate this Lease and evict Tenant for any other violation of this Lease 9. Abandoned Personal Property. When Landlord recovers possession of the Property, then Landlord may consider Tenant's personal propeny on or in the Property to also have been abandoned Landlord may then dispose of the personal property in any manner that the Landlord thinks is proper. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for disposing of the personal property. 10. Heirs and Assigns. The terms of this Lease apply to the Tenant and Landlord The terms of this Lease also apply to any heirs or legal represenutives of Tenant or Landlord and any person to whom this Lease is assigned LANDLORD; Wes tonka Orono Sports Assoc, tine. 4, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J Kanager STATE OF MINNESOTA TENANT. Trutiypndpnt SrhnnI IHet. Nn. ; Chalnuin of tM Board 278 COUNTY OF-------------- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by ---------------------------------------------------------------- day of . 19 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: (Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgement) (Title or Rank) (Name) (Address) AGREEMENT WHEREAS Westonka-Orono Sports Center Association, Inc., has this day executed leases for the summer months to the Westonka-Orono Sports Center in Mound, Minnesota, to Independent School District No. 277 and Independent School District No. 278, and WHEREAS said organizations have also this day executed leases of certain hours of ice time during the winter months in said Sports Center, and WHEREAS the parties hereto wish to specify certain matters not set forth in said leases, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between Westonka-Orono Sports Center Association, Inc., Independent School District No. 277, and Independent School District No. 278 as follows: 1. During the winter season which is defined as October 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991 the following provisions win apply: a) Lessor will operate concessions and receive all income therefrom. b) Lessee shall receive all gate receipts. c) Lessor shall pay all building expenses including utilities. d) Lessor will provide Janitorial services, a zamboni operator, scoreboard operator, official scorer, announcer, ticket takers and ticket sellers. • (e) Lessee will supply game tickets, a trainer, referees and scorekeeper. (f) Selection of aU employees of lesson* on duty at games shall be the responsibility of the Westonka/Orono Sports Center Association, Tic. except the school districts shall approve the selection of the scoreboard operator. (g) Lessor will make every effort to schedule required activities of lessees at times which will be appropriate to the needs of the school district. These Include instructional programs at school time, co-curricular programs at off-school hours, and community education programs. 2. During the summer months which are defined as April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991 the following provisions will apply, a) -The entire building shall be rented to and under the control of the lessees except that the lessor may conduct fund raising activities in the building at any mutual agreeable times without any charge therefore. b) The lessor will pay all utility bills. c) Lessee may remove boards and may make such other temporary inte-lor or exterior modifications, to meet needs for special event activities. Lessee shall submit its request in writing to the Pond Arena manager for approval. All costs of any modifications shall be borne by the Lessee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto caused these presents to be executed this 9th day of Julv 1990. WESTONKA-ORONO SPORTS CENTER ASSOCIATION BY! -Z».t-fy, President INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 BY: Chairman of the School Be jrd INDEPENTONT>^HOQL D\SftJi\C: BY: . 277 Chairman of the Sdhool Board Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education granted approval for the Facilities Committee and administration to award the contract for the reconstruction of the middle school tennis courts. Discussion ensued as to the feasibility of proceeding with this project this year taking into consideration long-range planning/study regarding use of grounds, buildings, etc. in the future and the cost of the project. Administration and the Facilities Committee will study/review this issue before finalizing the reconstruction. Carried unanimously. Dr. Mich reported to the Board on the progress/plans for the daycare program stating that until the new building is completed, the program will be housed in the Community Church across the street and the Orono Primary School. He stated that Jo Potter, whom the Board hired tonight, will be the coordinator for this program. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Don Anderson, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: Lucienne J. Taylor, Dave McKown, Chairman TME LAKE A PUBLICATION OF THE LMLOA ISSUE 4 SUMMER 1990 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL Since its founding just over a year ago, the Lake Minnetonka Lake Shore Owners Associa tion has become a meaningful voice in repre senting the interests of you ... the lakeshore owner. LMLOA takes an active role in raising the common concerns of lakeshore owners with the agencies which have jurisdiction over the lake. We provide an information forum which public officials may contact and thereby inform us of lake developments and learn of our con cerns. As we gain volunteers, LMLOA can take a more active roll in creating zommittees which deal with lakeshore owners interests. Perhaps our greatest success as an organi zation has been in providing timely information and educating lakeshore owners about the m\Tiad issues both ecological and governmen tal concerning the lake. Our newsletter and general membership meetings have been a valu able tool in raising our consciousness about the lake and making public officials aware of the fact that lakeshore owners can organize and want their needs given due process when devel oping lake rules and regulations. Our incorporated, not-for-profit organiza tion, seeks to maintain a broad focus and not get bogged down in localized issues. However, LMLOA does help organize and support lake- shore owners in the various bays so they can address their local issues. Todav nearly one-quarter of ail lakeshore owmers are dues paying members. If you think we are headed in the right direction, please become a member. The larger our membership base, the more weight we carry in speaking for vou. The cost of new or renewal membership is S25.00. Please fill out the enclosed form com pletely and mail today!!! UPCOMING EVENTS IN THIS ISSUE: r.ENERAI, MEMBERSHIP MEETING Membership Renewal 1 •Monday, August 20,1990 LMCD 25 Year Location: Lafayette Club Long Range Plan 2 Social: 6:30 p.m.Call for Volunteers 3 Meeting: 7:00 p.m.Forest Lake Improvement 4 Guest Speaker: Norm Paurus, LMCD Board of Directors 4 Harvesting Director Milfoil Update 5 Minnesota Tax 6 Fair Share Minnesota 1 1 Minnesota Fair Share 7 LMCD 25 \'EAR LONG RANGE PLAN (Amdorpher Plan) The Lake Minnetonka Conversation Dis trict (LMCD) held a public hearing to gather testimony from local citizens and dty govern ments June 6th at the Minnetonka Community Center. Sky Magary and Chris Lindstrom at tended as LMLOA representatives. TheLMLOA position statement on the 25 Year Plan was read into the record by Sky. Our response to the Plan follows: LAKE MINNETONKA LAKESHORE OWNERS ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Our assodatior was formed in 1989 to represent the interests of Lake Minnetonka home owners in fostering the preservation of the Lake as a natural resource serving environmental, residential, and recreational interests. The LMLOA has supported the concept of the LMCD's Long-term Management Program as the best vehide for ensuring continued stewardship of the Lake bv its surrounding fourteen communities. This Program, now at the public review draft stage, is admirable in its scope, but it is generally too directed toward encouraging and managing increasing densities of recreauonai usage. The Program is not sufficiently concerned with the pres ervation of the Lake as a natural habitat nor unth the needs of Lakeshore community residents as "users" re- quinng occasional respite from icehouse debris, irre sponsible watercraft operation and unrestrained recrea tional noise and pollution. Spedfically, the LMLOA does not accept the Pro gram daim (page 17) that "growth in access and level of use during peak hours can continue as long as resource managers adopt improved regulatory practices." The burden of proof should fall to the LMCD to find that any further increase in level of use during peak hours satisfies a legitimate recreational goal that should override envi ronmental or residential concerns. The LMCD Program draft, unless changed, ensures that only "user groups more tolerant of heavy use will remain." (Page 20). The Program accepts without sufficient question the premise that recreational objectives are quantitative (use, accf'ss, density, etc.), rather than qualitative (t>-pe of use, cc ideration for others users). The LMLOA accepts the addition of representatives from the Metropolitan Coundl, Hennepin County, Re gional Parks and Watershed Distnet to the LMCD Board, but opposes any other modification of the Board which reduces representation from the fourteen commuruties. "Tie LMLOA asks that our reservations be addressed -al draft of the Program, but othendse endorses of the Plan by the fourteen surrounding com- .r... uties. A.B. Magary, June 5,1990 Chair (For further information, call Chris Lindstrom, 474-4382.) Comments by Chris Lindstrom To date the most serious objections to the Plan centers around a perceived lack of identi fiable and quantitative environmental protec tion regulations which would off set the bur geoning efforts of the Pla^n to expand regional recreational access to Lake Minnetonka. Also, many dtv governments resent usurpation of their jurisdiction over shoreline development in their communities. The 25 Year Plan which denotes regionali zation of the lake into a metro area recreational playground is the most significant piece of lake regulation which will be passed in the history of Lake Minnetonka. The Plan could pass control of the lake from the local communities to county and state agency bureaucracies who have no immediate interest in the lake other than to expand its recreational use. Granted the Plan provides guidelmes concerning overuse and environmental protection, but can recreational expansion and protection of the environment and quality of life co-exist? Although water is part of the public domain, how is it that state and county agencies can usurp the authority of 14 local dty governments? Obviously if there isn't an out cry by the dtizens then the message sent is "you run our lake." If your dty has passed a resolution on this Plan it would be a good idea to check it out. Meanwhile, watch the local newspapei s for information on the 25 Year Plan. In fairness to the LMCD, all dtizens had access to knowledge about the Plan as it was ccntznu^d on page 3 continued from page 2 being formulated; you, me, the mayors and city council members. All the '7ohnny come lately"' criticism, now has a hollow rir We had our chance. This newsletter printed a summarv* of the Plan and mailed it to 3,000 lakeshore own ers. The newsletter also made clear in bold print the date of the public hearing to make protest to the Plan. Also the local news media did e.xcel- lent coverage of the upcoming public hearing. But attendance at the hearing by local con cerned citizens was nothing other than depress ing. Only a handful of lakeshore owners fumed out at either of the meetings. We, have had over 250 LMLOA members turn out for general membership meetings yet only 25-50 people attended this major public hearing? So what's happening here? Maybe we are all too compla cent until the negative impact of an event washes up on om shores. Unfortunately we then go off, after the fact, looking for restitution and then it"s too late. However, the individuals and town officials who did speak out had interesting and insightful testimony. 11 was a ver\'educative ex perience just to be there and listen. LMLOA and you can become pro-active not just reactive. How? Become informed. Instead of just catching the national news, start catching the local news. Attend a few LMCD board of directors meetings. The public is WEL COME. They meet the fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. at Tonka Bay Ci ty Hall. Also why not make joining and volunteering m LMLOA a priority. The more volunteers we have in LMLOA the more lake issues we watch and inform you about. But we need you to help!!!!! CALL FOR VOLUhn uv, byCn- LMLOA provides the vehicle to "on top" of lakeshore events. But we need you and at least five of your neighbors in every bay to volunteer in this organization. The goals and objectives of LMLOA can no longer be met unless more people like you volunteer. There are no free lunches! I think too often we feel that "gee, there are soooo many lakeshore owners, I don't need to volunteer." The problem with this thinking is that everyone else is thinking the same thing! The committees we would like to see get "out of the water"' are Lake Clean-up, Social : Programs and Arrangements, Bay Councils, and Membership. Although the Tax Reform and LMCD-Liaison committees are up and running they also need more workers. The following list denotes the committees which need tc be organized and gives a brief description of the activities the committee could be involved in. LAKE CLE.AN-LT 1. Use LMLOA funds to buy and position dumpsters on the ice with help from cit\' governments. 2. Publicity campaign with brochure about litter and pollution at boat launches. 3. Sc...idule a lake clean-up day with c governments help. 4. etc., etc., etc. SOCIAL: PROGRAMS AND ARRANGEMENTS 1. Select site and arrange set up for general membership meetings. 2. Organize a pig roast/fun day for mem bership. 3. Sponsor neighborhood get together, a. Women's luncheon or tea 4. Organize a fund raiser, i.e. silent auction. 5. etc., etc., etc. BAY COL2^CILS 1. Hand-out or mail information from LMLOA. 2. Define local problems. 3. Attend board of directors meetings and give input about local problems. 4. Obtain city council minutes and assess what lake issues are being considered. 5. Attend city council meetings which deal utith lakeshore interests. continued on page 4 6. Work with social committee to coordi nate neighborhood get together. 7. etc., etc., etc. MEMBERSHIP 1. Create a membership handbook, listing dty governments, county and state ag .v des and all other agendes with jurisdic tion over the lake, define what their areas of power are and list their addresses and phone numbers. 2. List other helpful phone numbers, i.e. water patrol, dty hall, LMCD. 3. List LMCD meetings when and where they meet. 4. Indicate where and how to get permits for lake shore improvements, i.e. rip rap, sand blankets, dredging. 5. Sell advertising to local businesses to support cost of printing handbook. 6. etc, etc, etc. If you think these sound like good ideas to pursue then go out and get a friend or neighbor to work with you because right now NO ON*E is working on these areas. I know many of you al- readv have commitments to school, church, and charities, but LMLOA does not require a lot of time and is seasonal. The busiest months are April through September. You get a "winter break !!!" With enough volunteers the work load is spread out. No spedal requirements are needed to fill these positions. Time and desire is all that's needed. The board of directors will provide any organizational help required. Conunittee work requires about 1-2 hours of time a week. If you have a friend or neighbor interested in working with you in LMLOA, please bring them to the general membership meeting Aug. 20th at Lafayette Club. Working with LMLOA is a great opportunity to get to know our neigh bors around the lake. FOREST LAKE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION h\f Chris Lindstrom There is a bay off of County Road 19 con nected by a channel to Lake Minnetonka and it is called Forest Lake. About twenty years ago this "lake" created their own improvement as sociation. This improvement association has re organized and been brought to life by the efforts of Kathy Pyatt and her neighbors. Inspired by our larger organization LMLOA Kathy and her neighbors decided Forest Lake could be reor ganized. She contacted Dick Kail the LMLOA bay council director for help. At this wTiting FUA has "street" representatives for each lake- shore street on their bay. These representatives pass on FLIA news via the paper box or a phone call. The FLIA held election of officers July 6th. Hats off to Kathy Pyatt and the members of FUA. You've shown how a concept of bay organization can be brought into rc?Mtv. LMLOA will gladly help aiv. : .-rhbor- hood or bav organize a volunteer ork. If you are interested, call: Dick Kail for further information: 471-7415. IMMEDIATE OPENINGS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS jard of directors has now served for over eighteen months. Due to natural attrition and previous commitments, some members have h?d to leave the board. These positions need to be filled promptly if LMLOA is to con tinue its leadership role. Once agam, NO spe cial requirements for joining the board of direc tors. MILFOIL UPDATE by Chris Liruistrom What was a green menace on the horizon two short years ago has become the grim green reality of today. The scenario reads a bit like a scene from the movie 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers" only this is the "Invasion of the Lake Snatchers." The silent growing masses reach toward the surface in greater numbers daily to ensnare sail boats and power boats alike. Milfoil be comes so pervasive it eventually snatches entire bays or shoreline areas from recreational use. ■""he' ssue is no longer how to control it but how to cope with it. Whatmilfoil infestation does so insidiously is speed up the ecological clock. The "dog days" of August are now pushed ahead to the "dog days" of mid-July. Wuw, the clean dear swim ming and boating season is drastically reduced. So too, the useful recreational areas of the bays are diminished. That means more boats mi grate to the remaining deep water areas thus in creasing the boats per acre density. We feel the State DNR should now consider an appropriate reduction in their boats per aae denblty for mula to reflect the diminished boating acrt caused by milfoil infestation. According LMCD, niilfoil harvesting director Norm Pau- lus, "one-third of Lake Minnetonka is curie,y u*tsuitable for recreatioual use." So what is being done about the milfoil problem? The LMCD has i,et up a milfoil task force with representatives from th<* "t-ite DSR, Army Corp of Engineers, Hennepi • ’ Fresh * water Fo.iiidation and Water Sh group meets Friday mornings Freshwater Foundation in ^ is welcome. The LMCD a ’®* h: vesting program under way indiv'j'^-'i’J, in charge of this . . ’-ui a feat guest speaker at the L.V.. Je 'J Tal Meeting on August 20th at the Lafayette Cub. ^r. Paurus is a retired engineer from Control Data and has served as the Orono Citv Coundl representative to the LMCD. Right now in the area of Milfoi’ ”«search, over 15 proposals have been subn. ‘•o the FreshwaterFoimdationfor considerati^--:.. proposals range from mechanical and chemical cc'irtrol ^0 pure esoteric scientific research. Bio ctr.itrol by various invertebrates is also being ‘'onsidered. Collaborative research is being considered by the DNR, Freshwater Founda tion and theUniversity of Minnesota. Although it appears that milfoil has the attention of gov- ernmen agencies, significant funding has yet to materialize. Therefore the LMCD and Freshwa ter Foundation are seeking donations from the public ic combat .milfoil. Contributions maybe made r lyable to "LMCD Save the Lake," 402 E. Lake Street, Wayzata, MN 553391. LMLOA AT WORK ON MILFOIL Hennepin County has aHovved th'' » individual.^ with certain violations • who must do community service cl * service at Lake Minnetonka Public boa. . .^.ch S'tes. . hey are to identify milfoil on boats and pass o-:r brr _hures. Nan^y Weir, the LMCD Liaison ch tor LMLOA has organized a group of lakeshorc: owmers to supervise these commu- nit.. service workers. Thank you .Nancy and your CO workers'!! -roT! IGHT ON LUCY UPHoFF Me: ', .r ^nks to Lucy Uphoff who spear- hei own fund raiser for the Freshw’ater .tion. She designed and had printed, at jwm cost, T-shirts which depicted the milfoil pioblem. She has sold all the shirts and turned the t?roceeds over to the rmcfoil fund at the Freshwater Foundation. WANTED Lakeshore owmers ^o collect water samples from their bay on a regular basis. Cali .Nanc\^ Weir for more details - 474-74-k MINNESOTA TAX by Tom Pokonosky: Deephaven and Chr.s Lindstrom Your Tax Committee has been working (dili gently with Minnesota Fair Share to eliminate the unfdr onerous and unprecedented three-tier prop erty tax system in the state of Minnesota. The citizens of Minnesota are among the highest taxed in the United States, 4th in overall taxation and second in the nation in personal income ta < burden. Minnesota ranks as the4th highest in states: mding and among the lowest in percental of per capita income after tax dollars: 46th!!! In an effort to ch<mge this system, the LMLOA has joined Minnesota Fair Share. Fciir Share is committed to working with groups throughout the state in an attempt to change the system to a one rate properU' tax or a flat tax for everyone. If that is achieved, the tax rate would be 178% for everv'one m the state. If all state revenues icmained the same with no cut in spending, citizens most adversely af fected would be those ov.ning a house valued at $50,000. Their taxes would rise from $500 to $640 for a $140 inerrase. This increase is far less than it costs them for cable TV! Recently the House DFL Leadership proposed the elimination of the third tier (3%) and have the maximum tax be 2% for ail Minnesotans. Remem ber this proposal is conveniently made in an elec tion year and the ^''tion will not be taken, if ever untilafterthestat.1 ^ ‘ *de election in November. believe this is mere election year rhe*^oric. intereting to note that the State Senate leaders'.! strangelv quiet on this issue. Minnesota Fair Sh. would welcome the elimination of the third tier or 3% as an overdue step in the right direction, but will continue to push for a flat rate for everyone. A recent meeting was held at the Minnetonka Community C enter 1^ by Dierdre Griswald chair person of J^nesota Fair Share. John James Com missioner of Revenue was the featured guestspeaker. Mr. James listened intently to the many voices of concern from the full house. He didn't say much that was new except he revealed the astounding fact that average property tax payments for next year will go up 10%. But for homes values over $100,000, taxes are expected to go up 15-25% cash out of pocket. With the three-tier tax system, the higher the value of the home, the greater the per centage of increase on next years' taxes. But Mr. James assures us that there are more services for Minnesotans than almost any other state. (And we've all heard that argument before). What good are state services if it means you have to sell your homestead to support these so called services! Wearepleas^t >^0 Dart of Fair Share and will continue to fight for a fair and equitable property tax for everyone. Fair Share is incorporated not-for-profit and run by volunteers. It is grass roots and we, dear neighbors, are the roots. Once again, just because someone else is organizing the effort (ion't get the idea that, "gee, they must have plenty of help." WRONG. If everyone else thinks the same thing than no one turns out io help. No help in, equals no help out. You can make a ciifference, but only you can pick up your pen or telephone, vVith just a little effort please read the enclosed petition, if you agree with it, then sign it and then — pass it on two or three neighbors as well and then mail to Fair Share as indicated on the petition. At the very least, s»gn the petition yourself and mail it in (see page 7; If you have a little time after deciding to volunteer in LMLOA, call Fair Share at 851-7040 and ask what you can do to promote the cause. SURPRISE INCENT IVE Memoership in L.MLOA automatically enrolls in Fair Share. Send your $25 for LMLOA lembership and you will receive the Fair Share Taxpayer's Survival Kit. JOLN LMLOA AND YOU AUTOMATICALLY' lOIM F.AIR SHARE! TAX PAYER'S SUR''. iV'Al KIT The Tax Payer's Survival Kit describes Fa.r Share, its goals, and objectives. It includes a short description of the Minnesota property tax system, including how the three-tier tax system works, what the levies and state aids are for lus cities and shows how metro taxes are redistrit to out state communities. A complete lis* f Minnesota House and Senate members, Ui-.- .vilh their tele phone numbers. Sample letters are provided to help you get started on your own letter writing campaign to these government officials. MINNESOTA FAIR SHARE INC TAX REFORM PETITION AS A TAXPAYER AND ELIGIBLE MINNESOTA VOTER. I PLEDGE MY SUPPORT TO MINNESOTA FAIR SHARE INC., A GRASS ROOTS. NON-PRC iT. BI-PARTISAN ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES EVERYONE SHOULD PAY THEIR "FAIR SHARE" OF PROPERTY TAXER. BUT NO MORE. I SU: PORT ELIMINATION OF THE CURRENT 3 TIER PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM THAT TAXES HOUSES AT DIFFERENT RATES OF 1%. 2%, 3% AND MORE. MINNESOTA IS THE ONLY STATE THAT HAS SUCH AN UNFAIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM. I SUPPORT A PROPERTY TAX BILLTHAT WILL PROVIDE FOR A FLAT RATE TAX SYSTEM. A BILL THAT SAYS "A HOUSE IS A HOUSE IS A HOUSE" WHETHER IT IS A FARM. A HOME ON THE IRON RANGE. A RENTAL UNIT. A HOUSE IN THE SUBURBS. OR A SEASONAL LAKE HOME. IT SHOULD BE TAXED AT THE SAME FLAT RATE. NAME ADDRESS OiQ- 1. 5. 8. Fair Share • 3050 Metro Drive #113 • Bloomington, MN 55425 (612) 851-7040 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Applause — applause to: Ann Barnes of Business Expressions. Ann does our design/layout/typesetting for the news letter making ”On The Like" a professional publication. A portion of her time is donated to the cause of the LMLOA. Her phone number is 473-4504 Bob Huber of Best Copy Bob has given us wonde^ service and donated half the cost of printing "On The Lake" Roger Fazendin Realtors provides the meeting facilities for the Board of Directors. Ellen Oestriecher does the labeling, mail service and provides computer services. LMLOA TELEPHONE CONTACTS Chair Sky Magary Board Member Newsletter Editor Chris Lindstrom Treasurer Carol Kail Secretary Betty Bums Recruiting Coordinator Dick Kail Membership Chair Pat Butzow T aVp Qean Up Don Germanson Neighborhood Coordinator 471-0081 474-4382 471-7415 474-3779 471- 7415 472- 7641 474-9226 Please contact anyone of tht» above persons who lives near you if you have any queiHons or comments. Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association ONTHELAKE P.O. Box 596 Excelsior, MN 55331 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID Excelsior, MN Permit No. 108 city of orono ^^^^tafsay «« 55323 0, Current Resident Pass on to a friend or neighbor! ~ 20* T990*7tCc€tC*t^ ~ 20* LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT lake use committee AGENDA 4:30 p.m., Monday, August 20, 1990 Iaug ^ ^ tB90 Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road 1. Review water ski (towing persons) Ordinance amendment as tabled back to the committee (extra copies to be provided at the meeting). 2. Critique of Public Officials Boat Tour of August 4. 3. Deposit refunds recommended fon a. Lake Masters Swim Club, Minnetonka Challenge 5 Mile Swim (7-21-90). b. Zuhrah Shrine Skippers Boat Parade (7-15-90) 4. Water Patrol report 5. Set meeting date for subcommittee to review Hennepin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between Sheriff's Water Patrol and LMCD. 6. Additional business recommended by the committee 8-13-90 I :) 1^? 1S80 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures and Environment Committee Meeting: Saturday, August 11, 1990, 7:30 a.m. Shorewood City Hall Members Present: James Grathwol, Chair, Excelsior; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Robert Piiisbury. Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach (as noted). Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician. The meeting was called to order by Grathwol at 7:30 a.m declared present. a quorum 1. Park Hill and Park Island Apartments Regarding Multiple Dock License Fee. (Spring Park) The Park Hill/Park Island Apartment complex is licensed for 44 boats. Earlier this year they paid a :B2b.0f fee to maintain their license status because the docks were not usable due to the low water. Since then the lake level has risen and there are three boats docked at the location. This violation was called to the attention of the Committee at the July 14th meeting. At that time the Committee consensus was to charge the full fee if any of the docks are used. Michael Gorra, the licensee, requested reconsideration. He offered to pay the dock fees for the three boats, but considers requ.iring the full fee for 44 boats as being unreasonable. Grathwol explained the LMCD Ordinance does not allow a partial payment. Rascop moved. Piiisbury seconded, to recommend to the Board that the boats docked at Park Hill/Park Island Apartments be removed within thirty days. Motion carried unanimously. 2. License Renewals. A. Clay Cliffe Home Owner Association (Tonka Day) Rascop moved, Piiisbury seconded, to recommend to the Board approval of the Clay Cliffe Home Owners Association multiple dock license and to approve a temporary low water variance to extend to 100 feec with change in configuration to accommodate canopies. Motion .arried unanimously. Staff was instructed to place a tickler on the Clay Cliffe file as a reminder to obtain an as-built of their permanent docks when temporary extensions are no longer needed. D. Eagle Bluff Association (Minnetrista) B.jorlin moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend to the Board appi'oval of the Eagle Bluff Association multiple dock license, without change. Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures and Environment Committee August 11, 1990 2. Miiuietonka Transportation Museum - Re Minnehaha The committee received a letter from the Minnesota Transportation Museum regarding the plans to restore and float the 1906 streetcar steamboat Minnehaha for public passenger service on Lake Minnetonka. The museum, anticipating a complete restoration, requested advice and feedback from the LMCD. Because the restoration will take approximately 6 years, the Museum is to be advised the current Board cannot commit a future Board. At time of making an application, the Minnehaha would be treated as any other applicant. Staff was directed to send the Museum a copy of the current charter boat and liquor license applications and ordinances and to advise them they are welcome to attend a Board meeting. Boswinkel arrived. 3. Lyle Berman (Bushaway Road, Wayzata) - 1990 license fee Lyle Berman renewed his 199U multiple dock license which allows him to dock five boats. Berman had commented, upon request for a better site plan, that he would no longer have five boats and did not need the multiple dock license. Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend to the Board that the operating policy governing no refunds on multiple dock licenses be re-affirmed in the case of a licensee, Lyle Berman, Waj'zata. wherein the licensee did not utilize the five-slip multiple dock license after renewal and payment of fees. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Direction to Staff Grathwol suggested the following statistics be prepared to develop a data base to substantiate the recreational facilities on the Lake:provided 1.more 2. A physical inventory of docks with 3 o restricted boats. Maintain a list of multiple docks showing: a. Docks between 100' and 200' b. Docks more than 6 feet wide 3. Acquire a data base of wetlands below the 929.4 OHWL 4. Obtain the local lakeshore zoning from member cities Members added additional suggestions. 5. Staff Report - Inspections Thibault reported that about half of the dock inspections nave been completed and most were in compliance. Letters have been written licensees whose docks were beyond the temporary low water variance extensions and whose dock configurations did not comply with the licensed site plans. Water Structures anu Ea'/ironment Committee August 11, 1990 6. Tonka Day Marina (Tonka Day) Tonka Bay Marina is considering applying for a change in the location of slip Cl to the dock opposite slip SV9 because the Cl location interferes with the use of the ramp. Boswinkel moved, Bjorlin seconded, to recommend a temporary low water variance to allow Tonka Bay Marina to change the location of slip Cl to the dock opposite slip SV9. Motion carried unanimously. It was recommended that if Tonka Bay Marina wants a permanent change, they indicate it on the application for 1991. Rascop suggested signing and roping off the location at the ramp so it cannot be used. 7. Deicing Application Progress Status Thibault reported the 1990/1991 deicing appiicatioris will be sent out the week of August 13. Rascop was excused. 8. Fee Study The Board has referred a study of the E.A.W. application and deposit fees to the Water Structures Committee. Pillsbury moved, Bjorlin seconded, to recommend the following sub-committee to study the fee schedule: Jan Boswinkel, Robert .Rascop and James Grathwol. The staff is to prepare background information. Motion carried unanimously. 9. "Peterson Structure”, Smithtown Bay, Victoria Thibault reported the DNR has an interest in pursuing an after-the-fact violation of shoreland regulations on property in Victoria identified as the "Peterson Structure". No action was taken, Grathwol offering to follow up on the matter. 10. Excelsior Day Associates/Exceisior Day Gables Gi, ' reported a technical violation of LMCD ordinances resultii- from the purchase by the Excelsior Bay Gables Homeowners Association of the multiple docks licensed to Excelsior Bay Associates. The docks are licensed as commercial docks, although they no longer meet the code definition of commercial dock.s. There is also the technicality of licensing the docks on an outlet. Boswinkel moved. Pillsbury seconded, to recommend to the Board the drafting of an ordinance to clarify the code definition of a commercial marina, per the letter from Attorney Leievere dated July 2, 199U. Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures and Dock Committee 11. Weed Harvesting Report August 111 1990 There was no formal report on weed harvesting. The committee received a statistical Eurasian Water Milfoil Harvest report covering the period from 5/23 through 8/3 12. Adjournment There was no further business to come before the Committee and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Jai..3s Grathwol, Chair LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Board of Directors Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 25, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Foster at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call. Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Norm Paurus, Project Manager; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; John Malinka, Victoria; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert Slocum, Woodland. 3. Reading of Minutes: Reese moved, Grathwol approve the minutes of the 6-27-90 meeting as showing Babcock voted aye on i i,em 5.C.2.e, Water Rule. Motion carried unanimously. seconded, to corrected by Ski Observer 4. Public Comments: There were no comments attendance not on the agenda. 5. Reports from person A. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Minutes. Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the minutes of the 7-14-9U meeting as submitted. Motion carried, Rascop abstaining, not being in attendance. b) District Mooring field Temporary Low Water Variance - Wayzata Yacht Club Robert Albright, Vice Commodore, WYC, presented a site plan of the mooring field as of 7-25-90 showing the 600’ line and three moorings in site 2, requesting the variance allow six moorings in site 2 as submitted on the application. Albright also submitted a written approval of the relocation from neighbor Rosekrans. Grathwol moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of a temporary low water variance adjustment as shown on the site plan dated July 25, 1990 (6 moorings in site 2), subject to being in accord with the City of Wayzata Conditional Use Permit granted to the Wayzata Yacht Club. Motion carried, Rascop voting nav. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 25, 1990 Babcock raised the question of LMCD authority vs. City authority. Grathwol responded there can be over-lapping authority in some cases and in this case it is the conditional use permit under which the Yacht Club is allowed to operate. c) City Worksheet (EAW) of Deephaven Environmental Assessment Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to determine that an Environmental Impact Statement is not 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 of the City of Deephaven. The Executive Director reported the MN DNR comment that no treated lumber is tc be used that would contaminate fish or other aquatic organisms has been removed from the Findings of Fact. The MN DNR understands treated lumber must be used and will not have an adverse affect on the Lake. The Executive Director explained the MN DNR comment regarding development of a long-range plan for dock expansions results from the unusual number of EAWs submitted in recent months as a result of the moratorium. Hurr asked who has the responsibility for covering the costs of preparing an EAW. The Executive Director responded that the EAW is the responsibility of the responding governing unit according to E.Q.B. rules. He said the costs of preparing an E.A.W. were not taken into consideration when permit fees were established. Motion for approval passed unanimously. Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to refer a study of the E.A.W. application and deposit fees to the Water Structures Committee. Motion carried unanimously. d) Dock License Renewals Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the following dock license renewals: Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay, Orono Harrison Harbor, Harrison Bay, Mound Seton Twin Homes, Mound noting Harrison Harbor is being back licensed for 1989. Late fees are included for the renewals with Seton Twin Homes being credited for the $25 fee they paid earlier when low water prevented the use of the docks. A condition is to be placed on the Crystal Bay Service license clarifying the terms of the license as related to watercraft storage. Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 25, 1990 f) Lakeside Marina Dock Location The Executive Director reported he has informed the owner of Lakeside Marina that their floating docks as installed do not meet full compliance with the application regarding exact reconfiguration of the docks being replaced. The owner will advise whether he needs more than the ten days allowed for correction. 5. A. 2) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese Reese reported the milfoil harvesting program is running behind projections. A flexible plan is being developed to work ten hour days, Monday through Thursday, eight on Fridays through August. It may be necessary tu shorten the sea.son to stay within the budget by ending in August. Rascop complimented Paurus and the harvesting crew for the cutting they did during the Olympic Festival in the lower lake. Reese identified the weed harvester hydraulic system as creating major operating problems. The manufacturer is involved to assure warranty coverage is provided wherever applicable. 5. A. 3) LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) Minutes Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, approval of the minutes of the meeting of 7-16-90 as submitted. Motion carried. b) Sub-committee Appointment Foster moved, Boswinkel seconded. approval of a subcommittee to review the Hennepin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Sheriff's Water Patrol and LMCD consisting of JoEllen Hurr, Orono: Bert Foster,Deephaven; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park and Sgt. Wm. Chandler of the Sheriff’s Water Patrol or his designee. Motion carried unanimously. c) Deposit Refunds Pillsbury moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the following deposit refunds: Minnetonka Bass Club, American Scholarship Foundation, Minnetonka Crossing, and t nd City Days, all having met the conditions of Lheir event pt s. Motion carried unanimously. d) Water Ski (Towing Pe.rsons) Ordinance /u-»..idment The Executive Director suLmitted an amended copy of the proposed ordinance which will allow for exceptions to Sec.3.10, Subd. 1, of the Ordinance governin.^ wj ng of persons by watercraft. The copy submitted clarifi a clause regarding the code provisions before Memorial Day ax. .fter Labor Dey. LMCD Board of Directors July 25. 1990 Chandler submitted the following re-wording of Subd.lb as requested by tiie Hennepin County Attorney: Sheriff may order Observer. Whenever it appears in the judgment of the Deputy that the public safety requires an observer, the Deputy may order an operator to provide an observer or to cease all towing activity. The refusal or failure to comply with such an order shall be a misdemeanor. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of the third reading of the proposed ordinance. Discussion indicated Boswinkel, Grathwol and Rascop are opposed to the amendment and the necessary eight votes were not available for passage. Foster moved, Grathwol seconded to table the proposed ordinance amendment and to refer it back to the Lake Use Committee. Motion carried unanimously. o) Water Patrol Report Chandler reported on two personal injury accidents. Prosecutions on them with the County Attorney are pending. Chandler said 60 BWIs have been issued, 58 o; them on Lake Minnetonka, including one by the MN DNR Conservation officer. He also stated the five mile "Minnetonka Crossing" swim event was accomplished with no incidents. Pillsbury reported that all except one SunKat pontoon allowed on a special event permit based at Lord Fletchers have been relocate! out of the state. Public interest did not support the operation. 5.4. ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Rascop Rascop reported work con.tinues on the final review. The likely last meeting to review responses to the public omment on the Management Plan will be 5:3U p.m., Wednesday, August 1. The Board received a request f'-om David Arndorfer that the retainage on the contract with Arndorfer Associates, Inc. be reduced by $10,000, leaving a balance of $15,000. If approved Arndorfer requested $7,000 be paid to Barr Engineering Ccrr.p--^ ,\y and the balance Arndorfer Associates. Rascor '*='d, Foster seconded, approval of a reduction in the retaina,, n the contract with Arndorfer Associates by $10,000 le 'ing ii5,000 in the contract, subject to receipt of all documents held by the contractor including computer discs. Motion carried unanimously. LeFevere stated the funds could be disbursed as requested by Arndorfer without any liability to the District. 5.D.Foster for Chair Cochran 1) Reservations were invited from Board members for the Public Officials’ lake inspection tour, Saturday, August 4, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. LMCD Board of Directors July 25. 1990 2) An Inter-Agency Dredging Agreement meeting with MN DNR and MUWD is planned for noon, Friday, July 29 Rascop and Foster indicated they would attend. 5. C Prosecution Progress Report, Attorney Holmes u .i-'avens. Steve Tallen, Steve Tallen submitted a summary of his prosecuting attorney activity and court fine revenue from November 1909 through s?0. It was noted cost of jail time was not included nary. Staff will include that. There was discussion s to approach the judiciary to make them more cognizant *e importance the District places on safety violations. 1. ractical, the Board would like a report on the fines being levxed for various infractions. 5. D. Financial Report, Treasurer Lewman 1) Lewman submitted the statement of cash transactions for the month ending 6-30-90 and it was ordered filed. 2) Lewman submitted the list of bills payable, noting check 6302 to Prof. Fundraising Services in the amount of $373.77 for a Save the Lake address list is a recommended settlement with the vendor. The original list of 4800 names was not satisfactory to some Board members. The vendor has agreed to review the list and identify 1000 prospects for the district. Reese questioned check 6200 to Smith and Nephew in the amouri of $973.20 for U.F.O. - General Supplies. It appeared more than the quoted price. Staff agreed to re-examine the billing. Fillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of checks numbered 6228 through 6302 in the amount of $51,611.67, check 6302 to be ht;ld untxi the vendor has furnished a list of 1000 names not on the district’s current Save the Lake mailing list and check 6298 subject to an audit of the bill to determine its accuracy. Motion .irried, Hurr voting nay. 3) Lewman reported ti^e second quarter financial summary and year to-date budget progress reports hav«, been returned to the auditor for clarification. 4) The City of Tonka Bay has requested someone from the Board be present at their August 14 meeting to discuss the 1991 budget Lewm.’n will attend. 5. E. Execi’.tive D:-i c'^tor, Strommen 1) Staff progress Strommen reported .lewly hired Administrative Technician Thibault has been introduced to a variety of her duties. Slie is working daily on n.ulbiplo dock license renewals for inspections. The dock license renewals should all be in the mail by the end of July. Rascop sa\d there should be a cost accounting of the time spent on 1. ing and the ’nformation furnished to the "Dock" committee. budget to segregate it from service costs provided to Orono and the contract cities at large. The other part of this department budget is for professional service fees, engineering and legal, incurred for review of building and zoning applications. These costs are recovered through application fees and direct billings for any excess costs. All costs of this department are pass through of billable items. The department name is to be changed to reflect this. * The Special Projects, Contingency and Transfers budget reflects an overall decrease from $158,200 to $126,470 or $31,730. There are several items that require comment. * The addition of the special assessment module is requested for 1991 to be added to data processing costs at a projected $5,240. * The 1991 City share of the Woodhill Avenue street improvement project cost of $1,980 has been added. The final payment will be made in 1994. * The Art Center of Minnesota has solicited an $8,000 donation from the City for 1990 and an additional $16,000 donation in 1991. This information was presented to Council as an information item at the June 25, 1990 Council meeting and is included as a budget consideration as per the City Administrator's June 14, 1990 memo. * The $30,000 transfer to the PIR Fund for 1991 has been cut, as the PIR Fund can fund this internally. * The $25,000 normally reserved as a contingency amount has been cut. Special Revenue Funds Park Fund - For 1991 the following improvements totaling $11,100 are anticipated, as reflected in the Park Fund budget: Hackberry Park - drinking fountain Navarre Playground - fencing Lydiard Beach - gate & sign Casco Point Beach - signs Sandy Beach - signs Summit Park Beach - signs $ 5,000 5,000 650 150 150 150 Equipment Outlay Fund - For 1991 a total of $61,350 is scheduled for various equipment purchases as follows: Park maintenance - Hustler mower $12,000 Street department - brush chipper 20,000 - steamer 5,000 - oiler spray bar 5,000 - air compressor 4,000 - *85 GMC underbody plow 4,800 - water tank & tamper 5,000 - power hack saw & chain saw 1,450 - air condition tractor 2,600 - radio for sweeper Building & Zoning department - portable radio 800 700 Building Outlay Fund - No specific amounts have been budgeted for 1991 at this time, but will depend on the City facilities progress. Construction Funds The Municipal State Aid Construction Fund and the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund have been added this year for information purposes. No budget amounts are shown at this time for 1991. However, it is anticipated that state aid monies will be used to fund approximately $160,000 of the $560,000 bridge project costs for the Old Crystal Bay Road bridge replacement in 1991. Debt Service Funds The final payment of $154,400 will be made in 1991 on the 1976 Refunding Bonds. Other debt service fund payments will total $249,640 in 1991. The outstanding principal balance at the end of 1991 will be $1,100,000 for the Debt Service Funds bond issues. Enterprise Funds Several significant changes have been incorporated in this budget document. Within the Water Operating and Sewer Operating Funds the construction and debt service for the 1989 G.O. Revenue Bonds have been spread between the two funds and segregated by project and debt redemption. A proportionate debt redemption schedule is shown with the water portion and the sewer protion. Each project is totalled separately, each debt service portion is totalled separately; and the operation of the water system and the sewer system is totalled separately. The depreciation is reflected as an operating expense in all the enterprise funds this year and all capital outlay from operations appears as a footnote and is not included in the department or fund totals. The fund totals in the Water Fund and the Sewer Fund will appear unusually high, however, these totals include the utility construction projects and debt service, which are funded separate from operations and have separate cash accounts. __________ -ir 1.------t • f *0 *. i| <•' « t$ t« ir It '« » I n » l« 75 » 2' 0CUWM*«90 I 1 « 5 7 / • f M 17 •! u «e «f 1$ t« 70 7* .*7 n 7« 75 70 :/ 70 .'O 70 Ifzz hitdfM^pr'F' d< 1-d. 20 ni<S9ivvig 0«y \U 27 17 \!(Oi 30 '90 .d if ;■ te MOVtUMMOO t 7 ) « 5 • ’ • f *0 •1 «? *7 M <5 t« it « «« TO 7« 77 71 74 ;5 70 IT 10 7f » iANMMv^Ot 17 14 1 • r • t <0 H <7 t| 14 «5 IV ir «i If 10 7t 77 77 :i 75 70 77 a 2t » II zuc (SS) '■^ . . 1 J X : , 8 11 A 14 (,V 15 n X z z 90 7^ HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAX AND PUBUC \^77Tl(l///}feT0r G A607 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0067 Crossroads To Service August 16, 1990 , -.9 2 0 1890Dorothy M. Hallin, Clerk City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin: As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation, we are notifying you of ^h® public hearing dates set by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and^e school districts within your city to adopt the levy for taxes payable in 1991. Taxing District Hennepin County School District #276 School District #277 School District #278 School District #284 Original Hearing November December December December December 15, 1990 6, 1990 10, 1990 10, 1990 10, 1990 Reconvened Hearing November 16, 1990 December 20, 1990 December 17, 1990 December 13, 1990 December 17, 1990 We are now requesting that you set your city's dates and times ^® original budget hearing and for a reconvened hearing. The hearings may be held anytime from November 17, 1990, through December 20, 1990. We ask that upon setting the dates, times, and places, you fill out the enclosed form and return it to us in the envelope provided. As you can tell from the enclosed abbreviated calendar, the turn around time for the public hearing notifications is very short. You need to return the enclosed form by September 1, 1990. You may incite it when certifying your proposed levy which is also due on September 1, 1990. If you have any questions, please contact me at 348-5100. Sincerely, Dale G. Folstad, Director Property Tauc and Public Records Marie A. Kunze O T2UC Receivables Division Manager DGF:MAK:kfs Enclosures HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer 82090.7 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police DATE: August 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Authority to Purchase Squad Cars G“ COUNCIL MEETING AUG 27 1980 CITY OF ORONO The Police Department budgeted for purchase of three squad cars for 1991 from Hennepin County Contract 1574A0-232 from Grossman Chevrolet Co. Inc. (Hastings Auto). The bid was awarded to Hastings Auto on or about August 9, 1990. The cutoff date is August 20, 1990, with payment due in 140 days. The Ford Motor Company will end production of 1991 Fords in December 1990 as they are retooling. The new Ford version for 1992 is not scheduled to be ready until 1992. As a result, the Ford squad for 1991 is scheduled to be the same price as the 1990 units. I request permission to get a purchase order for the three squad cars for 1991 by August 15, 1990. The units below will be replaced and sold at auction: #152, mileage 8/15-93,200 projected 1/1/91 to be 106,000 #155, mileage 8/15-57,925 projected 1/1/91 to be 80,400 #157, mileage 8/15-51,333 projected 1/1/91 to be 94,200 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratm Forwarded recommending approval as being within the dollars and quantity authorized in the 1991 budget. Subsequent to this being transmitted to Council it was learned in final discussions with the dealer there was one item ($196/car) for clear coat paint which was bid as an option but is now required and is part of the base bid. It raises the total from $38,625 to $39,213. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to approve the purchase of three squad cars as budgeted. Bid award under Hennepin County Contract 1574A0-232 is to Hastings Auto with a total purchase price not to exceed $39,213 less $11,150 estimated trade-in. Budgeted figure of $33,500 included change over of squads. Ayes __, Nays __. 87 ;hief 85 Ford ,T 85 Ford *atrol Orono •atrol Orono I *atrol Orono =>atrol LL Patrol SP PK ileserves Animal Control 8885 Ford 85 Ford 87 Chev 87 Chev 89 90 91 9285 Ford 90 Ford 4 90 Ford 90 For 87 Chev 87 Chev 'll 89 Ford 89 Ford ^1 89 Ford 89 Ford <51 89 Ford 89 Ford 89 Ford 89 Ford K“9 K-9 K-9 88 Chev 90 Ford 90 Ford 88 Chev £0 Ford 90 Ford 87 Chev 85 Ford 85 Ford 85 Ford 87 Chev 86 Bronco 86 Bronco 86 Bronco 81490.7 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat August 14, 1990 COUNCIL MEEriNG AUG 27 19S0 CITY OF ORONO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities - Dues Increase Attachment: A. AMM Memo Dated 6/4/90 ISSUE - Determine whether Council supports or opposes the increase in the positions as outlined in Attachment A. INTRODUCTION - Attachment A was provided as Council informaiton in the June" 26, 1990 packet. No comments were received either way from CounciIraembers. It is presented at this meeting to determine if Council will support this change. DISCUSSION - The change would add another staff person ^to^an overworked staff and will increase the cost to Orono from $1,680 to $1,993 for *91. While a percentage increase of 18% it represents a little over $300 in total. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Support. 2. Oppose. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council support this increase as needed by an organization that^ represents the Metropolitan perspective at the Metro Council, Legislature, together with serving as a forum which municipalities in the metropolitan area, which have different viewpoints, can work to develop common policies instead of fighting those out at the Legislature . PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , Council agrees to support the increase proposed by AMM. Ayes , nays . association ofmetropolitanmunicipalities August 21, 1990 BULLETIN SPECIAL AMM MEMBERSHIP MEETING 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Iavg 2 2 1830 HHEN: TmJRSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 WHERE: MINNEAPOLIS CONVENTION CENTER 1301 South Second Avenue Room 212 Minneapolis, Minnesota PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER BY-LAWS AMENDMENT AND DUES INCREASE TIME: 7:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER MEETING AGENDA Call to order. Welcome to Minneapolis Convention Center. Brief Synopsis of Mission Task Force Report - Kevin Frazell, Chair. Presidents Comments - Larry Bakken. Consider Amendment to AMM By-Laws Article III# Purpose (Attached). Consider Dues Increase Approval Resolution (Attached). Other Business. Adjournment. SPECIAL NOTES: A.This is an extremely important meeting and each city should have at least one person present to cast its vote. L. Tours of this beautiful new facility will be provided starting at 6:45 P.M. Tours will start inside the main lobby. C. This notice has been mailed to Mayors, Managers/Administrators and Delegates individually. SEE DIRECTIONS, MAP AND PARKING INFORMATION ATTACHED -1- 183 university avenue oast, st paul. minnesola 55101 (612) 227-4008 »»(r* Ir. DIRECTIONS TO THE MINNEAPOLIS CONVENTION CENTER 94 from the East (St.Paul) Take the 11th Street exit: Follow 11th Street until ycu reach 2nd Avenue, turn left onto 2nd Avenue and follow 2nd Avenue directly to the Convention Center. 94 from the West and Northwest Use the nth Street exit: follow 4th Street to 2nd Avenue, turn right onto 2nd Avenue and follow 2nd Avenue directly tc the Convention Center. 35W from the South (Bloomington) Take Downtown exits to the 11th Street e::it: Follow 11th Street tc 2nd Avenue, turn left onto 2nd Avenue and continue to the Convention Center. 3 5W froiT! the North Take 35V to the Washington exit: Take a right or. Vp.shing* cr.. follou* Washington to 2nd Avenue, turn left onto 2nd Ave::ue. Follow 2nd Avenue directly to the Convention Center. Highway si2 from the West Take Downtown exit (12th Street): Follow to 2nd Avenue and turn right, follow 2nd Avenue directly to the Conventicn Center. PUBLIC ENTRANCE The current F'UBLIC ENTRANCE is located on Grant Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues, next to Wesley Church. PARKING I suggest either the Plaza Municipal Ranip directly in fro:it cf the Convention Center (the underground ramp) or the Orchestrr. Hall Ramp. There is a S3.50 charge for parking. -2b- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE 1991 DUES RATE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE AMM BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO LEVY A 1991 DUES AMOUNT UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 119% OF A CITY'S 1990 DUES AMOUNT. THIS INCREASE SHALL BE USED TO HIRE AN ADDITIONAL STAFF PERSON TO ASSIST IN ACHIEVING THE EXPANDED PURPOSE OF THE AMM AS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE III OF THE AMM BY-LAWS AND AS RECOMMENDED IN THE MISSION AND MEMBERSHIP SERVICES TASK FORCE REPORT. A copy of this report was mailed to each member city June 4, 1990. NOTE: A dues increase which exceeds the cost of living as measured by the CPI for the preceding calendar year must be approved by member municipalities pursuant to Article V, Section 4 of the AMM By-Laws. (See brief job description below) Job Title: Communications and Research Director NATURE OF WORK This is a position with responsibilities for performing public information tasks, Association program arrangements and a variety of research assignments. The work involves personal contacts with municipal officials, state officials and the general public in the operation of the Association's programs and activities. MAJOR AREAS OF EMPHASIS a. Communicate with member cities and officials. b. Direct and maintain the Legislative contact System. c. Establish a public relations process including media contacts. d. Assist staffing AMM committees. e. Monitor Metropolitan Agencies activities. f. Research issues as required. A. Communicate with member cities and officials. Manage and direct the preparation, editing, publication and distribution of the periodic newsletter. Assist preparation and distribution of bulletins and other membership written communication. B. Direct and maintain the Legislative Contact System. Assist ^e Executive Director and Director of Legislative Affairs in developing, organizing, promoting, and administering a comprehensive program of coordinated lobbying activities for member city officials. -3- Assist administrative staff functions for the Legislative Coordinating Committee (LCC). Coordinate meeting(s) with metropolitan legislators and local officials to discuss AMM priority issues. C. Establish a public relations process including media contacts. Develop/vrite and issue news/press releases on significant AMM events such as membership meetings, outreach breakfasts, legislator meetings, election of officers, key appointments, etc. Develop distribution system for issue oriented news releases and assist preparation/writing releases tailored for specific types of media. D. Assist staffing AMM Committees. E. Monitor Metropolitan Agency activities. Monitor the agendas and attend meetings as directed on a routine basis and report agency activities of interest to other AMM staff. Assist in developing a more proactive stance for setting the Metropolitan agenda. F. Research issues as required. Research specific issues as needed and prepare in depth reports that can be used in lobbying by staff and contact persons. Examples could include comparisons of city expenditures for various services on a per capita basis. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS Training and Experience A combination substantially equivalent to a BS degree in political science or journalism with accumulated experience in journalism, public relations and government research. -4- ARTICLE III The purposes of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities shall be to: 1. Serve as the primary representative of the collective interests of all metropolitan cities on metropolitan wide issues and state vide issues with unicrue metropolitan significance. 2. Promote collaborative problem solving efforts between and among cities, the State, the Legislature, private interests and other public interests. 3. Effectively express in a unified voice, policies concerning the structure, powers and other matters relating to municipal government for the municipalities in the metropolitan area to the Legislature, Metropolitan Council and agencies, LMC, media and cities. 4. Serve as a forum through which all municipalities or groups of municipalities may develop and propose policies and positions on matters of concern to the metropolitan municipalities and develop strategies for advocating those policies and positions. 5. Serve as a forum for the interchange of ideas and information among municipalities in the metropolitan area and to foster intermunicipal cooperation. 6. Assist member cities to resolve disputes with other cities and agencies. 7. Develop and provide, either alone or in concert with the League of Minnesota Cities or other organizations or agencies, programs of technical assistance to member municipalities. 8. Establish specific prioritized agenda, including Legislative proposals, to address member community needs. 9. Foster, generate and promote information and data concerning the problems and issues and proposed solutions affecting municipal government in the metropolitan area to the State Legislature, in particular, and to the public at large. 10. Enhance eneeurage the effectiveness iapreveaent of municipal government in the metropolitan area by holding conferences and by fostering pertinent research projects. ?T-To-work-eioseiy-with-the“fceague-o£-Minnes6ta-eities-in-the intercsts-of-aeabers-of-this-Assoeiatien-of-Metropoiitan Munieipalitiesr 11. Coordir\ate the efforts of AMM members to promote their interests within the League of Minnesota Cities. -5- St ?o-str±ve-to-Bake-the-Betropoiifean-area-and-±ta-eemponenfe Biinieipa^ities-Bare-eff±e±ent-and*pre9reaaive-±n-the-eent±ntt±n9 task-ef-nak±ng-fehe-qaai±fey-e«-iife-as-ceBpiete7-sat±sfying-aBd anriehing-as-peasabie-fer-aii-eitisensr 12. Enhance the quality of life in the metropolitan area and its cities by promoting efficient and progrecoive service delivery systems for our residents. Legend:1. New working is underlined. 2. Wording to be deleted is crossed out. 3. Unchanged wording is printed as is. -6- ISC^r , ^rr/lc/hitevT- /! 5 193C association ofmetropolitanmunicipalities June 4, 1990 Dear Chief Ada.’.nistrative Official: I NEED YOUR HELP NOW! 'The AMM must become more proactive, more collaborative, more focused and more assertive. The AMM provides the only meaningful vehicle for the cities of the metropolitan area to express in a united voice this imi: ortant perspective of local government. ' The above quote, perhaps more than any other statement, capsulizes the major conclusion of the 12 member AMM Mission and Membership Services Task Force which just completed a year long evaluation and assesment of the AMM's mission, focus and general operations. The Task Force, in its final report, concluded that the AMM has been a very effective 'voice' and provides many benefits for the cities in the 7- county metropolitan area. However, the Task Force feels that we (The AMM) are at a crossroads and must not rest on our laurels as the problems and challenges facing us in the 90's are likely to be even more complex and difficult than the problems of the last decade. The enclosed Task Force report contains a 'blueprint for action' which if implemented should enable the AMM to remain a reliable and relevant tool for member cities as we enter the 90's. The bottom line, however, is that to follow this 'blueprint' we must hire an additional staff member which could result in a dues increase of 20 to 25%. The current three member staff does an outstanding job but the work load has increased so dramatically in recent years that to maintain current programs and increase our effectiveness at the Legislature and to become more proactive at the metropolitan level as recommended in the report, an additional staff member is mandatory. The Board would like to implement the Task Force recommendations and have the additional person on board by early 1991 but will not do so unless there is strong membership support for such action. Here is how your help is needed as asked for in the opening sentence of this letter: 1. Please provide copies of this letter and report to your Mayors and CounciImembers. -1- 183 universitv avenue east, st naul mmnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 2. Please place the report on your Council's Agenda for discussion and action prior to August 1, 1990. (If you would like an AMM board member to attend your council meeting when this item is discussed, please contact an AMM staff member to make the arrangements.) 3. Please inform the AMM Office by no later than August 15th. as to whether your city supports or opposes adding a staff member and the resultant dues increase. (You will be notified as to the exact amount of such increase by no later than July 6th.) 4. Please have a representative from your city attend the special AMM Membership Meeting pre-scheduled for Thursday evening, September 20th. to consider and vote on this matter. I thank you in advance for your help and thoughtful consideration of this proposal. Sincerely, LarryciBakken, President Golden Valley Councilmember -2- 72690.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: August 23, 1990 SUBJECT: Navarre Area Master Planning f^OUHClL MEETifiQ AUG 27 1990 CiTy OF ORONO Attachment: A. Navarre Area Master Planning Memo Dated 3/2/90 ISSUE - 1. Provide information to Council regarding ability to have a master plan eventually "realized". 2. Determine what direction, if any. Council desires to take on this issue. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s March 12, 1990 Council meeting the issue regarding master planning was discussed. The concern expressed by CounciImembers was the ability once a master plan was developed to have it "realized". DISCUSSION - The issue have been discussed as to strategy for realization with John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. The elements of principal concern that a master plan would be addressing are as follows: Land use Structure Quality Location Area appearance Public Private Traffic flow The obvious concern for any master plan development is that the exercise would be gone through, a plan adopted and then it would sit on a shelf with no means available to implement it. In the Highway 12 case where the City was essentially dealing with raw land, the master plan that was done was then adopted through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It had within it an incentive to allow it to happen in two ways. A. There were no current structures or longterm land use on the property. B. The Comprehensive Plan generally allowed for uses that were more economically attractive than under the current zoning. In the case of Highway 12 the City also had control over not allowing the zoning to occur until selected improvements were made in order to allow the more economically advantagous use. The plan however did not contain any timing element for the change and was dependent upon the market for timing and to a great degree type of use that may be found in any particular area. The Navarre area represents existing land uses and zonings that are problematic by themselves. Any redevelopment options needs to provide some type of incentive in order for people to change from the present existing situation. In addition to developing a master plan, the City would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the area in order for it to go forward. The range of incentives to promote realization/limitation of such a plan include the following: 1. City Promoted Marketing - City attempt to market the area and work with developers including identification of market study. 2. Overlay Zoning/Area "Imaqe"/Comprehensive Plan - The City could do the master plan which would include an area "image". This could then be adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the area which would specify material types but allow for alternatives which achieve that image. 3. Rezoning Incentives - This would allow for a change in most probably an intensification of the land use to make it economically viable to redevelop. Such alteration in land use would include increased density and/or mixed use to make it economically viable from a private standpoint. 4. Required Rezoning for New Structures - This would be a requirement that should the current structures be removed that the master plan rezoning would be put into effect at that time. This may be a change from the current zoning and in some cases a benefit and in some cases not, but that requirement would not allow an option of a new building at the existing zoning if it were to change. 5* ~ The master plan and comprehensive plan could require that the rezoning be done now, however, this may raise resistance from current property owners because of the possible non- conforming nature of their property and the limitations that may have on their ability to improve the property as it currently exists. 1 city Spons ored Lan d Assembly - The City, once developers are obtained, could work to provide assembly services for certain lands including the possible use of eminent domain for difficult properties (it should be noted however, eminent domain may result in 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 times the cost of what the land may be worth if purchased in a private sale). 7. Public Financial Participation - Public Impro vements - Improvements in public facilities such as sewer and water and/or transportation. In this particular area transportation changes would be the primary need for public participation as sewer and water service are probably adequate for most acceptable development. Public Aesthetic Improvements - This would be the City participating in amenity improvements (such as the beautification program) particularly on public spaces in the area. Private Improvements - Under the use of an HRA/TIF etc. the City could become involved in defraying the cost of private improvements through such things as land write downs, services, ate. Some of these could be recouped possibly through Tax Increment Financing or utilization of ou*-side resources. In general there has not been strong interest in substantial public participation particularly in private improvements. Absent that kind of participation, just allowing the market to replace this as it goes will not necessarily result in achievement of a master plan for a long period of time in an area that is slated for redevelopment. Redevelopment to be economically feasible to the private vendor either has to have public monies to reduce some of the cost and/or that there needs to be an increase of economic viability in the area, which may mean any of the following; Increased density Increased utilization of existing density Mixed use Alternate use compatible with the market There is nothing to preclude the City from using some or all of these tools as it may become appropriate however, strategies as far as rezoning would need to be done uniformly. If the changes or incentives become too restrictive they may have a deletarious effect on the upkeep of existing buildings, which may in fact in the short term exacerbate the problem and go further from the goal of improving the area depending on how these are structured. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Determine if any of the alternatives presented for utilization of a master plan would make sense to the Council. 2. Give direction to staff regarding master planning. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - Given the interest in some improvement plus possible change in the area significant issues such as: Transportation/Traffic Flow Incompatable use Area Appearance speak to the need for a master plan of the area. In addition there is a continuing occasional interest in these improvements and to the extent that significant improvement has not taken place master planning it may be appropriate at this point. The most basic "realization" strategy would be development of a master plan with the adoption of a comprehensive plan as was done with the Highway 12 area with a rezoning more economically attactive for a developers and that the rezoning take place in accordance with those. It may be appropriate as part of that rezoning to utilize planned unit developments in order to accomodate the mixed use, together with perhaps development of an additional zoning category or two to make it attactive in the area. An alternative strategy would be development of a Navarre business zone that would encourage new uses, but perhaps allow certain continuances of existing buildings with minor fixup and this would also include mixed use/planned development zone. It is recommended this be tabled for discussion on September 24, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by to table this item for discussion at the September 24, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. 3290 TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate' DATE: March 2, 1990 SUBJECT: Navarre Area Master Planning Attachment: A. Navacce Redevelopment Memo Dated 1/30/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council of the estimated cost to complete master planning in the Navarre area. 2. Determination by Council as to whether they want to proceed with a master plan and if so, setting a date for consideration at which the interested public would be invited. INTRODUCTION - This issue was tabled at the February 12, 1990 meeting so all CounciImembers could be present to discuss. A correction to the 1/30 memo is that the $2,500 for comprehensive plan text preparation is included in the $9,700 fee for doing the master plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine to proceed. 2. Choose not to proceed any further. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Establish public informational meeting on the issue. March 26, 1990 April 9, 1990 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council hold an informational meeting to undertake a master planning on April 9, 1990. The cost is within the amount budgeted for Navarre but would require a $2,200 budget amendment for 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council table further discussion on this matter until a public informational meeting on _____. Ayes __, Nays __. 13090.4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: January 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Navarre Area Master Planning Attachment:A. Navarre Area Master Planning Memo Dated 1/12/90 B. Shardlow Memo Dated 2/8/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council of the estimated cost to complete master planning in the Navarre area. 2. Determination by Council as to whether they want to proceed with a master plan and if so, setting a date for consideration at which the interested public would be invited. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s last meeting Attachment A summarized some of the information from the November 18, 1989 meeting and based on the direction indicated that Council would table until this meeting for further exploration of the master planning concept of the area based on estimated cost. DISUCSSION - As noted in Attachment A the City had budgeted §30,00(1) in 1988 and '89 and has budgeted an additional $7,500 in 1990. Of that §37,500 total, the City has spent about §18,500. As outlined in Attachment B the cost of doing a master pj^n process would be about §9,700 with the text for a comprehenTTve plan amendment an additional $2,5CL0. The total for the master plan would bring the total to §28,200, still within the amount budgeted. ^ ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine to proceed. 2. Choose not to proceed any further. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Establish public informational meeting on the issue. March 12, 1990 March 24, 1990 April 9, 1990 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council hold an informational meeting to undertake a master planning on March 12, 1990. The cost is within the amount budgeted for Navarre but would require a §2,200 budget amendment for 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council table further discussion on this matter until a public informational meeting on March 12, 1990. Ayes _, Nays _. John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Oban Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Dirctor ( I 11590.2 ; : TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ DATE: January 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Navarre - Master Planning I Attachment ;A. Navarre Memo Dated 11/21/89 B. Navarre Memo Dated 6/21/89 C. Navarre Memo Dated 10/18/89 ISSUE - Determination by the Council as to what direction they would like to take as it relates to the Navarre area. INTRODUCTION - The Council held a meeting in June to review the analysis work done by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban together with holding a public meeting on November 18, 1989, at which property owners, business owners and residents in the area were invited at the Freshwater Biological Institute. Attachment A was prepared as a follow up to that meeting. DISCUSSION - In Attachment A there are three issues outlined which are as follows: Issue ^1. Does the City Choose to do anything further at this point in the area regarding: a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use It was indicated at the November 13, 1989 meeting that the Council would review this issue in the January - February timeframe. If the Council desires to do anything furthe. with this matter staff would notify, as was indicated at the meeting, the residents in attendance that this item would be on the agenda for its second meeting in February. Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something, at what level do they want to approach it? a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable rezonings The sense of informal discussion following the November 18th meeting was that the City should go through a process to identify what it would like in the future, but that it would not take any active role in it. As such, it would be appropriate to go through a process for master planning in the land use and if possible submission of a comprehensive plan amendment. It would probably not be appropriate at this time to undertake any attendant rezonings until there was an interest in redevelopment of the property by the private owner. In October the Council did authorize an extension of the contract as noted on Attachment C Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban has been asked to estimate the cost of completing the master planning process. This will be presented to Council at its next meeting. (The staff is also reviewing the need for an update to its comprehensive plan in light of the recent Metro Council reguirements. It is not anticipated at this time that the staff will not be having much need for outside help.) Issue #3. If the City has gone forward on #1 and #2 does it desire to undertake any active steps to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble land c. Undertake public financing There did not seem to be any interest in having governmental participation active in implementing any of the desired changes. Perhaps the only level of participation in improvement is the beautification plan and perhaps local assistance for that. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Indicate level of interest in undertaking master planning. 2. Establishment of further consideration at the February 26, 1990 Council meeting. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Indicate no desire to go any further. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table the matte”r“until its February 12, 1990 meeting if it is interested in undertaking the master planning process. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _that the Council having indicated its desire Tn further exploring master planning table the issue until February 12, 1990, to review the cost. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director John Shardlow/Ed Hassek, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban 112189.3 fA TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administr ato DATE: November 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment Meeting ISSUE - Providing a brief summary of the issues discussed at the public information meeting held November 18, 1989, at the Freshwater Biological Institute. INTRODUCTION - Written notice was sent to all property owners within the Navarre area. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting. This represented a cross section of residents in the area, business owners, business property owners and persons who were both business operators and private residential property owners. DISCUSSION - The following represents a list of issues that need to be decided in the future regarding the Navarre area: Issue #1. Does the City choose to do anything further at this point in t.he area regarding: a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something at what level do they want to approach it? a. Master plan of land use b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable reconings Issue #3. If the City has gone forward on #1 and #2 does it desire to undertake any active steps to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble land c. Undertake public financing It was indicated to those in attendance that the first issue regarding whether to go ahead or not would be broached with the Council in the January/February timeframe and that those in attendance would be notified. Additionally, should the City go ahead it would be appropriate that the meetings be held at the Freshwater Biological Institute. ALTSRNATr/ES - A. Accept the information. B. Comment. C. Table. RECOMMEJIDATION - It is recommended that the issue at this '.me be tabled ?or filFther consideration at the second meeting in .unuary or the first Council meeting in February. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council table consideration of this item until the second meeting in January or its first meeting in February 1990. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: Chic Remien, Executive Director Westonka Chamber Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. Ed Hasek, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Oban, Inc. : 1 62139.2 TOr Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: June 21, 1989 SUBJECT; Navarre Redevelopment ATTACHMENTS: A. Handouts From June 1, 1989 Meeting ISSUE - Determine what direction that the Council desires to take on this issue. INTRODUCTION - At the meeting that was held regarding the Navarre redevelopment a presentation was made as to problems and possibilities together with discussing the range of alternatives the City could undertake and a range of alternatives for potential master planning or redevelopment. On behalf of the staff I would like to aoologize for the breakdown in communications with the Planning Commission and others who were not fully informed of the meeting time and place. As you may be aware interested property owners were in attendance at that meeting indicating some of their needs and desires regarding the area. In addition City staff has been approached by a private development firm who has an interest in possible redevelopment on the south side of County 15. DISCUSSION - As noted there is a growing interest in this area, not only from the City, but also from people currently in the area and others from outside the area. As discussed on the 1st t.he range of alternatives include; A. Beautification - "Spruce up" the area in an effort to promote the attractiveness of the area and therefore the business. The level of involvement in helping implement the Westonka Beautification Plan maybe an appropriate avenue at this level of involvement. B. Master Planninq /Comorehensive Plan amendment - The current comprehensive plan and zoning for the area reflects what was in place at the time it was created. As noted in the attachments this is a hodge podge of zoning uses and that longterm there may be a more desireable land utilization in the area. One of the alternatives would be to undertake a master planning or the area to designate what the City would like to see in that area as land uses and as changes come along that they would need to fit into that plan. Participation and Rede ^glooment — A third alternative lid be to actually participate in redevelopment either : 1 on a case by case basis or in relation to achieving any master plan arrangements tne City would desire. There does not seem to be substantial interest at this point in assisting any redevelopment, in part because of the experiences of a neighboring community. The issue regarding redevelopment may wall be one of the extent of public participation needed in order to make the project work together with the security guarantee given for the public participation by the developer. (Presently the party interested in redevelopment is working on general estimates to determine the extent of assistance needed in order to undertake redevelopment of the south side.) ACTION - 1. Make available an opportunity for those not present on the June 1st meeting to hear the presentation. 2. Undertake a discussion on the next steps. 3. Take no action. 4. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the opportunity be made available for the presentation for those interested. It could possibly be as part of a joint Planning Commission/Council meeting tentatively scheduled for Saturday, JuJy 29. In addition that meeting could include discussion of further steps. Further topics could include financial and other related information on the facilities study. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the Council direct staff to set anot*Eer presentation of the Navarre redevelopment information together with setting a time for further discussions with Planning Commission on the direction for Navarre. Ayes __, Nays __. Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Planning & Zoning Asst. Administrator John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Ui? i fif j 2;! i; * j5« 5 9? p i I 2a s ?s ^5 I ; I I Hill ' IIII il li ll U Itllll CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY ANALYSIS SUMMARY CmintT Road 19 Ana Inadequately and unscreened parking, loading and storage result in clutter Redundant and poorly placed curb cuts result in access/circulation conflicts Aging and deteriorating buildings and parking result in an image of decline Excessive and competitive signage add clutter and confusion Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area Small parcels limit expansion and redevelopment flexibility and have resulted in crowded, out of scale development, parking and setback problems Existing development exiuoits lack of unity or positive charaaer and little sense of community Significant wooded areas buffer the esisting land use transitions and require sensitive development Point Road Area Inadequately screened and unscreened parking. loading and storage result in visual clutter Redundant and poorly placed curb cuts result in access and circulation conflicts Aging and low quality commercial/industrial uses counteract the positive influence of better development Mixing of incompauble uses contributes to conflicts and disorder Small parceb limit expansion and redevelopment flexibflity and result in crowded and out of scale development, and parking/setback problems Turning conflicts occur at all major intersections Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area screening and bufferng of new development/redevelopment petpetuates harsh edges and transitions I pnnwoodv Avenue Area Inadequately screened and unscreened parking, storage and operations result in clutter and objectionable views Poorly placed curb cuts result in drculation/tuming conilicts near Dunwoody Isolated industrial/conunercial uses discourage adjacent development and coatribure to image problems Substandard structures, poor signage and a lack of maintenance counteract positive affects of better developments Wetland areas require preserv ’ation and sensitive adjacent development Lack of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area CTTY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE A Cnanty Road 19 Area Expand and concentrate commercial Develop multiple residential to support commercial Place commercial with buildings set back to maximize developable area Revise street system to increase developable area, and reduce access and land use conflicts Preserve woodland and wetland buffers Develop open space corridors Develop and implement performance standards to reduce visual and operational conflicts rasco Point Road Area Expand and concentrate office Revise street system to enlarge office area and reduce access and land use conflict Develop and implement performance standards to reduce visual and operational conflicts pnnwooHv Avenue Area Develop single family around wetland Develop new park as part of wedand and open space system Develop office use at Dunwoody to buffer the county maintenance facility Combine dty and county maintenance operations Develop and implement performance standards to reduce visual and operational confHcts •v .iiT* m CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B rnnntv Road 19 .Area Expand and concentrate commercial Place commerdai toward the front of the lot to maximize village image Develop loop road to serve commercial from the rear Develop multiple residential and office to support the commercial High quality multiple residential to capture lake and open space views Revise the street system to reduce access and land use conflict Preserve woodland and wetland buffers Develop open space corridors Develop and implement strict.development standards to reduce visual and operational problems ra.«;go Point Road Area Expand and concentrate office Develop multiple residential adjacent to Co. Rd. 15 Maintain Casco Point Road/Blaine Avenue intersection for possible signalization Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv .Avenue Area Relocate combined county and city maintenance facilities Preserve woodland buffer Revise access road and restore wetlands Redevelop county site to single fpiily Concentrate access at Dunwoody and improve intersection Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems ICITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE C Cnnntv Road 19 Area Expand and concentrate commercial at Co. Rd. 19 Place commercial toward the street frontage to raarimize visibility and the small town image Design the street system to control access and land use conflicts Develop multiple residential and office to support commercial uses High quality multiple residential to capture lakc/open space vies Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Development should enhance the areas image Preserve woodland and wetland buffers, develop open space systems Casco Point Road Area Expand and concentrate office at Casco Point Road Design street system to enlarge office area and reduce access and land use conflicts Develop and implement strict development stanv’irds to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv Avenue Area Relocate county and city maintenance facilities Develop multiple residential adjacent to County Road in and around the wetland Restore wetland and incorporate it into the open space system Develop single family on county property abutting existing single family Develop a system of streets to concentrate access at Dunwoody and control land use/traffic conflicts i Improve the Dunwoody intersection Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems — . r:. 101389.5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistratof DATE: October 18, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment - Stage II Concract Attachment:A. Navarre Redevelopraent/Consultant Agreement Dated 6/12/88 B. Proposed Addendum Stage II ISSUE - Authorization to adopt the addendum as part of the contract. INTRODUCTION - The initial estimate for the work for Stage I was approximately $15,000. Because of the protracted nature of the proceedings on the 'matter together with the request for development of options to help illustrate parts of Stage I, the work done by the consultant has begun to actually lapse into Part 1 Stage II. DISCUSSION - It is requested that the Council authorizean addendum for Stage II up to an amount not to exceed $5,000. This would bring the total authorized to date up to $20,000. A total of $30,000 has been budgeted between 1988 and 1989. After the meeting on November 18th an estimate for the balance will be prepared depending on the scope of work decided upon at or following that rotating. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the addendum. 2. Stop the contract ac the proposal. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the addendum be adopted as presented. This authorization is up to $5,000 for Stage 11 Phase 1 Step 1. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Orono City Council authorizes amending the agreement with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Dban regarding Navarre Redevelopment to include an additional $5,000 for beginning Stage II work. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: John Shardlow Ed Hasik Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator 1 -‘ * t ! I f r t i• •• 7'' ^ tNco»PO**riD CONSULTING PLANNERS L.\NDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE ;:o MINNEAPOLIS. .MN 55-:01 612 339-3300 \ 11ll>I I II lk\. 5 ?=3m 3 JUNE I98S Honorable Mayor and City Council Cif. of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55323 Attention: Mark Bemhardson, City Administrator CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES A GREEMENT entered into todav by and between CITY OF ORONO. hereinafter sometimes called CITY, and DAHLGREN, SHARDLOVV. AND UEAN, INC, hereinafter sometimes caUed CONSUL TANT, relating to the employment of the CONSULTANT as follov/s: OBJECrrV'E OF SERVICES SCOPE OF SERVICES To achieve the above stated objectives, the CONSULTANT proposes to perform work in two stages. STAGE I would be a pilot study consisting of two phases, designed to update City base information, anal>-ze existing development factors, identify problems and opportunities and summarize preliminary land use recommendations for the study area. STAGE I will also establish goals and objectives for the completion of the redevelopment process. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Pa^e 2 STAGE II will be divided into three phases and will build on the findings of STAGE I. This stage is intended to be a more detailed study, identii)'ing specific land uses, potential building scale and locations, and will result in a Redevelopment Master Plan. This stage will also outlme specific implementation strategies including; comprehensive plan and zoning amendments, design standards, and development incentives such as Tax increment FLnancing. The following work program is proposed for your consideration; §IA£EJ PHASE I: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 1. Conduct meetings with City Administrator, Consulting Engineer, and other staff to gather background data and current information, and to identify key issues involved in the planning study. 2. Secure information pertinent to the development of base maps, to include the following items: section maps, aerial photography, soils information, existing topographic information, vegetation, land use, zoning. Tln^ will also include locations of L iilities and easements as may be available. 3. Prepare base maps of the study area at a scale of TtlOO’ for use in analysis and conceptual planning. 4. Inventory and analyze such development factors as slopes, drainag*' vegetation, and other environmental issues. 5. Inventory and analyze such development factors as land use, circulation, traffic, parking, access points, and current tax base. PHASE II: SUMMATION OF FINDINGS / DEVELOPMENl' OF GOAi^S & OBJECTIVES 1. Review findings from Pha.se I with CIT^' staff. 2.. Prepare a memorandum summarizing the research and iiia'ysis done as outlined above, and present the information to a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. • ^.Based on input from City council and Planning Commission prepare a draft set of goals and objectives to guide the work to be conducted in Stage II. Dahtgren, Shardtow, and Uban, Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 3 STAGE n PHASE I: PLANNING Develop preliminary concept plans and alternatives to illustrate potential future land uses, circulation, open space, major utilities, and potential building scale and location. * j-c ja j - 2. Prepare a summary of the pertinent data and development statistics for the properties under jonsideration, including size and nature of development activity, existing and future land and building values, and fiscal implications. ^ ^ 3. Prepare a .eaemor.'’..ndurr. summarizing in •.'Ti'rs.n and graphic form the alternative ccncepej and pertinent information described above, and present it to the City Council and Planning Com mission. This memorandum will include traffic generation analysis reflecting the potential impact of proposed land use changes on surrounding streets. _ _ 4. Prepare exhibits and data suitable for public presentation of the the key issues and concepts involved, and prepare a presentation of these and other important information for the workshop with the City Council and Planning Commission. -7, _ PHASE II; IMPLEMENTATION 1. Prepare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with findings as appropriate, which reflect the concepts adopted in the previous phase, for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council with the adopted results prepared for submission to the Metropolitan Council. 2. In consultation with City administrator. City Attorney, and other staff, prepare amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the concepts adopted in t: previous phase, including application of new Zoning Districts to the properties in the study area, changes to the Official Zoning Map, and enhanced periormance standards to protect the integrity of existing surround ing land uses and to guide future developments. 3. At the City’s direction and working closely with the CITY Fiscal Consultant and CITY staff, the CONSULTANT wiU prepare a preliminary' Tax Lncrement Financing Feasibiliry Study. PHASE III: FINAL REPORT (Optional) 1. Edit, prepare and have printed a final report documenting the research, analysis, goals, plans, implementation tools, and promotion strategies outlined in ail phases above. The report will be include two color printing of graphics, and high quality materi^ and design. Uahlgren. Shardlow, and Uban. Inc ^ Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PRESENTATIONS It is anticipated that five (5) presentations before the Planning Commission and City Council may be required in the pursuit of final approval of the planning study. It is also anticipated that at least two public hearings may be required. All additional meetings and revisions will be charged for on a time plus materials basis. PRODUCT TO BE PROVIDED The CONSULTA lNT shall provide the CITY with written and graphic materials in memorandum form as may be required during the review of this project. Beard mounted, color rs.ndered exhibits and slides will be prepared for purposes of public presentations. At the CITY’S option the CONSULTANT will publish a final report printed on high quality paper with two color graphics and bound in one volume. INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY The CITY shall be responsible for providing legal, engineering, surveying, and municipal fiscal con sulting services as may be required. The CONSULTANT shall work in close liaison with these e.xperts throughout the course of the project. None of these services will be requested without prior consent from the CITY. The CITY shall be responsible for providing updated information, including legal descriptions, aerial photos, section maps, fiscal data, tomography (if available), and City infrastructure and utility informa tion. COMPLETION TLVIE The work outlined above will begin immediately upon receipt of the executed contract and will be completed as expeditiously as possible with work for STAGE I being completed within 60 days of commencement, unless delayed by reason of une.xpected emergencies, forces beyond the control of the parties, or b'» request of a partv acouiesced in w'litin!: bv the other party. If so delayed for more than ninety (ISO)’days at the request of the CITY, the CONSULTANT reserves the right to renegotiate the contract to account for rising costs before resuming work. DahIjTcn. Shardlow. and Uban. Inc Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page S COST OF SERVICES The work will be performed on a time plus materials basis, with an estimate. We will undertake only that work which we feel is essential to complete the study and we will not undertake work which is not authorized by this AGREEMENT, without the prior consent of the City Council Since the costs associated with Stage II will be dependent on decisions made by the City with respect to the findings of the previous Stage, a detailed estimate of those costs will be provided at the conclusion of Stage I. The estimated cost of our services for Stage I is summarized by phase below: STAGE I PHASE I: RESEARCH AiND ANALYSIS Research, analysis, base map preparation Time: 30 days PHASE H: FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES Consultation, writing design, analysis Time: 30 days TOTAL SERVICES STAGE I The work performed will be charged for on a time plus materials basis according to the above costs. All work and meetings will be computed in accordance with the attached Standard Rate Schedule, which shall be paid as hereinafter provided. All costs incurred will be payable to the CONSULTAITT upon receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the cost of said work. To each invoice not paid within thirty (30) days sh:^ be added a service charge of one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) per month for each month delinquent. Dahlgren, Shaieiow, and Uban, Inc. Na\arre Redevelopment Plan Page 6 TERMINATION This contract may be terminated upon written notice by either party. In the event of termination, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for the work completed on a time plus materials basis. CONDITIONS HEREIN AGREED TO: dahlgren , shardlovv , and UBAN, LNC: John^^ Shardlow, Vice President n C. John Uban, Vice President 7/4d/^ Date -f ^•'50-2£) Date CITY OF ORQNO 't ,ck/LJ r\ y Mark Bernhifi^s^n', City Administrator 4"\ Date Date Attachment; Standard Rate Schedule STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE DAHLGREN, SHARDLOVV, AND DEAN, INC. Staff Member Pate Principal SSO.OO to S 120.00 Senior Planner $40.00 to $50.00 Planner $40.00 to $50.00 Landscape Architect $30.00 to $50.00 Urban Designer $25.00 to $50.00 Market/Research Analyst .$25.00 to $50.00 Graphic Designer $25.00 to $40.00 Draftsman $25.00 to $40.00 Secretary $25.00 to $35.00 Outside Consultants Per Job Plus 15% Supplies Cost Plus 15% Mileage $030 Per MUe Expert Testimony Two Times Hourly Rate (One-half Day Minimum) Past Due Accounts 1.5% Per Month —VC' n» \vvnrvc LA\CSC.\rE“\;?CH!T^:^S ■(■'• E’?iT \v:>.L‘Z :vC';JT!i MEMORANDUM DATE: 8 February 1990 John Shardlow Ed Hasek TO: FROM: RE:Cost Estimate for Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Revi sion/Navarre Area r*. • , The following estimate assumes that the City will want to establish a "cost not to exceed" figure in our agreement. Several of these work components could be completed for less, but with a process that involves -o many land owners, there is considerable opportunity for delay and revisions. This estimate assumes "wo-oolored reproductions of lUU reports. Meetings and Pre.sentations (Preparation and Presentation) Write, Edit Text Graphic Presentation Revisions. Prepare Final Fiaiis Material Costs Photo Reductions Xeroxing Copying, Collating. Binding Estimate 4 Meetings at S675.00 each S2.700.00 S3.000.00•** S 1,600.00 S 100.00 S200.00 - S300.00 $800.00 Sl.200.00 TOTAL $9,700.00 82190.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: August 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Flexible Benefits COUNCIL MEETING AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO Attachment; A. Flexible Benefits Memo Dated 5/2/90 B. Table of Vendors ISSUE 1. Determine if Council desires to undertake a flexible benefits program. 2. Selection of a vendor. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A a flexible benefits program can be an aid to both the City and the staff by allowing a savings through pre-tax deferrals of income. It is estimated at an average participation level the City would save approximately $5,000 a year less any cost for administration. The estimated savings for the employees would be about a total given average participation of $10-25,000 depending upon their tax bracket. At the Council’s May 7, 1990 Council meeting they directed staff to seek other vendors. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 Vendors - While there are several vendors in the area the City contacted ones that had done primarily work v’lth other cities. In addition to other vendors, one with an insurance company and another that was trying to market the cities but had not done work for them, had requested the abilities to present proposals. The insurance company approach, while potentially saving money, does allow those companies access to employees to sell products. In time such may cause people to shy away from participating in the program and in addition could consume substantial amounts of the employee's time while they are being marketed. Type of Plans - The three primary areas that each of the plans offer are as follows: Health Premium - This allows the employee to defer salary to pay the difference between the City's portion of the family coverage and the cost of the coverage. In addition to the e/,ent insurance programs are allowed under the plan persons could defer premiums for those. Health Care Reimbursement - This is an account where persons set aside money to pay for health care expenses that are not normally covered by the insurance plan. This could include co-pays, dental expenses and etc. Dependent Care - This would allow the employee to defer up to $5,000 to pay for the cost of dependent care as a pre-tax item. Each of the vendors offer the basic programs with some slight variations. Vendor Services - Plan Development - In each case the vendors are taking their standard plan and adopting it to the City's. As noted in Attachment B this ranges from $500 to $2,700. Legal Review - This is offered by one of the plans in their plan development fee while others have had them reviewed by prominent legal firms in the area, the City could either rely on such legal representations or choose to have their own legal review. A separate legal review by Popham Haik is estimated to be about $400- 1,200. (Some of the plans have not been reviewed locally as best as we can determine.) Administration - Once the program is up and running it can either be self administered by the City or it can be administered through a third party. Quotations for these expenses and the basis for these differ by type of plan. It should be noted that the City would feel it prudent to have a third party administrator as employees may be reluctant to participate in a program if they know their fellow employees are reviewing reimbursements for particularly health related items. Additionally the types of administration do differ, some handle the accounting and transmit to the City for writing all the checks. Others handle all the check writing directly from their office. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council indicate any questions or issues they would like to address and request tabling until the September 10, 1990 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOITON - Moved by _, seconded by _, issue until Sej^ember 10, 1990. Ayes _, Nays Council table the cc: Department Heads TO: FROM: DATE:May 2, 1990 SUBJECT: Flexible Benefit Plan Attachment:A. Flexible Benefit Plan Memo Dated 4/20/90 (Cover Memo Only) ISSUE - •- tecmine if Council will authorize the City to work with DCA Stanton to develop a flexible benefits plan for City employees. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s April 23, 1990 meeting Attachment A was presented for Council consideration and tabling it until the 5/14/90 meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve 2. Modify and approve 3. Take no action 4. Accept the legal review of DCA's master documents 5. Table to 5/28/90 meeting RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City work with DCA Stanton to: A. Develop a flexible benefits plan in an amount not to exceed $4,000 for plan design and communication and accept the legal review by DCA’s legal firm. B. Develop the plan to be administered by DCA Stanton for approximately $1,700/year. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , authorizes the City staff to work with DCA Stanton to develop a flexible benefits plan in an amount not to exceed design and communication. Additionally the plan is t administered by DCA Stanton for approximately $1,700/year. Ayes __, Nays __. 42090.1 ; ■'v TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato DATE: April 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Flexible Benefit Plan Attachment: A. DCA Flexible Benefit Outline ISSUE — Presentation of information to Council regarding the basics of flexible benefit plan. INTRODUCTION - Over the past couple years staff has discussed with Council the undertaking of flexible spending accounts in conjunction with the pre-tax provisions allowed by IRS Section 125. Under this, it allows an employee to deduct from pre-tax dollars certain amounts for child care, health premiums, health and dental expenses and other types of qualified plans together with coordinating that plan with their deferred compensation. Even thjugh this has been a longterm goal to present to the Council for some time. Section 89, that was a discrimintation test, made certain elements and design of the plan more expensive. This has subsequently been repealed by the Congress. (I would like to thank Councilrac ibers who pursuaded staff to wait on going through and doing a Section 89 compliance in January of *89 since the repeal made it no longer necessary.) DISCUSSION - Flexible pre-tax benefit programs are provided by a number of organizations to their employees in both public and private sectors in the metro area. The DCA Stanton group has done it in most municipalities who havwe adopted such programs. Subsequent to indicating that the cost of the plan would be about $1,500 to design it in our January 16, 1990 memo I have done further exploration and the total cost at this point looks to be about $2,250 for plan design and $1,700 for plan communelat^-ons and introduction. (We budgeted about $7,500 for both IRS 125 and 87 for 1990.) The information is presented to Council at this time so that you may peruse the information to see what questions or issues you have prior to a decision as to whether staff should initiate the work with DCA Stanton. While the City could solicite alternate quotations from other areas, it is not required nor felt that the expense involved would net a substantial savings, particularily since DCA will be working from plans developed for the municipalities. (The only unknown expense at this point is the legal review. D^’s master documents have been reviewed by the Gray, Plant law firm. These cost factors will be presented at the next meeting.) In addition to the initial outlay expend'' there is the administrative cost of the program. Whi. : ' ^1°"® inhouse, the approximately $1,700 pet year t.i; •- mid charge for administration of the program would do a mui. -w^ar gob than we would be able to do and would probably maxe the program much more widely used. (There has been a reluctance to participate by certain employees in organizations that used their own inhouse administration, of people submitting bills for particularly hfalth telated"Vatter3. Ones that have shifted from an inhouse to a contract administrator have seen their participation rates go up. (This is because a number of people are concerned that leople in their own orgainization are reviewing bills for health matters that they consider to be personal.) ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Ask any question you may have at this point or over the next three weeks. 3. Table until subsequent meeting. recommendation - It is recommended that Council accept the information iTd ask any questions they may have between now and the next meeting and that the matter be tabled until May 14, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that Council accept the information and ask any questions th®y may have b^weL and now and the next meeting and that the matter be tabled until May 14, 1990. Ayes _, Nays _. cc; Janet McCune, DCA All Department Heads In addition to the initial outlay expense there is the administrative cost of the program. While it can be done inhouse, the approximately $1,700 per year that DCA would charge for administration of the program would do a much better job than we would be able to do and would probably make the program much more widely used. (There has been a reluctance to participate by certain employees in organizations that nsed their own inhouse administration, of people submitting bills for particularly health related matters. Ones that have shifted from an inhouse to a contract administrator have seen their participation rates go up. (This is because a number of people are concerned that people in their own orgainization are reviewing bills for health matters that they consider to be personal.) ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Ask any question you may have at this point or over the next three weeks. 3. Table until subsequent meeting. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information and ask any questions they may have between now and the next meeting and that the matter be tabled until May 14, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council accept the information and ask any questions they may have between and now and the next meeting and that the matter be tabled until May 14, 1990. Ayes _, Nays_. cc: Janet McCune, DCA All Department Heads ( -f L ML J5 5> I;::8 I582 215 £ U 241 SS2 2tu “I rlas I eo • t e 82 ** a a I 8 « M w* 8. iX I -4 tu I Ii4 I I I •Je 2 2 JB ^ i>i r4 ^ C 1-^ (N Vi O ma? agfjs; <0 «« Id U ^ k4 M 3 <« •r ^:s:88• a 4>W4: £*t V m c u *» *i • ■H ••HNinvtftf -H • 22* mm o ^ CD CD m IB iHm w w m w il'', ^ <-> 0m Me•» • 8l'■ s 2 a 5ssP «4 • 4 «4- B e •H • ^ Lg4.:i 558 !2gi : S88§gi~ *2 2:slta:£'lslsililt la 3 c ti «l 2 »4< Sa w-H «« V *> £ Xh • am l‘*a*288^X22l£Xl *5 ><8 1? 151 isa u <H a llsil’isiSss^lsa c >,x: c •o -wioei<aw«OB>HiC'40«00a *0*H<h Ua o u a <u u 4 o ls«^ B e 2 S •D Is! St-;! h • Sea« va ^ g'Sl'g. g. « -H K 4i 4.' M 2i Of "g M «H r« S'lssl•we I B *i « g IH M I « ^ 22 Sg'xl f Is IsS3 I. 15 s’ fti |2 8 ■ 5S M 2 2. >1 g . ^ 8 iH Ot » O B V O « -H •no *i > -* m-nmo m u^•al* 2§a8A 11 A Hone2 «i sss :=os s 8M :^ O V # £8d8 IIM l:iI a I M 81390.1 cr To; Mark E. Bernhardsorir City Administrator Proa: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 13, 190 Subject: Kesignation/Retirement ~ John Sass, Li^ht Equipment Operator ^1 COUNCIL MEETING AUG27 1990 CITY OF i : i ft John Sass has submitted his resignation and will retire on September 18, 1990. John employment with the City of Orono on July IS, 1979 as a light equipment operator in the Public Work* Department. John has always been a willing worker with a very good attitude and will be missed by all of his co-workers and City staff. Recomaendation - To accept John's resignation and wish him well on his retirement effective September 18, 1990. Proposed Motion - Moved by resignation and wish him September x8, 1990. Ayes _ _ _, seconded by _, to accept John's well on his retirement effective , nays _ _. TO: FROM; Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarde'^ recomn for th*- tr Jo> ng approval. A resolution will be prepared mbt J Council meeting which will be presented 2 Sx.ivwember 24, 1990 meeting. 82090.5 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATS: August 21, 1990 ^OUffCiL MEEHHG AUG27 1990 CJTy OF OROHO SUBJECT: Salary Adjustment Public Works Supervisor Level II - Jack Brinkhaus On August 29, 1989 Jack Brinkhaus began performing as Public Works Supervisor Level II. The compensation for that position is Level 10 and Jack started at Step III. In the past year Jack has developed and is ready to implement the confined space entry program for the City, has started and implemented the Gopher ‘'tate One Call program and has assumed the duties of preparing and follow through to purchasing equipment for Public Works. Jack is adapting well to the position and has a good a'.titude. Recomnendation - To adjust Jack Brinkhaus* salary to Level 10, Step IV, which is $18,304 per hour effective August 29, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, to adjust Jack Brinkhaus* salary to Level 10, Step IV, which is $18,304 per hour effective August 29, 1990. Ayes _, Nays _. TO:Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator'^ Forwarded recommending approval n82090.4 COlilKClL MEErWG TO: FROM: DATE: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk August 20, 1990 '^UG27 1930 OITY OF OROl SUBJECT: Performance Review - Jamie Bosma Jamie Bosma had an annual performance review date for step adjustments purposes on July 1. As a part-time regular employee Jamie continues to support the full time clerical staff. In addition to her regular duties she has completed and/or contributed to various projects which include: City wide recycling information mailing, Stubbs Bay area copying and mailing, placing house numbers on new plat maps, updated the Public Works filing system, organized and cleaned the basement and continues the ongoing process of micro filming the Building and Zoning records. Jamie continues to be flexible in her working hours and is always willing to take on projects. It is recommended that Jamie's performance level be changed from Level 2, 95% of Step 2 at $8,721 per hour to Level 2, 100% of Step 2 at $9,182 per hour effective July 1, 1990. This is the maximum for that part-time position in accordance with the corap.isation plan for the number of hours she currently works. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council approves a salary adjustment for Jamie Bosma from Level 2, 95% of Step 2 at $8,721 per hour to Level 2, 100% of Step 2 at $9,182 per hour effective July 1, 1990. This being the maximum for the number of hours she currently works in her part-time position in accordance with the compensation plan. Ayes __, Nays __. I 82390.2 TOs FROM: DAIS: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk August 23, 1990 AUG 27 1990 CJTy OF ORONO SUBJECT: Update Program for Senior Citizen Special Assessment Deferment Attachments:A. Proposed Resolution B. Proposed Special Assessment Deferral Qualifications and Information Application ISSUE - Implementation of updated income and assets guidelines. INTRODUCTION - The City has established a program for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older. At this time the income guidelines for deferment need to be updated to conform with current Section 8 Low Income Guidelines. Attachment A lists the current maximum income for applicants and Attachment B reflects this update in the application. DISCUSSION - Information mailed to the Stubbs Bay sewer area property owners included information regarding the City's deferment of special assessments. As of this date the City has received one request for information regarding this deferral. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt 2. Amend and adopt 3. Table RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council adopt the proposed resolution and updated special assessment deferral application. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to adopt Resolution I amending the program for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and approve the updated special assessments deferral application. Ayes _, Nays 82090.1 A RBSOLOTION AMENDING THE PROGRAM FOR DEFERMENT OP SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER NHEREASr the City Council of the C.ty of Orono is the official governing body of the City of Orono; Lnd WHEREAS, M.S.A. Section 435.193 throuf.h Section 435.195 authorizes the City of Orono, upon proper application, to defer the payment of special assessments against ^ny homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older on January 1 of the payment year and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments; and WHEREAS, Section 435.194 authorized the municipality to establish an interest rate to be added to the deferred assessment which shall be payable in addition to the deferred assessment; and that Orono had adopted sucn a program under Ordinance 2.62 (1984 recodified). Resolution 1093 (dated November 13, 1979) and Resolution 1779 (dated June 10, 1985). WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the deferral of assessments should be granted to any person otherwise qualified who makes proper application to the City of Orono on forms prescribed by the County Assessor of Hennepin County and by the Orono City Council and for whom the City Council determines that it would be a hardship to make the payments, based upon the following criteria: Number of Persons in Household Maximum Income $15,750 18,000 20,250 22,500 24,300 26,100 27,900 29,700 Assets not including homesteaded property of $25,000, income and assets as defined in Hennepin County's Utility Connection Program. r HOWr THBRBFORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD BY THB CITY COUHCIL OP THE CITY OP ORONO IN A REGULAR MEETING ASSBMBLEDr that the assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments, be deferred for a period of time not to exceed five years subject to the aforementioned financial criteria, upon submission of an appropriate application signed by the qualified person, and which may upon expiration of initial or any subsequent renewal deferments may be reapplied for, and subject to the applicant meeting all the necessary criteria upon reapplication be deferred for an additional period not to exceed 5 years; and BE IT FURTHER RBSOLVBD, that the right of deferment is automatically terminated under Section 435.195 if: 1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible; 2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred or subdivided; 3. The property should lose its homestead status; or 4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council the the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held August 27, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk city OP ORONC^ CITYof ORONO Past Ofric* Boa 66*Cry«Ul Bay, MiaBwata 5S313 • Maaidaal Offlcaa On the /Vorth Shore of lAihe Minnetonka DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, 'Rights of subjects of data”, we would like to inform you that your request for a Special Assessment Deferral from the City of Orono may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that! 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the Special Assessment Deferral requested. 2. You nay refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the Special Assessment Deferral. 3. The information nay be shared witht Personnel of any public agency cooperating with the City in administering the special assessment deferrals. City council members: only that information needed to approve the application for grant funds and/or payments to contractors. Federal, state, county, local and contracted private auditors. The contract for deed holder: only to the fact that you are a grant recipient and the amount of the grant. Law enforcement personnel in the caseu of suspected fraud. Those other individuals or agencies to whom you give your express written permission. 4. If your requested Special Assessment Deferral rev^uires council action to approve, some information may beco...* public. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name, and date of birth ate requited to process this application. First Middle Last Address Date of birth Phone I understand my rights as - ated above, X Signature 1 Form 10-1980 Rev. 6-1985 Rev. 8-1990 CITY or OROMO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL QOALIPICATIOMS AMD INFORMATIOE Special assessments are levied against property for collection of costs for public improvements such as sewerr mater or streets. These assessments are normally spread over a number of years with principal and interest collected with each year's property taxes. The City Council has adopted a policy - Resolution Nn. 1093, Resolution No. 1779 and Resolution No. ___ - which will allow deferral of special assessment payments lor senior citisens when those payments would constitute a financial hardship. If you think that you qualify, you must complete the attached application. The City Council will review your request. You will be notified i writing of their decision. NBO QOALIPIBS? You must be 65 years of age or older. The property must be your homestead. Your assets and income must meet the following criteria: Number of Persons in Household Maximum Income $15,•'50.00 18 000.00 ‘>0,250.00 22.500.00 24.300.00 26.100.00 27.900.00 29.700.00 Total assets, including non-homesteaded real property, must be $25,000 or less. The value of your homestead property is not included in determining assets. NEAT IS DEFERRED? Collection of principal and interest is deferr^ . * w: 1 not have to be paid with the annual taxes. The ass. . ent i?j not waived. You still must pay the amount levied, the payments are just deferred for the specified length of time. HON LONG IS THE DEFERRAL? For a maximum of five (5) years, or until: 1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible. 2.The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred or subdivided. 3. 4. The property should lose it's homestead status. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. HON TO RENEN AFTER 5 YEARS Deferments may be reapplied for and subject o the applicant meeting all the necessary criteria upon reappliCw.tion be deferred for additional periods not to exceed 5 years each. miAT IS DOB muni thb obrbrral is tbrmiiiatbd ? After five years, or whenever the deferral is terminated absent a renewal being granted, you must pay the total amount of deferred principal plus the Interest that has accrued during the deferral. From that point on, the special assessment Is collected with each year's taxes In the normal manner. niBII DO I APPLY? If you qualify, complete the application as soon as possible. The sooner you apply, the sooner the deferral can be reviewed. FOR HELP, CALL: Dorothy Hallln, City Clerk John Gerhardson, Public Works Director 473-7357 473-7357 Form 10-1980 Rev 6-1985 Rev 8-1990 CITT or ORONO APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS NAMEt HOMESTEAD ADDRESS: PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION (PINS NO.) _________________________________ I, (He), the undersigned, declare under penalties of perjury, the following information is given to the City of Orono and is to be used in evaluating my (our) request for deferral of special assessments levied against my (our) property in accordance with the established policies of Resolution No. 1093, Resolution No. 1779 and Resolution No. _____. THIS I«FORMA"IOII WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL 1. 1 am not leas than 65 years of age ard that the date of my birth is _____________________________ * Single Married2. My marital status is: ____ 3. List the amount of money you, and your spouse 1l married, receive each month from any of the following sources: RIND OF INCOME RECEIVED 1. Wages, Salaries, Commissions, Bonuses, tips, etc. 2. Social Security 3. Veteran's Benefits 4. Other retirement or pension benefits including Railroad Retirement 5. Money from renters 6. Unemployment ((insurance 7. Workers Compensation 8. Disability insurance benefits 9. Stock dividends 10. Interest income 11. Income received from other individuals, such as from children, etc. 12. Cash Public Assistance 13. Gains from Sale or Exchange of property 14. Income from businesses or trusts 15. ALL OTHER INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE AMOUNT OF INCOME RECEIVED HUSBAND WIFE You should have listed, in the above table, all of the Income receive'^ by you from any source. Page 2 Form 10>1980 Rev 6-1985 Rev 8-1990 4. Llat any real estate you or your spouse own or are buying other than your home. If anyi ______________________________ Estimated market value from real estate tax statement} 5. If you have not made all of the payments on your home, list your monthly payments} $_________________ per month. 6. List your current year's property tax: 19_ _ 8_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7. List all of your assetsi Cash on hand $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Savings accounts (Whether in trust, joint tenancy or sole ownership) $. Stocks, bonds or securities Life Insurance ANT OTHER ASSETS List any special monthly expenses you might have. For example, medical expenses, special diet, utilities, work expenses, etc. _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9. If you wish to, describe the reason it is a hardship for you to pay the special assessments against your property. _ _ _ I BATE READ THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS AND THE ASSV. I BATE HADE, AND I DECLARE THEM TO BE THOB AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MT EEOflLEDGE. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of h Date 81490.6 3( Mayor and City CouncilTO: FROM: DATS: August 22, 1990 SUBJECT: Assessing Contract Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato|^^' ^ ''OUHCIL MEETittQ MC 27 1390 cm OF OROHO Attachment: A. Assessing Contract Memo Dated 8/8/90 ISSUE - Determine if Council wants to enter into a contract^with the past assessor for the ass'*ssing year ending August 31, 1991. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A Rolf Erickson has again expressed interest in the contract and has proposed a cost of >66,000. The current budget does have enough in it in order to handle this. While higher than in the past his excellent experience would merit a contract of greater value than someone who *s new to it. Contract prices for the assessing year regardless of when he starts reflects the total assessing product prepared rather than the number of months worked. If this is an acceptable avenue, staff will work with the current assessor and Mr. Erickson to establish a trade-off time prior to the requested 10/31 date, however, it is anticipated that the current assessor would expect to be paid through the end of October. The advantage to having Mr. Erickson start earlier would be more time to do a better assessment. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept and direct the contract entered into. 2. Table. 3. Direct alternatives be sought. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended ‘..ic the staff and Mayor be dTrected to undertake a contract undej? the same conditions as the current contract with Mr. Erickson in the amount of $66,000 for the assessment year ending August 31, 1991. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council authorize the establishment of a contract with Rolf Erickson for the next assessing year. Aves _, Nays _. .v: 72690.; TO: Mayor and City Council j /j J from: Mark E. Bernhardson, city Adn-inistratoi^^M HrTA(10.(^'r H , \ DATE: August 8, 1990 \ SOBJECT: Assessing Contract Termination - -- A '•9.rai,s „„„„ 2. IT.SCTl.tlo, to Council of ai„o,,o„ INTRODiirTTOM , TO. City's A assessing services. -R..^n •<‘"r.i;.Vio7Vf ‘rt,‘;.^--rii'' “f-'■«= - ... .....ce „.ic ne. A. J In-house Assessor B. ) Contract independent Assessor / "ith Hennepin County Following the rec<ai«j- « The cost of this would bi^ colttact ^9^^" proposal from last .:bove that fo^ tt s Past. 3 contractor replacement. P'irsue this : ALTERNATTVPg 1. concur with the termination. :■ *.cp. me i„ot„t,o„ .. to futu.. Jiscossion. k €. • ** V . ^C>yL // /^^u 9‘9^,h^(AJ O'n^ ^U>ti ^r3"-5:«3' ^2-cl^'<-a^^L^ ^^-/ft-^nu^oEia . di^J^ ,^^ry^^-^JL> C/diJ T' Cy^iL^ ^ytiic^^<>dCpi^ s^^‘, ^'7 9 ^0/9t> /Ja^7?/ HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAME:san ADDRESS: PHONE: HOME ^7^ Nni^4h Rrown Rodd 4-73-31A7__ I BUSINESS ^73-7^AL 1. Summary of education background: , « , , p j Mij educo+ional hacy^narvi is d BacKs/or of Science degree fcm St. Cloud S”hrtc Un'«vcrsl4yy M^4er of Science d^ree 4rcm Mor^hern S Iwle Uni\/€rs*rl'(Jj ctHa <^n addl+lonal -^-2 credi-fes *fn ElemenTOry Educafon. carrsn't' "feczc/'in^ pos'ifon ’is 44h cind 7-Bi ^rods science cd“ 4he Orcnc Midcl(d Scliccl. Kaue 'faughf ’in 4he Oi^ono sys-fem -fer* -4fve posf yenrs, 2. Summary of experience background: o , _l • JL X hot’e teen inv/olved dnd m+eKe^J dhe 12 Project ^ ’iViCCpton ctnd concU^sion of dhe re^onU^g in Orono or pn^ent ' X Joined 4he Hlflhwod IZTosk Force m -fne summer ot im. |Mg object) v'e WcLs Ht) excbonge ivi-ftrirvrfon bcrkA^een ~ite K Force 0|<id thfi Orono conr^ imunidy* Being dVifi ^nlg representiddvfi t*Dm tf^is c\recl^ XT made contact 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force: ^ Co\/eir) DcAllnfl wV4K chiMi^cn *in-4Kd many-feceds of d^cbmg / codcbmg^ cina <3s d -Pctiber of three, S'afcdy on Mighwoy 12 has been d high pHX hove Seen cle^dhs and major ciccldents of my schoo Kidsy parents, cine* others over Id^t ^1^ decades .“This Task Fiorce i-s only one of 4V\e rryiny along fhe Way do camplele d long overdue project 4. What concepts# if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: X Viavle no preconceived M*as as 4v where -the new roahe should ao, X do -feel -Hie road rnc>\>e 4mWc m UrQe Volumes. X would like -fe 5ee a hioWoM w'-^ -(ree^ij ^ndords and a -ff r»ph imum .speed. dddm^n, jAlnk we should consider al-hi^naiive -hrms ^nancin£ fnclutpl/h^ toad./ Any otner pertineat information: 6.When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Monday Tuesday Cwe^ne^sdaJ) Thursday Friday A.M. <Early P.^ <€venin^ Af4r>t S!Sr>/’m 2» Wi4fi 4Ke Ojrono l/iljage cxnA -fhe local ne^Aispdper; o"f uj1 i!c/i Michael tvioise uiro+e sev/eml 4ine av-tncles 4t> 'm-fehm ar\d educate ouhpuUic nih dddf+ion^ X have ies4i-fieci b^re ^:o^r^misJrlonelr LeVme^ Goverr\or fe\rj>ich, and Various cAher s4 zi4 b and local a^naes on behdl-P o-p ouh local Comwunl4j cohcernln^ -the -furlurc Up^radtn^ and Sa-fi*4y a'f l4igli- 21 March, 1990 900 North Shore Drive West Mound, MN 55364 Ms. Dorothy M. Ha11in City Clerk City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin, I am interested in being appointed i.o the Highway 12 Corridor Citizen's Group. I have been a resident of Orono for two years. My educational background is in Transportation Engineering and Planning. I am a Registered Engineer and work with private developers and cities on residential, commercial and Industrial projects. This background would be an asset to the Corridor Committee. Our home is several miles from Highway 12, so I will be completely impartial. I have the time to devote to the group and look forward to serving. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stefrfien M. Johnston HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAI4E:Stephen M. Johnston ADDRESS: 900 North Shore Drive West. Mound. MN 55364 J\U 1990 PHONE: HOME 472-8007 BUSINESS 533-7595 1. Summary of education background: Bachelor of Civil Engineering* University of Minnesota, March 1984 Continuing education in design and management *Major emphasis in transportation engineering and planning. 2. Summary of experience background: June 1981 - Jan 1986: City of Maple Grove - Engineering Department Jan 1986 - Present: Merila & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers, Surveyors and Land Planners 3. what interested you about service on the Task Force: It is a way of serving my community which has been my goal since I first moved here. 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: At this point, I do not feel that I have sufficient information to have formulated a concept relating to location. However, I believe that the impact of the roadway on the natural environment is afleast as critical as the impact on existing businesses, homes and recreational facilities. The latter can be replaced, a forest or wetland cannot. 5. Any other pertinent ^information: I believe that since my home will not be directly impacted, I will be able to be totally unbiased during the reviews. 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday A.M. Early P.M. Evening ..snc I am available any day of the week at anytime, although evenings preferable . HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAIiE:John B. Massopust ADDRESS; 440 South BroHTi Road. Qrono. NN PHONE: HOME 473-2724 BUSINESS 336-9109 3»1890 1. Summary of education background: Edina High School - 1969 Colorado College - 1973 William Mitchell College of Law - 1978 2. Summary of experience background: La\>ryer, Robins, Zelle, Larson 6 Kaplan - 1977-1988 La>ver, Zelle 8 Larson - 1988-present President, Access Management - 1988-present What interested you about service on the Task Force: I am concerned about the impact of upgrading highway 12 uoon our comnunity. It is a sensitive issue that will have significant impact upon many individuals and businesses. If the reasons for the final decision are not fully com municated and understood, there will be comnunity wide resentment to the entire project. What concepts, if any, do you have on isSues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: At this time, I do not have enough information to form an oninion. 5. Any other pertinent information: 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Friday A.M. Monday^ Tuesday Wednesday C^Thursd^^ Early P.M. (gening If Mrs. FreJericU Winston 765 Spring Hill Rond Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 j jggQ J4J^ &l). "oi. —/ ^n -T%_ I * •*. . .1. . ... - . . . 9(^3" Spr-> y H // •S> :7- V ‘ I. CWJO NAt4E: HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE ^/7 5~ fOKi les 2 0 1090 ADDRESS: j^ilf l2.eJ JjL^ tSe-e^ STi 7f PHONE; HOME BUSINESS 1. Summary of education background: /-C 4^/Vs^ S^A-=vo/ / ^ /O'/j. ^c_y^o/, yT^y-^^cCC^^ f (/a , ^ ^ /7ya, « ^ ^ —\ . J/T^.S. ^ 2. Summary of experience background: ^ Ea/, \ ^<^0/ S-**—w Tcy-v^o / , -,/r (65‘-7o i^7o-9o -i<e>Wo 3T^*Wha?^ulterested yo^aSout sl?vicir ’*5n t'Re’ Task Former ^ ^ ^ ^yncfl-u^^ •_^7^ C-^oy\S.^c/\ . ^ ^*^**'^' 4. What concepts, if any location of an upgraded Highway 12; ^ (// ^ -—^yiV^yxa-c 7^ C ^fc^ I any, do yOw have on ^ Cia-p c3—«-~g=7 /7-^^—v,*^ ^■ issues related to the /tS/ <=^c/c ^ CX w^L ^Jl^L^r-*^inr-^jQSL^ § 5. Any other pertinent information: ^ * r Cj^ P% €• When would you usually be available to attend meetings: C^on^y^ <Tuesd^ ijJ^Sne^da^ tj^urjS^ A.M. Early P.M. ^^^vening]];^ 81490.1 A) TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratjjp^^^ DATS: August 1990 SUBJECT: Livingston Avenue Drainage COUHCIL MEmG AUG 2? 1990 CITY OF ORONO Attachment:A. Livingston Avenue Drainage Memo Dated 5/19/89 B. Petition for Project Dated 8/9/90 C. Administrator's Information Dated 6/19/90 Excerpt D. 35% Petition - Livingston Avenue E. Request for Rebate Karen Cuff Letter Dated 7/27/90 F. Cuff Letter Dated 8/20/90 ISSUE - Determine if Council desires to initiate further process given receipt of a 35% petition of the people in the area. INTRODUCTION - In February of 1989 the Cuff's made a request for the City to explore a storm water drainage project to alleviate a water problem in the neighborhood. The City undertook a feasibility study, as noted in Attachment A, predicated upon the Cuff's paying half of the cost if the project did not go ahead. That was agreed to and the feasibility study undertaken. In May of 1989 it was determined that before the Council would proceed further that a 35% petition of neighbors had to be received. Earlier this year the attorney for the Cuff's requested that the City proceed with the project in the absence of the 35% petition. This was discussed at the the Council's May 29, 1990 meeting and the result was that Council directed staff to see if alternative private methods could be worked out. Staff visited the site and discussed the issue with Mr. Cuff. Attachment C outlines the proposed solution. On Thursday, August 9, 1990 the City received a 35% petition from the Cuff's indicating their desire to go ahead with the public project. The City had received previously, on July 30, 1990 a request for refund of selected assessment amounts on the property purchased by the Cuffs. This issue will be handled as a separate consideration at a later date, however, their request does relate to the water problems on the property. Karen Cuff has indicated that there are other property owners who have water problems in the area and this is why they agreed to sign the petition at this time as noted. DISCUSSION - The following process would be similar to the public improvement process proposed on the Stubbs Bay sewer: Project Petition Verification of petition signatures k>nd Specifications .;i' Bidding Project Hearing i Assessment Hearing 30 Day Appeal Period Ordering in the Project Project Construction Alternatives to this are: A. Project hearing - This could be held either prior to plans and speci £icationi> and bids being sought or afterwards. The advantage of waiting until afterwards is that the cost would be known for the project more firmly than the initial estimate. The advantage to holding before the plans and specifications are that depending on the input at the public hearing, the Council may or may not proceed with plans and specifications and the associated cost. B. Holding the assessment hearing prior to the project being adopted. - The assessment hearing can either be held prior to the project or it can be held after the project completion. The advantage of holding before the project is ordered, but after the bids are received are that the assessment would be fairly accurate as to costs and the City does have the option of a supplemental assessment later, if project construction costs radically exceed that. The advantage of waiting until afterwards are that the full project costs would be incurred and known. (The City could do a supplemental assessment should project costs exceed the original assessment.) C. Combination ot Project and Assessment Hearings. The process would allow for the project and the assessment hearings to be combined with the Council adopting the assessment first and then after the 30 days appeal period determine whether they desire to order the project. (It would be appropriate to continue the public hearing on the project until the project is ordered.) As a reminder the 35% petition is needed for the Council to be able to order the project on a 3/5*s vote. If it does not have a 35% petition it would require a 4/5's vote. D.Signature of waivers - As the City is currently doing ?or Stubbs Bay OTe^ouncil may desire to require waivers signed by a specified percentage prior to further work being undertaken. This was not previously a condition stated to the residents. ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Initiate the process with ordering the plans and specs with an anticipated combination of the project and assessment hearings. 2. Hold the public project hearing before ordering the plans and specs. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council, given that the 35% petition is verified, proceed with plans and specifications, then to bidding and combining the project and assessment hearings as proposed above. Staff still does feel that the proposed private surface alternative is feasible, but if the property owners are willing to pay for the public improvement project, that the City proceed. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council direct staff as to the process they desire to undertake in relationship to this. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, Wayzata 55391 1 \ TO: ; FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director May 19, 1989 Livingston Avenue Storm Sewer On April 24, 1989, Council accepted a feasibility report from the City Engineer regarding a storm water runoff problem at 3572 Livingston Avenue. The feasibility report was the result of a petition from Mark and Karen Cuff of the above address requesting a solution to the floodin'^ problems they have experienced after normal to heavy rainfalls. Following the April 24, 1989, Council Meeting, staff supplied information to Karen Cuff to exhibit to the affected property owners regarding location of a storm sewer and costs per lot. Since that time, neighbors of the Cuff’s have submitted preliminary sketch plans of an alternative to the storm sewer by directing the storm water above ground to the culvert inlet on Crystal Place. Regardless of which option is taken, easements from the Cuffs, as well as all properties affected downstream, will have to obtained. Cuffs have also submitted information objecting to an above ground drainageway and wish to proceed with an underground storm sewer system. The information presented by the Cuffs on Friday the 19th is additional information that staff and Council has not had time to review. Recommendation; To accept the information from the Cufffs and table any action on this matter until staff *ias had time to review and report to Council the effect, if any, regarding chemicals being discharged onto the Cuffs' or neighboring properties. Proposed Motion: It was moved by seconded by to table any action on this matter until there has been further staff review regarding chemicals being discharged onto the Cuffs' or neighboring properties. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending tabling as proposed. I Auqu3t 9, 1990 City of Orono Attn: John Gerhardson Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear John, Per our phone conversation, please find enclosed the petition for the storm drain system on Livingston Ave. In Navarre. I have twelve signatures in total. Most of the people that have signed this petition requested that the city should expedite this matter as soon as possible. We feel that the weather pattern of the area since spring could possibly mean heavy snow season. If this is the caset there are several of us that could have major damage to our property and basements due to the excessive snow. (this summer has been quite an experience to most of us) This drain needs to be Installed before the ground freezes. This has been a lengthy project for my-self and the city. I feel that I have done my part in obtaining 38,7% of the property owners in the area to agree to be assessed for this project. Per the council minutes of May 29, 1990 "the city maintains its position of agreeing to order the storm sewer project if 35% of the residents agree to sign a petition asking for the project." Please put this reauest to proceed with the storm sewer project on the city counc iI agenda possible. I look forward to future. for the earliest meeting date hearing from you in the very near Karen Cuff 3572 Livingston Ave Wayzata. MN 55391 cc: Mark Bernhardson Anthony Gleekel PETITION We« the undersigned, hereby petition for the installation of a storm drain to be located at 3572 Livingston Ave. This drain will go through Block 3, Lot 17 on the easterly edge and go north to Crystal Place and flow into the swamp. This will be brought before the City Council of Orono at the next meeting. This will collect all run off between Navarre Ln. and n v.uff Signa Address HamemoauKtf 2fy''nos~7ki^ f;X-L • [4^*- * ?.*rp,<r 6u^-/zJ PiU 3'/jr-f ^-X> ■5~-/»^-gS S^-30-7^ -7-/-9(3 1-3^-90 g- 7- fc> ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 29, 1990 LIVINGSTON AVENUE DRAINAGE CONTINUED obtain a petition of 35% of the area property owners. It was moved by Councilmember Mettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to continue to explore options to fesoJ-v® the drainage problem. In the neantime, the City maintains its ^ ?SrVe°s"id°eLr?grtre^'i° rsk^ngTort^he^^pr^rec^f Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. “*'™BLihaX^°°!n“rmef Council that he has not received confirmation of the date for the Policy Meeting. Bernhardson provided information regarding the history of Mr. Penke's business and apprised Council of the that have occurred (See Mark Bernhardson' s memo dated May 2b, 1990). Bernhardson stated that he has received letters and Mrs. Kramer, Bayside Floral, and Mr. and Mrs. Labatt, Spring Park Spur, expressing concern about the safety hazard Mr. ^ business is creating in its present location. He said that Mr. Penke’s attorney, Mr. Indritz, had indicated that Mr. Keaveny had given Mr. Penke permission to sell from his property. Bernhardson also noted that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Butterfield protesting against transient merchants in general. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Penke why he had not applied for a license in the last two years. Mr. Penke stated that at the April 11, 1988 Council Meeting, there was discussion as to whether he was classified as a solicitor. He said that Council had asked Mr. Larson, the property owner, to submit an application to rezone the property to Co.Timercial, but that did not occur. Mr. Peake said -hat he was notified of the need for a license by the Police Officer that ticketed and shut him down on Mother's Day. Mr. Indritz stated that in his opinion, communication has been a problem. He said that Mr. Penke has sold flowers from one location for 5 years and there have been no complaints about the business during that period of time. Mr. Indritz said that the safety issue seems tc be a new concern and was not brought previously to Mr. Penke's attention. He noted that it 1® “f* Penke's competitors that have written to the City regarding the safety issue. He said that there have been no reported incidences of safety hazards during the last 5 years. Mr. Indritz stated that the Ordinance Amendment regarding transient merchants did not take place until after the Penke's appearance - 20 -C 61990.1TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: June 19, 1990 I c SUBJECT: Administrator's Information wav arre /LIVINGSTON storm sewer - Attached please find a copy of a letter sent to the residents regarding a potential private solution in the area. (Attachment A) SANDY BEACH RESORT - Staff has been working with the owner of the property and it is anticipated that the owner will file a sketch plan review for that property presented at the Planning Commission's July meeting. COUNTY ROAD 15 WELCOME SIGNS - It was felt by John Gerhardson that it would be appropriate that any sign have incorporated in it the logo. We are currently awaiting the completion of the logo contest. Additionally the initial plan had expected to have up to three signs in the area. If they are the same type as those going up in Mound and Spring Park it is estimated that all three signs may cost in the neighborhood of $3-4,000. Once a design is developed this will be presented for Council consideration. BEDERWOOD "GRAND PPENIN^ - The opening was rained out on Saturday, June 16th and has been resc .^duled for Saturday, June 23rd. BEDERWOOD PARK - PARKING LOT - In preparation for the open house the metal posts were placed to indicate car centering. As a result of this, it is anticipated that 40 cars will be able to park in the parking lot. Depending on the initial months level of business at the park will determine whether the current parking lot is configured as adequate or if it will need to be expanded as proposed as part of the review. ELECTRICAL UTILITY TERRITORIES - Attachment B is a letter sent to the electric utilities regarding a meeting on territorial areas. Attached also is a letter from Marlow Peterson along with copies of Northern States Power electric rates. NATURE CONSERVANCY/BAYS IDE - LUCE LINE - As you may recall during the Parten discussion there was anIndication 40 acres currently owned by the Nature Conservancy adjacent to his property on the west was being offered for consideration by the City for its ownership. This will be referred to the Park Commission at their July 1990 meeting. BIG ISLAND TOUR - JUNE 27 - Attachment C was given to Council regarding the upcoming date. Only two persons between Council and Planning Commission have indicated interest in attending this, if so it may be appropriate to delay that tour until more people can be available. Please contact Jeanne regarding whether you will be able to attend or not. OF aRONO^ CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crysui Bay, Minnaaou 55323 • Municipal Officaa On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 19, 1990 Karen and Mark Cuff 3572 Livingston Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Karen and Mark, On Wednesday, June 6th, City Engineer Glenn Cook, Assistant Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron and myself visited your property to see if there were new alternatives for addressing the drainage situation in your area. After a preliminary review of the site, Mark arrived home and we were able to discuss what you anticipated as far as future plans for the property. aJaitfd or t-hat and further discussion it appeared that there was a feasible private alternative. That private alternative is outlined in the Attachment A. If this appears to be a desirable direction for you, you may want to work in conjunction with your neighbor to the northeast of your property and also engage an engineer to do a more definitive layout of the proposal. Once this has been developed it may require certain permits from the City depending on the amount of grading and fill that would be required. If it is under 100 cubic yards it could be a permit issued by staff, if over that it may require a conditional use permit through Council. It is possible that a majority of this work would be done in conjunction with a building permit for the garage structure that you had desired. Matk E. Bernhardson City Administrator Mayor and City Council John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin BL ILDI^C i ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION 4 RNANCE - 473-735* FAX-4734)510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 HrrfiOi/fl^ezjr € July 27, 1990 City of Orono Attn: Dorthy Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 50 mo 55323 Dear Dorthy, Per our phone conversation, I am sending you the information that you requested for the assessments for the water and sewer lines that I have paid for on lot 17, block 3 in Navarre Hts. PID #17- 117-2343-0137 (now PID #17-117-2343-0150) Per Mary Sarcoa in the State Land Department 348-3256 all of the following payments were made to Orono in May of the following years. 1982 $757.74 #5383 for residentia 1 water main 1970LW1 1982 295.84 #3309 for lateral sewer 64-IB 1982 12.24 #3302 for Inprec san sewer 63-IB 1970LW11983362.27 #5383 for residentia 1 water main 1984 247.88 #5383 for residentia 1 water main 1970LW1 $1 ,675.97 Total Please find enclosed a copy of the sewer assessment for 1968 showing the first year that the assessment was effective. Your records should show receipt of these funds from the county for forfeit land tax. I had originally paid $6,000.00 for this property on May 10, 1982 and the assessments for 1982 that I paid were part of the purchase price of the property. ($1,064.82 assessments, $4,935.18 property) This is my formal request for a refund of these assessments. I feel that since this property had been owned by Orono, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota, and the fact that you claim to have been using this as a run off site, this property should not have been assessed for these improvements. If you need additional information, please me. Sincerely, karen 3572 Livingston Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 feel free to contact ^7» «T t HAVlAtA •llMI > S2t9 S3Q2 >IC7 %tM TA2 ANB t«OnOTLA^ ti-Hi UUM TAA UUBIT UM ten IMHT *1 IB ilTUC. BAII SCMJt hJ It UAT Mil SevtR t» IB »7.I4 7fc,5! SCRTHMC. 4-Ail^lJI - MktAKML iCifilfTiniMut m mMA___ if ■ I JU| iattm, tM BCM ?>«iT>C «i ii MN K«f ■ tl - ......tAI BB It . __ ,______________________________7*»tt _ RyMirndf* tTH. i^ibhtb PIMUT m A7JQ2 _ _____ __§ TM __lift MP>ei 7«p* Bi It " Si Urti:^ twit Bf II SMI UIT B*". BCBLR B2 lb HB*3J ^ 74,If IfMCtJU CTAL > O'HU. I :16»<TS MpMfat m *mi .A----------MM JAX _ W ^ L 20W) ITT -X ~ifH iS‘2.‘3.S5La _______B0«B2 -IB 1.^- ■C14MU-. tPTCTT APP •1 4»^ Jt7«12_ LI_______ juas f»>AtP TTin TTwn 3»t LiartB r - -t- .t- »---------- r 4 JSf* iXEt? t Ml lEr •wpwsir--'Turnr* »L-4 / f mtm p-4^ 4TAi. -4^.^ ------------------j. ---------------------------------------------- ________t.____ .a'fli ts;»4H-4AB.CB'Bl» f . ^W-»4TiT»-Xt. -...- .......- «t«» ------ i--B iU ^PA?. PW iA- ft ^• y*j 4.* J .aia£«£&~B^ •» 4»#3B. .4: CITY OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1314_ _ _ _ TAX FORFEITED LANDS RELEASED FOR PUBLIC SALE IvHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lards within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WTiEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners have classified said lands as non-conservation land and have authorized the sale of each such parcel of land subject to review and release by the City; and VTHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of outstanding special assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the Statutes. NOW, THEP3F0P3 BE IT RESOL\^D that the City Council of the City cf Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282, hereby approves the classification of each of the following parcels of land as non- conservation land, and furthermore, approves the public sale of e&ch parcel cf land as listed below. Release of these lands by the City Council does not con stitute an assurance that each parcel is or will be approved as a building site. All parcels remain subject to all applicable zoning ordinance provisions, including those regulations providing for minimum lot area and minimum lot width. Substandard parcels may be useable only in combination with other ad3oining parcel(s). Release of these lands by the City Council is subject to the condition that all outstanding special assessments shall be paid in full to the City upon return to private ownership. Any amount not recovered at t.he time of sale shall be subject to reassessment by the City. Parcels Released For Sale - Per Hennepin County Letter - August 7,1981 DISTRICT PLAT PARCEL P.I.D. 38 41317 4250 17-117-23 22 0002 LEVY 0UT£TA^:DI^’G AMOUNT DUE ^?4048 $3,340.40 #5383 2,309.85 T. $5,650.25 OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Nn 1314 DISTRICT PLAT PARCEL P.I.D. 38 41336 3037 36-118-23 44 0002 38 42000 4950 07-117-23 32 0013 LEVY none 15382 #6660 38 42060 5000 17-117-23 22 0025 #3302 #4048 #5383 38 42620 5550 06-117-23 41 0085 #5362 38 42620 5600 06-117-23 41 0086 #5382 38 42740 2250 17-117-23 43 0027 #3502 #3309 #5383 38 42740 4650 17-117-23 43 0073 #5383 OUTSTANDING AMOUNT DUE -0- $ 31.05 2,724.70 550.09 T. 53,305.84 $ 50.60 3,054.72 1,503.94 T. 54,609.26 52,844.53 53,119.02 S 8.80 217.36 6"0.0C T. $1,096.16 5 870.00 Adopted by t.he City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the _ _ _aay of September- - - - - - -, by a vote of 4 ayes and 0 nays. ^-'illiam'B.''Va.n I3est, Mayor / ATIEST; ^ Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk 4t7/ August 20* 1990 City of Orono Attn: John Gerhardson PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 AU6 2 1 139Q Dear John, Per my phone conversation with Mark Bernhardson. he has requested me to submit a list of people that have had problems with excess water In their basements due to the run off on Livingston Ave. Mark & Karen Cuff 372 Livingston Ave E11zabeth Ba11 er 3577 Livingston Ave James Smith 3580 Livingston Ave Mark Spaulding 3508 Livingston Ave Robert Peters 3554 Livingston Ave John Rosholt 1600 1st Bank PI W Paul Anderson 3533 Crystal PI Chester Versailles 3472 Livingston Ave Robert Paige 3493 Crystal PI Don & Evelyn Lange 3585 Crystal PI Danie1 Radford 1246 90th St E Inver Grove Hts 3593 Crystal PI Lupe Gomez 3488 Livingston Ave Dean Young 3555 Crystal PI Genevieve Ebert 3520 Livingston Ave David Re inhold 3551 Livingston Ave Donna Meyers Banchie 3585 Livingston Ave Cheryl Goulet 3485 Crystal PI Please note that the majority of the homes that are affected on Crystal Place directly north of our property is due to the amount of water that runs of through lot 17 on block 3. The homes that are just to the north west of lot 17 get flooded from the excess water that backs up off of the street in front of our house and then proceeds north down our crive way (lot 16 block 3) through our back yard and then on to their property. The Lange's (lots 8,9, & 10 block 3) are having an extensive amount of water flow onto their property and into their basement when the water backs up. The water enters the south end of lot 9 blwck 3, flows over their retaining wall like a water fall, then proceeds to run into their foundation. This causes water to enter their basement and has damaged landscaping around their home. This home Is only 7 years old and they feel that this drain system Is very necessary. Dean Young (lot 7 block 3) has a trench doug around his home that Is quite large. The amount of water that runs though lot 17 has caused serious erosion to his property and water in his basement. He would like to build a garage on his property* but knows that he can not build one due to the amount of water that runs around his property. James Smith (lot 15 block 3) has had damage to his driveway due to the amount of water that runs through the west side of our property. His drive way Is attached to ours. Our drive way has been sinking the last few years and is causing his drive way to sink and crack along with It. Elizabeth Balter (lot 9 block 4) Is having the end of her driveway washed away every time it rains. Due to the amount of water standing in the street and because the water is so deep on the north side of the street, everyone drives on the end of her drive way packing It down and causing the water to move further into her drive way. Mark Spalding (lots 23 & 24 block 3) gets run off from the homes on lots 1,2, & 3 block 4. These lots are on higher ground and causes the water to flow across the street into the front of his house, forcing the water to enter their basement. If a curb or berm was placed across the south end of their p»^operty it would cause all the water to flow down Livingston Ave mto the future storm system. Daniel Radford (lot 11 block 3) has water running off of the street on Crystal Place into the northwest corner of his house. This is causing water to enter the crawl space. He feels that if that area is wet for an extended period of time, it wi11 cause structural damage to the floor joists. Paul Anderson (lott* 3,4 & 5 block 3) has water pooling in the low spots on the west side of his property due to the amount of water from lot 17. The culvert in the street in front of his property is not large enough to handle the amount of water. John Rosholt (lots 1 & 2 block 3) has had quite a bit of water In the south east corner of his basement. The water comes off of Navarre Ln down the drive way, then enters though the foundation. By looking at the water marks on the sneet rock in the basement there has been between 2 and 4 inches of water in most of the basement. Lupe Gomez (lots 11,12, S 13 block 2) has water entering the south west corner in his basement. Either the water goes through the culvert or over Livingston Ave across the yard and enters the basement. He feels that if the culvert was removed and a curb or berm was Installed property, the water would flow Into instead of his basement. around that corner of his the future storm system Donna Meyers Banchiedot 10 block 4) has had water entering her basement from surrounding property and from some of the run off on Livingston Ave. Other people that live on higher ground that have signed the petition realize that the run off from their property is causing an excessive amount of water to be forced through our property. One ^eels that curb and gutter world be the best solution, but knows it is not economically feasible in this neighborhood. Others are having water problems in their basements due to higher ground around them. Robert Picha, 5930 Sc'amans Dr. has stated to me that he will not volunteer his signature but will pay the assessment if the project goes through. There are a few others that own rental property in the area that feel the same way. There response was to increase the tenants rent to pay for the project. Most of the residents in the area feel that there is a real drainage problem on Livingston Ave in general. As for Mark and I, we have water on 3 sides of our house, and flowing through both of our lots (16 & 17 block 3) most every time it rains. Our sump pump is running corit i nuous 1 y when we get mere than 1/4 inch of rain and it can not keep up with the amount of water coming in. This causes water to stand in our basement anywhere from 1 to 4 inches of overflow from the sump pump hole. The amount of water standing in the street is causing damage to the street its-self. The asphalt is breaking and sinking. During the winter months any melting turns to a frozen lake. This is a hazard to anyone driving or walking over this area. It has also created an un-safe play area for the neighborhood chi 1dren. Anyone with water in their basements mere than once in a great while looses resale value of their property. If this drainage system was installed it would correct this problem for may residents of the area. I have not been able to speek to everyone on the 1ist for the assessed project. Between my schedule and their's it is not easy to get a hold of everyone. I look forward to meeting with you on August 22 at my over any questions and show you the areas affected. home to go Sincerely, Karen Cuff, Mark Bernhardson Anthony Gleekel To: Mayor Grabek & Orono City Council MembersFrom: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 23, 1990 Subject: Petition for Street Lights Livingston and Lyric Avenue oamcii liiEiruo Aug 27 1990 OITY OF ORo/to Recently the City of Orono received a petition from residents on Lyric Avenue requesting street lights in the area of Lyric Avenue extension in Navarre. The existing street lights were installed by Northern States Power Company as part of the development of that subdivision in the early 1980's. The street lights were placed at the request of the developer at the time of development with the Homeowners Association paying for the cost of the electricity. Most recently, the Homeowners Association has dissolved and Northern States Power Company has disconnected the street lights for lack of payment. City wide there are 120 street lights either commercial or residential. Approximately 53 of the 120 are commercial in nature that are installed as part of a semaphore project or as part of the County Road 15 rehabilitation project. The balance of approximately 67 are to light an intersection or a street at the request of a property owner or neighborhood. Until just recently the 67 street lights costs were assessed to benefiting property owners, however a recent change in assessing laws has dictated that in order to assess for street lights, a Public Hearing is mandatory every year. We have delayed this just simply due to priorities and the actual dollars irvolved (approximately $8,000 - $10,000 per year). However, in addition to the 120 public street lights, there are an unknown number of private lights installed. Those lights are placed by Northern States Power Company and billed directly to the homeowner. The two street lights involved ^re 100 watt high pressure sodium on ornamental poles (18' high). Typically street lights are placed at a 30' height for the best coverage. Annual costs for the two street lights is $325.00 Options 1. Review the request and table. 2. 3. Isv Deny the request and direct the property owners to deal directly with Northern States Power Company. Approve the request and pa/ for the street lights out of the general fund. onow a 7!/ COUNCIL We.f the. unde.xAig,n.^d p/iope.n.t^ ou"ie./iA in Navan./io pn.ope,titu de.ve,J.opme.nt an.e.a, wouLd Like, to -lee tke. tu/o Atn.e.e.t Lig.%tA in oun. a/ie.a tun.ne.d Sack on. li/e. he.Lieve the coAt ^on. eLect/iicit^ Ahoald be paid out of!, the g.enenaL fund aA othen. Attieet Lig.htA axe in the axea. If neceAAaxy., we would Like to have a heaxing. on thiA Aubject. 7^4—r' lvp-’. Ajr. 5 <rA L --- - • . / 6N Sev«^& 3GC>^ hj/l'c/1\)Z 34»7S ^^r>c /)i/^ j^tcu A tA-V^- I - ^ '/Lu \y' J? (iS A J> .u. d-c.c-> lCO^ L>f/I^c A/j“^ 81490.2 / TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adininistrato DATS: August 22, 1990 SOBJBCT: Transient Merchant COUNCIL MEETING AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO Attachments; A. Transient Merchant Memo Dated 7/26/90 ISSUE - A. Presentation to Council of information regarding possible other affected merchants. B. Presentation to Council to determine whether they want to adopt proposed or amended language relating the transient merchants. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 13, 1990 Council meeting Council tabled consideration of this item based on a request by the Penke's as to the possible impact of this change on other merchants in the community. In addition a concern^ was raised regarding the impact of flea markets done by non—profits. DISCUSSION - The type of businesses referred to by Penke's are businesses who sell to businesses and are not retailing to the general public. This type of selling supplies and materials to businesses does not intensify the use of that business, whereas a business that retails to the general public does. To date we have not received a list of such vendors from the Penke's. The ordinance has not applied to these persons and this can be further clarified by inserting the words "to other than business in the transient merchant definition. As for churches and other non-profits conducting this on their own premises they are not covered by the ordinance. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt language proposed at the August 13th meeting. 2. Amend and adopt with clarification regarding businesses. 3. Table. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the language with the addition of statement that transient merchants are other than those selling to businesses. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council adopt Ordinance #_ _, Second Series as amended related to transient merchant activities. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: A1 Penke, Rt. 2, Box 223, Cokato 55321 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat July 26, 1990 SUBJECT: Transient Merchant Attachment: TO: FROM: DATE: r'/I A. Recodified Section 5.30 Including Proposed Language B. Transient Merchant Memo Dated 7/20/90 ISSUE - Presentation to Council to determine whether they desire to adopt the proposed language relating to transient merchants. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's July 23, 1990 Council meeting. Council directed that staff present language incorporating the limitation as to definition for transient merchant. DISCUSSION - Attachment A presents draft language for Section 5.30: A) Modifies the definition of established place of business to indicate there must be a building, the use of which is subject to all applicable zoning ordinances. B) Clarifies that business solicitation does not include what is classified as transient merchant activity. C) Limits transient merchants to a total of 10 days per year. Additionally, we have had an inquiry regarding "Flea Markets" in which one person would work as a organizer and has merchants coming in on a first come first serve basis. Our current ordinance would require licensing of each individual seller. Under both the current and proposed ordinances each vendor would be required to obtain a license. This may make such flea markets difficult for an organizer. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt the language as proposed. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further consideration. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the language presented in Attachment A. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council amends Ordinance No. 5.30 as set forth in Attachment A and approves the Official Summary for Publication. Ayes _, Nays _. cc;Westonka Chamber, 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound Al Penke, Rt. 2, Box 223, Cokato 55321 55364 73190,3 SEC. 5.30. SOLICITOR AND TRANSIENT r.ERCHANTS 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) c^'-inesses 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. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall be the meanings stated; A. "Solicitor" means any person making the solicitation, including such common terms as "peddler", "transient merchant" and "canvassar". B. "Solicitee" means the person solicited. C. "Goods" means any tangible thing of value, but not including money, things in action or intangible personal property other than merchandise certificates or coupons as herein described. The term includes such chattels as are furnished or used at the time of sale or subsequently in the modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction of real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not severable therefrom. The term also includes merchandise certificates or coupons, issued by a retail seller, not redeemable in cash and to be used in their face amount in lieu of cash, in exchange for goods or services sold by such seller. of any kind. D. "Services" means work, labor, or services E. "Established place" means tfeal estate a buiIding and its real estate that constitute a principa1 use under the zoning code in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-month or term-certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days subject to a^l^ app 1 icab le zoning ord inances. The term includes a booth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. F. "Business solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor, which is not a transient merchant activity , engaging in transactions of the same kind, to sell or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business or solicitor, 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 identity or kinds of goods, services or things of value offered; or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contract 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 newspaper; or, (4) an attempted solicitation for the sales 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 contacts 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 represents, and the identity of the services performed or offered by the organization, or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor or the organization represented by him. 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. Subd. 3. Prohibited Solicitation and Transient Merchant 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 or transient merchant to practice harassment, nuisance, theft. I deceit, or menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation or transient merchant activities. C. It is unlawful for any solicitor to enter, or attempt to gain entrance, to residential premises displaying at such entrance a sign with the words "Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited" or "Solicitors Prohibited". D. It is unlawful for any solicitor to refuse to leave business premises when requested by the owner, lessee, or person in charge thereof. E. It is unlawful for any person to engage in contribution solicitation without completion of licensing or registration as herein provided. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation or transient merchant activities without a license as herein provided. G. Transient merchant activities can only be conducted on commercially zoned properties. H. A transient merchant can on 1^ ^ 1 icensed for a maximum of days per year. Subd. 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 transent merchant activities. Application for solicitor licensing shall also contain the name and address of the business or organization for which solicitations are sought. 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 therefore, to the approved applicant for business solicitation or transient merchant activities, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a contribution solicitor. C. If the Chief of Police finds a past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, or if he finds that to grant the application 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 forthwith advised thereof, and the application shall be referred to the Council and considered by it at its next regular or special meeting occurring more than ten (10) days thereafter. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such meeting. Subd. 6. Duration of Contribution solicitation Registration. Registration of contribution solicitation shall expire sixty (60) days after registration is approved. ORDINANCE NUMBER , SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance No. ___, Second Series" and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE REPEATilNG ORDINANCE NO. 5.30 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984, AND ORDINANCE NO. 50, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED APRIL 25, 1988, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SOLICITOR AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS The following is the official summary of Ordinance Number ____, Second Series approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on August 13, 1990. The following Subdivisions have been amended or added. Subdivision 2. Definitions. E. "Established place" means a building and its real estate that constitute a principal use under the zoning code in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-month or term- certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days subject to all applicable zoning ordinances. The term includes a booth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. F. "Business so 1icitiation" means an attempt by a solicitor, which is not a transient merchant activity, engaging in transactions of the same kind, to sell or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business or solicitor, 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 identity or kinds of goods, services or things of value offered; or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contract with the solicitor; or, (3) an attempted solicitation of a newspaper subscription * i which the solicitor is a minor child engaged in both the oeli and sale of the newspaper; or, (4) an attempted solicitation for the sales 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. Subdivision 3. Merchant Practices. Prohibited solicitation and Transient H. A transient merchant can only be licensed for a maximum of 10 days per year. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk. . J This Ordinance becomes effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Counil of the City of Orono on this 13th day of August# 1990# by a vote of ____ ayes and ____ nays. ATTEST: James R. Grabek# Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin# City Clerk 62790. TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: July 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Transient Merchants 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 irdUE - 1. Presentation to Council regarding information of transient merchants regulation and alternatives. 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 fou: 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 Solicition - This is a person who sells a product or services from other than an established place of business. Contribution Solicitor - These are persons generally affiliated with charitable religious or public interest groups who uses a telephone or goes door to door soliciting contributions. Transient Merchants - These are persons who are merchandising from one locatioij with pa< rons coming to that location to obtain their products r ther than they going door t;o 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-transient merchant was left unaddressed. To the extent however, that a person v;ho is merchandising from a location at more than an infrequent basis is intensifying the land us^i c f that location. To the extent it becomes a perennial busine:, it is causing an intensification of the land use without an 'poropriate land use review. Such a commercial site plan or zon ng 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 lar i use concern which translates into issues of public health, safety and welfare 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 business 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 survey). Action 1. Discuss. 2. Adopt. 3. Amend and adopt. 4. Table. 5. Take no action. RECOMME^TDATION - It is recommended, given the problems created by ongoing business in a particular location intensifying the land use, th?> ^he .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. f PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, second^''’ by _, that the Council direct staff to draw up the appropriate ordinance amendment in line with the principals set forth by the Cc ncil. Ayes , Nays Westonka Chamber, 5600 Lynwood Blvd, Mound 55364 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building S, Zoni: g Administrator 0 *3 61490 •V-TTi\CMiev'r4 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdrainistratorW^ 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 was in tL process of formulating their position regarding transient merchants. It should be noted that the City of .iound transient merchants to a specific place and specific times during the week. DISCUSSION - As noted in Attachment C to totally exclude soT^Titation from a community may not be possible, but if Council is interested, it should be further 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, lut not merchants solicitation it may choose to look at the following. Specified area for such sale (nar?ower than commercially zoned property such as done in 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 other 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 days in the past but has had no limit on the number of times that such can be renewed. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council give an THdrcatiorTiFTcTwhether 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 71790.3 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: 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: Plymout h - The City currently has a Task Force which is undertaking a review and revision of the solicitors/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 from 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 ^wner giving permission. Sales are not allowed in right ' 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. Initial 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. 1 S 5.30 SEC. 5.30. SOLICITORS. Subd. 1. Purpose. This Section is not intended to in any way hinder, delay or interfere with legitimate business or organizational activities. The Council finds, however, that soli citors have used public streets and their direct contact with residents of the City for the illegitimate solicitation practices of harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or unlawful activities. This Section is intended to ferret out and control: (1) businesses and organizations using solicitation as a means of concealing unlawful activities; and, (2) businesses and organizations which, though its activities be lawful or even com mendable, use such illegitimate practices in solicitation; and, (3) individual natural persons who, though they represent lawful busi nesses and organizations, use such illegitimate solicitation practices; and, (4) businesses, though legitimate, which cause, or are likely to cause, a traffic hazard or other inconvenience or danger to persons or property. The Council further finds that a large number of the residents of the City are employed as their livelihood and means of support by manufacturing plants and other businesses on shifts rotating between night and day, and to disturb them during their sleeping hours for the purpose of solicitation is a source of nuisance or even harassment and should be subject to control. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Solicitor” means any person making the solicitation, including such common terms as "peddler", "transient merchant" and "canvasser". B. "Solicitee" means the person solicited. C. "Goods" means any tangible thing of value, but not including money, things in action or intangible personal property other than merchandise certificates or coupons as herein described. The term includes such chattels as are furnished or used at the time of sale or subsequently in the modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction of real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not severable therefrom. The term also includes merchandise certificates or coupons, issued by a retail seller, not redeemable in cash and to be used in their face amount in lieu of cash, in exchange for goods or services sold by such seller. D. "Services" means work, labor, or services of any kind. E. "Established place" means real estate in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-month or term-certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days. The terra includes a Dooth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. ORONO CC (4-1-84) S'5.30 F. "Business solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor, engaging in transactions of the same kind, to sell or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business of soli citor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the business firm or organization he represents, and the iden tity or kinds of goods, services or things of value offered;, or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor; or, (3) an attempted solicitation of a newspaper subscription in which the solicitor is a minor child engaged in both the delivery and sale of the news paper; or, (4) an attempted solicitation for the sale of products of a farm or garden occupied or cultivated by the solicitor, when facts of such occupancy or cultivation are proven by the solicitor. G. "Contribution solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor to obtain money from a solicitee for any cause or purpose, when either the solicitor or person acting for him con tacts the solicitee by telephone or in person other than at the established place of meeting,” business, service, or activity of the organization represented by the solicitor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the organization he repre sents, and the identity of the services performed or offered by the organization, or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the soli citee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor or the organization represented by him. Subd. 3. Prohibited Solicitation Practices. A. It 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 requested by the owner, lessee., or person in charge thereof. E. It is unlawful for any person to engage in contribution solicitation without completion of licensing or registration as herein provided. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation without a license as herein provided. ORONO CC 120 (4-1-84) S 5.30 Subd. 4. Application. Applications for licensing or registration shall contain the name and address of the solicitor, the name and address of the business or organization for which solicitations are sought and such other information as may reasonably be required by the Council as a condition to registration or licensing or to permit investigation into the applicant's background and past solicitation practices. Subd. 5. Investigation, Approval or Disapproval. A. All applications for licensing or registration shall be immediately referred to the Chief of Police, and by him or other person acting in his stead, investigated as to the truth thereof, and as to any other factor which may result in a hazard or danger to persons or property. The Chief of Police shall have five (5) business days within which to investigate and make a recommendation thereon. B. If he finds no past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, and if he finds that to grant the application is not likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend issuing a license or approving registration, as the case may be, and the City Clerk shall forthwith advise the applicant. The City Clerk shall issue a license, upon payment of the fee therefor, to the approved applicant for business solicitation, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a contribution solicitor. C. If the Chief of Police finds a past history of the applicant indicting violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, or if he finds that to grant the applica tion is likely to.result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend denial of the license or registration. In all matters of recommended denial the applicant shall be forth with advised thereof, and the application shall be referred to the •Council and considered by it at its next regular or special meeting occurring more than ten (10) days thereafter. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such meeting. Subd. 6. Duration of Contribution Solicitation Registration. Registration of contribution solicitation shall expire sixty (60) days after registration is approved. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 5.31 through 5.34, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) 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 Practi es. B. It is unit^ful for any *sol ic i tor or transient merchant to practice hat ' jn t, nuisance, theft, deceit, ot r menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation or transient merchant activities. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation or transient merchant activities without a lincense as herein provided. G. Transient merchant activities can only be conducted on commercially zoned properties. Subdivison 4. Application. Applications for solicitor and transient merchant licensing or registration shall contain the name and address of the solicitor or transient merchant and such other information as may reasonably be required by the Council as a condition to registration or licensing or to permit i n v*e s t i g a t i on into the applicant's background and past solicitation practices or transient merchant activities. Application for solicitor licensing shall also contain the name and address of the business or organization for which solicitations are sought. Subdivision 5. Investigation, Approval or Disapproval. B. If he finds no past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, and if he finds that to grant the application is not likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend issuing a license or approving registration, as the case may be, and the City Clerk shall forthwith advise the applicant. The City Clerk shall issue a license, upon payment of the fee therefore, to the approved applicant for business solicitation or transient merchant activities, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a conribution solicitor. Passed by the Council this 25th day of April, 1988. ATTEST: James R. Grab^, Mayor't /Dof^fthy M. ^ llln, city Clerk Published in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of May 2, 1988 irW 73190.3 SEC. 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. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall be the meanings stated: A. "Solicitor" means any person making the solicitation, including such common terms as "peddler", "transient merchant" and "canvassar". B. "Solicitee" means the person solicited. C. "Goods" means any tcingible 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 time of sale or subsequently in the modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction of real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not severable therefrom. The term also includes merchandise certificates or coupons, issued by a retail seller, not redeemable in cash and to be used in their face amount in lieu of cash, in exchange for goods or services sold by such seller. of any kind. D. "Services" means work, labor, or services E. "Established place" means ffeai estate a buiIding and its real estate that constitute a principa1 use under the zoning code in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-raonth or term-certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days subject to all app1 icable zoning ordinances. The terra includes a booth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. F. "Business solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor, which is not a transient merchant activity, engaging in transactions of the same kind, to sell or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business or solicitor, 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 identity or kinds of goods, services or things of value offered; or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contract 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 newspaper; or, (4) an attempted solicitation for the sales 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 contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person other than at the established p’ace 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 represents, and the identity of the services performed or offered by the organization, or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor or the organization represented by him. H. "Transient Merchant Activities" means engaging in any temporary, intermittent, or transient sales or exchanges of any goods, wares, or services ^o other tha n businesses by setting up any outdoor stand or structure, or by using any truck, automobile, or any other vehicle, for such purposes at any point or place in the City. I. "Transient Merchant" means any person engaging in transient merchant activities. Subd. 3. Merchant Practices. Prohibited Solicitation and Transient 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 or transient merchant to practice harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troubleso'nK v '“herwise unlawful activities during the course of sol*'^- - > or transient merchant activities. C. It is unlawful for any solicitor to enter, or attempt to gain entrance, to residential premises displaying at such entrance a sign with the words "Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited" or "Solicitors Prohibited". D. It is unlawful for any solicitor to refuse to leave business premises when requested by the owner, lessee, or person in charge thereof. E. It is unlawful for any person to engage in contribution solicitation without completion of licensing or registration as herein provided. F. It is unlawful for any person ^o engage in business solicitation or transient merchant activities without a license as herein provided. G. Transient merchant activities can only be conducted on commercially zoned properties. H. A transient merchant can only be licensed for a maximum of 1^days per year. Subd. 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 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. 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 apF ication is not likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend issuing a license or approving registration, as the case may be, and the City Clerk shall forthwith advise the applicant. The City Clerk shall issue a license, upon payment of the fee therefore, to the approved applicant for business solicitation or transient merchant activities, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a contribution solicitor. C. If the Chief of Police finds a past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, or if he finds that to grant the application 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 forthwith advised thereof, and the application shall be referred to the Council and considered by it at its next regular or special meeting occurring more than ten (10) days thereafter. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such meeting. Subd. 6. Duration of Contribution solicitation Registration. Registration of contribution solicitation shall expire sixty (60) days after registration is approved. 82190.2 "OliNCIL MEETING AUG 27 1990 CITY OF OROHO TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adininistratd DATS: August 21, 1990 SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Attachment:A. Proposed 1991 Budget r‘6 Levy Resolution B. 1991 Memo Dated 7/19/90 C. 1991 Budget Memo Dated 8/7/90 D. Proposed 1991 Budget (Previously transmitted) E. 1991 Budget Narrative F. December 1990 Calender G. Hennepin County Letter Dated 8/16/90 ISSUES - 1. Present 1991 preliminary budget to Council. 2. Establish a maximum levy and preliminary budget for the budget hearing. 3. Set a budget hearing date. 4. Set a budget work session(s) for Council. DISCUSSION - The budget as presented represents a 3.9% overall increase from the 1990 budget. Attachment E is a narrative of the changes that represent other than the status quo. LEVY - As you may recall the City has to adopt a maximum 1991 levy by the 1st of September, which will be used for public hearing purposes later this year. This levy can be reduced during the public hearing process, however, it can not be raised. In addition the City is required to establish a budget level for public hearing purposes. The proposed General Fund maximum budget is adopted by motion while the max m proposed tax levy for all purposes is adopted by resolutior ?he levy consists of a maximum levy allowed for the General Ft together with levies to levy in accordance with the existing bond schedules for those funds. It additionally includes monies for the 1989 Sewer and Water Bonds in order to allow the City to be able to pay off the debt ahead of schedule thereby reducing the City's debt load and then using the income stream from the outstanding special assessments, which can then be used for general City purposes. The proposed General Fund tax levy total of $1,650,741 is 4.1% over last year's but will probably reflect a decrease in the tax extension rate due to the estimated 11.3% increase in tax capacity. The total proposed fr levy for the General Fund plus all debt issues is $1,853,541 or 13.1% over last year and will show a slight overall incre.se of 1.7% in the estimated tax extension rate. HEARING DATE - Indicated on Attachment F are the : the City would not be allowed to ho-d the hearing because .f .wrings or reconvenings being he?d 'ey other jursidictions. The City also needs to establish the primir/ date and the reconvene date (if needed) by September ist. Staff is recommending a date between the 3rd and 5th of Dejember for the initial meeting and to reconvene on the 17th. ISth, 19th or one of the other dates the week of the 3rd. BUDGET WORKSHOP - Given the time schedule it would be helpful to .let a work session sometime in October^ but would table consideration of this until all Counci Imembers are present at the September 10th meeting. ALTERNATIVES Budget and Levy - 1. Adopt the proposed resolution. 2* Amend and adopt. Hearing Date Select dates. R£CO^WENDATION - Budget and ^v/ - i*: is recor .nded that the Council establish the maximum proposed for the budget with the subsequent ability to amend that should they desire and to adopt the maximum levy for the General Fun<: togeu.ier with the other Bond levies. Hearing Date - It is recommer.’s'- that Council es ■ sh December 3, 1990 as initial hearing v, e with it being reconvened on December 13, 1990 if needed. PROPOSED MO 1. to adop** tax levy i 2. to r L expend]**' u - Move^ b _■ seconded by _; sipproving the proposed maximum 1990 of $1,853,541? and i. iximum proposed 1991 General Fund :he amount of $3,040,250; and 3. to s • uj , Dec.'flber 3, 1990. as the original public budget heir -^nd time, and 7:0L P-Def.^ember 18, 1990 as the reconvent u i^ub.'..c budget hearing dat'^ and time, if required. Ayes Nays __. ^ I 82290 A kBSOLOTIOH APPROVING THE PROPOSED 1990 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1991 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota*, that the following sums of money be levied for the current year, collectible in 1991 upon the taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes: General Fund $1,644,831 Special Assessments against City property for the City's share of 1985 sanitary sewer‘ - - - 5,910project (G.O. Sewer Imp Bond 1985) G.O. Sewer Improvement Bond 1985 G.O. Sewer Improvement Bond 1980 40,000 17,300 G.O. Sewer, Water, Street Improvement Bond 1982 5,500 G.O. Water & Sewer Revenue Bond 1989 140,000 TOTAL $1,853,541 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this levy is subject to •5ible reduction by the City Council at the public budget aring. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to ransmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minne.iOta. \dopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held August 27, 1990. ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Rallin, City Clerk 71990. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DAIE: July 19, 1990 SUBJECT; Budget Guidelines 1991 Attachment: A. City of Orono's Statistical Chart - 7/90 Update ISSUE - Presentation of general guidelines for Council review, comment and amendment for the upcoming 1991 budget year. INTRODUCTION - In advance of the Council's consideration of the budget for 1991 the following represent thoughts, comments and anticipations for the 1991 budget year. DISCUSSION - Economic Outlook - Economic growth in the United .’tates the last several months has been uneven with mixed signals from various sectors. The initial months showed higher inflation with the Federal Reserve Bank maintaining tighter credit to stem inflation. This however, has also resulted in a slowdown particularly in tlie construction industry with the first five months of the year showing continual decreases in nation-wide building activity. Inflation rates for 1989 were at approximately 4.6% and the initial months in 1990 were at a similar ralie. While exports from the United States reached an all time monthly record, imports still continue to exceed them and the trade deficit has not shown the hoped for improvement. In addition, the Federal deficit continues to grow and recent budget estimates for the 1991 budget place the gap at a $168 bill ion shortfal1. In all this, the United States economic picture begins to pale in light of events in eastern Europe and Asia during the past year. With the unification of the Germanys for the first time in 45 years imminent and market economies being introduced in the balance of what was known as the "Eastern Block" and the Soviet Union, the need for funds and credit oing to that area continue to increase and will draw money away for investment and drive up interest rates in the United States. Additionally the Savings and Loan "bail out" in the United States cost continues to escalate which will have a further draw on the investment funds to help fund the transitioi: >o a more solid industry. Finally the deficit on the Federal ^ avel will create a draw of funds. While it is anticipated, because of slowdown in the U.S. economy and inflation, the Federal Reserve will be easing credit th;3 fall; because of worldwide and national demands in other areas; the cost of credit and interest rates will probably start to increase during 1990. Such may finally bring about ever decreasing activity in the U.S. economy, possibly to the point of recession. This inay well be aggravated by the anticipated reduction in national defense spending and the spin-out effects to aerospace and defense oriented industries. The national unemployment rate was at 5.2% in June. In Minnesota there have been, during the past year, significant layoffs in the computer and areospace indus:ries. This has raised what has traditionally been a very low unemployment rate in the metro area to as high as 4.5% but for May was at 3.9%. A slowdown in other industries in Minnesota has boosted Minnesota's unemployment rate which is often below the national rate to above the national rate earlier this year at 5.4% but is presently at 4.3%. On the 1990 Legislative scene, the actions to again put a bandaid on the property tax system resulted in the City of Orono receiving no monies from the State either in the form of Local Government Aids (LGA) or in Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA). This theoretically has come about with no net increase in taxes to local property owners as these have proportionately been shifted to the school districts. The "good news" from the Legislative session is because the City of Orono no longer receives the LGA or HACA money there is no penalty should the City exceed its levy limits. In addition, the City could undertake Tax Increment Financing which was severly restricted throughout Minnesota by the 1990 Legislative session as the prime control was a reduction in the City's LGA. While levy limits continue to be an issue for Orono, which because of Legislative action for the 1983 budget year lost over $200,000 in available levy when it attempted to be a good steward of its resources, it will continue to look for ways to insure that it maintains its healthy financial credit rating, which during 1989 was raised to a Aal. A possible option would be for the City to explore methods to reduce its longterm debt which may possibly be done outside the levy limit. On the local level the slow down in construction has been noted with only 14 new housing permits issued through the first of July as opposed to a total of 24 in 1989. General commodities are anticipated to increase at the rate of inflation. REVENUES - The preliminary estimate of property tax growth for th<» 'eneral Fund will be approximately 3.7% based on the rules estarHished by the 1990 Legislature. In an effort to insure a strong financial posture the City, should it choose, may be able to increase above that for payment of bonds and interest in the range of $100- $200,000 to be able to be in a position to pay off outstanding bonds early and then use the assessments to reimburse the earlier tax levy. This would equate to 5-10% city tax increase or about 1-2% total property tax increase. Orono continues to have the lowest city tax capacity rate for any city over 1,000 in Hennepin County. FEES AND CHARGES - It is anticipated that the inflationary rate for these charges will increase in the range of 4-5%. INVESTMENTS - During 1989 the City recieved approximately 8.8% overall for its investment portfolio with the first five months of 1990 averaging about 8.5%. While less than '89 it is about 1/2% greater than what had been anticipated for '90. With the easing of credit, however, this may drop to about 8% for the balance of the year and perhaps be at about or below 8% on average for '91. The positive side is that borrowing will also be cheaper. UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE - During 1989 the City placed substantial amounts in other funds away from its General Fund and currently carries a fund balance of approximately $800,000. This is the first year that this was done and based on the balance the end of June, which is the low point, the City will determine the needed amount for 1991. EXPENDITURES - It is anticipated inflation for 1991 will be in the 4% range. Given levy limits of about 3.7% it is anticipated that 3% increase in salaries will be feasible in 1991. (This expectation is in advance of final departmental compilation of the budget.) 1991 also represents a significant year for the City given the legislation passed by the Pay Equity Act in the 1991 Legislature, the City will need to report at the end of 1991 its compensation relationships. Apart from patrol officers the expectations for 1991 by the end of the year would place job maximums within the established parameters. END OF THE YEAR BALANCE - It is anticipated that the General Fund Balance for the end of 1990 will be approximately $850,000. As has been done every year, the budget for 1991 will show a balance between revenues and expenditures. A significant change in revenues for 1991 will probably be a reduction in the amount of investment income budgeted for that area because of decreases in the cash balance for the General Fund as a result of 1989 transfers. ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTH - The organization remains very productive, additions or expansions have been discussed at a possible position areas in the next few years, tasks may require a full position; others combine for additional positions. Various task staff level as Some of these in various ways On Site Septic Manager and Zoning Assistant - The City has and continues to be inundated in the septic area and also the zoning area and funds will be initially placed in the budget to fund the position on a full time basis. Engineering - In a review of its engineering services, the City may add this function to an existing position, eventually blending it with the Public Works Director position should it choose to lessen reliance on a consulting engineering firm. Administrative Assistance - Tasks in this area would include assistance to the department heads and the administrator in areas of new projects, personnel, labor relations, insurance and management information systems (computers). Clerical Assistance - At a minimum it is anticipated that additional hours will be required to again strengthen this area. This may include assistance in both the general clerical and financial areas. (In 1990 the City shifted the recording position to part-time which should assist the situation in the short term. Assessing Function - If contractors are not available the City may have to explore an in-house function. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Discuss jointly giving comments as to additional or altered directions the Council would desire to take during 1991 budget. 2. Discuss these individually with the staff. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Accept the information as presented. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council give their individual thoughts to staff regarding budget guidelines and that if appropriate that it be discussed in August. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the Councl accept the information and present their directions to staff with perhaps tabling of the item for future discussion. Ayes _, Nays Dnrt»4 U/IS taandsd }/lt CITT or omno - statxstxou. xmoc ACTUia 19fl 1M2 190J XM4 IMS IMO Aaaadad 9/00 Aoaadad 9/00 Aaaadod 1/07 Aaoadad 9/07 AaaadaO 1/00 AaaadaO 4/00 AaaaOaO 1/09 Aaaadad 0/09 AaaadaO 1/M Aaandad 7/M 1909 19M 7/1/M o o o ijrajterxoM ___ 1S«1 IMS 3000 TlV- - -177 ■■ rapraiatlMi SMvrM OaavMrM ratal 113/11) Natco COMcll M/ll aa. a( SaaaraO aUa OaaaaataO “ 4319 3ST0 4430 1430 Ml 3111ratal 113/311 Matra Caasell ratal4A 3473 •MS M47 7031 2341 3371 341.' OeearlaO Mplaf aat/ Natta Caaaetl 14/11 •a. 0i •aw trim, rr iiota ■aw Caaac aa. ■••iOaaaial I «alaa IMlllaaal •aw/OUMt Ho. tvatoa IIUllloaBi 3391 470 ns9 M30 3474 3349 30 30 30 42 19 I2.SM 3.40a 4.119 I.039 10.tO* 4340 3900 7340 1S04 1030 393* 94 11.t 7310 7173 1300 IMS 3970 347S 3940 900 MOlttaaa f valaa (MlUlaaat 1 0.31 IM 170 1.430 2.370 1 0.19 310 1.07 319 390 1.7 4.197 0.03 0.170 270 310 9.1 atAaar rayabta (Xf ballt la 1903. tta oa 1909 valaa) llactat Valaa-aetaal 373.39 100.47 141.9 197.9 100.11 (Hllllaaal’Utljata kaaaaaaO ralaa-AataallAI (Mllllaaa)-Oatlaata Taa Caaaaltr * Oataol latlaata 109.70 99.3 103.1 100.13 I OaOoat taaaaOltaraa •aOfataO 0 0 Cbai^a Caaalatlva t ratal totaal 0 • Oiaa«a Caaalatlaa t Total CoMaaltr Orawtli 9 Xaeraaaa la ■aaaaiMJda Oat. Bvw Orawtli irriaarr 010«> Xwaal CaaoMor Prlao XaOaa icrxt iDoc>oaei Mow aarvtaa Caatraata total (cri 0 *aw oraaa Orawtli a How Caatraat OrowtM Orawtli itltliaot Caatraata 1.301 1.493 1.913 1.011 1.790 1.933 17 10.4 3.7 9.1 9.1 9.1 1.343 11.3M 1.400 1.013 1.7M 1..01 23.9 13.0 0.9 10 9.4 >0.3 11.09 4.309 14.9 0.3 10.309 33.1 12.009 19.3 1.4 3.0 3 3.1 4.1 4.1 9.0 9.0 3.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 Caaolativa Orawtfe Oltli Caatraata CaoMlatlva Orawtk altlMat Caatraata rrayartr raa laaraaaa CwMlatlva Orawtk •aOaatlaa la latartavara Aaaaal Orawtk taaa lataroa 9.M9 10.4 ital raaOlao 10.9 11.7 -0.3 Ital faadlar Oakatltatlaa •at Mararty raa Orwwtk (laaa lataryaaamaaat aakatltatlafl CaBHlatlaa Orawtk Mltka at Caatraata Ikl (■> taalaOaa Taa !•mmt nmmml ftlararlty MJaatnata Ma otMalatlva praraMy taa ftwatk ka twaaa 1900 aaO 1900 la aatlaataO 11.701 ta ka laaa tkaa aaawalitlva 'Caialty Orawtk* Ikaaaakali orawtk aa4 rtPI 11.021 vkaa aOlaataaata ara aa4a far aokatltotlao yrayarty taa ravaaaaa for raOaaaO lataraawannatal rava aaaa. attkoat tkat (aetar. prayarty taa orawtH la .79 klfkaa (1.09 ta 1.03) tkaa orawtk vaalO pradlet. Par 19M tka praJaataO paaparty taa orawtk la 1.00 eaaparaO ta 1.93 CaaMalty OrOTitk. Mat aOloaUao for laaa af iator- aaiaiawaaial ravaaaaa la l.M ta 1.93. 1*1 III IPI •war 0.39 ta praalOa optloa far lavy Halt eaaktaa. taa aapaalty altaalflaatlaa rataa Prlaarlly 4aa ta aktft ta laaal Oav't AlOa al Olatrlata/raplaaaa eoat af Armais A 7370 7113 7440 7304 1941 tat 1079 3910 3714 3990 40 11.1 30M 3039 93 II.0 1 0.7 330 7.0 334 0.0 403.71 411.0 414.71 101.4 107.9 13.00 7930 7179 3714 3014 3077 49 (911 9.4 111.01 1 (01 0.3 <01 300 (1401 2.0 (4.11 470 400 7000 7700 3779 3700 too 49 (301 44 (141 0.0 (431 I (01 0.3 (1.3) 3M (1331 3.9 (t.O) 937 931 S100>S700 3090 0900- -9900 7000 1090 1390 3900 10/yr 49 9.0/yr fwitenod ta raa Capaaltr 1%/parakla 09 113 110.7 I aawa l/rr 0.2 lOO/yr 1 ISO 19.3 3.347 3.133 3.401 3.731 3.93 17.9 3.4 4 10.1(0)9.94 3.07 3.13 3.39 3.40 ' 1 3.01 3.11 3.340 3.111 3.73 ' 19.9 9.4 3.9 17.7 3.09 3.3 3.30 2.00 1 1 1.9 3.0 3.0 1 1.0 (1.0) 1 1.0 0 4.1 4.9 4 (4.01 1i 4 1.0 -.3 11 9.7 4.9 0.7 9.0 (0.4) 1.9 0.9 0.9 9.0 (0.4)9.0 1.03 1.94 3.07 3.19 (3.30)3.31 1.0 1.71 1.03 1.93 (1.941 3.03 0.0 10.7 4.7 7.1 10.9 ( 1.01 1.0 1.09 3.03 3.19 3.7 -11 13.1 0.7 -11 0.4 1.97 1.70 1.70(0)1.900(C) '' 3.03 1.00 1.71 1.03 1.93 (1.94) 11 3.01 »* f ■ .• 1 :r ... I- 8790.2 Jln^dl&jr ^ TO: PROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council i ’ Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator\k)w August 7, 1990 SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Attachment:A. Propose Maximum Levy for 1991 B. Propose 1991 Budget (to be transmitted prior to 8/27 meeting to Council) C. Tax Extension Rate in Hennepin County ISSUE - Determination of maximum levys and establishment of budget in advance of Truth in Taxation deadline of September 1, 1990 for the 1991 Budget. INTRODUCTION - As discussed at the last meeting, the City is required to set its maximum levy for Truth in Taxation hearings in November or forepart of December. In addi^’ion the City is to adopt a preliminary budget. The preliminary budget may either be increased or decreased after the initial submission, however, the maximum levy can only be decreased for the 1991 budget. The same type of newspaper notice that was required for the 1990 Budget will be used. For the 1992 Budget, in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties property specific notices will be prepared and sent to each property taxpayer in advance of the Hearings. DISCUSSION - The proposed maximum levy, as outlined in Attachment A, undertakes a full levy limit increase of 3.7%. This is a combination of an allowed 3% inflation rate plus approximately 1/2 of the growth the City realized in households between '88 and '89. In addition to this recommendation for that maximum levy the City staff is recommending special levies which monies would go directly to the General Fund together with levies for the various debt funds. In the case of the 1980, '82 and '85 bonds these are levies to assist in paying off the debt. The levy for the 1989 bonds however, is a proposed levy to assist the City in allowing to retain its strong financial rating by having money available to pay off the bonds when they are callable in about 1996, at which point the City could then eliminate the balance of that debt. While tax monies would be used for this initially, the special assessments over *the original length of the bonds would then go directly into the general fund and reimburse the City for the monies it raised through taxes. This however, would provide the City with cash that it would not in the long term otherwise be able to raise. Together with placing the City in a stronger position over the longterm the net effect would be property taxpayers would not, in fact, be paying for the bond issue. This is done, in part, as a result of the fact that the City as being a "good steward" lost $200,000 worth of levy ability back in 1988 As for the budget the preliminary proposed budget will be presented to the Council during the interim so that the Council may at its August 27, 1990 meeting adopt a preliminary budget. The effect of the budget, absent any property tax growth, would raise the City tax capacity rate from about 12.77 to about 14.4 which would still place it at one of the lower tax capacities in Hennepin County (see Attachment C). During the budget period staff will do a 4 to 5 year projection of major funding sources and expenditures to track the growth. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt the maximum levy and budget. 2. Table to the August 27th meeting to adopt both. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the maximum levy be adopted at this time and that the budget be subject to adoption at the August 27th meeting. Should Council desire to table both until the August 27th, I would be available through the 24th to discuss any questions Council may have on that. cc: Department Heads 8790 ■=/f ■4- 1990 AND 1991 LEVYS Tax Capacity (Change #*s) Collectable Collectable 0% 1990 1991 Change 3.7%General Ad Valor urn 1,585,546 1,644,831 Special Assessments 0 5,910 TOTAL 1,585,546 1,650,741 Bonded Debt 1980 Bonds 17,700 17,300 1982 Bonds 0 5,500 1985 Bonds 35,000 40,000 1989 Bonds 0 140,000 TOTAL 52,70^^202,800 Maximum Levy 1,638,246 1,853,541 13.1% ; sssssssssssss s;sslleooooooeooooo ooe IS ^ m ^ m msss^ss s IN **s ^ ^ ^«r M S Hs o 0 9 «o9 M IN ^ M m e s J O's «« ft m V ifi• ••. *«••*•*•••••Is i 8 :22£S2 D ^ W 4# Af 4fX u u ^ u u S d n o lD is tiii I .............................................................................1 ■•is»*«^rji******«««* 1 *»• r«i IN r*« fM r« rt SE 8 iJ !jJa=2 1 : 1^ijjj acSSS D M M M W H*« •!#««§ ffoZooS o >. EjS Ul« VSiU •MM «• QM ^ ^ ^ ^ M O o V • S M e W ^ *i< M « t« It !• a o o a S!r I-^fil5| ;io£ >, M « I t f1}} 3lli o * S o $ 2 S •s ’- S _ 2 ' c 6 S N •|lll h-!sllfll M >•>•>• >1 >« *1 ^ ^l1 Hill uumm § • ••••••••• • lA ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ sis=~s««issiSSgs s I Id a*-f£S ?-«^1 = sJS • ••>*•• • ^• J c — ^ : :-|| ii!!!dill pi?| s a|ICi:£S. £ SSSS^SSS'S £ Xt2Z2ZItls 2 I ^ ^ ^ ^« r<« o ^ ^ (M -4 ^ o r« •>« *4 p« r>« P =i -; »*:- ??15!litll >»>•>,>.>» 4»rf V *4Hill £s||iSiiss «sir Ml ?-* •* *i' wuyy |i S! si dill'IIH= s. • ■ e • 2 S — — — — o S — S — — 5 5 —I:plss;;ss?Issssics si ......................ri« 'W 'ri ‘ ■ ■ a|•■■4 0 ll • ^ :2J:s|liii|har g Hi I I Scg I s llllllllt! oooo^ooo»S ZZZZZZZZig mZZtiiSLr Z g £] ?: : :85 :g “£-gSg8 6 -,S I = . : 8^-:31 Sf ^ r “2 I H -» S g g ** = |--g“'2i'SC.£3 >1 i |i K*.hd4 ‘ll‘J|l s! -1 -Sg2lls-gI hit If j .. SI SIV (0 e r> «r o| OJ 51 S' •■1 t?gs - ZZZ& z S! :£gs>. I z 5i *■ ! i2i llllldllllllH I ^ HHl i ^ TO: o«. j u . j EXHIBIT E Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administc-j w»r FROM: Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Directc DATE: August 23, 1990 SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Narrative ISSUE - Highlight 1991 budget changes from 1990. DISCUSSION - The 1991 General Fund expenditure budget reflects an increase of $116,250 over the 1990 budget, a 3.98% increase. The significant changes from 1990 to 1991 are discussed by department. * The City Council increase of $5,100 is due to increases in the LMCD request of $3,315; audit of $650; and conferences of ^550. * The Administration i“»crease of $11,100 is due to scheduled increased salary and related personal services of $6,650; other consulting services for the recorder position as an outside consultant of $2,500; increased automobile allowance of $950; with a decrease in office supplies. * The Elections expense is expected to be down $10,360 due to 1991 being a non-election year. * The Assessing budget has been decreased mai. ly due to savings from personal service costs, as the assessing Junction will be contracted for as opposed to being done by in house personnel. * The Finance budget incr^. ‘se of $3,610 is made up of increases in personal services of $7,160 offset by decreases in printing and publishing of $1,900 (truth in taxation publishing cr-vS we.:e less than anticipated); and a decrease of $2,040 in tne LOGIS class 2 assessment as those costs are now spread to several departments . * The Legal budget reflects a aecrease of $34,000 due to expected reduced prosecution costs, offset by an increase of $16,500 iu jail charges from Hennepin County for a net decrease of $17,500. * The Government Buildings increase of $2,320 is due mainly to carpet replacement costs at the Administrative offices, $2,000; a possible change in janitorial service $2,500; offset by decreased personal r*»'vices costs of $1,040. * The Human Services increase is $2,700, $2,000 of which is to help fund the new Long Lake-Orono-Median Area Senior Center located in the community room of St. George Church, Lfig Lake. * The Police budget increase is $32,220 and is composed of personal services increase $24,520; supplies increases of the D.A.R.E. program of $600 and the K-9 Dog program of $2,000; printing increase of $1,500; auto equipment maintenance increase of $2,000; data processing cost increase of $4,360; insurances increase outlay budget of $7,270, * The Fire Protection budget reflects an increase of $19,620. The increase of $9,000 for the Long Lake service area and $1,200 for the Maple Plain service area are estimates as we do not yet have firm figures. The increase of $700 for the Wayzata service area and $8,760 for the Mound service area should be very close. The Mound increase is due p-imarily to an addition to the fire station scheduled to be constructed in 1991. Orono will be billed its prorata share of this from 1991 thr?ugh 1995. * The Building and Zoning budget increase is $41,980. Personal services costs are up $35,310 due primarily to the requested change in the septic inspector position from a full-time temporary summer position to a full-time regular permanent position. Other consulting costs are up $2,230 due to the Planning Commission minutes being done by an outside non employee; postage is increased $1,400 to more acc 'rately reflect actual expense; office equipment maintenance is up $900; and data processing is up $1,180 due to a reallocation of costs. * Empergency Preparedness, i^jiimal Control and Engineering budgets reflect no unusual circumstances. * The Street Department budget is up $24,970. The line Item (#4348) for the city cleanup costs in the amount of $8,000 and the cost history has been transferred to the Recycling program department and incorporated within that budget. The toal 1990 Street budget therefore has been reduced from $457,800 to $449,800. The "524.970 budget increase from the adjusted 1990 to 1991 is comprised of $11,650 in personal service costs, of which $5,800 is for full time temporary summer help; street maintenance and supplies is up $6,200; and maintenance of miscellaneous equiprant is up $6,000. * The Parks and Recreation bud et 5s up $3,050; personal services is up $2,130; additional summer help is schedulers with • cut back in regular employee hours; and grounds maintenance i. ap $1,000 for scheduled tree trimming in the Navarre Playground. * The Recycling Pickup Program budget for 1990 has been increased $8,000, from $31,000 to $39,000 to reflect the transfer of appropriation for the city clean up programs from the Street department budget. The budget for 1991 reflects an increase of $29,390 as follows: personal service^ are up $2,500 to reflect the Saturday yard waste program; the clean up programs are up $12,000 to reflect increased volume and dumping fees; and contracted recycling p* .kup is increased $15.:‘.7n to reflect the higher costs for the .^.bisde pickup progtism in 1>9.T, 80% of which is funded by Henn. ^.»in County. * The Private Improvements budget is increased $7,500 for 1991, $5,700 of which is for special police services provided to private parties at cost, I’sually crowd and traffic control at area restaurants. Thi m has been removed from the lice CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1571 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice; 08/23/90 TO: JoAnn Grimes 4429 Cedar Lake Road St. Louis Park, MN 55416 COPIES TO: Jim Hoffman 4730 North Arm Drive West Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Easement Vacation DATE OP MEETING: August 20, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Connsission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Dedication of new drainage and utilities easements along new lot line. (Appropriate easement forms are attached for you to sign in front of a Notary and return to the City offices). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, August 27, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Froa: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron Asst Planning & Zonifig Administrator August 10, 1990 #1571 JoAnn Grimes/James Hoffman 4720-4730 North Arm Drive West Easement Vacation - Public Hearing Application - Request to vacate drainage and utility easement as part of lot line rearrangement. Application #1564 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Easement Descriptions Discussion As part of the approval for the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement between these two properties, the Planning Commission conditioned approval on vacation and rededication of the drainage easements along the existing and proposed lot lines. Easements to be vacated, and those to be rededicated, are described in Exhibit E. The new easements will follow the new lot line, being 5' either side of that line. As of this writing, we are unaware of any existing utilities within the existing easement to be vacated. Vacation and rededication of easements should have no impact on either property. Staff Recoanendation Staff recommends approval of the vacation of easements as described, conditioned on applicants granting the appropriate new easements 5' either side of the new lot line. j^jry/cr -^O # 1 CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION " " PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ‘41X0 hlof ’f/l f-f fin Drz/yV. ______ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i i CITY OF ORLiO ------------------------------------Fi^AHCF CFFICF i 7r,VTvVi/-.AA Jf 4 WiifViL WV'VV 01 QEi 50. wPlease attach legal description to application if not include,V ]i '^o [qo on required survey. ktCEIPT-TH^IK YOU --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:43 APPLICANT Phone (home) 314- /_____07/16/90 Name .'TotXoA.H. Cr4\<v\es>Phone (work) 47^-7S9.-? Address Z-d Kk City Sf. LficL.s ferCZip SS^tL OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) N£une i-ln \rwt\irv Phone Address 415c.Kicr-VK (XfYtN Tl/- (jOes'V City ftrcriO Zip Date Prooertv Acauired (month/year) I (do) (do not)also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $150.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/B3dg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration _ _ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _ _ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _ _ Grading, .seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _ _ _ _ $250.00 Vacation _ _ _ _ $175.00 Easement Vacation _____ $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential er (specify)__ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: _ V m t* / 1 cr lc\ /n4 rv"!* ‘H* A. Q ccjc z >\l > Ac\A- t» ol A«> r nc> Ci.<^ci\AC\p \A gc'o\nQ|» c.f\ i\^ <>r>ur\(A clrr t\nC||r* A 4- REQUIRBD SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. M ^ ^ ^ M w ^ M ^ ^ mm w* mm mm ^ ^ mm mm mm mm ^ ^ mm ^ mm w The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 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 unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature 7^->j..n<rUy)Date 7^/6- fo OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Op 7^ sjh.^.'rTLO}Date 7- /<?- ^ o Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. •A-'. si s sM is lU II X s“-i Q Ul jSbox 1 «l ^ Of ^ ^ Q O O Ul Ul Z < »o oe K Ni ae z oCD o < < ro I 9 o o Kl : o o M S Z S M < Ul ^ ^ Z K) as5z°a 1 **s5 M I : i i o a o Z M N M K S « r-hiSa|;h m o n *) N £ |i=l OC «( Mllli CL O »- 1 S §“ ^ =i il (M L- -I <10 I B < «• S ?ss! §“£0 ssbIS is X:siig.::!Sis M ^ B B < 10 i|““x TVAi O O M ^ ^ CO------- I sioi^i isiiiii o s ^sssiisAii::x S^SIbSzio o .i lu a -2-355 M e a a 5 x B» S ||2S B < UJ lili xSS O Ik K ■■« B Ik 10 M 5 Z < O <4- M X lii M 8 in «M ^ >- ^ < 10 X B9> Ui OB O _0 a a z °£ =£<» M < Ui _ nO scsiss 1 B UJ < _5SS"'S.• Ks^ ”-5s|as->^si S M S « (0 Ik 0 M U. (O §|*‘S K. = S<2.r So B § 5 M in UJ UJ M B 10 Cd B »- -J < LD si*“5 1o o z § g M z o 2 o z z ^ S SSSS5S B s < >• Nipi ~{3.0«rS I O M M ®siis (0 O O O M O -> -> X r 12 0 o Z •OB O « CM < ^(/)(/) Z Kl 1 Z M MQ z z z ?®=x|5 °U%s“o o o r» •O O ”> ■> 3S S si zxs Ul PJC o o z z ^M 9 oK «• n m O B B 5 six! llli& O H B £ O O < B O o Z UJ < < >- s lilia O •- / COFFIN & GRONBERG. INC. SURVEYINO. ENOINEERINO AND LAND PLANNING 482-A TAMARACK AVENUE LONG LAKE. MINN. 85356 473.4141 EASEMENT DESCRIPTIONS FOR JOANNE GRIMES IN LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, MCHANEY ADDITION AUGUST 2, 1990 EASEMENTS TO RK VACATED The 5.00 foot wide utility and drainage easements on each side of the lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, McHaney Addition as dedicated on the recorded plat thereof; said easements to be vacated do not include any portion of the 10.00 foot wide utility and drainage easements surrounding the perimeter of said plat. EASEMENTS TO BE CREATED A 10.00 foot easement for utility and drainage purposes over those parts of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, McHaney Addi tion which lie within 5.00 feet on each side of the fol lowing described line: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 21 degrees 57 minutes 44 seconds West along the easterly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 115.00 feet; thence North 0 degrees 42 minutes East to the North line of said Lot 1, and said line there ending. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Admi Date: August 22, 1990 AUG 27 V-r! Subject: #1574 James & Sue Ronald, 2565 Dunwoody Avenue Resolution Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and setback variances to constuct room additions and pool. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Discussion Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/22/90 Memo and Exhibits of 8/17/90 Please review the Memo and Exhibits of August 17th, Briefly, applicants propose raising a portion of the existing residence 6', and extending the main floor towards the side lot line a distance of 4'. The side lot line setback will still be 18', more than meeting the 10' minimum requirement. This addition and a proposed 2' extension of the west wall of the house, both encroach past the average setback line defined by neighboring residences. Applicants are also proposing a future pool on the lakeside of the house. The pool will be located outside the 0-75' protected area, but will encroach approximately 71' past the average setback line when the pool is constructed to meet the required 10' setback from overhanging decks. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their August 20th meeting, and voted 5 to 0 to approve, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed 4' addition to the side is lower in elevation than the neighboring residence on that side, and additionally there is existing vegetative screening such that no existing lake views enjoyed by the neighboring property owner will be encroached upon. Zoning File #1574 August 22, 1990 Page 2 2. Likewise, the proposed 2' expansion of the lakeside wall of the house and the raising of a portion of the house in it's existing footprint, will have no significant impact on neighbor's views of the lake. 3. The proposed pool, while encroaching 71' past the average setback line, is at a relatively low point in the topography as compared to both neighboring properties, and will have no impact on neighbor's views of the lake. 4. The proposed pool and additions comprise additional structural and at-grade hardcover on the property of 368 s.f. Applicant proposes removals of approximately 927 s.f., for a net reduction in hardcover to 35.6% from the pre-existing 37.5%. Planning Coronission's review of the application indicated that the proposed pool would likely have some additional hardcover after it was moved a few feet lakeward to meet the 10' deck overhang setback. Applicants noted that if that occurred, there was additional hardcover in rock and plastic, and driveway, that could be removed so that hardcover would never exceed 35.6% in the 75-250' zone. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation, approving an average lakeshore setback variance for the proposed additions and pool, and limiting hardcover on the property to 35.6%. A resolution reflecting this is attached. A RESOLOTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO NDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22r SUBDIVISION 1 PILE #1574 & 2 WHEREAS, James and Sue Ronald (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2565 Dunwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, Attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of room additions and a swimming pool, both of which encroach past the defined average lakeshore setback line, and which comprise additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone over and above the normally allowed 25% hardcover in that zone. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1574. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 1990 and on a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: a. The proposed 4' addition to the side is lower in elevation than the neighboring residence on that side, and additionally there is existing vegetative screening such that no existing lake views enjoyed by the neighboring property owner will be encroached upon. b. Likewise, the proposed 2* expansion of the lakeside wall of the house and the raising of a portion of the house in it's existing footprint, will have no significant impact on neighbors views of the lake. Page 1 of 5 c. The proposed pool, while encroaching 71* past the average setback line, is at a relatively low point in the topography as compared to both neighboring properties, and will have no impact on neighbors views of the lake. d. The proposed pool and additions comprise additional structural and at^grade hardcover on the property of 368 s.f. Applicant proposes removals of approximately 927 s.f., for a net reduction in hardcover to 35.6% from the pre existing 37.5%. Planning Commission's review of the application indicated that the proposed pool would likely have some additional hardcover after it was moved a few feet lakeward to meet the 10* deck overhang setback. Applicants noted that if that occurred, there was additional hardcover in rock and plastic, and driveway, that could be removed so that hardcover would never exceed 35.6% in the 75-250* zone. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the 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. COHCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 & 2 to permit the construction of proposed additions and pool, which additions and pool encroach past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and which comprise additional hardcover in the 75-250* zone above the 25% hardcover normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 1. Construction of room additions shall adhere to the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Any ^revisions to that plan will require further review by the City. 2. The average lakeshore setback encroachment by the pool shall not exceed 71', and in no case shall the pool extend into the 0- 75' protected lakeshore setback zone. Further, the pool when constructed shall be placed such that the pool water surface is at least 10' from any other overhanging structure or decks. 3. Hardcover on the property is approved at a level of 35.6% in the 75-250' zone. The applicants are advised that all allowed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram enclosed with this resolution as Exhibit B. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result- in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 4. 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 (August 27, 1991). 5. 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. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf cf himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of August, 1990, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before m'2 on this 27th day of August, 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 5 * *?•....” ’«• J. -4 ‘4’. -4 •i* . JJSss ID =tfe: O M Hm* Mmu M M 0 1 »4 £mfe.ir_^ f&iou it___ a** •8 «M • Oss. •a JS 2 m a • w _««0 ■ ii M 4J ^ Q •« • *«•« W Qddd «4pOd M A««_ r4 • • ^ •4 « • <M M • 14 • M* *4 O • • • mS3 ii«2**oS H • 0 «4 »4 M • M »4 0 41 0 41 •I •••KMUU■ • ^ O 5 41 « <M M »4 O «4 • O 0 H ' 0 •• «4 *4 44 «4 O #4 »4 0 U 0 iH •U«««0 00 0 • 0 0 > ^ <M « ••41 44 |4-^ «M «4 440«4Ob4J0r^ 0 U«4Mi-JUkiTI0 0 0« U . O w ^440^^00 y» m o m w4 ^ u%40 UV0U00O0 • U 0 0 41 0 M 0 0 MUM -• 0 «M U 44 *4 *«4 O U 41 O0^ 044 ** 0O mi U 00^4444444 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 «M 0 «4 44 0^0 O 0«M^.0^«44^ 0 u ^ m4 40 0 4« 0.0 0 0 a U 0 40 M 0 41 • 04444004440 44H44 0' |LO9»J 0 W 0 0 0 0 41000O0»0«404 44 O > 41 M *4 U 0 O O B, 44 04. M 0 VOm'U 00M0 0 MO44 44 44 400 00O0000 *4 •4 0 0 0 «4 0 *4 •« a 0 0 > « 0 -4 0 mM MM 0 0 000U00Uft« 44 0 «4 0 9 •• O O0K09O40 041 iJa:*4«4 0 0*4^ 0 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NO. 1574 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8/23/90 TO:James & Sue Ronald COPIES TO: David Nygren 2565 Dunwoody Avenue Halek Development Wayzata, MN 55391 6585 Boudin Street NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: 8-20-90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the follofwing: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Limited to 35.6% hardcover in 75-250' zone. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, August 27, 1990; meeting starts at 7;00p.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. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson ^ U Praai: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 17, 1990 Subject: #1574 James & Sue Ronald, 2565 Dunwoody Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, h acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and setback variances to construct room addition^and pool. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey \ Exhibit E ~ Hardcover Calculations by Applicants' Surveyor Exhibit F - Staff Hardcover Review Exhibit ^ - Letter to Applicants' 7/6/90 Exhibit u - Construction Plans Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicants are proposing to raise the northerly wing of the house approximately 6' to match the floor level elevations which currently are offset, and cantilever approximately 4' closer to the north lot line than the existing wall of the house. Although there will still be an 18' setback to the north lot line, the addition technically is an intensification of hardcover and a further encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. 2. Applicants also propose to construct a pool to be located at grade level on the lake side of the house. While the pool is not proposed for immediate construction, applicants were advised by staff to include it in their current proposal. Note that the pool would have to move further south and west to maintain a 10' horizontial setback between the overhanging decks and the pool water surface. This would likely bring the edge of the pool patio to the 75' setback line, resulting in an average lakeshore setback encroachment of 69'. -'3 Zoning File #1574 August 17, 1990 Page 2 of 3 3. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 37.5%. A 1984 variance to allow the currently existing decks was approved at 29.0% hardcover. However, a review of that application indicates that sidewalks and rock beds were not included in the calculations at that time, since that was around the time when the City was just starting to become more restrictive in enforcement of hardcover regulations. 4. Because pool water surfaces have consistently lOt been considered as hardcover by the City, the total net increase of hardcover before removals would be about 368 s.f. The applicant has proposed removals of the rockbed underliners, and removal of a small front walk, for total removals of 927 s.f. Therefore, once the pool is constructed and the removals are completed, there should be a net reduction in hardcover in the 75-250' zone of approximately 539 s.f. or 1.9%, for a final hardcover of 10,430 s.f. or 35.6%. 6. Lot coverage by structures, including the pool and its associated patio, will be 11.4%, well within the 15% limitation. Discussion - The applicants worked with staff to get an early start on some of the interior remodeling work that does not need variances. They were advised to limit such work to that which could stand in the event that the variances weren't approved. The work that is proceeding includes a wall bumpout in the foyer area over existing foundation; addition of basement bath; and moving kitchen cabinets to the basement for use in a "rec room" kitchenette (applicants were advised this could not be used for a guest apartment use without a conditional use permit; they indicate no intent to have a guest apartment). None of the above work is outside the existing footprint or rooflines. The average lakeshore setback variance for the 4' extension towards the side lot line is necessary because the house to the north is relatively far from the lake. The average setback ordinance exists to protect lake views enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. In this case, mature trees along the shared lot line already screen applicants' existing house, and the 4' extension and slight raising of that end of the house, will likely have no impact on lake views enjoyed by that neighbor. Likewise, the impact of the pool on views from either adjacent neighbor will be very minimal, because that pool will be at a relatively low elevation compared to the two neighboring houses. Zoning File #1574 August 17, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Regarding hardcover, the 1984 approval at 29.0% did not account for sidewalks, concrete patios, or rockbeds. Today, those items are calculated as hardcover. Applicants propose a net reduction from 37.5% to 35.6%, in association with the pool construction. The pool is intended for some future date, and if not constructed within the one year variance effective period, would have to be renewed. Absent the pool, the proposed house addition is completely over existing rock and plastic hardcover yielding no net increase. The applicants' proposed hardcover removals are the equivalent of the pool itself plus the patio surrounding it. Staff Recommendation - Regarding the average lakeshore setback for the pool and the cantilevered addition, a recommendation for approval would be appropriate if Planning Commission determines that these improvements will have no impact in reducing views of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. Regarding the hardcover issue. Planning Commission should determine whether the equivalent removals of rockbed underliners (resulting in a possible net reduction in hardcover on the property) is adequate. Any recommendation for approval should specify to what percentage hardcover should be adhered to in the 75-250* zone. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ^ Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 77^ (no change from original application) / / After-tha-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 1 *r PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^ ^ Property Identification Number (P .1^. I LlVi OF ORuf^O FiHfm OFFICE f T^,V*VV, WVV> ff 01 £E¥ 175.00 LfEK 7L 175.00 t<ELElPr-il^!iK YOU 4135530 COOl HOI 713:17 07/26/9C Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Neune Phone (home) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phene (wor)c) '3C^7yc> Address; ^ City; Zip; ,533 OWNER (if different than applicant^) Naa;s ^ ^ Phone (home) ^7/-- 7~^/7^ _ _ Phone (work) ^ Address; ^*^City; _ _ _Zip; Date Property Acquired ~rA‘’’7U^'^^ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) ((^o^^no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances (, Other Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear) lARDSHlPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IBSCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ lEQUIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please emember that your variance apiilication is not complete if the above jifonBation has not been included. ertification 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 ancLrOerrect/t'o the best of his/her knowledge. 4r/El.Applicant's Signature Date -7 /?0 ■OWNERS SIGNATURE he owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further uthorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- ion and verification of this request. jjOwner's Signature Date applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the bird Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled eview 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. M ki18 I • / O ^ < 4 m o z z N z ^ ^ jf ssiis i g-i2 N in a: c/) < w CO S S ^S3->^8S K UJ <f' > Ui Z > M UJ < in Su,sS°S m o o z CM z s«ingf^ K> <9 MIiSj N S n z 5 3 m o K r o CM u a 4 cx < o a: oS3i:p s.i -j u 2 fH >. N. vfl ^ oe to <u Kl O U C9 Suj UJ N ^ Q mJ N z CO oe •H O _i 2*i2 N m ^ (/) 4CM UJ in N in X z <^ >-CO CU 4 m 4 K» o 1 -> esj z UJ 3 > M*\R o oge (0O UJ S u N 3 s|.iq Z UJ 4 .«Sls^ K) O UJ UJ CSJ X sl.i a z UJ 4 OC 4III a, o »- « g _l £ M 4 O o I- a -j o 0 Z H Z CO OC >H M UJ 4 O ON *‘55fp 7SSsS“- r>« 4 UJ UJ ^ O 2 ^ u z s u u £ 1 T> “> 4 4O u I-N IH UJ UJ _J 4 „syygs^ CD M OC ce < < o CQ 03 U (Ni Z OC 3 a o 4 K a O Z UJ 4 ^ OC 4 W i 2M>^ ^ ______(f)__2.a iL_3_2^... ^ )L >^/6 .r _________(g^ 2S-.V^ ________^£), 23_??-11 a/c. .. _ Pe^__©__/5.AS3 ____© ____(S> .......(©. - ^ ......- 0 l>/C!Virw*rV ^ I ^_X J 3. lOxl/^/G = / V37 4,>/...I.} //7l ii ©) l0xi\/2- 0) (l.rx-Hl _ ___= /?r = 5Z3 \------- ------------------- • (3 rnx: 8.^/2^- ns-._\ (^ S’lxf'i /a_* ss'A.\„, (£) 52. >*717^2.- _ \ X.M012, - - 2lxC/z, (£> r-ix/oA ' -?3 1 f / / - 2--'c5'/ r^>r /2 ' xzs: ^/ _ — -* c^ A—■ ■■ — (\/) y6» ><2^- 3, Zjo/ SlTaa^.frt-i^^^ ----------- 0 n <x/< ___^ iy<\------------—------------------------------------- (y^ /yy/8 \ - /o i m / /— ©^ -X 23 - <u^/ .....................--.................- "" ■2-7 / ................................. |fec4:.-+ fiA^nc. ^!H70 .....-I-- '- '10^ 9S1 s . -r- E-9, 2-2)0.* 37. ^X /ri ' lz.^c II -^l Z - lOj^^A /M 73"2.rt>’ -rarr^ ]0j\ 2>® l/7‘^ * yo/2 •*- 6?0 “ A/*70 j.:?. :tc. /y^ ><HO * c:%^->77d-^<9^'<s^ 2^^^'TiciAJ^ A^* OF- /^^O /<-£kC:>7"L St-x ^cT^v ^A u - ^C-. ep</S77^^ /ao«iF-^As^ . ^/OO AJgr “ f<CrO«-/4?<>r32- iwATV«-' S'f2- ... 2-2_;x iO .T>/'*'. <^^ftnno%. '5&0_____________ . - ___ffi^Ot. .o'^i-4 -~ S’&Q“5'/2-. - 3CS .1*^, AJoTT^ .gv >SP^^-/C4-''>>7*..' ._ ___ i(^^.±:f . ...D.7ti/7O-207.jJ:./.Ye>. .J^4vk -_V.^........- . _______ /7.C^ ^ SS3>.., - ____-__,_^V___ yj--7.si. 10,m-. • 3rrt V. CITY OF OTRONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 6, 1990 David Nygren Halek Development 6885 Boudin Street NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE; Proposed Construction, 2565 Dunwocdy Avenue Dear Mr. Nygren: The Building and Zoning Department is in receipt of your application for a building permit, which was received by this office on July 5, 1990. A review of the application finds the following; 1. The 4' cantilever addition results in additional hardcover on this picperty which already exceeds the allowed hardcover limit of 25% in the 75-250' zone. A variance was granted in 1984 for 29% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. That 4% variance was granted to allow for decks on the lake side of the hou$e. Another variance must be obtained in order for the current proposal to be approved. 2. The proposed additions/remodeling are located lakeward of the defined average lakeshore setback line, where no above grade encroachment is normally allowed, therefore an average lakeshore setback variance is required. Enclosed is a variance application form for your use should you wish to proceed with a variance request. You would have to provide hardcover calculations and the other required submittals listed within that application, no later than noon on Friday, July 27, 1990, in order to be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on August 20th. The earliest final Council approval for this request would be September 10, 1990. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A UNANCE - 473-7358 FAX - 473-0510 PUBLIC \\ORKS - 473-7359 ,4... David Nygren July 6, 1990 Page 2 No permits can be issued until this matter is resolved^ either by obtaining a variance or revising plans so that no variance is necessary. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. richael P. Gaf<^n Assistant Planing & Zoning Administrator Enclosures;Variance Application Resolution #1688 MPG/lsv A 4942256 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. I6°9_______ A RESOLUTION GRAN^ -'TG A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION io.22, SUBDIVISION 2 - FILE 1857 NHEREASr Jerry Nelson (hereinafter "the applicant" ) is owner of the property locateo 2565 Ounwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 11» Block 8, Townsitc of Langdon Park, and that part of Lot 12, Block 8, Townsitc of Langdon Park lying northwesterly of a line described as beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of Lot 12 distant 39.5 feet southeast from the most northerly corner of said Lot 12; thence southwesterly parallel with the northwesterly line of Lot 12 a distance of 188 feet; thence deflect right 8 degrees 35 minutes a distance of 147 feet more or less to the shore line and said line thereby terminating; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Sutrdivision 2 to permit the construction of a deck which will increase the hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone from 6,898 square feet (or 241) to 8,044 square feet (or 29*) where only 7,018 square feet (or 25%) is allowed. NOW. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file #857. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family I.akoshorr Re.sidrntial Zoning District. 3. Thf» Orono Planninc Commission reviewed this application on September 17, 19H4, and recommended approval of the propo.si'd variance bar.**d upon the following findings: a) All nothackr. I'l the zoning district will be met. b) (Hw»rall har.'h"^v'r on the property inclmling the prop^»!*»*d a<Mt t Kin is 8,884 sf where 10,740 st won 1^1 be allowed at maximum development. CITY City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1688________ _ _ _ 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 poco 1 iar 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 abov’e findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the ^^unicipal Zoning Code Section 10.22* Subdivision 2 to permit the ccnstructicn of a deck which will increase hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone f rom 6*698 square feet (or 24%) to 8.044 square feet or (29%) wher»' only 7*018 square feet (25%) is allowed* subject to the following conditions: 1. The hardcover allowed by this variance is in excess of the 25 percent allowed in the 75-250* foot setback zone. The applicant is hereby advised that the City will not approve any future improvements that result in additional hardcover, and that if such improvement.*? are proposed* that they be counterba lanceil with the removal of existing h.i . 2. Author: t if's granted by this variance run with the pri'p«Tt y not w i t h t h*' appl i cant * but are permi ssive only and mu'-.t b“ «‘x«'rci r.e<l by appl i cation for a building permit with* n oil' y« ar of the date of Council approval* or this varia?*«^o will '‘xpif'' fui that ilate (Octobe.*’ 15* 1985). CITY OF ORONO Ctty of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ^O. ^-688_________ 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 un^.signed 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 City Council on this 15th day of October, 1984. ATTEST I Clerk Mary C Mayor (3) Property Owner Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson /4. Froa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Ad Date: August 23, 1990 AUG 27 ranSubject: #1576 John & Kit Wojcik, 3310 Bayside Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct additions to existing residence. List o hibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission Action Notice 8/23/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 8/13/90 Discussion Please review the Memo and Exhibits of August 13th. Brieflyr the applicants are proposing the additions which Council previously reviewed for septic system approval. A survey was submitted, and it was verified that a small portion of the proposed covered porch entryway will be 27.7' from the side lot line where a 30* setback is normally required. Planning Cosadsaion Re ndation At their August 20th meeting, Planninc Commission recommended on a vote of 5 to 0 to approve the requested variance, finding that the proposed additions are no closer to the side lot line than the existing house, which is 18.7' from the side lot line, and proposed additions will not intensify the perceived density of the neighborhood. Staff Rec<mdation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. That resolution incorporates language regarding notification to future property owners that septic system has a limited capacity and limited potential for expansion, noting that should the existing system fail, a holding tank may be the only feasible option for sanitary disposal until such time that City sewer is provided to the neighborhood. A RBSOLOTIOM GRANTING A VARIANCB TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODS SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B), AND ADVISING FUTURE BUYERS OR OffNERS OP THE PROPERTY OF THE POTENTIAL NEED FOR A HOLDING TANK FILE #1576 WHEREAS, John and Kit Wojcik (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3310 Bayside Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision #203, Hennepin County, MN, (hereinafter "the property") WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions being located 27.7' from the side lot line where a 30’ side setback is normally required. Minnesota : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1576. 2. The property is located in the LR~1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: a. The house site on the adjacent property to the east will be approximately 150-200' to the rear, hence the proposed additions will not intensify the perceived density of the neighborhood. b. The proposed additions are no closer to the side lot line than the existing house. The hardship is the location of the existing house, with the intent to provide a more functional entryway. Page 1 of 4 I 4. On July 23, 1990, the City Council approved by a vote of 4 to 1 to grant the applicant's administrative appeal of the septic system codes to allow expansion of the existing bedrooms and addition of a second bathroom to the residence, subject to a warning to be filed in the Chain of Title that the existing septic system is substandard in nature, and that due to poor potential for replacement of the system based on lot size and site conditions, a holding tank might be necessary in the future if the system fails. 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions being located 27.7' from the side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions; 1. The applicant and all future owners and potential buyers of the property are advised that should the existing septic system on the property fail, the size of the property and specific site conditions may severely limit the ability to replace that system with a conforming septic system, and that such failure would likely result in the need to provide a holding tank for sewage disposal on the property, such holding tan.< requiring regular pump-outs. Page 2 of 4 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE NO. 1576 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8/23/90 TO:John & Kit Wojcik COPIES TO: 3310 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 8-20-90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Covission recoamends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, August 27, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00p.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. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fron: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 13, 1990 Subject: #1576 John & Kit Wojcik, 3310 Bayside Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct additions to existing residence lot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Construction Plans Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicants existing residence is 18.7' from the side lot line where a 30’ setback is normally required. Applicant proposes additions to the existing residence, which include a proposed covered porch that will be located 27.7* from the side lot line. 2. The proposed room addition, as well as a proposed porch and deck addition on the south end of the house, both meet the 30' setback. Only the entryway covered porch is the subject of this variance request. Discussion The proposed additions will not increase the number of bedrooms in the house, but will add one bathroom. The City Council reviewed the issue of expansion of this house as an administrative appeal, and has granted approval for the applicants to proceed with additions subject to documenting the status of the septic system in the chain of title of the property. The house site on the adjacent property to the east will be approximately 150-200' to the rear, hence the proposed additions will net intensify the perceived density of the neighborhood. The proposed additions are no closer to the side lot line than the existing house. The hardship is the location of the existing house, with the intent to provide a more functional entryway. Staff RecoBsendation Staff would recommend approval, based on the findings noted above. , ^ , /Isv i '^ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3310 .C Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ------------ CI7Y if Omd FIHA^E OFFICE________ 1^0200000 ff 01 QEH iJ.I CF.ECX JL 175,00 RE^iFT-TmiK you Attach legal description to application if not included on CvCl R01_T07i2^, required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) ijiO' M73- Name arvci Vio,\C«k.________ Phone (work )^K i* C» 1 ^~ ^ 3 (g • (j110 Address; 33 iC ftA .________ City: Zip; 633S(r OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City;Zip; Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property \Residential / Other (specify) _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $10. Qoc Describe request in detail; 30' VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width _ _ _ Hardcover Front Side _ _ _ Rear) HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: yWc> L.A \c1aa.3:^ tf"0 C,v-c->PAXt«-^ v-'...>A.V-V ICO-f 0-<VcV-»^tLCT- “-^c^ ~C.r Tvljr^^ "cv “ ~ ~ ” DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _.q,v>trvv- ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include herdcov^ ea-i-eu-lations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the cU^ove information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. X\Applicant's Signature Date I 2-4> \ ^ D OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner' s Signature'^Date 1 /^<6 /^O Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commissipn 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 meeti'^'T. }Si i o ^' 4.; II :s VE55356O ° oM XM M K K < »n ^ > XV2||sS si1 35 Se M U W IM ^ UI in u. u K ^ o o____u sIrEsi“> Kl -i o « oKl O o o o “I o a ui goojj o -»->>» -» I# r Ui i sM S3 mht K K a. Ui >• S Z S «5 ^ ^ iJi 3 « -i Ift •H Ui MOo ^ ecM <S1 (O •• M Ui z ' > . y o “ CD M g to UIr ^*55g^gzo^ M O "0 "0 M -J « ioae 2 Ui o O -i K M (-» X (U M ^ w w N> 5 ui * S M CD X < (0 ii! < (/) Ui OO^S^Ui-* « K a CO i- gKl K a « 3 2 CO M o o K) O X X M a .‘ __ MM § S| so o o S in a a S in •& u o o M Ui ac O Ui Ui _aB||ss < „ ii=* O O -i ^ ' 11= g-'-‘~l!l K> Ui Ui (VI Z M X X (U HCOK1 < 0 1 ..K MM S U U0 o o o K to to<f to <0M g < < M M X X <U (/) U U 1 > oe «K < < < M CD Ui UIM w to I Ui Ui (VI in « a in si °s ^ M Sm gJS< z z X .J Ui I Ui O _ . _ K K O O > < M Ui to Ui UI Ui Z X o ~ ^ ^u < , . _r 03280 0 J rf DALE . 3280 1 LONG 138 0103332 INFO 1 INFO 1 PO 81! ROSEV:38 0!00350 ROSE 1 ROSE 1 350 Ci LONG 1X ^ oO < X o o Z Ui <t < > N x» SO <t X o O Z Ui < < > X yj X X £ a o < X a o z Ui < < > s.X < Ui X Ui a Z O X X 2X 5 < z &. o »- X < Ui a Ui o. Xgs^s a o >- X < UJi|ii i s r.g-’-* a -^oi-S M X X K O WOtO-OKZ :^?5|gui r* k. to O ^ ■‘filP:; .^“'■86 m o lu u. « -i Ui XX z o o < X o c Z Ui < < > N X «X Ui - N t Ci ’-lu Ck O^OW P.O. Cr^h^l/Bcuu Ci nidSTSL^.;:®'' •.-•■ Jin rusi^lSu 55325 AUG 2 0 1990 To Plannii^ CcTnmi'^ii/h- TJi6, is ii'l AtUMriCiL, -lo OflpliCahh-x^i^/5'7Jp- JOhfX^t K/'f I I, n ,\aJ^ nri'ciJ)iv fhL b^ - 52.eo •Vl'^ Wo ^ f/naf proposed adaiPi/n ^hiMid, bz. COoMplefl^ cippfOi^i ifcM^ plcinmncp 0 0 hcmki ifiM^ *0^^ 5, [vWillAdf" Da Id. .T. (Nl^4i«)r)m^i^ r* Iv.A —...« 'r- •• ‘Y/. iv- b ’k ff St’saiv- 0(, Ols€i\_ ■4')3-h3C>ri- •V I .. ■> * ■: ." r. *. I From: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator £ernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Admini August 22, 1990 Subject: #1582 Carol Burgess, 2800 Pheasant Road Variance - Resolution /O meeting 27 1990 C/TY OF ORONO Zoning District - LR-lB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request ror hardcover and average setback variance to construct deck and '->jrch additions to the existing reside^'^'e. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission Action Notice 8/23/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 8/16' *0 Discussion Please review the Memo and Exhibits of August 16th. Briefly, the applicant is proposing a single story 3 season porch addition and second story deck additions. All additions are outside the 0-75' protected area. Due to the unique peninsula nature of this lot, virtually the entire lot is past the defined average lakeshore setback line. Existing hardcover on the property is 35.5% in the 75-250' zone. Planning Conaission Reconnendation At their August 20th meeting. Planning Commission recommended on a vote of 5 to 0 approval of the necessary hardcover and average setback variances. Planning Commission based their recommendation on the following findings: 1. Because this nouse is on a peninsula, the average lakeshu:^ setback line is outside of the property boundaries. The proposed additons are no nearer the shoreline than the neighboring residence to the west. No lakeviews enjoyed by that neighboring property owner will be affected by these additions. The other adjacent neighbor abutting the lagoon, is so far distant that the impact of the view encroachments is insignificant. 2. Approximately 3/4 of the dry buildable acreage on this 2- acre property is in the 0-75' zone. Because )f this, the 75-250' zone is relatively small in relation to the total lot area. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 35.5%. Although the proposed additions increase structural hardcover on the property by 114 s.f. or 0.5%, there are areas of landscaping hardcover that can and should be removed in equivalent amoun* •, yielding no net increase in hardcover on the property. lile #1582 August 23, 1990 Page 2 3. Hardcover on the property as a whole is 13.3% of the entire lot, leaving 86.7% of the lot in vegetated area available for the absorption and filtration of run-off. Staff Reconendation Staff recommends approval of the hardcover and average setback variances per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for Council review is attached. I A RESOLOTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 FILE #1582 WHEREAS, Carol Burgess (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 2800 Pheasant Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, Attached, (hereinafter "the property"); WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of 3 season porch and upper level deck additions, such porch and decks encroaching past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed , and such additions comprising hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of 25% hardcover normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1582. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 5 to 0, base ’ upon the following findings: a. Because this house is on a peninsula, the average lakeshore setback line is outside of the property boundaries. The proposed additions are no nearer the shoreline than the neighboring residence to the west. No lakeviews enjoyed by that neighboring property owner will be affected by these additions. The other abutting neighbor, adjacent to the lagoon, is so far distant that the impact of the view encroachments is insignificant. b. Approximately 3/4 of the dry buildable acreage on this 2-acre property are in the 0-75' zone. Because of this, the 75-250' zone Is relatively small in relation to the total lot area. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 35.5%. Although the proposed additions increase structural hardcover on the property by 114 s.f. or 0.5%, there are areas of landscaping hardcover that can and should be Page 1 of 4 removed in equivalent amounts, yielding no net increase in hardcover on the property. c. Hardcover on the property as a whole is 13.3% of the entire lot, leaving 86.7% of the lot in vegetated area available for the absorption and filtration of run-off. 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. CONCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 & 2 to permit the construction of a 3 season porch and upper level decks, such porch and decks encroaching past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such improvements constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, subject to the following conditions; 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 35.5%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram attached to the resolution as Exhibit B. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Page 2 of 4 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 (August 27, 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 27th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of August, 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 3 of 4 zo t-t a. ccucnu Q <ocu s^tB.rr /4 I >, e O' I 4J ^ O I C Q) T3 U) Wi U H H C CT Ca)(i)'M'a«Jincc(a 5 x: u 00 H Hx:4J4Ja)0jrns:'ac Ui o o z O'Zc ■H c c •H O' 0)cn M x: x: rH CP 4_l (U H (U O ^ Wi x: T3 rtj ■M *j W (U H >, o ox: 3 ^ c '«-• e *j 0) J <0 r-H 4J 0 0) O 4J »-t O rH r-1 O S-i (/I (Q »o 0) X3 •H o U) a TD *- f-( iTI C Wi •- 3 0)0 nj r* (0 u m 0) CL uc U CQ 0) ^ *J (A 0) H fO T3 0) in rj >1 0) «o •- <H x: *J 0) c x: *M m .(J o Ul V.t (d O 0)0) z u 0) 4J W V (d 0) 0) T3 0) 0) x: 04 0) s x: T3 ■H O (d 4-1 ut c — .-4 'O rn C r- m 4J o»x: *4-1 «■ -H D'E-« c 0) ‘H U-i L4 c o o c x: H V4 td ui O' <d 0) u « 0) JQ 4J 0) x: oi Ifl 4J -H Li O O' 3 0 0) o 4J 4J a: u c 0)u) o x: Ui CLX* 0) •H .H 0) M-* c: 0) O'x: C 4J •H 4J U 0) 3 cx> Li O O U W (N in 0) 0) »4-l 'O U O 4J 0) in u <d C rH Id - 4J e 4J in o x: Li x> <u o U 0) -P -H u U-I O 0) U-I B M O Id «r-4 0) P x: 0) »o P 0) H o ^ J U-I *4.4 in 0) o H Li U-I Id C Hi T3 u^ in H in nj r- U-I idu-iP'Oo U-I OP woo (N-«r(U>4 O Id J — rH ^ 0) U W4 ^ M U-I T) 0) 0) O P0) o c in x: x: p Id w 0) Id o 1^ c 0) 0) p 0) >ia P 0) 0) c c Id 0) P o p p w U-I 3 O O 0) w x: no p c: WO) Id 0) .H O' P O' C 0) s 3 C O rH • c Id »H -H 0) p Id 'O -H Id U-I p CT* -H E p Id x: >4 c P O O'-! o U) c p P P 0) U4 >0 u in _ _ c H o p H 0) T3 I-] w i-i x: u . c “ Id p -H m W *0 •- - O H a e > p •H o p p no i-n Id o x: p (U o 0) ^ 5 m P *oc Id p O 0) *a no <U U4 >,x: H $ X3 o ^ p Id u W -H (U (7* P p C U-I uw o o in Id •-I 0) 0) Id P T) C 0) 0) 0) C rH •H P o W 0) 0) P » 0) x: 0) P pc 3 P O Id O C7* 0) x: *H H c x: P 04*0 Id P p O' •- (i» Idc c •• Id x: in p >,cp p idPiCP D^pwno 0)C p OPOidPPOOOO cno)UiP> idu-ippu.1 p 3 U) w •p po >4 0)> p 3w •O 0) 0) p x: p Id p Id x: ap p 0) V P *0 03a c c Id 3 in Id c :» o •p >1 w 0) -p > > p 0) a 3 T3 in c Id x; P iJ P u 0) n P P 0) IQ -H P u-i x: T3 0) 0 p p >1 W 0) >4 e p p u-t O' Id •P P 0) P p 0) P (O p *o 0) C >4 0) o 3 *p x: 3 P >4 P ^3 X3 O U-I 0) Id o P 0)0) e e w x: Id ^ >4 « M X3 »p «p r { •J '•• -■ *■■ t* ys^.;■.i /%•- - £^' ./: . r-. ^- WSm rf<^ ^:.i- m m^mW^4wm w/:^ j'l ^ ‘^M^iw^ Bgi I ■ ■ ,I V- ,------- ZW .. ■-'.* '■'Z-'iir-ff/ii • yi- i»; ■•-^^rr- ,V -rv^^.---- ^ ?rV':. m CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NO. 1582 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8/23/90 TO:Carol Burgess 2800 Pheasant Excelsior, MN Road 55331 COPIES TO:Ken Roelofs Const. Inc. 1650 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING:8-20-90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Hardcover shall be limited to the existing 35.5%. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, August 27, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00p.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. To: Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 16, 1990 Subject: #1582 Carol Burgess, 2800 Pheasant Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and average setback variance to construct deck and porch additions to the existing residence, lot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Application Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owner List Survey Construction Plans Hardcover Calculations Pertinent Facts - 1. 2. 3. 4. This is a unique property abutted by the lake on one side and a lagoon on the other. Because of this, about 3/4 of the 2 dry buildable acres are in the 0-75' zone. 0-75’ hardcover = 7.06%. (no additional hardcover proposed) 75-250' hardcover = 35.5%. Proposed hardcover increase in 75-250' zone = 114 s.f. (0.5%) Final proposed 75-250' hardcover = 36.0%. The applicant's contractor notes that there are no areas readily available to return to green space. Staff would question however whether there are areas of rock and plastic that can be removed. The hardcover calculations show approximately 900 s.f. of rocK and plastic at the northwest side of the house, and similar areas along the southerly lakeshore side of the house in the 0-75 zone. Because this house is on a peninsula, the average lakeshore setback line is not even within the property boundaries (see air photos). The propo-.ed additions are no nearer the shoreline than the normally affected residence, which is directly to the west. Zoning File #1582 August 16, 1990 Page 2 Discussion Regarding the average lakesnore setback, any construction on this lot technically does not meet the strict interpretation of the average setback ordinance. The key point is that the neighbor to the immediate west will not have significant lakeviews affected by these additions. Both the proposed deck to the east side and the proposed porch addition to the west side are designed to meet the 75' minimum lakeshore setback. Hardcover increases associated with the porch are 78 s.f. The 4' overhangs have not been included as hardcover. On the east end, the decks comprise an additional 36 s.f. of hardcover where none exists now. As a point of reference, hardcover on the property overall is 11,619 s.f. or 13.3% of the entire lot. Staff Recomnendation A reccmmendation for approval of the average setback variance would be appropriate if Planning Commission finds that no views from neighboring adjacent lakeshore properties are encroached upon. Regarding the hardcover variance request, a consistent recommendation would be to approve the additions subject to removal of existing hardcover to result in no net increase, or even a net decrease on the property. Likely candidate areas for removal would be the rock beds underlined with plastic adjacent to the house. I CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance), Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2800 Pheasant Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 21-117-23 32 0004 CITf OF ORi^ Firms OFFICE jiOSvC'OOO Oi SH tiS.Oi Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. sigljirt VlirSf————— — — — —— — — —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——— — — — — — — —————— — .. •> APPLICANT Phone (home) 471-9357__________ Name Carol Eurgess Address ; 2800 Pheasant Road_______ OWNER (if different than applicant) Ncune_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wor)c) 624-0*^84 City; Excelsior Zip; 55331 Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address ;City;.Zip;. Date Property Acquired June. 1067 (month/year) I (^do^ nojl) also own the adjac-*nt parcels of land. ^ PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ?s,nnn Describe request in detail ___________________________________________ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances (. Other _ _ _ "■ ^iixdth _x_ Hardcover Side _ __ Rear) HARDSHIP , . ^ ^ Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:^_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP DNDSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-— REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 2! Certified Proptrty^OwnerT 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. . . u 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 or any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR_ _ A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete— Information haa 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 requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff •ime not covered by original fee payment) and/cr consultant expenses ncurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. applicant's Sianature-^^ /-V — Date JWNERS SIGNATURE j The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this iuthorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, igents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this reqiifest. ^ Twner-s Signature ' _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. 'lanning Commission Meetings J’ third Monday of each month, /applicants must be present at all scheduled review .neerings 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. 181MBM CMnWCIM Mt. itNAOvwoQonoAQ t mviATA,MN8B9tf I PHom^nvm PTOJECT SUrtWEY This rsQusst is -for an Incrssss in ths hsrdcovsr al^CMSd in ths 75‘-t30‘ tons, “his projsct has two parts. First ia a csck to b& csnstructsd on ths East and c- ths houss. Ths Bxistinq dock is dstarlorating Pad'./ providing both a ssall unsays dscV and potsntial problsms with watsr infiltrating via ths rotting joists through ths stons vsnss.r, Ths nsM dock that has bssn dssigrsd allows accsss to ths Icwsr patio and incrsassd spaca for sntsrtainirg that ths original dsck did net. Cara nss baen taksn to dssign ths ns-*» da:k alscst irmplets'./ o‘>er axieti baricevsr, ths 1 owsr dsck would covsr aocrcxi r-atsi.. if cf existing grasnsoacs. Sscondly is a po-'Ch to b-z- t-rst.-ucisd to ths Msat snd of ths house, Ths apacs is to ts ursc fc^ casual sntsrtainlng whioh ths heusa is lacking. Ths 1Z‘ x 14' o-oom is a miniiium sizs that saintax ns balancs with ths aastivs architsctural fsaturss of ths horns- It would hav's a foundation to luoport rs-iissd stens vf»nssr but wou'd be jnnsated, Tb-e rorch is locatsd to not ancroach or ths 0-*^* zona as ’•rs ‘ is already coss snd is si tad on s ' a.-sa tha : haa. ^ ardco /sr rsouiring e-dditicnel ha*dcovsr cf TS 3F. Ths total of . 3/1 to availabls found in rssulting tisss ths in ths 73 of ths 73 setback. i ■'crsass in hsr-iicvsr aould bs 114 Sr, . . ircrsaas 3c, 1)0% har icGv«ir. rrsr* are no areas readilv to e.L'*-n to rree-’ioacB. Ad-*itional hardshio ii the bsing doi Ja-f^-cniisd with water and ths eft set on ths cal rul at ions. Thsr^s is nsarly thrss total sdua-s footage xr ths 0-73* zons as thsrs is '-33.^ zone jn this property. If ths square fcotags *-230' zans was •^S'lalcul also witheut t.hs channsl ths rsgusstsd hardci^ 'sr zalculation Id bs: e:0J,7 SF / 42,500 Zr . .^orox.) x ICO * 19.v6% S*sll Ul<♦hs slloKr*o :»5%. Thank dsraticn. ' =;? tk. 1 r-i e s g is i ®o 3 S i-isgmH C ^zzz “§33 “"SII5 1 fH CO ^ 1 XX. o M V) UJ UJ ^ (U X O (9 Z 2 •H a S a < X<H Ui O 1 Z X X M 38 21027<»5JAMESJAMESPO BOXFARMIM38 2102800CAROLCAROL2800 PEXCELSI X M J3rgg “-!3A K / o UJ m o UJ ui <Ni lu I >g!3§ ^ 9 9 a </j N « ^ </) -I M < < O Ul M O a (k N UJ cct So < ae a ox«< O i-»0 O M ® “ ^ 25 a|||g® <C < z 21 UJ ac a < S •r -,-,gs N o> « o; !2 9^ Ul UJ 9^ UJ <0 ^ 5 5 K X SoS^O « O O M «• a < Ma|tss« KIOlUJLUt- M < V) Z Z Z ^aowSg • n •• X M 1-4 a </) C\J U1 -J -I _i O' < < U1 UJ> > O' o CO <M O O r- X M O X X «SJ UJ sl.ia Z ui < X < uiu" /6 To: From: Date: Subject: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director August 23, 1990 Pay Request #1 Otten Bros. Hwy 12 Sewer & Water Project COUHCIL MEETING mg 27 1990 cmr OF ORONO Attached for review and approval is pay request #1 from Otten Bros, for work performed on the Hwy 12 Sewer & Water Project. The work to date has been completed according to specifications in the amount of $14,684.80. Recommendation - To approve pay request #1 to Otten Bros, in the amount of $14,684.80 for work completed to date for the Hwy 12 Sewer & Water project. Proposed Motion - Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to approve pay request #1 to Otten Bros, in the amount of $14,684.80 for work completed to date for the Hwy 12 Sewer & Water project. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. Mayor and Council From:Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoMI Forwarded recommending approval. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATEt August 23. 1990 Orono, MlnnesottPLACEt_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PROJECT i Trunk Highwv 12 Cleanup t Restoration PROJECT NO. I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PILE NO.t 13939 CONTRACTORt Ottsn Bros. Nugisrv 6 Landscsning. Inc ADDRESS t PO Box 249_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Long Lake. Minnesota REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _ _ FOR PERIOD: From: Start SPECIFIED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATEt To: Aug. 23. 1990 SUMMARY: 1. Original Contract Amount Change Order • ADDITIOH Change Order - DEDUCTION Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5 t Sub*Total 2. S. 4. 5. e. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.i. 45.814.33 43.814.35 457.68 0.00 15.437.68 772.88 14.684.80 0.00 14.684.80 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENS, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. By«. OWNER APPROVAL: By_ _ _ _ _ _ Date:.Approved Bv: OTTEN BROS. NURSERY & LANDSCAPING Contractor Byi. 13939PR PROJECTt Trunk Hlahvav 12 Cltanun &Restoration PAYMENT NO.i 1 PLACEt Orono. Minnesota PILE NO.:13939 COMTRACTORi Otten Bros. Nursarv & Landtcaolns.Znc.DATS:Auaust 23. 1990 STATEMENT OF VCRX Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Contract Zteo 2£i£l Quantity To Date To Date BASE BXD ClAit 5, lOOZ cruthtd aggragatt bata Ton 919.88 200 18.77 $373.19 2941 Bituffllnout binder eouraa Ton S6.00 200 170.4 9,942.40 2341 Bituminous wear couria Ton 60.29 100 88.91 9,396.83 Bituminous material for tack coat Cal.I.IO 90 36.64 40.30 Erosion control fence L.P.1.29 900 Sod vith topsoil S.Y.3.39 2,900 Seeding with topsoil, mulch & fertil.Acre 2,371.60 9 Adjust manhole castings Each 149.00 12 1 149.00 Adjust G.V. box castings Each 100.00 8 Flowers and edging (Bill Wears)L.S.1,060.39 L S TOTAL VOHK COMPLETED TO DATS Page 1 13939PR $1S»457.S8 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CIT?} Orono, Minnesota PROJSCTi Trunk Highway 12 Cleanup i Restoration nil NO. t 13939 CONTSACTORi Otttn Brof. Nuraary & Landacaping, Inc. ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT 949.814.SS TOTAL CHANGE ORPERS $0.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $49,814.39 Dm NOj 1 2 3 CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS - ADO $0.00 PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARYt iknjm NO. 1 2 3 4 5 8 PERIOD FROM Start 8-23-90 PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER $14.^684.80 VALUE COMPLETED $19,457.68 RETAINAGE $772.86 TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATE RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT NO. TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED $14,684.80 772.88 $19,457.66 19939PR nCOUNCIL MEETING To: From: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director August 23, 1990 AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO Subject: Pay Request #1 LaTour Construction LS #10 & 43 Attached for review and approval is pay request #1 from LaTour Construction for work performed on the LS #10 & 43 by-pass project. The work to date has been completed according to specifications in the amount of $61,241.78. Recommendation - To approve pay request #1 to LaTour Construction Company in the amount of $61,241.78 for work completed to date on the LS #10 & 43 by-pass project. Proposed Motion - Moved by ___, seconded by _ , to approve pay request #1 to LaTour Construction Company in the amount of $61,241.78 for work completed to date on the LS #10 & 43 by-pass project. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. To: Mayor and Council From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending approval. Ji REQUEST FOR PAYMENTDATE:_ _ _ _ _AuRUSt_22. 1990 PLACEt_ _ _ _Orono, Minnesota PROJECTI Lift Station Nos. 10 & 43 Replacement PROJECT NO.t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FILE NO.:_13940 CONTRACTOR: Latour Construction Company ADDRESSi RR 1 PO Box 76 Maple Lake, MW 55358 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:, SUMMARY: 1. Original Contract Amount 2. Change Order - ADDITION $ _ _ _ _ 3. Change Order - DEDUCTION $ _ _ _ _ 4. Revised Contract Amount 5. Value Completed to Date 6. Material on Hand 7. Amount Earned 8. Less Retalnage 5 I 9. Sub-Total 10. Less Amount Paid Previously 11. AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: OVNER APPROVAL: By_ _ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ _ Date: 13940PR Recommended for Approval by: BONEST^'^'' ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASS '.IA«S, INC. Approved By: LATOUR CONSTRUCTION CO Contractor By: PROJECT: Lift Station Nos. 10 & A3 Replacement PAYMENT NO.:1 PLACE: Orono. Minnesota FILE NO. :139A0 CONTRACTOR: Latour Construction Company DATE:Aueust 22. 1990 STATEMENT OF VORK Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To Date PART I - LIFT STATION NO. 10 REPLACEMENT Remove Lift station No. 10 L.S.$1,175.00 L S 1 $1,175.00 Clear 6 grub trees Each 205.00 5 5 1,025.00 Remove existing manhole Each 305.00 5 2 610.00 Erosion control fence L.F.3.00 IGO Class 5. lOOZ crushed aggregate base shoulder Ton 9.00 65 10" PVC, O'- 8' deep in place L.F.32.30 120 A5 1,A53.50 iO" PVC, 8*-10’ deep in place L.F.3A.50 30 75 2,587.50 10" PVC, 10'-12' deep in place L.F.36.50 25 25 912.50 10- PVC, 12'-lA' deep in place L.F.38.50 25 962.50 Std. MH 8* deep. A' dia. v/16A2B cstg.Each 1,625.00 1 1 1,625.00 Connect to existing manhole Each 550.00 1 1 550.00 Improved pipe foundation per 6" Increment depth L.F.2.00 AOO 680 1,360.00 Mechanical trench compaction L.F.0.55 200 170 93.50 Seeding with 3” topsoil, mulch & fertilizer Acre 1,050.00 0.3 TOTAL PART I - LIFT STATION NO. 10 REPLACEMENT $12,35A.50 PART II - LIFT STATION NO. A3 REPLACEMENT 10" PVC, 10'-12' deep in place L.F.$29.70 800 700 $20,790.00 10- PVC, 1A’-16' deep in place L.F.33.90 75 60 2.03A.00 13940PR Page 1 r PROJECT: Lift Station Nos. 10 i 43 Replacement PAYMENT NO.:1 ' PLACE: Orono, Minnesota FILE NO.:13940 CONTRACTOR: Latour Construction Company DATE:August 22, 1990 STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To Date PART II - LIFT STATION NO. 43 REPLACEMENT. CONT’D. 10* PVC, 16'-18' deep in place L.F.36.00 50 50 1,800.00 Std. MH 8' deep. 4' dia. v/1642B cstg.Each 1,520.00 3 3 4,560.00 Remove existxng manhole Each 305.00 4 4 •1,220.00 Drop manhole section L.F.475.00 3.8 3.5 1,662.50 10" X 4'' PVC service wye branch Each j.OO 15 14 1,330.00 10" X 6* PVC service wye branch Each 95.00 1 1 95.00 Cut into existig manhole Each 135.00 1 1 135.00 Connect existing service line Each 110.00 16 15 1,650.00 4" CISP service pipe in place L.F.18.70 150 130 2,431.00 6" CISP service pipe in place L.F.20.60 10 10 206.00 Improved pipe foundation per 6" increment depth L.F.2.00 1,300 1,300 2,600.00 Mechanical trench compaction L.F.0.55 1,075 940 517.00 Remove lift station L.S.1,175.00 L S 1 1,175.00 Common excavation C.Y.2.10 500 500 1,050.00 Class 5 aggregate base, lOCZ crushed Ton 9.00 950 870 7,830.00 Clear & grub trees Each 205.00 5 5 1,025.00 Se d with S* topsoil S.Y.1.50 3,500 Seeding with 3* topsoil, mulch Sr fertilizer Acre 1,050.00 0.3 TOTAL PART II - LIFT STATION NO. 43 REPLACEMENT Page 2 13940PR $52,110.50 PROJECT:_ _ _Lift Station Nos. 10 & 43 Replacement PLACE I_ _ _ _Orono, Minnesota_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTRACTOR? Latour Construction Company PAYMENT NO.? FILE NO.?_ DATE? 13940 Aueust 22. 1990 STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Item Unit Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Price Quantity To Date To Date TOTAL PART I - LIFT STATION NO. 10 REPLACEMENT TOTAL PART II - LIFT STATION NO. 43 REPLACEMENT TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $12,354.50 52,110.50 $64,465.00 Page 3 13940PR -i*.PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITY* PROJECTt PILE NO.t CONTRACTOR! Orono, Minnesota Lift Station Nos. 10 & 43 Replacement 13940 Latour Construction Company ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $77,465.75 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $0.00 DATE N9, 1 2 3 CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION TOTAL CHANGE OF ;?ERS - ADD PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY: PAYMENT PERIOD NO. FROM TO Start 8-22-90 TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATE RETAINAGE FO . ?’YMENT NO. TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED 13940PR PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER $61,241.75 $61,241.75 3,223.25 $64,465.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $77,465.75 AMOUNT $0.00 VALUE COMPLETED RETAINAGE $64,465.00 $3,223.25 I 81490.3 meetihgAUG 27 jogg ‘OF OROHO nTO: PROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat August 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Citizens Group Attachment: A. Resumes/Questionaires of Four Interviewees ISSUE - 1. Interview persons for the Citizens Committee. 2. Selection of a person. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 13th meeting they directed staff, upon receipt of nominationc from the Council, to take the four top nDminees and arrange to have them interviewed at the August 27, 1990 Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION - Once the Council has had an opportunity to review these at the meeting, it is recommended they table until September 10th selection of two individuals for the Citizens Committee. The Citizens Committee tc date has not had a meeting schedulfd. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 1, 199 Subject: #1554 Timothy R. Gramentz, 4680 North Arm Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB, Single family rural residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct second story over existing garage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Letter of Request & Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions Exhibit E - Neighboring Property Acknowledgements Exhibit F - Survey Exhibit G - House Plans Pertinent Facts - 1. Required side setback = 30’ Proposed side setback = 19.3' 2. Applicant's residence was destroyed by fire in February. Applicant is requesting to rebuild on the same foundation, with the same footprint, and generally replacing the house in kind. The need for the variance stems from the fact that the one significant revision from the pre-existing house, will be the second story over the garage area, which was not consumed by the fire. Discussion - The applicant's architect apparently had no contact with the City until the plans were completed, and applicant was not aware of the need for a variance until he applied for a permit. The existing attached garage is 19.3' from the side lot line. The nearest adjacent residence structure to the east is 200' distant. Constructing above the garage will have no impact in increasing visual density of the neighborhood and will probably not be a noticable change to the property. AS 1^0,r Zoning File #1554 July 7r 1990 Page 2 of 2 The existing lot is 0.89 acres in area, and 140' in width. The property is served by a septic system which was upgraded approximately 3 years ago. Staff has had in-house discussions regarding whether or not a lot area and width variance is technically needed in this situation. The applicant's insurance company would not pay for a new foundation, finding that the existing foundation was substantially intact and reuseable. If the foundation without the upper floors constitutes an existing structure, then it would not seem technically necessary to grant the lot area and width variances. The zoning code does not specify for conforming uses, the degree of destruction of a structure which changes its legally existing status. Such provisions are only defined for non-conforming uses (i.e. commercial uses in residential zone, for instance). Staff Recommendation - Given no apparent detrimental impact to the neighborhood, and finding that the property has contained a single family residence for many years, staff would recommei.d approval of the side setback variance to allow construction above the existing garage. 1 CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) iL ' o CUY OF OiiOHO A. vwv PROPERTY LOCATION • Site Adc;<- .-s 45;i0 NORTH ARM DRIVE () 1 UuV A > fc' ■ VC&K R 175. i -*f WiM.fi'l I fU>t Ufli >T»*’ *T^ k'VWWV U\/Va IkVA. .IjLkJk*,^ Property l. ieni^fication Number (P.I.D.) 06-117-2323-0006 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name TIMOTHY R. GRAMENTZ Phone (home ) 472-5578 Phone (work) 472-5578 Address: 4680 NORTH ARM DRIVE City: MOUND'ORONO Zip; 65364 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SEE ABOVE ________ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip:_ Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (JdonotT^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District __________________ CITY TO COMPLETE Present Use of- Property SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $121,000.00 Describe request in detail : REBUILD HOME ON EXISTING BLOCK STRUCTURE WITHOUI, mod IFICATION, CITY HAS DETERMINED IT DOES NOi MEET CURft^Nf SET-BACK REQUIREMENIS. TIOIIANCBS REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ Lot Width Front _ _ _ Hardcover ****** Side _ _ __ Rear) RJIDSHJPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; SEE ATTACHMENT_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ SSCRIPTIOH OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements ;__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SEE ATTACHMENT_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ EQUIRED SUBMITTALS . Completed Application Form ^ ^ . Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). . Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).'^ Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required, , Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. ^ . Slcetches or plans of floor and elevation views. , As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.*^ . Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR____ A WORKING COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. le Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please anember that your variance application is not complete if__the—above iformation has not been included. jrtification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete litialed by Clerical Staff;._______________________________ Date-------------------------- all information required or?PLICANT'S SIGNATURE le applicant hereby agrees to provide jquested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff .me not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses icurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information ipplied is true and correcttha^best of Ais/her knowledge.---------------^ ^ A jplicant's Signature I ippxicarj ES Date TIMOTHY R. GRAMENTZ iNERS SIGNATURE le owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further ithorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, ents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- .on and verification of tl}i^ request. \ ^ n _ d- -^c)■mer's Signature ' / ■H¥-(h-6RAMet(*TZ'------------------------------------------------------- . .. plicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the .anning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the lird Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled view meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is able to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an thorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning fice of this change prior to the meeting. i i-, A I 4680 NORTH ARM DRIVE Tt i ^ ^ lARDSHIP & DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: )N JANUARY 21, 1990 MY HOME WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE. EVERYTHING WAS A TOTAL LOSS lOWEVER, THE BLOCK FOUNDATION WAS SALVAGABLE. DUE TO THI^MY INSURANCE .OMPANY DID NOT REIMBURSE ME FOR THE REBUILDING OF THE BASEMENT FOUNDATION. . AM REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE I WANT TO REBUILD MY HOME ON THE ■.XISTING BLOCK STRUCTURE THAT WILL ALLOW ME TO MINIMIZE ANY ADDITIONAL LOSSES existing BLOCK ixRGcTGRE SpSn ' •NQUIRING ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT THEY SAID THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE DID lOT MEET THE REQUIRED SET-BACKS NECESSARY BY APPROXIMENTLY irPEET HEREFORE, I AM REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE DUE TO THE UNUSUAL PREDICAMENT THIS IAS PUT IN ME IN. I FEEL THIS WILL IN NO WAY BE A DETRIMENT TO THE and will ONLY ENHANCE THE VALUES OF THE SURROUNDING ROPERTY OWNERS AND WILL ALSO ALLOW ME TO BEGIN PUTTING MY LIFE BACK TOGETHER .GAIN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. TOGETHER •IMOTHY R. GRAMENTZ Adjacent Property Oimers* Acknowledgement FormJ (^e) ________ of HI2.0 aJ. [print name(sn [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at A' D^^ tO-also referred to as Land Use Application No. ■« I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner 90 Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #15.^4 Adjacent Property (Vners* Acknowledgement Form of V4--20 /t/. fyjl.ijO, [print address] ' I (we) Do.^ ^ aIaLIO x/ U v ; t juTS" [print name(s)J re reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the pir/iperty located at A' K/' also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. <y Darte Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #1554 Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Fora I (we) ^ ^''of HoC /V. [print name(s)J Sprint address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at aJ ■ ^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgementr I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #1554 ^ II <* /I ,/T t~j -f •, crC > P' mAdjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement FormI (we) ^ A\A{TAL.A of [print name(s)J [print address] have reviewed the plans for th-* proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 60 . also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. .T^ Frbp^ty Owner Date /j zq. /9'PO /\•o Jy//VI :m Property Owner/v Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #1554 I1' -1 ■i ■i"i•r. f Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson COliiifCi'L MEETIHGAUG 27 1990 9Utt9it0fiONoFrom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Admihist Date: August 23, 1990 Subject: #1556 Gerald Nelson, 1629 Bohn's Point Road - Variance - Denial Resolution - Request for Further -.-■onsideration List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Discussion Denial Resolution Pianniing €emmiooion Action Notice 8/14/90 Applicant's Letter of Request for Further Consideration Memo & Exhibits of 8/7/90 At your August 13th meeting, Council voted 3 to 1 for conceptual denial of the variance as requested. Staff was directed to draft a resolution of denial for the August 27th meeting. That resolution is attached for Council review. The applicant has submitted a letter of request asking that Council reconsider the denial based on some proposed changes in the request. Applicant offers to reduce the existing driveway of hardcover by the equivalent amount needed to construct the closet addition. Further, he offers to remove approximately 200' s.f. of porous fabric material from beneath rock beds on the north side of the house. This area has not been included in the hardcover r-^lculation appearing in the August 7th memo because at the time these rock beds with fabric were constructed, fabric was a non-hardcover alternative to plastic in the eyes of the City. While removal of the fabric from this area would not decrease the hardcover percentage noted in the calculations, it would have the effect of slightly reducing the amount of hardcover on the property based on current definitions of hardcover. Applicant notes two hardships he feels are significant: a. There is no basement or second floor in this residence hence storage space is at a premium. b. The exterior door that will be removed to accomodate the closet appears to serve no real function in the context of this single level residence, as compared to if this home had a walk-out basement. Zoning File #1556 August 23, 1990 Page 2 Staff Reconnendation Council would have the following options for action: 1. 2. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. (Note the optional inclusionsr Findings #5 and 6). Approve the addition with the two hardcover removals proposed by the applicant. In this case# Council should direct staff to draft a resolution for approval reflecting the noted hardships and conditions of approval. 3. Other. A RESOLUTIOH DENYIHG A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1556 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 a community management plan and zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Nelson (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1629 Bohn's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Tract A , Registered Land Survey #565, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances seeJcing approval of additional structural hardcover witl i the 75-250' la)ceshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; 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 applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the application, based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1556. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family LakeshoreResidential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990 and on a vote of 3 to 2 recommended denial of the application based on the following findings: a. Currently existing hardcover on the property including the house, sidewalks, and driveway areas, exceeds the hardcover limits previously approved for this property in Resolution #1726, adopted by the City Council on February 11, 1985. Page 1 of 3 the applicant has not proposed to adjustments to reduce the hardcover to acceptable limits. c. No acceptable hardship was demonstrated by the applicant . 4. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone currently ex^ at 5,776 a 4! i-ir- n fiexcGGdinQ thG 25% hardcovGr limit by r s!fl No justification has been “P^^a^istingallow additional structural hardcover while the existing property already exceeds the limits i'"P°®®‘’^^y “ert^#1726. The Council finds no undue hardships to the property Jhat justify granting a variance “hi-h would increase t^ permanence of the already excessive hardcover in t.ie zone. 5. (Optional, for discussion) The applicant is found to be Tn violation of the hardcover limits ^“Pp®®^<5 conditions of Resolution #1726, and is ^^^t or future improvements which tend to increase .ooroved permanence of hardcover on the property, will be approved. fi rootional, for discussion) The applicant is hereby Iranted after-the-fact approval for ^he existing excesses of Liveway and sidewalk hardcover ^he '.’roperty. Sue no further hardcover as currently defined will be appr approval . Page 2 of 3 August, ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of 1990. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of August, 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 3 CITY OP ORONO P.O. . Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 •473-7357 . . " APPLICATION NO. 1556 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 8/14/90 .'TO: “Gerald Nelson COPIES: ;r:1629 Bohn's Point Road ^Wayzata, MN '-55391 -’r, . . . .. - - - - “• ■ . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: August 13, 1990 VOTE: 3 For 1 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Conceptual denial of requested variance. Staff to draft a resolution of denial to be presented at the Monday, August 27, 1990 meeting. (Meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.). If applicant has any questions, please contact staff at 473-7357. 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. Isv August 21# 19'/‘U Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Ass't Planning & Zonning Administrator City of Orono RE: Application # 1556 Dear Mike. Pursuant to the suggestion of several City Council members I am submitting for your consideration several trade-off ideas regarding our application in the hopes that it would be a satisfactory solution and thereby be acceptable to both the Planning staff and members of the City Council. 1. Reduce the existing driveway by the equivalent amount needed to constr%ct the closet addition. Estimate 58-70 sq ft. (See attached Plan.) 2. Remove hardcover on th North side of house adjacent to the kitchen/dinning area# as mentioned by a Planning Coramission member# eventhough it existed prior to our purchn'ing the home in 1987. Estimated at 200 sq ft. 3. Several Council members v;ere not aware this is a single- level home with no other alternatives for inside storage since we have no basement or 2nd floor. 4. The Orginal Plan for this home approved by the City was f^r a 2-level home with a walk-out basement. Apparently when the builder changed to a single-level home# he relocated the lower level exterior door to the main floor in place of a sitdown bench and where we would ptirpose to have access to the walk-in closet. Resectively submitted# i > Gerald and Barbara Nelson 1629 Bohns Point Road A r---'___ - _ - _ . ::---------_-~ ^ ^0 rg W Ma^i^'ina M ^ K r u t-z.,w -*—S.'.'.;;.‘ - ■*■■-~ r-Ti'.v-Ti.'T^^rz^- ^"■ji'^ii—~ ~-—■■• ■■.. of Tract*.AT.lRegi st>.re'd£I:andX3uWey£No>'^ • .%..•■• — _ _'.■ V _ "*_*i r_ ■ ■ ■ ■ '■■ ■ ■=rr?rf T. ■•■"*ii--j“He.nhepi n,-_Countyf-;MfXn^ ----1 •^-J•■%■=s^^-T?«rr.---- m'l~-*"^4:5'r*J^v=“.rr:Ts^“^^ • • * -wr- ••. >• , lr.-K.i32= -1^ « —. ' , -->»-V ff -^■;- i"^t- ' e«> 1 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fro«: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 7, 1990 #1556 Mr, Mrs. Gerald Nelson, 1629 Bohns Point Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct room addition over existing grade-level hardcover area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 7/17/90 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 7/16/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 7/9/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 9, 1990, and the Planning Commission minutes. Briefly, the applicants request a hardcover variance to enclose a 7*xl0' existing hardcovered alcove to create a closet. Although the existing hardcover percentage would not increase, a hardcover review determined that the hardcover existing as of June 1990 exceeds the hardcover approved in a previous resolution by 1,05 s.f. (allowed 25%, existing today is 30.6%). As staff noted in the Planning Commission memo, the City's ability to monitor hardcover increases on a given property is constrained by a number of factors. In this specific application, the excessive driveway and sidewalk areas were apparently constructed before the applicant purchased the property. In discussing the hardcover excesses with the Planning Commission, applicants felt that the existing driveways and side walks were just adequate for the property, and while hardcover is excessive numerically the existing improvements are functionally appropriate for the house. They felt that removals of existing sidewalks or driveway would be a problem. The existing 5,776 s.f. of hardcover is 30.6% of the 75-250' zone. This does not include the deck on the west side, which was specifically approved as non-hardcover (see July 9th memo). This also does not include the rock beds which have a fabric underliner which was generally allowed at the time this house was constructed. These rock beds have been estimated by staff at approximately 600 s.f. Zoning File #1556 August 1, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Planning CoHBisaion Recn—i ndatioo ~ Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of this request based on no hardship and the fact that hardcover exceeds the previously imposed limits. The minority opinion %mis that the addition is minor in the scope of the overall hardcover on the property, and that the sidewalks and driveway as they exist are functionally appropriate for the property. Staff RecoasMndation - Council would have the following options: 1. Conceptually approve with no hardcover changes# directing staff to draft a resolution for your next meeting. 2. Grant conceptual approval subject to removal of existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone to a level of _ _%# staff to draft a resolution. 3. Conceptual denial per Planning Commission recommendation. If conceptual denial adopted# does Council wish to pursue the existing hardcover excess? 4. Other. Based on Council's action# staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting. J JT' - 7"^ Ccd ir CITY OF OROHO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, NN 473-7357 55323 ZONING FILE #1556 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 07/17/90 COPIES TO:Gerald Nelson 1629 Bohn's Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 1990 VOTE: 3 For 2 Against Planning Conaiission recosHiends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Motion to recommend denial was based on current existing hardcover exceeding the limits allowed in Resolution #1776. The minority opinion was that the exisitng hardcover was appropriate, and that the originally approved amounts might not have been realistic for this magnitude of house and garage. Applicant may wish to consider whether there are any areas of hardcover that may be removed to compensate for the addition. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, August 13, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 4630 NORTH ARIl DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:38 P.M. TO 10:39 P.M. ^ ‘ , It was moved bv Kellev, seconded by Consn. wO taole wOis aoolication until the applicant and/or a representative are present. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion carriec. 11556 GERALD NELSON 1629 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. TO 8:37 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson were present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed his memo dated July 9, 1990 pertaining to this application. Mr. Nelson exolained that the e.xcess hardcover areas were installed prior to‘ his purchase of the property. He said, “We were given a Certificate of Occupancy in 1937 when we purchased the property. At that time, the City ^did not advise us that hardcover exceeded what had been allowed by a previous resolution. It is odd that the City approved a 3-car garage for this prooerty' when it was not possible to construct a drivev/ay large enough to serve all three stalls. Also, in order to s<«ay within the confines of allowed hardcover, it would not be possible to have a front wal.^way or steps. I do not understand what happened in 1985 when the house was constructed. We do need additional storage area because we do not have a basement." Rowlette stated that she would find it difficult to hold the Nelsons responsible for the builder's violations. She also said that the driveway and sidewalks that now exist are appropriate for the house and that it is hard to find areas that could be removed. She noted tnat the hardcover calculations presented do not include the landscaping around the house. Rowlette stated that she had looked at the landscaping on the ngr^h side of the- - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1556-NELSON CONTINUED house and fiber glass exists under the rock. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the Public Hearing was closed. Bellows sympathized with the property owners, but found it difficult to approve an increase of the hardcover on this property. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Johnson, to reco^end denial of application #1556, due to a lack of h^^^^hip and the fact that there is presently excessive hardcover property. Motion, Ayes-3, Cohen, Rowlette, Nay. Motion carried. #1557 MIKE CULLEN 2700 PHEASANT ROAD tfAPTrVMCK Fzoms Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator July 9, 1990 7 Subject: #1556 Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Nelson. 1629 Bohn's Point Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct room addition over existing grade level hardcover area List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F “ Construction Plans Exhibit G - Resolutions #1726 and #2534 Pertinent Pacts - 1. Allowed 75-250' hardcover (per Resolution #1726): 472b s.f.*. Existing 75-250' hardcover as of June 1990: 5776 s.f.*2. 3. 4. Applicant is requesting to enclose an existing alcove area on the north side of the house, which currently is hardcover (concrete slab) but which was not originally approved as hardcover. The proposed construction meets all required setbaclcs, and will have no visual impact in the neighborhood. ♦Additional 900 s.f. sand-bedded decJc was allowed as non-hardcover per Resolution #1726, and does not appear in these calculations. Discussion The proposed addition is minor in scope relative to the existing house, and will probably not be visibly noticeable by anyone except the adjacent neighbor. However, absent the visual impact, the proposal does increase the amount of structural hardcover on the property and review of the request has found existing hardcover is significantly in excess of that approved in Resolution #1726. Zoning File #1556 July 9, 1990 Page 2 In 1984, the builder of this residence. Bill Krutzig, was granted a building permit to construct a house with a minimal driveway, and he immediately applied for variances to construct sidewalks, decks, and a larger driveway. The result of that application was to allow only the 25% standard hardcover, but in addition allowed a 900 s.f. deck constructed over a sand base with specified plank spacing, so that that deck would not be considered hardcover. There were perhaps a handfu"* of similar applications for decks approved by the Council as "non ardcover" in early 1985, a practice which did not continue. Disregarding the deck, existing hardcover within driveway, sidewalks, etc., is approximately 1,051 s.f. in excess of that which was approved. It is likely that the hardcover additions were not verified upon completion of the house, and the various hardcover items contributing to the excess probably occurred over a three year period while the house was being constructed. The current owners purchased this house in June 1987. Inspection records do not confirm when the driveway or sidewalks were installed, and those items do not require permits, hence the City's actual ability to monitor hardcover increases on a given property is very limited. Staff Rec ndation The following issues should be addressed by Planning Commission: 1. Will the proposed addition be approved? 2. Should the City require any concurrent reductions to hardcover, i.e. reduce driveway, sidewalks, etc.? It appears that both sidewalk areas and driveway were constructed wider than proposed by the builder. /lAtf,—oo ; 3e/\jy - t->o CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCS APPLICATION Initial Acolication Fee $175.00 . . ^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) .JIX ,1 ^ i Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 ;•] ' ■: ^ (no change from original application)// ~^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCr^TION CITY OF ORuliQ o / A ' ^ OFFICE Site Address Hok/vS Property Identification Nurnber (P.I.D.) [I ~ I11 " - 11 -COOS' 'C'^r^l‘%7 06/19 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. _ APPLICANT Phone (home) H H^ 3 Name G £Zf^L^ \)£L^o^ Phone (work) _ _ _ Address; 1^^^ PT Rh City; Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ A- kv\^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City;.Zip !. m7Date Property Acquired I CM) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property LR I Q X Residential Other (specify) DBSCRIPTIOH OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 3. Describe request in details gA^Clwg EiiiTixf 3-r^^g eCe^feJ fl«gW \*>iri .Pn«r 71 f>favii^ p .»g t-«Tty rUfe.T.•J'te itBfc~i»/t-gmswTiy •------ Joesa/^t VARIANCES REQUIRED « F Hivp.bC«vedA/ dA-e ^/«/P§tsC7y* Lot Width HardcoverLot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ _ _ Front Side Rear) ARDSBXPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from st^ct enforcement of zoning regulations: fliu't. JuJii - IMA ____ ________.'irrr BSCRIPTIOM OP UHUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS . v ^ j Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoni^v Code Requirements: ?iJL£.aLUAx \l^^fkJLXuJb^ & PififtAJLl^ >>vv OUvu^ i mpZRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form . . . , Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center ^ 348-3271). < Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. . * j u u _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any change in existing grade are proposed. ^ i , . Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views, .— As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. . Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. he Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. amember that your variance application is not_complex—jJE—the—abo— n^ornatioH has not been included. artification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete, nitialed by Clerical Staff;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . , he applicant hereby agrees to provide all /^^aa^fsl^affaquested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff ime not covered by original fee payment) and/or ncurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information applied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowl^ge. aplicanf s Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ Date (> aiiirog SIGNATURE ^ ^ ..w he owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this athorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, ' gents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga ion and verificatof this request. :«ner*s Signature _ _22'd^^^——_ _ _ V-~^---JiZgggr DpIicIn”mu3”hIv'^lT”submittala into the City offices 25 <Jay» ianning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are bird Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at ““ •view meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is nable tc attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrang^ents to have an athorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Bulldl g 9 ffice of this change prior to the meeting. -. ■.■•’■ ■... . . .! ■• •? . - - - .•• .. . : ^ - -*- •>••... . • "r . ■ ■»■'■' ’ • - •■* •. ■'•■’! " •"* . . * ■• . '■■'*.w^-« . j.- *..‘r ‘ '-V*^ • '• ■*'• * » • • -■ -;•':-:i t V • ■..• :<•"< '. *'”'■• T ' ’>""■■ •"'**''. .7 -A'-.-.* ' j -:' -a . . V" J .. ; -v.' •.— j.»*. ... •• •■ -. •■. «■ • *!.<* • .f..-v •.• /- ■"•■•■ •*.■.• * •■ • ■ «-•••' •'•-A* *^••• • - .“i.."' . • • ••-•-' - ..' •i Jr ^V vsfT' '• r*: - “ JWir/? ^A^c/7 I"h s o is<o a a X 1^ Hi HIes sIK-jiiA'-S.:pii:s Z 8^1*2 smzn s8 §g2S <c $ M S X «• Z “-*^3?iH in X o3.S$| * e o o ^ S §o ||4 9k ||3 i o2S-S M- sS2||SS agiisai^ss ^ 99S2 •H in ^ ^ < #1 P3/ (2^ «-> p253^Jo 1 ->“Ssl>!|iil S I***4 2 -i «• z E i "•'22 ®|:Ss9 s siO P z i gsi*! gSS|g- lirU? 3“i< ^s«as5 m o (» iS$ M a g si > N ji4/ue 1 ‘no ys-2sn ' UiTA/^e-A /Sj ^oo^ 5 _± ...HA4^co\jeT^./tiJ-c^e^ Fn^ (z^tou jF HtJ^ •.. ................. ;4^_'^SS' +■ 3,'^^0 'tC, ____ ___________i!ikfeJ<«/^wv/>r^^/lfTC.._......._„77 ^ a^._______- ...... -....... . V72.5" ii*. =2S% X)ec>^ (<9I/^ dow^'tse/Zjjfc /40fs^c«ve<?. -«>r' 77^ T7l«^^ •' /^0(D S.T. ■/-/oiAie r/. Swrte, ZA.ii£ r/'Ccf (^rx":^fS ......... ^LCo'f^^fj.L'tt (jo S>eCa/^10 ________/^W7" WA»-K ___ _____ .zio 6s>M.. .U^f,i~K. _____________ _______i3 f/i-LAi2.£ _________ ______20 _ ...... J . /3?r. ______ i--------silU> s-4. .- f i AJoAj-|4AiD>Couefi.'’ b&cAl ^ ^ 0| /m1 1 iai u 1 V • » • • 1* *... I ■ • ■■ • __ _ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CIT>^/3QUNCIL Slsj,A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 881 WHEREAS, Krutzig Custom Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter "the Applicant") is owner of the property located at 1629 Bohn's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 565, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "Property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, to permit the construction of declcs, sidewallc, and driveway which would increase the hardcover from 3,950 square feet or 21% to 5,950 square feet or 31.5% in the 75' to 250' setback zone where only 25% or 4,725 square feet of hardcover is allowed; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the owner and effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, hereby denies the application of Krutzig Custom Homes, Inc. for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 for the property legally described above, based on one or more of the following findings; 1. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 19, 1984 and recommended denial of the application based on the following findings; a) Applicant was made fully aware by City staff of the hardcover limitations on the property at the time of application for a buildir* permit. b) The lot is substandard in area and width in the LR- IB Zoning District in which it is located; however, the property is substantially large enough that it could be developed within the hardcover limitations. c) The additional hardcover requested is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the owner, and the conditions leading to the need for a vari;»-ice were created by the applicant. page 1 of 4 CityofOROI>J€Jl , . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL [El MS ® CITY OF ORONO NO.1726 d) The property currently accepts the natural flow of runoff from the surrounding properties and additional hardcover will decrease its capacity for accepting this flow. 2. The Council finds that the proposed deck design, which includes 5-1/2 inch decking with 1/2-inch spacing, underlain by a level sand absorbtion layer of 12" thickness, with no barrier layer between the sand and the underlying ground surface, has been demonstrated by applicant to be sufficiently permeable in this instance so as to not be considered hardcover. 3. The Council finds no undue hardships to the property that justify granting a variance to the hardcover limitation of 4,725 square feet in the 75-250' setback zone. FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono hereby approves the construction of deck, sidewalk, and driveway improvements to the property subject to the following conditions: 1. A permit for the proposed deck of 900 square feet in area must be obtained prior to construction. The deck must meet the following minimum design requirements: a) Width of decking boards may range from no less than 4" to no more than 8" in width. b) Ratio of board width to spacing width may be no greater than 12:1 (8.33% open space). c) A 1/2-inch high wood strip must be installed along the upper perimeter of the deck to prevent direct runoff. I d) A minimum of a 12-inch depth of sand must be placed under the entire area of the deck and extending downward through any fill layers to the original soil surface. e) Tne deck platform shall be no higher than 12" above finished grade, or if it is higher, a suitable barrier must be placed between the deck and the ground surface to prevent any access which would allow future place ment of impermeable materials (plastic, concrete slab, etc.) under the deck. page 2 of 4 CITY City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL i NO. OF ORONO 1726 '-----------------rrrr.i-j 2. The applicant is placed on notice that the deck and the areas above and below it may never be covered with impervious materials, enclosed, or in any way altered so as to become hardcover, without the granting of a hardcover variance by this or a future City Council. 3. The sidewalk and driveway are limited in hardcover to a total of 775 square feet, and any porous pavement or other innovative surfacing methods proposed to be used in order to exceed this amount are subject to review by the City. 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5, The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council on this 11th day of February, 1985. ATTEST: /DorothyM HHallih, City Clerk / I Mary C. Butler, Mayor TTjPr^erty Owner page 3 of 4 . V'- •VI-'- .-•> :-!^^;v.- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _l_ _day of _ _ _ _ _ _/ 1985 , before me a Notary Public within and for ^said County, personally appeared IA)il.UA^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed - the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this PublIc within day of_ _ and for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1985 , before me a Notary said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES >. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I Dorothy M. Hallln, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on _ _ _ _ _ _ _February 11_ _ _ _ _, 19 85 , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this _ _ _ _1st _ _ _, day (SEAL) This document is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77. Thomas J. Radio, City Attorney State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt This instrument was drafted by; City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ? VV' CITY OF ORONO City of OROiNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2534 ____NO. rV A RESOLUTION GRANTING APTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES TG HUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND AN APTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1309 WHEREAS, Gerald Nelson, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1629 Bohn's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract A, Registered Land Survey #565, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to allow a pond of approximately 165 s.f. constructed without the necessary 5ermit review, located within the la)ceshore protected area, ^ <?nd within the floor plain of LaJce MinnetonJca where no such alteration is allowed per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and in addition, see)cs a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 required for the installation of a pond. linnesota: NOW, THEREJ'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1309. The property is located in the LR—IB Single Family^ Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area per residential unit. 3. The property is approximately .8 acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 1988 and October 17, 1988, and recommended approval of the after- the-fact variances and conditional use permit as set forth above, based on the foil tng findings: Page 1 of 4 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2534 A) The improvement as amended by the Planning Commission will provide the least impact on tu® adjacent lake and within the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka. B) The excavation of the l :ad has been equalized by the placement of the excavated fill within the flood plain area and has been found to have no negative impact on the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka nor on the adjacent properties. C) The property receives the majority of run-off from the adjacent properties located within the immediate vatershed. D) The installation of the pond and th^ drainage path constructed in the south side yard that carrier run-off to the pond and eventually to the grassed lakeshore yard meets original intent of the grading and drainage plans approved at the time of development of this property. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this pro perty 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 conditionsr lightr air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon strable 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. 6. The City Council finds that grar^ting a conditional use permit to allow a 165 s.f. retention pond as amended by the City will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and grants a conditionax use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to allow the retention pond t remain within 75* of the lakeshore and within the flood plain of Lak Minnetonka where no such excavations are allowed, subject to the following conditions:Page 2 of 4 ciTyr OF QRoria City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2534 1988. ATTafeT: 1 The plastic liner underlying the entire pond excavation and the crushed rock/wood chips with underlying fabric are to remain as installed. 2 New plantings within lalceshore yard may remain as »= underlying ?ertechnic or filter fabric is removed. Wood pulp/chips or crushed roc.c may remain as long as they are installed on top of existing or natural grade. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicant*^completing the directives set forth above_within the lakeshore yard by November 15, 1988 or the special conditions of .-his resolution will expire on that date. 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and condi tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation “^^he zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has hlirfto the terms of this resolution and on behalf *. himself, his hei , successors and assigns, hereby agrees to tne recording o resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of October, /Dorothy Mj^allin, City Cleric Property Owner (‘s) L' Jamete R. Gr£,bek, Mayor Page 3 of 4 \ To: From: Date: COUtjCiL MEETWGAUG 27 ! CITY OF ORONO Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator • Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson August 24, 1990 Subject: #1559 John and Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and average setback variances to construct decks, bedroom addition, and detached garage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission Action Notice Exhibit C - Applicants Hardcover Removal Plan & Calculations Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/12/90 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of July 12th. Briefly, the applicants are proposing to construct decks on the lakeside of the house, a 6' X 14* bedroom addition on the north end of the house, and a 25* X 30* detached garage to replace a small existing garage. Applicants agreed to limit their garage to 750 s.f. footprint in order to not need a street or side setback variance. Due to the neighboring house to the east being very close to the road, the proposed decks require averag lakeshore setback variance. Planning Commission felt that these decks would not impact any neighbors view of the lake, and recommended approval of the average setback variance. Regarding the hardcover variance, existing 75-250* hardcover is 43.6%. Planning Commission recommended that hardcover be removed in conjunction with the proposed improvements, yielding no net increase in hardcover. The applicants have provided a hardcover removal plan that will result in a slight decrease to 43.0%. In reviewing applicants plans prior to drafting of the resolution, staff discovered that an incorrect dimension by the applicants contractor led staff to believe that the garage might be higher than the house. A site inspection with the applicants verified that as proposed, the garage would be about 1.5* higher than the house. The applicants have agreed to revise the pitch ol ‘•.he roof from 1212 to 1012 so that no height variance is necessary. Staff also verified with the applicants that grading to accomodate the storage level below the garage would not encroach into the 0-75* zone and in fact would be limited to an area within 10-20* of the garage. /• Zoning File #1559 August 24, 1990 i ' Page 2 Staff Recoamendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22r SUBDIVISIONS 1 PILE #1559 & 2 WHEREAS, John and Roberta Henrich (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 4125 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 19, 2C and 21, Highwood Lake Minnetonka; 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 to permit the construction of a room addition, detached garage, find decks, such decks encroaching past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such improvements overall constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1559. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning Distri 't. 3. The Orono Planning cmmission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and on a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; a. Due to the location and orientation of neighboring residences, the average lakeshore setback encroachment has no significant impact on views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners. b. Hardcover on the property is 43.6% in the 75-250' zone. There is excess driveway hardcover on the property that can be removed in conjunction with the proposed additions, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property above the pre-existing 43.6% level in the 75-250' zone. Page 1 of 4 c. The applicants revised their proposal by limiting the size and height of the detached garage to avoid the need for a setback or height variances. 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 3t 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, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of a 25' x 30' detached garage, 6 x 14' bedroom addition, in addition to decks on the lakeside of the existing residence, such decks encroaching past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such addxtions in total comprising hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed on the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 43.6%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condi*-ion of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Page 2 of 4 2. Because all setbacks and hardcover calculations were reviewed on the basis that the three lots are a single property, applicants shall legally combine for tax purposes Lot 19 with Lots 20 and 21, prior to issuance of a building permit for the improvements. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 27, 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on ^his 27th day of August, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of August, 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 3 of 4 CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crys^tal Bay, HN 473-7357 55323 ZONING FILE #1559 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice; 07/20/90 John & Roberta Henrich 4125 Highwood Road Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: July 16, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Revise garage to 25* x 30', to eliminate the need for a street setback variance. 2. Average setback variance recommended for approval. 3. Concurrent hardcover removals will be required so that final hardcover does not exceed the existing 6380 s.f. (43.6%) level. Althouh your next scheduled meeting for this application would normally be at the City Council on August 13, it seems more efficient to wait until the August 27 meeting, at which time a Planning Commission recommendation on the retaining walls should be in hand for application #1560, so both #1559 and #1560 could be reviewed by the Council at the same time. Based on this, you should attend the August 20 Planning Commission meeting, and the August 27 Council meeting. Both start at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies oi the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Variance Application #1559 - Modifications John and Roberta Henrich Net Additions Net additional deck hardcover proposed: (15 X 18) + (7 X 7) + (3 X 6) 270 + 49+18 337 s.f. Net additional hardcover in addition = 0 s.f. Net additional garage hardcover: (25 X 30) - (14 X 16) = 526 s.f. Net additional driveway hardcover: (6 X 30) + ((17 X 4)/2) = 214 s.f. Total net additional = 337 + 526 + 214 = 1,077 s.f. Removal of current hardcover: Old deck portion 3 X 10 Walkway from deck 3 X 18 Driveway 37 X 10 Driveway (24 X 22) + ((19 X 22)/2) Total hardcover removal = 30 s.f. = 54 s.f. = 370 s.f. = 737 s.f. = 1, ^ I s.f AUG 9 1990 Hardcover Summary for the 75’ - 250’ zone 75* - 250’ area = 14,640 s.f. Existing: 6,380 s.f.= 43.6% Proposed net additional: 1,077 s.f.= 7.4% Total proposed: 7,457 s.f.= 51.0% Less hardcover removals: —1,171 s.f.-8.0% Total:6,286 s.f.= 43.0% To: Planning Commission Chairman KelleyOrono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 12, 1990 Subject: #1559 John and Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover, average setback, and street setback variances for various improvements. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - Survey, Existing Site Plan Exhibit F - Sketch, Proposed Site Plan Exhibit G - Hardcover Calculations, Sketch & Summary Exhibit H - Proposed Construction Plans the Pertin-^nt Facts - 1. Applicants propose the following improvements to property: A) replace existing 260 square foot deck with new 624 square foot deck; B) construct 6x14' addition at street end of house; C) replace existing 14x16' detached garage with 26x30 detached garage. 2. The following variances are necessary in order to construct the above projects: A) Proposed garage of 780 s.f. requires setbacks of 15' from the side and street lot lines, and 10' from the existing house. Proposed setbacks are 10' from the street lot line and 15' from the side lot line. With these setbacks, it appears feasible for this garage to just meet the 10' required house setback. Zoning File #1559 July 12, 1990 Page 2 of 3 B) An average lakeshore set-< triance is required for construction of the Because the neighboring residence to the v located only 14' from the street right-of-way, the average setback line by definition runs through the applicants' existing house. C) Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 43.6% where only 25% is normally allowed. Applicants propose net additional hardcover of 8.4% for a total of 52.4%. There is the possibility of reducing hirdcover significantly if the extremely large bituminous surface driveway is decreased in size. 3.Applicants propose to combine Lot 19 with Lots 20 and 21. All setbacks and hardcover calculations were reviewed on the basis that the combination will occur. Discussion - The existing garage on this property is fain ^ small and not easily accessible The proposed 26x30' garaao will have 2h stalls on the main level, with basement space for storage and additional storage within the 12/12 pitch roof. Because this garage exceeds 750 s.f. in footprint area, the normal 10' side and street setbacks are increased to 15' per the Accessory Structures Ordinance revisions adopted in 1989. This garage is proposed to have side-facing doors, therefore the only reason it needs to meet 15' setbacks from property lines is the footprint area just over the 750 s.f. limit. The proposed addition to the master bedroom area will meet all required setbacks, and squares off the house. Applicants note that this area is over existing hardcover, hence ’is addition in and of itself does not add to the overall hardcover Increases. The proposed deck system on the lakeside of the house is generally in line with that of the neighboring residence to the west, but extends much nearer the lake than the easterly neighbor. The house to the east is located so near the road as to be non-conforming in location, hence it tends to be not in line with other residences in the neighborhood. Because the proposed decks are nearly 60' from the side lot line, their impact on the views of the neighboring house to the east should be insignificant. Note also that the proposed decks will be approximately 80' from the normal shoreline, hence they require no variance to the 75' lake setback standard. In conjunction with the proposed garage, staff anticipates that approximately 328 s.f. of additional hardcover will be needed in d .veway areas to make the new garage functional. Zoning File #1559 July 12, 1990 Page 3 of 3 The proposed improvements taken as a group, will increase hardcover on the property significantly. While there are likely some areas of sidewalk that no long: r will be needed and areas of rock and plastic which could easily be eliminated, these minor removals appear to be a fraction of the net proposed hardcover increase. The property contains a driveway parking area that appears to staff to be quite excessive, and which it would seem could reasonably be cut in half to result in a significant decrease in hardcover on the property. The applicants have not specified where they would consider hardcover removals in the 75-250' zone, although they have been made aware that a requirement for significant removals would likely be part of any approval recommendation. Staff Recommendation - Regarding the proposed garage setbacks. Planning Commission should consider whether this garage will have a significant visual impact in the neighborhood. Is there a better location that would result in less of a hardcover increase? Regarding the proposed bedroom expansion, a recommendation for approval might be appropriate in conjunction with an overall hardcover scheme for the property. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed decks will cause no significant reduction in existing lakeviews enjoyed by neighboring property owners, then a recommendation for approval would be ap^ ropriate. Regarding hardcover on the property, if Planning Commission finds that the proposed hardcover is excessive, applicant could be directed to submit a final site plan proposal that reduces hardcover to some specific percentage to be defined by the Planning Commission. tu-=> ICITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fe' PROPERTY LOCATION 4i^SSite Address 3 1UJ 0 o r. Property Identification Number"^(P.I.D.) 44 061 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) Name John OinrJ l^oJerfcL '-enricly- Phone (work) Address; ^ City; fyiatA.n/^ Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address;City;.Zip;. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property lR-iB identi al^ Other (specif DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construe^ v Cost $_50^jOOO Describe request in detail; C'dJLz^ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ Lot Width Front X Hardcover Side Rear) BAKDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty^re^sulting from strict enforcement of zcring regulations: CLr^iic4 _ _ _ _ __ _ DESCRIPTION OF ONOSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions pr^^venting compliance with Zc. i..ig Code Requirements: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ flEQUIRED SUBMITTALS L. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners witnin 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed el'^vations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. r. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGS DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMI'i-TPi' rhe Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application, remember that your variamce application is not complete if tb^ e e information has not been includ/-»d. Certification by Clerical Departne: -.nai; Varia-t e Application is complete. Cnitialed by Clerical Staff:______________________________Date___________________ IPPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^ie applicant hereby agrees to yroviaa all information required or Requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff rime net covered by original fee payment,' an;i/or consultant * anses Incurred in review of t‘*i3 application, and c^rf.ries that the in_oxir.ation supplied is true and correct ro the best of hi-, her knowledge. ' Q . ^ __ Date &/rCL! J^0____pplicant's Signature WNERS SIGNATURE he owner hereby ackowl'" uthorizas reasonable gents. Commission meml ‘ ion and verification o.^ T;h: to this application and further **t,,erty by City staff, consultants, .1 members for purposes of investiga- wnei ignature Lat / p»^licant must have all submittals into the Cit^ offices 25 days before the 1. ning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the bird Monday of eaca month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled eview meetings of the Planning C mitission and Council. If an applicant ,i.s nable to attend a scheduled meering, please make arrangements to have an uthorized agent attend in your place and to aJvise the Building & Zoning *fice of this ch^^nge prior to the meeting. Variance Request 4115 and 4125 Highwood Road We have recently boug!.*- these properties from my parents. My father was over 70 years old. This has caused the property to fall into disrepair. We are therefore submitting i>ians for improvements to our property whi<"h require us to request a variance. Our first request is that we would like to have a garage. The current garage is small, old, and in need of much repair. There is not a direct entry to put a car inside. Winters in Minnesota is our main reason for this request. The plan for our garage would also give us a great amount of storage space which would eliminate outside clutter. We have discussed several locations for the garage. We would like to combine lot 19 (4115 Highwood Road) with lots 20 and 21. Then we would build the garage at the location of the existing garage. We propose to have th« doors facing west. We discussed placing it on lot 21, however we would then be backing uphill into traffic and feel this would be unsafe. ng intent is to put a small addition on to the lownstairs. The current bedroom is to small ■* ’ ) • ne addition would increase the master bedroom 20* wnich is still modest by current standards. The •aster bedroom has caly two closets. These closets three feet long ani are very inadequate. The addition would double the current closet space. The current bathroom is smaller than the closets. This addition would not increase the percent of hard cover on this lot as it is going to replace driveway ar-ti rocks on plastic. Our next bu:’ mas' r bedrc (? t cu arc Our third request is to put a new deck on the house. The current deck is very small and needs replacing. The lumber is rotting and is a safety hazard. There are no railings and it is not safe for children. Our new plan is to make it safe and to place it at levels wh? will not interiere with the view of the lake. The additio f the deck would not fall into the 0-75 foot hardcover • .inance. We really enjoy living on th^ lake and sitting outside, but the mosquitos are terrible if one is in the grajs, especially after dark. The revised deck would allow us to take full advantage of this beautiful setting yet retain its natural charm . • y !.-> ! • T ‘'•‘0 ; 1 '^7 - /V ? \ •' ► 4 J I * ^ IHARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET__ ScTBACK zone : (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75^\j5-2^ 250-500^ 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ' House D. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck p. Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SMEETING 6. Other L&NGTH / ' '' ^B. Garage 3 ' , c. Driveway ^ , / X X X . X . - X _ X Z' -w I WIDTH f fO Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property A rea in Zone B---------------- S.P. S.F. 8 #3-S5P! S.P. _______ Str 3-^ -Z _ S.p.^ ^ . V p S? ’ S.P. ^ * .r c /__________ S.P. ✓ ^ _±_S.F. v/T • tV S.F. s.F. i:£_s.F. S.P. ____________ S.P. 4 s CH _£ii^S.F. S y inn - _% /'Jffr As»mc»M.6^ '^&ia:~ Hm-^co\)^<^ P(^Pozt^ '/^A/s -t Tx"? * 2>-,£.--^xa '2^*70 Vi /2» i - 3 <V^ /l^S-T /1>t>tT70iUM_ //^(Ai^^iea. /A-l Afc.fc tT7pM „_T O /Jgr!-^X;^,-r70<X»r*^ /JAX-itCa'Jt^ /2(j>yS.O)^ (iH^/(^ ~ ■5.rC. /^X/o'^ ^\Px~>/-2^. fr '■ is .C2.-^V^--- ~ }(^o 5Tf =52^3 ' zqu^s^^^'2-^ ^ ]ZZO^iT^ P(^S/V6>t^ ;£^/v^At_s/^o:i'4t.? ^ /o . ^?F 6A«. /<Vi> V ”/'i » S 2- -:^ . C>(r^^ /sjrtripM _^ A//__ ____ ____"... - — '------— 1/vjA^V^ QP- ____& _____________IT V- - _____ P (2) ____________________S C .---------------- i<-^ _ _ ______* /C - i . ^-------- ;; . _ _. ____________sst ____ • ^7xS1^(V»vo^ . ... ___ ______ |^U‘^ ^ 2'70 A ll'^l ----------- ------- t _____ (^p^rjy^ AJOT' //OF^A^f^C^J . ^ \ 7r'ii"o ’-^r2<rA » !^)(a^O *sX, ^{ST7.^^ ' ^ /o ^'iT7Ai«*.. ....“ SrV^_ ^t:5.|T7a^„^ p£j0^o5e^ A^*r------- __J ,J_2-.^D s.^. 7^^ /(9-5^^, 0 ^ P/^r^o£<rii. fAOLCM^t^ /> JZ.rV^-'WvMrUI r “ 3S^ - “. 72-S7 :.^, L^S. Mii.t-t—^ator.ot'i. DP Di2/l>lC'AiArV / - /7i? S. ^ ~ll'^ /i r 37.^ / ■ Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson /a Froa: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 23, 1990 CGUSKL ft|E£TING AUG 27 1990#1571 JoAnn Grimes/James Hoffman 4720-4730 North Arm Drive West Easement Vacation - Resolution ^ CITY OF ORONOApplication - Request to vacate drainage and utility easement as part of lot line rearrangementr Application #1564 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/23/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 8/10/90 Discussion Please review the Memo & Exhibits of August 10, 1990. Briefly, the applicants are requesting a vacation of easements over the old lot line, in exchange for granting new drainage and utility easements over the new lot line. Planning Conaission Reconendation At their August 20th meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the proposed vacation, subject to rededication of new easements 5* either side of the new lot line. Staff Reconnendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. ii A RESOLUTION VACATING UNUSED PORTIONS OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITT EASEMENTS WITHIN THE PLAT OF McHANET ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, CITY OF ORONO, MN FILE NO. 1571 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 1990, JoAnn M. Grimes and James Hoffman filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of certain poritons of drainage and utility easements orginally dedicated in the of McHaney Addition, such portions of easements legally descrxced as follows: The 5.00* wide utility and drainage easements on each side of the lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, McHaney Addition as dedicated on the recorded plat thereof; said easements to be vacated do not include any portion of the 10.00* wide utility and drainage easements surrounding the perimeter of said plat in Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the Orono Planning Commission on August 20, 1990, regarding said vacation and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested easement vacation iiud the Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1.Easement vacation does not afiect existing or proposed utilities on either of the affected properties. 2. 3. The unimprove:^ easements as they exist serve no beneficial public purpose. The affected property owners have agreed to grant new drainage and utili . easements over the recently relocated lot line between the cwo properties. Page 1 of 2 HOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of JoAnn Grimes and James Hoffman is hereby granted by the Council of the City of Orono and that the portions of drainage easements legally dti:ficribed above are hereby vacated. The granting of the petition is subject to the following condition: 1. Upon vacation, and before this vacation is filed with Hennepin County, the applicants shall grant to the City easements for drainage and utility purposes 5' either side of the recently relocated lot line between the two properties. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held August 27, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY jr HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before m*i on this 27th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor S city Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and saii instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 i *The Metropolitan Council Task Force recommended that routine recreational monitoring should be regionally funded. The DNR, Metropolitan Council, Suburban Hennepin Parks, and the LMCD shall be the primary participants. As part of the first recreation monitoring study, the DNR's offer for assisting in a study of crowding shall be accepted. Fish population studies shall be conducted by the DNR in accordance with their existing policy. Funding shall be by the State as part of their on-going fisheries research study. The LMCD shall conduct such studies only if the state consistently is unable to provide adequate monitoring. Regulatory Program 1. Review buffer zones and use regulations at least every two years. 2. Review speed limits and quiet water areas on the lake, summer and winter, at least every two years. DENSITY-BASED ACTIVITIES Research Program When density reaches 7.0, 6.0 and 5.0 boats per (usable) acre, the following study will be incorporated into the routine recreational monitoring study: 1. Study conflicts on the lake. Regulatory Program Density 7.0 1. Fix municipal access at existing levels. 2. Link further access growth in any form with increased law enforcement presence on the lake. 3. Determine the source of the growth in density, then impose restrictions to slow growth of the forms of access responsible for the growth. 4. Determine if more restrictive frontage-foot rules (1:50 and 1:10) are needed. 5. Review the need for lowering the speed limit, day and night. 6. Review use and storage densities of individual bays for further regulation. 7. To the fullest extent of the law, require a certificate from an approved boater education course to operate a boat on the lake. 8. Restrict ultralight take-off and landings from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends and holidays. 9. Review the maximum boat length for private watercraft and excursion boats. Density 6.0 1. Link further access growth to development of anchorage opportunities at a ratio of one additional access unit to two anchorage units. 2. Initiate a program to reduce and ultimately eliminate grandfathering at municipal and homeowner associations docks. 3. Review the frontage-foot rules to determine if a more restrictive one is needed. 82 4. Review the rules governing riparian storage of boats. 5. Impose use restrictions between 10:00 am and 6:00 pro on weekends and holidays. Density 5.0 1. Continue to develop anchorage opportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian property. 2. Further restrict resident riparian storage. 3. Review the frontage-foot rules. 4. Impose a policy of no growth on all forms of access. 5. Eliminate grandfathering at all forms of wet storage on the lake. LONG-TERM MONITORING PROGRAM The Long-Term Monitoring Program associated with this Management Program is published as a separate document. The progress for each management activity shall be monitored by the LMCD staff. Annual reports on progress shall be prepared for distribution to managing entities. VIII. PARTIAL LIST OF REFERENCES REVIEWED Absher, James D., and Robert G. Lee, 1981: Density as an Incomplete Cause of Crowding. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 231-248. Anderson, Dorothy H., Earl C. Leatherberry, and David W. Lime, 1978: An annotated Bibliography on River Recreation. North Central Experiment Station. U.S. Forest Service. 62 pp. Arndor^- David J., 1988: Winter Use of Lake Minnetonka, Interim Report. - .1. li.shed. _ _ _ 1986: of Work: Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. Lake ili.-* etopi'a Conservation District. Baldwin, Sara B., and Gary E. Machlis, 1986: Visitor Mapping: Human Ecological Information and Park Management. Borawa, J.C., J.H. Kerby, M.T. Huish, and A.W. Mullis, 1978. Currituck Sound fish populations before and after infestation by Eurasian water-milfoil. Proc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish Wildlife Agencies. 32:520-528. Bultena, Gordon, Donald Field, Peter Womble and Don Albrecht, 1981: Closing the Gates: A Study of Backcountry Use-Limitation at Mount McKinley National Park. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 249-268. _ _ _ _ _, and Donald R. Field, 1980: Structural Effects of National Parkgoing. Leisure Sciences. vol. 3:3, pp. 221-240. _ _ _ _ _, 1978: Visitors to National Parks: A Test of the Elitism Argument. Leisure Sciences. vol. 1:4, pp. 395-409. Burch Jr., William R., 1981: The Ecology of Metaphor -- Spacing Regularities for Humans and Other Primates in Urban and Wildland Habitats. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 213-230. Burke D.G., E.J. Meyers, R.W. Tiner, and H. Groraan. 1988: Protecting nontidal wetlands. American Planning Association. Report No. 412/413. 76 pp. Citizens League, 1989: Losing Lakes: Enjoyment of a Unique Metropolitan Resource is Threatened. 30 pp. City of Madison, 1986: Inventory of Existing Recreational Facilities on the Yahara River Chain of Lakes. Department of Public Works, Parks Division. Madison, Wisconsin. City of St. Paul, Undated: Saint Paul Riverfront Iniiative. Department of Planning and Economic Development. Cochran, William G. and Cox, Gertrude M., 1958: Experimental Resigns. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Cordell, Harold K., 1976: The State-of-the-Art in Developing and Operating Intensive-Use Natural Resource Recreation Sites. Council of Planning Librarians. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979: Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Dawson, Chad P., Daniel J. Decker, David W. Lime, and Richard C. Knopf, 1981: Characterisitics and Management Preferences of 1979 Summer River Recreationists on the Upper Delaware River. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. Ithaca, New York. 31 pp. 1972 - The LMCD Code is adopted. Dillman, Don A., 1978: Mall and Telephone Surveys. John Wiley and Sons. Driscoll, E.D., D. DiToro, D. Gaboury, and P. Shelley. 1986. Methodology for analysis of detention basins for control of urban runoff quality. EPA 440/5/87-001. Driver, B.L. and R. C. Knopf, 1976: Temporary Escape: One Product of Sport Fisheries Management. Fisheries. 1(2):21, pp. 24-29. _ _ _ _, and John R. Bassett, 1975: Defining Conflicts Among River Users. A Case Study of Michigan's Au Sable River. Naturalist. 26:1, pp. 19-23. Ebbers, M.A., 1987: Vital statistics of a largemouth bass population in Minnesota from electrofishing and angler-supplied data. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 7:252-259. Echelberger, Herbert E., Donna Gilroy, and George Moeller, 1983: Recreation Research Publications Bibliography 1961-1982. U.S. Forest Service. Field, Donald R. and Joseph T. O'Leary, 1973: Social Groups as a Basis for Assessing Participation in Selected Water Activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 5 (Spring), pp 16-25. _ _ _ _ _, and Darryll R. Johnson, 1983: The Interactive Process of Applied Research: A Partnership Between Scientists and Park Resource Managers. Journal of the Park and Recreation Administration, vol. 1:4, pp. 18-27. _ _ _ _ _, Martha E. Lee, and Kristen Martinson, 1985: Human Behavior and Recreation Habitats: Conceptual Issues. In First North American Ripairan Conference. 16 pp. _ _ _ _ _, and Neil H. Cheek, Jr., 1974: A Basis for Assessing Differential Participation in Water-Based Recreation. Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 10:6, pp. 1218-1227. Foresta, Ronald A., 1984: America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Resources for the Future. Freshwater Foundation, 1985: A Citizen's Guide to Lake Protection. _ _ _ _ _, 1986: Water Values and Markets: Emerging Management Tools. Geneva Lake Environmental Agency, 1985: A Water Quality Management Plan for Geneva Lake. Wisconsin. GREAT I, 1980: A Study of the Upper Mississippi River. Nine volumes. Heberlein, Thoma.g A., 1977: Density, Crowding, and Satisfaction: Sociological Studies for Determining Carrying Capacities. Iq Proceedings: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC-28, pp. 67-76. Hickok, E.A. and Associates. 1987: Water Resources Management Plan. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. DRAFT. September 1987. Johnson, Darryll and Donald R. Field, 1981: Applied and Basic Social Research: A Difference in Social Context. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 269-280. Keast, A., 1984: The introduced aquatic macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Canadian Journal Zoology. 62:1289-1303. Kusler, J.A. 1983: Our national wetland heritage: A protection guidebook. The Environmental Law Institute. Washington, D.C. 167 pp. Knopf, Richard C., and David W. Lime, 1984: A Recreation Manager's Guide to Understanding River Use and Users. U.S. Forest Service. 86 ^ Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, 1972: Recreation Policy. _ _ _ _, 1972: Storm Water Run-Off and Shoreland Guidelines Policy Statement. _, 1973: _, 1974: . 1979: Boat Density Policy Statement. Report of the "1999" Conference. A Comprehensive Lake Management Plan-Program for Lake Minnetonka. _ _ _ _ _, 1980: Lake Dredging Policy. _ _ _ _ _, 1982: Lake Management Program Priorities. _ _ _ _ _, 1985: Summary of Planning Conference, November 15-16, 1985. _ _ _ _ _, 1986: Boating on Lake Minnetonka in 1986. Biocentric, Inc. _ _ _ _ _, 1988: Boating on Lake Minnetonka in 1987. Biocentric, Inc. _ _ _ _ _, 1988: Draft Standard Slip Size Policy. _ _ _ _ _, 1989: Code of Ordinances. Lake Minnetonka Task Force, 1983: Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. Leathfrman, Stephen P., Paul J. Godfrey, and P.A. Buckley, 1978: Management Strategies for National Seashores, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Planning and Mangeraent. San Francisco, pp. 322-337. Lime, David, 1976: Principles of Recreation Carrying Capacity. In Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research Applications Workshop. Asheville, North Carolina. _ _ _ _ _, and George H. Stankey: Carrying Capacity: Maintaining Outdoor Recreation Quality. RWU-1903 Pub. H06, pp. 174-184. Machlis, Gary E., Field, Donald R., and Campbell, Fred, 1981: The Human Ecology of Parks. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 195-212. Manfredo, Michael J., B.L. Driver, and Perry J. Brown, 1983: A Test of Concepts Inherent in Experience Based Setting Management for Outdoor Recreation Areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 15:3, pp. 263-283. Manning, Robert E., 1986: Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Oregon State University Press. Martinson, K.S., and D.R. Field, 1985: People, Human Behavior and Water-Based Recreation: A Working Bibliography. Oregon State University, 46 pp. Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979. A Cooperative Program for Providing Public Access Sites on Metropolitan Area Lakes. Metropolitan Council, 1975: Recommendations for Critical Area Designation of the Mississippi River Corridor. St. Paul, Minnesota. 84 pp. _ _ _ _ _, 1984: Community Profiles: Housing, Population and Households. St. Paul, Minnesota. _ _ _ _ _, 1985: Per Capita Income, 1979 and 1985, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. St. Paul, Minnesota. _ _ _ _ _, 1986: Report to the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka. _ _ _ _ _, 1988: Employment Trends in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1980-1987. Publication No. 620-89-044. St. Paul, Minnesota. _ _ _ _ _, 1988: Population and Housing Estimates. St. Paul, Minnesota. 1987 - The last waste treatment plant discharge is diverted from the Lake Minnetonka basin. 1Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 1977: Baseline Environmental Inventory: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1977. 201 Facility Study. St. Paul, Minnesota. Mikol, G.F., 1985: Effects of harvesting on aquatic vegetation and juvenile fish populations at Saratoga Lake, New York. Journal of Aquatic Plattt Management. 23:59-63. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1987: Draft Water Resources Management Plan. Eugene A. Hickok and Associates. 1987. Wayzata, Minnesota. . 1969: Overall Plan for Water Management. . 1986: Rules. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 1988: Nonregulatory wetland protection options. St. Paul, MN, 17 pp. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1970. Fisheries lake survey. Unpublished. . 1977. Fisheries lake survey. Unpublished. A creel census of Lake Minnetonka from May 17 to October Metro Fisheries Regional Report No. 2 (Fish Management 2). 69 pages. A Management Plan for Afton State Park. St. Paul, 1978. 1975.19. Report No. . 1979: Minnesota. . 1981:A Management Plan for William O'Brien State Park. St. Paul, Minnesota. _, 1982: Draft Minnesota Water Surface Use Restriction Summary. , 1982. Fisheries lake survey. Unpublished. , 1983: Minnesota Water Surface Use Statutes and Rules. . 1984:An Evaluation of Water Surface Use of Lakes in the Metropolitan Area. , 1984. Lake management plan. Unpublished. _ _ _ _ _, 1985: An Evaluation of Water Surface Use of Lakes in Central Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota. _ _ _ _ _, 1987: A Selective Look at Boating Patterns and Boater Attitudes in Three Minnesota Lake Regions. _ _ _ _ _, 1987: Boating Patterns on the Lower St. Croix River. _ _ _ _ _, 1987. Fisheries lake survey. Unpublished. _ _ _ _ _, 1987: Lake Development. _ _ _ _ _, Undated: Metro Area Rivers Guide. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1971: A Program for Preserving the Quality of Lake Minnetonka. , 1988: Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Report. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Program Development Section, Division nc Water Quality. Minnesota Rules, 1987. Volumes 4 and 6. Minnesota Rules, 1988 Supplements. Minnesota State Planning Agency, 1984: Land use data base from 1984 aerial photographs. Land Management Information Center. Minnesota Statutes, 1988. 10 volumes. Minnesota Statutes, 1989 Supplements. National Park Service, 1976: Final Master Plan, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Minnesota and Wisconsin. . 1981: General Management Plan, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. Michigan. National Recreation and Park Association, 1975:Park Planning Guidelines. 88 Nordstrom, Karl F. and Norbert P. Psuty, 1980: Dune District Management: A Framework for Shorcfront Protection and Land Use Control. Coastal Zone Management Journal. vol. 7:1, pp. 1-23. Ohmann, Lewis F. , 1974: Ecological Carrying Capacity. Ijq Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying the Results, pp. 24-28. Peterson, George L. and David W. Lime, 1979: People and Their Zehavior: A Challenge for Recreation Management. Journal of Forestry, vol. 77:6, pp. 343-346. Philley, M. Peter, and Stephen F. McCool, 1981: Law Enforcement in the National Park System: Perceptions and Practices. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 355-372. Runte, Alfred, 1979: National Parks: The American Experience. University of Nebraska Press. Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984: An overview of major wetland functions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/18. 68 pp. Seltzer, E.M. and R.E. Steinberg. 1987: Wetlands and private development. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 12, No. 2, pages 159-201. Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1971: Wetlands of the United States: Their extent and their value to waterfowl and other wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Circular 39. 67 pp. Shelby, Bo, 1981: Research Politics, and Resource Management Decisions: A Case Study of River Research in the Grand Canyon. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 281-296. Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G., 1967: Statistical Methods. Sixth Edition. Iowa State University Press. SPSS, Inc., 1987: SPSS/PC+ User Manual. Chicago, Illinois. Stankey, George H. and Stephen F. McCool, 1984: Proceedings-Syraposiura on Recreation Choice Behavior. U.S. Forest Service. Task Force for the Future of the Lake George Park, 1985: The Plan for the Future of the Lake George Park. Tiner, R.W. 1984: Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Gov't. Printing Cffice, Washington, D.C. 59 pp. U.S. A.rmy Corps of Engineers, 1978: Water-Oriented Recreational Demand and Projections: Calculations for Western Lake Superior. St. Paul District. _ _ _ _ _, 1982: Wisconsin River at Portage, Wisconsin Institutional Analysis. St. Paul District. _ _ _ _ _, 1987: Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army. Technical Report Y-87-1. 100 pp. U.S. Coast Guard, 1981: Results of the Effectiveness Assessment of Boat Traffic Management Techniques for Recreational Waters. Boston U.S. Operations, Randolph, Massachusetts. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures. Washington, D.C. _, 1984: Comprehensive Plan Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area and State Trail. With the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 89 1988 - The "Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka" is undertaken by loc’>J, regional and state organizations. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983: Economic and Environmental Principlesand Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implenentation Studies. Department of the Interior. Van Wagtendonk, Jan W., 1981: The Effect of Use Limits on Backcountry Visitation Trends in Yosemi*:e National Park. Leisure Sciences. vol. 4:3, pp. 311-324. Walker, W.W. 1989. PONDNET.WKl - Flow and Phosphorus Routing in Pond Networks. Program Documentation. Version 2.1 - March 1919. William W. Walker, Environmental Engineer. Wentz, A.W. Undated: Wetlands values and management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Weston, Roy F., Inc., 1981: Recreational Boating Use Patterns During 1981, Lower Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LAKE MINNETONKA APPENDICES Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Authority Definitions Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Standards and Criteria A. AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVE of Mlnn«»ot* st*tut*« indlc«t*« that th« L*#lalatur« intandi for lak* managamant in Mlnnaaota, and apaciflcaLly for Laka Minnatonka. to ba a partnarshlp batwaan various institutions with individual Lagislativa aandatas. Individual stats and ragional agancias as wall as ounicipalitiss havs ovsrlapping and Boaatifflaa distinct authority ovar tha laka and its shoralins. Laka Managaatant Districts, whathar undar tha LMCD statutas or undar tha powars of countias, ara obvious machanisiiis providad to astablish that partnarship. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Laka Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) was fonnad by tha Laws of 1987. Chaptar 907 as amandad. Tha district has extensive authority that includes loning of tha laka to control activities and types of watercraft, water surface use of tha lake (comparable to land use zoning on land), own real estate and property, as wall as to develop a plan for tha laka. With respect to laka use and laka access. Section 3 of that lagislation gives tha LMCD rather broad powars to: 1. ragulata tha types of boats pamitted to use tha Lake O.a.l) 2. sat service fees (3.a.2) 3. regulate, maintain and polica public beaches, public docks and other public facilities for accass to tha laka within tha municipalitias (3.b.l*/ 2) providad that any municipality by ordinance duly adopted within one year tharaaftar and specifically referring to such action may suparsada tha same within such municipality (3.b.2). (NOTE: Wa have not yet found evidence that any community took action on this provision within one year) 4. limit tha use of tha laka at various times (3.C.1), and various parts of tha laka (3.c.2). 3. ragulata tha spaed of boats on tha laka (3.d.l), and tha conduct of other activities on tha laka (3.d.2). 8. ragulata construction, installation and maintenance of penuanant and temporary docks and moorings conslstant with federal and state law (3.f), 7. ragulata da-icing systems (3.g.l) 8. ragulata conmarcial marinas and their related facilities. Including parking and sanitation (3.h) 9. to undertake research to determine tha condition and davalopraant of tha laka and tha water entering it (3.J). Section 3. tharafora, empowers tha LMCD to limit activities and types of watercraft that may enter and use the laka. These limits may include a. restricting tha use of certain types of boats, or banning their use. b. impose temporal zoning, a.g.. limiting use and certain activities to specific times of day rc times of year, c. set speed limits d. control special events Similarly, tha LMCD legislation includes tha power over public beaches and other public facilitlas for access to tha laka within municipalities. This power, however, has never been exercised. Further, tha LMCD has tha authority to regulate docks on tha laka including coomercial. nxiltlpla, homeowner associations and private riparian docks. When this is coupled with the general authority over use of tha Irka, it means that the LMCD can zone the surface of tha lake in the same way that a municipality may conduct land use zoning. Section 3.j. ••tablithei th# authority of th« LMCO to prepare the Management Plan for the lake. Other eectlone of the underlying legialation permita the district to hold real and personal property for its purposes and the power to enter into contracts (Section 6). Section 13. subd. I establishes the power to adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of Its establishment and the powers granted to the district. Consequently, there are few restrictions on the LMCD's authority to impose restrictions on the use of. or access to, the lake. However, there are other parallel authorities; the LMCO is mt the only other agency aaq^ared to be active on the lake in these areas. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Watershed Districts are established under Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 112. Lake Minnetonka coaprisas a part of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, and therefore, is subject to the statutory powers of the Watershed District. The implications for access to. and use of. Lake Minnetonka are that the Watershed Board has the power to; a. regulate the water level in the lake, subject to certain conditions. b. acquire, operate, construct and maintain flood control and water supply works. e. acquire by gift, purchase, or right of eminent domain necessary real estate and personal property, d. control the use and davelopraent of Land in the flood plain, greenbelt and open space areas of the district, subject to the limitation of section *73.877. (NOTE: That section Limits the watershed district authority over cities that have their own watershed manage^.nt planj. The statute gives the watershed district authority to regulate placement of fill, moo^ficatlon of flood plain lands and dredging of the lake and adjacent flood plain lands. Thus, creation of new access points to the lake require a permit from the watershed district. HENNEPIN COUNTY Under Minnesota law. counties are have extremely broad powers; powers that parallel or usurp those of other governmental units wholly or partially within the county. The discussion below is offered as background since the county, with access to significantly greater funding alternatives, represents an important implementing agency for lake access and lake use decisions. It should also be remembered that in Hennepin County, many or most of these powers reside with the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Board. 378.31 Water and related land resources mansgement. Provides that it is in the public interest to establish a statewide lake improvement program to (Subd. 1): 1} preserve the natural character of the Lakes and their shoreline environment as feasible and practical: 2) improve the quality of water of the lakes; 3> provide reasonable assurance of water quantity in lakes, where feasible nd practical; and A) to assure protectirn from human activities and certain natural rocasses. Subd. 2 grants powers to counties over lakes that ace not wholly within a lake conservation district established by law (LMCO). All prograas must be consistent with statewide and regional water and related land resources plans. This chapter generally parallels the authorities granted under the LMCO enabling legislation. The following cooparas the powers granted to the county and the power granted to the LMCO. Applicable Chapter Subd. Power County LMCO acquire lands for control works Subd. 3 Nona construct and operate control works Subd. «Nona change the course, c«irrent or cross section of weters Subd. 3 Nona improve navigation Subd. 3a Sect. 3 acquire land, equipownt or other facilities for navigation contract with any watershed district or county conservation district Subd. 3a Sect. 6 for improvements under chapters ^0 and 112 Subd. 6 Sect. 6 undertake research to 1) determine the condition and development of the body of water Subd. 7 Sect. 3 and water entering it;3(J) 2) develop a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution;3(J) 3) conduct a program of water improvement and conservation i) implement tha comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution Petition consistent with other statutes. receive financial assistance and Join in projects or enter into Partial contracts with other federal or state agencies maintain public beaches, public docks and other public facilities for Subd. S 3(k) access make cooperative agreements with federal, state, county orlocal entities for the purpose of effecting the provisions of this Subd. 9 3(b) section require that any projects to change the course, current or cross section be approved by the county before submitting the Subd. 10 3(e, i) S application to the cocmissionar of the DNR Subd. 11 The powers of the LMCO diverge from those granted to the county In some areas. The LMCO does not have the authority to acquire lands for control works; to construct and operate control works; to change the course, current or cross section of waters. It may, however, petition the watershed district or the county conservation district for these projects. Similarly, the LMCO does not have the authority to conduct a program of water Improvement and conservation except by petition to the watershed district and the county conservation district. Its authority to Implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution consistent with other statutes is only indirect; the powers reia». lo water surface access; use; dock construction, placement and use; and de-icing. The LMCD does not have review authority over dredging and filling as does the county. The statutory changes in the LMCD enabling lagislatlon necassary to make the county and LMCD powers parallel, under this chapter, need to consider the existence of the watershed district and its authority. If the authority over water level control remains with the watershed district, then the additional powers for the LMCD include: 1) implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution, and 2) review authority over dredge and fill applications. In these two areas, the watershed district has authority, but it seems reasonable to question whether the LMCO can truly accomplish its objectives without some change in authority in these areas. 378.32 Wattr Surfact Uaa Rasulations. Tha county board may adopt ordinancas that ragulata tha aurfaca uaa of watara altuatad wholly or in part within thair Juriadictlons, but not *«holly within a aingla city or laica conaaxvation diatrict. Howavar, If tha laka llaa within two countiaa, tha ordinanca muat ba adoptad by both county boarda prior to anforcaoMnt. Adoption by tha DNR givaa tha county tha authority to anforca auch rulaa. Propoaad aurfaca uaa zonin« ordinancaa ahall ba auboittad to tha coomiaaionar of tha DNR for ravlaw and approval prior to adoption. Tha coanlaaionar haa 120 daya to approva or dlaapprova (Subd. 1). Tha authority of tha county undar this chaptar and tha L.MCD ara parallal, with soma minor axcaptiona. Tha contrast is aho%»n balow; Authority proposad surfaco usa aoning ordinancas submlttad to tha DNR for ravlaw and approval prior to adoption ragulata and poliea public baacnas, public docks and othar public facllltlas for aceasa oiunicipalltlaa can praaopt tha county policing ragulata construction, configuration, sirs, location and maintananca of coonarclal marlnaa and thair ralatad facllltlas including parking araas and sanitary facilitias to ragulata docks and moorings to ragulata da-icing and vagatation removal to ragulata tha typa and siza of watercraft to sot access fees to limit tha types and horsepower of motors to limit tha time of use and the usa of various parts of the body of water to ragulata tha spaad of watarcraft and tha conduct of othar activltias to sacura tha safaty of tha public and tha most ganaral public usa to contract with othar law onforcaoant aganclas Applicable Chaptar Subd. County LMCD Subd.1 Not cited Subd.2 3(b) Subd.2 3(b) 1 yr Subd.3 3(h) Subd.4 3(f) Subd.3 3(g) Subd.6 3(a) Subd.6 3(a) Subd.7 Not cited Subd.8 3(c) Subd. 9 3(d) Subd. 10 3(a) Tha LMCD doas not saam to have tha restriction that Its ordinancas ba submitted to tha coirniisBionar of tha DNR for approval prior to implemantation. Thera is no specific citation to control of horsepower in tha LMCD enabling legislation, but such controls would saam to ba allowed undar 3(c) and 3(d). 378.321 Public access restrictions Tha county board must allow tha saraa typas and slzas of watarcraft and horsepower of motors to access and enter tha laka as ganarally sllowad to ba operated on the lake. Special use exceptions that ara not dependant on lakashora or property ownership may ba granted by permit. 378.401 to 378.38 Laka improvamant district act. Tha laka improvamant act defined undar these sections post-date tha LMCD enabling legislation. It appears that these sections ara modeled after tha LMCD act as amended. Tha one restriction placed on a county district is that its plans and certain actions must ba ravl»«-d by tha commissioner of tha DNR prior to implementation. LAKESHORE HUNICIPAHTIES Tha lA lakaahota coonunitlaa hava broad powara c.o manasa tha upland araas of tha laka. Thay hava tha fUndaaantal authority to control davalopoMnt and land uaa changaa through planning, zoning and fomatlon of spaelai uaa diatrlcta. Tha authority of cltlaa ovar public watara la llnitad by M.S. *59.20 which granta tha aana powara to citlaa aa la raaarvad for countlaa In Chaptar 378, axcapt that a laka Impcovaaant dlatrlct haa pracadanca ovar ona forawd by cltlaa. For Laka Mlnnatonka, thla naan a that tha citlaa owy daval. *-ka on tha lakaahora, but awy not hava activa ragulatory prograaw balow alavation 929.* without .ant of tha LMCO. At tha aama tima, tha LMCO haa authority ovar parka and public landa uaad for aecaaa to tha laka that haa navar baan ^avlaaantad. REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT (Hennepin County) Tha Bannapin county park raaarva dlatrlct owy axarciaa tha powara of a municipality undar chaptar 118, wha< aaa tha LMCO doaa not hava thoaa powara. Aa a municipality, tha park district has broad authority ovar all typaa of sbora'baaad racraatlon. Its powara ovar tha water surface ara n»ra rastrictad. For axaopla, it doaa not hava tha authority to police tha laka surface. That power rasldaa with tha County Sheriff. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Tha Metropolitan Council’s underlying legislation is contained in H.S. chapter *73. Tha council is est bliahed to coordinata tha planning and development In the seven county area. Of particular intarast to thia subcoflnittae is the agency’s powers for funding and ravlaw ralatlva to recreation. Tha intaraat of tha Metropolitan Council ralatlva to regional racraatlon open space means lands anu waters or Interests tharaln that ara determined to be of regional Importance. On Laka Mlnnatonka, the laka itself has not been so designated. However, the public properties on Big Island and the proposed access redesign at the Highway. 101 causeway ara so designated. Tha regional park proposed by Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Dlitrict also has been designated as regionally significant. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Tha Department of Metural Resources has the most extensive authority over recreational uaa of, and accasa to, Laka Minnetonka, Hot all of the powers of the DKR ara appllcabla to tha LMCO sinca it is a stata agancT aatabliahad by separata statuta. Bowavar, ravlaw of tha DHR’s authority and ragulatory programs ovar othar local units of govammant help estahllsh tha limits to laka accasa and usa controls. For laka access, two references exist in the Minnesota Statutes. Tha first is In chapter 97A.1AI. That section provides that the commissioner of the DNR shall acquire and maintain access sites, as -*tl as .i •asMimts and rlghti-o£-w«y nacaisary to cennact to public highways. An accass sita cannot axcaad savan acras and may only ba acqulcad whara accass is Inadaquata. Tha sacond rafacanca to public accass is In 103.391 which glvas tha DNR tha authority to limit accass to watlands If praaarvatlon or protactlon is warcantad. Chaptar 103 Division of Watars, Soils and Mlnacals This chaptar of tha statutaa grant tha DRR similar, or avan mora axtansiva powars than thosa granted to tha watarshad district for dradging, filling, dlvarsion or uaa of watars of tha stata. Includad in tha authority ara: 1. tha usa, allocation and control of public watara and watlands, 2. astabllshmant, malntananca, and control of laka lavals, and 3. tha datarmlnatlon of tha ordinary ilgh water (OBW) laval of public watars and watlands. Section 103.*2 aatabllshaa tha authority and procaduras for pannits to work in public watars. Includad la tha autV-aclty to raqulra that illegal actions ba restored to tha original condition (105. <*61). Chaptar 361 Waters and Watercraft Safety Tha regulation of watercraft is contained in ihia chapter of tha statutaa. The definition of a watercraft la "any contrivance used or design'd for navigation on water other than (a) duck boat during tha duck hunting season, (b) rice boat d..i;ing the harvest season, or (c) seaplane. Tha chaptar provides for license fees and registration (361.03). Tha provision that requires a manufacturer's identification number is absent from this chapter. Thus, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles can ba traced by the manufacturer's number but watercraft cannot. Other provisions of the act regulate the age of power boat operators, obstructions to navigation, swimming and bathing areas, scuba diving, water skiing, craft capacity, usa of alcohol and controlled substances, satety equipment and lights. In addition, nolsa is controlled by statute to tha extent that: 1) oufflars ara required which adequately supprasses tha sound; cutouts ara not penalttad, 2) nolsa Ilailts cannot bo exceeded under any condition of load, acceleration or dacaleratlon, 3) new engines must meet tha noise standards established in the act, 4) modification or operation of engines modified to amplify or increase the noise level Is not permitted, 3) sale and installation of parts that increase tha nolsa laval is prohibited, as well as operating a boat equipped with such parts, and 6) the noise limits ara: a) boats manufactured before January 1, 1962 - 84 decibels, b) boats manufacturad on or after January 1, 1962 - 82 decibels. Exceptions ara provided for under permit to cover regattas, races, or trial runs. Enforcement of these provisions is given to the Sheriffs, conservation officers and county boards under 361.24. Cectlon 361.25 gives t>a Coomlssioner of tha OMR broad authority over local agendas that ara Involved in Laka usa. Tha legislation calls for promulgation of rules that include tha following (as wall as others); 1) placM«nt «»<! regulation of docks, pisrs and buoys, 2) Boorings oc sarklng devices, 3) otbsx structures In the waters of the state. O e<iuipBent used in towing of persons on water-skis, aquaplanes, surfboards, saucers and other devices, 3) designation of swinnlng or bathing areas. 6) standards for operation of watercraft offared for cent, lease, or hire, 7) use of surface waters including but not llailted to; a) standards and criteria for resolving conflicts In use, b) procedures for local enforcoaant. and c) procedurea for such other rules deaated necessary by the Coonlssloner. Section 361.26 provides for local ordinances in effect prior to January 1, 1972 to renain In affact until repealed or superseded by a ruls of the coonlsslonsr. As iBiploBantad by Minnesota Rules, 6110.3000 to 6110.3800 (Water Surface Use Management), even mors restrictions are imposed on use managaaiant. Under chapter 361.23 the Coonlssloner is ampoweead to regulate: type and size of watercraft, type and horsepower of motors, speed of watercraft, time of use, area of use, and conduct of other activities an the water body *d>ete necessary to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use. These regulations shall be imposed by a local unit of government. The goals of use management are; a. where practical and feasible, accoonudate all compatible recreational uses, b. minimize adverse Impact on natural resources. 0. minimise conflicts between users In a way that provides for maximum use, safety and enjoyment; and d. conform to the standards set in part 6110.3700. The managamant standards are promulgated in 6110.3700 that apply to any government unit subject to the provisions of 361.23. Some of these are of interest to Lake Minnetonka whether or not they directly apply: 1. watercraft type and size, 2. motor type and size, 3. direction travel (if limited, then counterclockwise). 1. speed limits shall use one or more of those cutoffs: a. slow-no wake, in no cases greater than 3 mph, b. 13 mph e. 10 mph time controls must use one or more of these periods; a. sunrise to sunset or sunset to sunrise the day following, b. 9:00 am to 6:00 pm or 6:00 pm to 9:00 am the day following, 0. noon to 8:00 pm or 8:00 pm to noon the following day, or d. all 21 hours of the day. controls must be in effect during one of the following; a. all year, b. Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day waekand, or e. on all weekends and legal holidays occurring within Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend. 3. 8. 7. controls msy bs piscsd on wstsrcrsft bassd on spscifle watsr •Isvatlons 8. araa controls nay ba toiposad 9. conduct of other actlvitlas aay ba raatrlctad If they confona to tho purposas of usa manacasMnt (8110.3200) LMCO haa Its omq statutory standint; thasa ragulatlons ara in addition to. and do not supplant, tha axlatint Laka Hinnatonka ratulations. To tha axtant that it ia advantataous to utiliaa this chaptar of tha statutaa, tho provisions ara availablo providad that tha raviaw and approval of tha Coaaissionar of tha on is sought and racaivad. But tho LMCO doas not appaar to naad thasa authoritias. A-8 B. DEFINITIONS Th« foLIowin« daflnltiont asplaln how cartaln k«y t«nn* »r» u*«d in thi« document; Aeeoss: Thor* «ra dlfforont w*y» of sceoasln^ iho l*k». Manasins asanoiaa sooMtlaaa dafina thaaa tama dXffacantly. To aaaura undaratandln^ of how thaaa tanas ara usad, tha Coliowinj daflnitiona ara proiontod. Dofinitlons of hi»hllghtad tana art Ilstad aiphahaticaliy b^low. Tha dafiolttona ara priaarily darlvad froa tha way In which data wara collactad by tha DNR In 198* and uaad atain In tha 19M uaa study aponaozad by tha LMCD. Whlla aowa oay not ba tha most daslrabla. bom do rapraaant tha oparational daflnitiona darlvad fro® tha 198* OMK study. 7)iaxa axa two typaa of accaas to tha laka: 1) sanaral public accaaa and 2) riparian aecaas. 1. GoMxal Public Aecaas: Thara ara two typaa of «ana al public accaaa: 1) ranpad accaas and 2) aazlna/yacht club accaaa. a. Snpad Accaaa: Thara arc two types of ranpad accaaa: 1) fraa ranpad accaaa and privata raopad accaas. 1) Fraa BMpad Accaaa 2) Privata Batiad Accaaa b. Marlna/Tacht Club Accaaa 2. Upariaa Accaaa a. Privata Riparian Aecaas b. BoMownar Association Accaaa e. Manicipal Access Active Boats: An active boat is on tha laka and away fro® it* point of accaaa to tha laka. Thia maana that activa boats include rafted or beached boats, those ooorad at transient docks, ax>vinA boats, boats dead in tha water away fro® shore, or any other boat that is not a* us cuatonary storage location. It doaa not iocluda boats occupying sarvica docks or that ar« ..copying a dock that la othsrwisa uaad by a different boat. Thia definition arplaina tha oannar in which boats ware counted la the DKR and LMCO atudiaa of 198* and 1986, ApartasBt: On Laka Hinnatonka, a for® of restricted riparian accaaa. where tha right to store a boat on the laka arises fro® rental of an apartoant unit and rental of a dock at tha property. Baachins/Raftint: An popular activity on so®a parts of tha laka where boats anchor or ooor thair boats near shore or on baachaa, islands and sandbars. Frao'iantly, boats ara tied together (raftinf). Boat: Any vassal, watercraft, canoe, raft, barge, sailboard, personal watercraft, hovercraft or any Biailaz device uaad or usable for carrying and transporting parsons on the laka. Saa Baatrietad Uatascrafb. Boffar Zona: A 130 foot tona along tha lakaahora that is raaovad fro® ganaral use by tha cruising boaters and aatablishad ae a quiet water area by LMCO regulation. Any alnlM® waka activity, such as fishing, is allowed. Fraa rafrl Accaas: Accaas through a boat ramp that is publicly owned and where thara is no faa for launching tha boat. Ganaral Boatins Laka; A lakn that is nanagad to provide for all forms of boating, including, but not llaitad to cruising by i.all or power boats, racing by aailboata, fishing, canoeing, aailboarding, use of personal watercraft, paddle boating, tubing, use of rafts, as wall sa such aaaoeiatad activities as aooring, haaching and rafting. GMiaral FubUo Aseasa: Accaas to tha laka for privata racraational boats by parsons who do not uaa riparian property ownarahip as tha naans of placing tu-**- boat on tha lake; naasurad on the basis of boat ownership. General public accaaa includes Ranpad Access and Marina/Yacht Club Access. This definition is not antlrsly consistent with tha 198* DMR study. Grose Lake Surface (Acres): Tha gross laka surface la 1*0*3 acres as maasurad below elevation 929.* in a previous study for tha J«). Cross acres include all acreage of tha individual bays and lakes coa^iriaing Laka Minneto.iks. Individual Riparian Access; A synonym for Privata Riparian Access. Aasociatlon: On Lftk* Minnetonka, a s^'oup of ho(a«o»m«ra using dead rastrlctlona {•asasanta, covanants) to gain right of accass to tha lake for maintaining boat storage. These are normally outlets In tha case of subdivisions and coomon property at condoalnlvasa. This group Includes; 1} condoalnivaBS, 2) subdivisions where purchase of a rasldanca give the owner part ownership In a riparian outlet with a multiple dock, 3} groups of riparian home owners who for one reason or another have a llcanaed multiple dock, and «) at least two multiple docks which actually function as restricted access rights for non-lakeshore residents. Lekmahore Resldaot; A member of a household that rents or owns a hooe with lake frontage, Itoiafllnn Ekititiaa; Any State, Regional or local govemotental or quasi-govemmantal unit that la active in managing the lake. These Include tha ONR. Metropolitan Council. Hennepin County. Suburban Batwapln Parks. Mlmahaha Creak Watershed District, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and tha la municipalities, among others. Karina: A coomercial boat-storage business enterprisa that la operated for profit. Marina/Taebt Club Acoaaa: Accass to tha lake from slips or mooring provided to tha boat owners Irrsspactlva of tha location of their residence at one of tha coasarelsl marinas or at yacht clubs on tha lake. Hultlpla Dock: A dock llcansad by tha LMCD, constructed end maintained for tha storage of five or more watercraft, other than coomarclal docks. Huniclpal Access: Access for private recreational boats from riparian lands owned by one of the 14 municipalities on tha lake. In practice these docks, slides or lifts are rented to residents of the owning municipality whether or not there Is a formal policy of restricting tha use to residents. Ho city rants a sl^p that is not either to tha landowner or to the laseedlete family of a landowner in the city. ■ozmal High tisa Period The most popular boating times, generally between 11:00 am and 4:00 pm In June, July and August th«t Include only pleasant, fair weather weekend days and exclusive of holidays. Sea also Peak Use. Ordinary High Hater: Tha a 'eraga level of Lake *^innetonka under normal high water conditions. Dsflnad by regulation as elavs<.l«.F. 9J0.4. Peak Oaa: Tha average number of active boets on summer weekends during tha hours of maxlmuB host use snd sxclusivs of holldsy waskands. These counts hsva bsen made In prsvious studias only on plsasant waakand days In tha montha of June, July and August. Peak Oaa Boura: Peak use hourt are defined In previous studies aa being between 11:00 am snd 4:00 pm. Thass are tha hours of suximum usa for any day. Private Bampad Access: Aecasa through a private boat ratsp where there la a fas for launching the boat or for parking tha earStrailar. Privata Rlparlas Aecasa: Sea Riparian Aecasa. Public Aceaaa: Aecaaa to the lake that la Indapandant of property ownership or rental. Public accaaa la equally available to the general public, without prafaranca or discristinstlon, who era willing to pay at-market faaa or is aval Labia at no charge. Sea Ramped Public Accass, Marinaa, Yacht Clubs. Ramped Accaaa: Boat accaaa to tha Lake from a public or private boat raap. This is conaistant with tha lflB4 DHR data collection. Wmsgisil Pubilo Accaaa: Aecasa to tha lake for trailarsd boats. Rampac .\iblic Access may or may not include a launching, parking or shuttia fas. Baatrlctad Rlparlma Accaaa; Access rights or host storage rights for owners of non-riparian property that are created by a legal Inattumant, membership in a privata organisation, or raaldanca in a riparian coasaunlty. Sea alao Apartment, Homaownar Aaaoclatlon, Municipal Accaaa. Raatrictad Hatarcraft: Any boat or vaaaal for uaa on or itorad on tha public waters on the lake except for boats or vassals which are 18 feat or Lasa in length, and which are non-motor lead or which usa motors of 10 horsepower or Laaa. t B-2 mparlM Acc«M: 1. Ai.c«>s to tho Lako tor boating by parsons «*ho usa indlvtduaily-ownad riparla4i proparty to placa tha*r boat on tba laka. On Laka Minnatnnka tMa includaa non-rtparlan boat ownara Mbo rant or otbarwiaa us%- sLlpa. docks or noorinaa at privata riparian proparty. Thus, tho boat nay or nay not bo oMnad by tba l.ndownar; tha slip nay or nay not ba rantad to tha uaar. This la a part of tha IMt Din 'riparian accaaa . 2. Aeeaaa to tho laka for prlvato racraatlonal boats that la baaad an oanarablp of riparian (lakoahora) land. Tha osmarahlp nay ba Individual, sharad (at aandaniniuM or ^partnanta or honoounor assoclatlona) or nunlclpal. This is how tho I9M DNK study aparatianaily dafinod and naaaurad riparian accaaa. That la, tha 198« Dm study and tha UCO 1M0 study naaaurad riparian accaaa as tha of prlvato riparian accaaa, henaosmar aasoelatien accaaa and nunlcipai accaaa. Thaaa atudlaa do not dlffarantlata batwaon thasa foma of accsss. ftipaclai LaMto; Lakaahora proparty; Lands that abut tha laka. Riparian land nay ba uaod for rasldantial. conaacelal, watar-orlantad connarclal, public or nanufscturln« purpoaaa on tha laka. aaa*la L^a Sorfaca (Acras); Tha uaabla laka surfaco la 11,800 acraa. Usabls acraa dalataa acras of watar that la unavatlabla to tha lanaral beatlnt public bacausa of ratulatlon or navigatloa haaarda. UhlLa flahlnc boats oftan usa thosa acraa conaldarad not uaabla, t«B*ral, erulslns, boatara do not. Flahlnt la not a significant activity during tha paak usa hours. Ynaht CI«A: A privata organisation with opan nanbarahip that also constmcta and SMlntains docks or noorlnga for ln*watar atotaga for mono of thalr nawbara' boats. On Laka Hlnnatonka, thaaa bartha aro uaually offarad at boiow^narkat prlcas. B-3 Arrama c OTUan SZMDMM AW OUTOUA STAMMRM AMD OUtniA A. Laid U»« Zoiiin« District* that ar* lapIcMiitcd within L*k* Hinnctoak* shorclaid* aid fit on* of th* (oilowln« diitrictc: 1) ^**1*1 r<ot*ctleo Olatrict. Doscclptlen: wotland*; w*t Mil*; *t**p dop**: floodln*; inadoqxiat* drain***; lovor* oroaion potantlai; pr*a*nc* of hiatorle •it*s, biolotieal or natural eharactaristics; or any othac faatur* iat*xfat*BC* with which is Liksly to b* hacnfuL to th* h*aith. >*f*ty or walfar* of th* raaldontt of th* ooaaaity. 2) Lak* Nlnaatonka H*sld*ntial District. Daacrlptlon: low danaity, sin*i* faaily s*«sonai and y*ar-round t*sld*ntlal ua*a in ordar to prosarv* azlatlnA livin* cpialitiaa and aaanitlaa; to «lnisilt* traffic; and to pravont altaratlon* of stmeturaa which would daaa** th* charactar or daalrabiUty of ariatln* caaldantlal areas. Prohibit ■adiua and hlth danaity residantlal sa wall as ostabliataMnt of various coaMrcial. Industrisl and othar usas la thaa* area* that causa conflicts or problaas for rasidontlai use*. 3) Oh* to Four Unit Rasidantlsi District. Dascriptlon: parait aaistln* Low and aadluM danaity aaaaonsl and yaar'round rsaidaotial uaaa on Lands auitahla for ouch uaaa to continue. Pravant sstahLlshawnt of coMsarciai, industrial, and othar uaaa In thaaa areas that causa conflicts or problcaw for caaidantial use*. Sow* non~r*sidantlal uses with winiwal inpacta on residantlal uses are ailowod If properly wanatad under conditional usas procedures. 4) Five to Thalvo Unit Rasidantlsi District. Daacrlptlon: Pomit aaistind aross adjacent to eosaaorcisl canters in which hither danaity housin* in hultlpla fawily structures has slraady bean dsvolopad. Othac eoaipatibl* uaaa such as raaidantial plamad unit davalophont, aurfsca*w*t*r oriented eoaiD*rcial, Biultlpls unit ■mala faaily, parks, historic aitaa, and aaai'public, ar* also allowad as conditional uses. 5) Watac'Oriantad Coaaasrelsl District. Osscription: Provlda for aziatina or future cci functionally dependant on such close proziaity. irclal use* adjacent to tha Lak* that ac* 8) Ganaral Ua* Diatrict. Daacription: for lands already davslopad or pcaaantly sonad for davalopaant with concentrated urban, particularly coaBarclal, land uaaa. Connarclal planned unit davalopaMnta are allowad in this district if handled sa conditional usas. Tha intent of tha Standards and Criteria la that there will be no new ccaaMreial arses added that do not already aziat Laksahor* eoeaMrcial activity shall b* lijBitad to wat*c*orlant*d actlvitiaa. B. Allowabl* use* within each Zonln« Olatrict within Lake Hlnnatonka ahoralands arst local Aeveenwanta way prohibit on* or *er* of those listed}. (Individual 1) Spaclal Protection District. Ua* Forest aunacawant Sanaitiv* raaeurca wanaaaaMnt Africultur* Parka and historic aitaa Raaidantial Statua Parauttsd Panaittad Psrziittad Conditional us* Conditional uaa C-l 2) Lake Kinn«tonka Rasidantlal Tistric^V«* Slnflc fMlly caaidantlal Public and aaai-publie Parks and historic sites Sindla-fanlLy casidantlal PUD at saoa dansity Status Parmittad Conditional usa Conditional lss Conditional < as 3} Ona to Pour Unit Rasldant I District Usa Status 8ln*ia-family Permitted Duplex Permitted Triplex Permitted Quad Permitted Forest nanatament Permitted Public and saml-publie Conditional uao parka and historic sites Conditional uaa Raaldantial PUD at saao density Conditional jae 4} Fiva to Twelve Unit Realdential District. Use Status Sln«ls family Permitted Duplex Permitted Triplex Permitted Quad Permitted Six to twelve unit residential Permitted Forest manasement Permitted Water-oriented conaarclal Permitted Reaidontial PUD at same density Permitted Coo»ereial PUD Permitted Public and semi-public Conditional uae Parks and historic sites Condi t lone*.use 5) Water-Oriented Ccoaerclal District Use Status Water-oriented coasBercial Permitted Forest manasenent Permitted Coaaercial Conditional usa Coasaercial PUD Conditional uee Public and saml-publie Conditional uaa Parks and historic sites Conditional uae 6) General Use District. (Used only to avoid non-conformini developed.) land usea No new Use Status Conaerclal Permitted Water-oriented coaserclal Permitted Forest nanegenant Permitted Beaitb care facllitiea Permitted Institutional Permitted ComaMrcial PUD Conditional use Residentisl PUD Conditional uae Public and sami-public Conditional use Parks and historic sites Conditional use C-2 '-I C. Minimum lot oiso iholl not d*C£«a»* i iho l*k*»hor# Th.* ttand*rd» «nd crit»ri« b«*sw «£• d««l«n«d to proofturo eltlos to tncxaoao, not dacxaaaa lot »ixaa wharavar tha praaant nai*hborhood itandarda faiia balow 13.000 aquara faat.. Individual local tovarnmanta may ba mora raatrictiva: all auat maraca to thaaa valuaa with daviationa no Lo*»ar than 60 parcant of tha valuaa ihotm for lota of cacord whan tha Local ocdlnanca la adoptad whara it would alao ineiuda ain^la family lota aa Ions •• it doaa not Incraaaa tha non-conformity. Tha alntla-fanily minimum It-t atandard it 19,000 aquara faat, azcapt that Excalaior, Mound and Spring Park may hava 10,000 aquara faat. Tha axcaption for thoaa thraa Lakaahora coaunitiaa la providad in racosnitior of tha axtanaiva davalopmant that haa alraady occurrad thara. Howavar. thoaa thraa cooaaunltlaa ara axpactad to mova toward tha 19,000 aquara foot atandard aa radavalopnant occura. 1) Limita on lot araa, minimum width and aatback ara: Diatrlet Spaciai Protaction Diatrlet Raatdantial Hlnianj (aq. ■ Araa ft.) Hinii aum Width (ft.) Shoralina 13,000 79 Shoraland 10,000 73 Laka Mlnnatonka Rosldontiai Diatrlet Sln«Io family Shoralina 19,000 79 Shoraland 10,000 79 (3r.a to Pour Unit Raaldontial District (Shoralina and Shoraland) Slntla family 19,000 79 Dupiax 16,000 100 Tnplax 30,000 190 Quad SO.000 200 Fiva to Twalva Unit \aaidantial District (Shoralina and Shoraland) Sintlw faulty 19,000 73 Ouplax 16,000 100 Triplax 30.000 190 Quad 40.000 200 Six to twalva units 19,000'unit 230 Sanarai Uaa District Raaidantiai PUD 19.000/unit 290 2) Satbacka on alL aawsrtd lota ahall ba 90 faat. For unaawarad lota tha aatback ihall ba faat. 0. Guaat cotta|aa (M R. 6120.3300 aubp 2 C> muat maat tha local coonunity atandarda baaad on raatcictint uaa to ahort-tarm viaita by (uaata and family aa a conditional uaa aubjact to tha limita iaqmaad by I and C aunra. (Individual local tovarnmanta may ba mora raatrictiva). E. Bluff impact lonaa (M.R 6120.3300 aubp 3 C) Structuraa and accaaaory facilitiaa. axcapt atairwaya and landinga muat not ba placad within bluff impact sonaa. f. All accaaaory atructutaa (M.R. 6120.3300 aubp. 3 H) muat moat or axcaad atructura aatback standard! G. Watar-oriantad accaoBory itructuraa or facilitiaa, othar than docks, ara prohibitad. C-3 H Local govarnmant officials musL avaluata potsibla soil arcsicn iispacta and davalopmant visibility fron public watars bafora issuir.g a panelt for construction of ta«aga ttaatnant lystoos. roads, drivaways, or othar ifflpcovamanta on staap slopas. Whan datarainad nacassary, conditions must ba attachad to issuad pamits to pravant arosion and to prasarva aslsting vagatatlon scraanlng of structutas. vahiclaa, and othar facilitias as viawad froa tha surfaca of pubic watars, asButsing suonar, laaf-on vagatatlon. I. Stairways, lifts and landln«s (MR. 6120.3300 subp. 3 I) ara prafarrad to major topographic altarations and must maat tha following dasign raqulraaianta: 1) stairways and lifts must not axcaad four fast in width on rasldantlai lota. 2) raquirad stairway landings must not axcaad four fast in width and 32 tquara faat on rssidantial lots. 3) canoplas or roofs ara not allowad on stairways, lifts or landings. *) construction nuat assura control of soil aroalen. 3] must ba locatad In tha most inconspicuous portion of tha lot. as viawad froa tha watar surfaca, whanavar practical. J. Docks (M.R. 6120.3300 subp. 3 J) must maat tha satback standards of tha local govammant. K. Bulla ng halgbta ara llaitad aa follows: 1) In Rasldantlai Districts and Watar-Orlantad Comarclal Districts and for casldantlal structures In othar districts, building height Is llmitad to three levels visible from tha lake or 35 faat, . hichavar is lower. 2) Cotmarclal structures in a Ganaral Usa District shall not axcaad *0 faat In height. 3) Bui ding height Is to ba measured according to tha procaduras in tha Uniform Building Coda, axcait that tha Lowaat point will ba tha basia for maaauramant and that point shall ba tha pcs'ixlatlng alavatlon at tha time that lot is purchased. Topographic changat aftar purchasa ■hali not ba conaidarad in determining building height. 4) Var.ancaa on building height are not parmittad. Exceptions that may ba considarad by consnunitias are llmitad to tha following and mutt ba handled through a conditional usa parmit: Chlmnavs or fluas Cooling towars Elavator panthouaas Flag polaa Talavision and radio antennas L. Uaa of fartlLlaar and pasttcldaa (M.R. 6120 3300 Subp. 4 A(1)> in tha ihoraland managaMnt district aaist ba dona In such a way as to nlnimlra runoff Into tha shore imps rona or public water by tha uaa of aarr.h, vegetation, or both. M. Outlota craatad during subdivision and for aceass to Laka Minnatonxa ara subject to tha following rastrictiona: 1) Tha number of watercraft storad on tha outlot is subject to tha ruiaa and regulations thst may ba imposed by tha LMCD or tha local cooimmlty. whichever is tha mest rtstrlctlva. 2) Tha lot must ba suitable for davalopmant under tha raejuiramants of tha applicable xonlng dlatrlct. 3) Huat ba Jointly owned by all purchasars of lota in tha aubdiviaion 4) Huat neat tha raqulramants of tha local subdlviiion ordinance. M. Manufacturing and industrial uses are prohibitad on parcels riparian to Laka Minnetonka Induatrlal and manufacturing uaas In tha shoralands of Laka Minnetonka are llmitad to districts already developed for such purposes ss of the adoption data of this Managamant Flan. C-4 2) 3) 3 rlann*4 Unit D*v«lopMnt* 1) Uk« of tbo Plwno4 Unit O«volop«*nt ptocota by l*k»*hor* coiiMMniti** thalX bo Luoitod to ^•tominint tho optiMMO aito Layout for atructuraa and facilitioa It ihaXl not ba uaod at • Mthod for granting varianeoa to naxinun itructuto hoight or tho iRinirmim lotback. Lot •ron mi width roariiroaMnta ■ooldantioL fUDo nuat not aaeood tho noxlnun holgbt roottlction for Ita toning district. Tho design erltorls fox rosidontloL and coHsareial TUOs shall ho ostahliehsd bp local ordlnanea. oscopt that tho following paragraphs, or onas ovan noro rootiletlva, shall ba ineliidad In any Local ordlnanea; "Evaluation of anltahlllty of tho antlro aita nuat include conaldaration of aaathotlcs, land alopo, (•star depth, vogatatlon, aolla depth to groundwater and badrock, or other ralovant factors ~ 'Share raeraatlon facllltlos, to tbo extent allowod, and including but not United to swianing areas, docks, and watercraft nooring arsaa and Launching ranpa nuat be eantralltod and located in areas suitable for than. The nunher of spaces provided for contlmioua beaching, nooring, ex docking of watercraft nnat not exceed the niaihar pemltted under appLleabla UCO or local coaninlty rules and regulations, uhlchovar la nora restrietlva. Launching rang facllltlea, including a snail dock for loading and tmloadlng equlpawnt. nay be provided for uae by occupants of dwelling units if conalatant with LHCO and local caamunity rules and regulations." P. All varlMcas to structure height and all variances to other building, Lot area, atructure location and atructuro use for riparian parcels on Laka Minnetonka shall ba subnitted to tho LNCD for roviaw and cosaont. Q. Vegetation roeMval shall bo governad by tho shoraland ordinance. The proviaions of 8120.3300 gubp. * nuat bo included In tho ordlnanea, but nodlfiad to reflect the following: 1) Cleer cutting of vogotailon on riparian parcels is prohlbitad. 2) Eaaoval of Living trees larger than 8 Inchaa In dliMtar nay ba by patalt only. )) Soloetivo cutting of other trees and undarhrush shall ba allowed as long as sufflclant cover la left to acraan notor vahicloa, dwallinga, and other structures ehan viewed froa the laka *) Kavisw of propoBod site davalopoent plans under this and other applicable ocdlnancsa shall apaelfieallr review the plana lor preserving ae ouch neturel vegetation aa practical within «0 fast of the laka. 8) Bara ground areas aaiat ba vagatatad, and vagatatlva uattac Mist not ba placed on lopervioua aurfacoa or in natural dralnagawaya. R. Grading and Filling (6120.3300 Subp. * 5) must ba United by the shoraland ordinance. The provlBlona of 8120.3300 subp * B nust ba included In the ordinance except aa modified to refloat tho following; 1) Roetrlctlena placed on grading and filUng within wotlanda (Typoa 3, a, S, e. 7, and •) nuat be nitigeted to prevent decrease in the functional values of wotlanda. 2) The wildllfa habitat and runoff water ipiality enhanceawnt functional values of a wetland should bo guantitattvoly dataminad by eaelysis ronduetad according to nothods presc-ibed by tho U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1880) and Driscoll at al. (1988), raapactlveiy (These are dlscuaaed in the Water Quality Managanent Working Paper.) S In order to protect the generai wolfara and safety of tho beating public. Lights shsll bs controlled by the shoraland ordinance. The following provisions sro added to or modify thoss centsinod in 8120.J300 subp. 3 so as to appi/ to all portions of riparian property regardless of the pemltted use; C-5 r 1} No litht sourco on shoroltn* proporty m«y bo vtsiblo from tho loko. 2) No Utbt Bourco on Bhoroiino proporty tholl ozcood 0 5 condlo* •( tho ordinary hifh wator ■ark 3) Li(bta Locatod on deck and other allo«*od itructiiroa otll bo rofulatod by tha LMCO. T. TIm a^ticoitiirai waa atandarda (tiaO.SdOO Subp 7 A threuak 0) (w ahoraland araaa auat bo inaupwatad Into tha ahoraland erdlnanca ot citlaa with aAriculturai landa «tthin thaia earperata Linita. U. Iba ataaiataa aanadonaat ataadarda (tt20 3300 Subp 11 A thrawth ■) aaiat bo ineorporatod into tha ahaaaland nanataaant ordlnanea ascopt that tha CelloMinp auat alao bo inciudod: 1) U.S. ZFA critarla (IhlRP) are to bo ra^irad for atoraaatar datantien baaina (aa dlacuaaod in tha Uatar Qaallty Hanacanaat UockiaA Fapor). 2) lapacvioaa aarfaea cavoraAO o( lota ahould not oaeaod 25 pareant of tha Lot araa aithout an appraoad ataiwatar aaaaoanant plan. 3) Fomtt ra^ptiraanta fat oach eonatmetod dotontion pond ahalL ineludo a Haintonanca Flan and pranriaiena for aeeoaa to porfona naintonanco. V. Tha aawaoa traatnant proviaiona (0120.3*00 Subp. 3) nuat ba ineludad in tha ahoraland ordinanca. U. Tha aroaioo control and atocantatar runoff fron FUDa nuat ba ineludad in tho ahoroland nanaoanant ocdinancoa except that thaaa aora roatrictiva proviaiona auat ba added: 1) runoff auat ba aanatod *ccerdin« to the rocoaMwndationa contained in itan U. abovo 2> Naxiaun iaparvieua cevorato of PUOa ahall bo iiaitod to only 25 percent. X. Tha follooinp aubparta of Chapter 0120.2500 ff. are net liatod in tho Shoroland Manaoanont Standarda and Criteria for Lake Hlnnotonka. The flrat aaetian liata thooa aubparta that are to ba nopotiatad batuoon tho individual cnanninitlaa and tho Dopartnont of Natural Raaourcoa. Tha oocond Hat includoa thoaa porta that are iaplicit in tha Standarda and Criteria and are to bo inciudod in each Shoroland Manapanant Ordinance. Individual CoHunitiaa: 0120.3300 Subp. 3 E throuph f. 0120.3300 Subp. 6120.3300 Subp. 6120.3300 Subp. 6120.3300 Subp. 6120.3*00 Subp. 6120.3500 0120.3600 6120.3900 5. 6 9 12. 2. anu parkinp area*. Proxinity to unplattod coawtorioa and aipnificant hiatorie aitaa: proxinity to coada and hiphwaya. Placanont and daaipn of roada. drivowayo, Foraat •anaponont atandarda. Extractive uaa atandarda. Nininp of notailie ninarala and peat. Water auppiy. Subdlvlaion prcnrialono- Planned unit davalopnont net addroaaad in Appendix C. Adniniatratton not addroaaad in Appendix C. i. Iaplicit in tho Standarda and Criteria; All other aubparta and aubdivlaiona not ■pacifically nontienod abeva are laiplicit to tho atandarda and eritaria contained in Appendix C. Thoao include, but are not United to; 6120.3300 Subp. 2. Roaidontial lot aiaa. 0120.3300 Subp. 2c. Lot area and with atandarda for ainplo, duplex, triplex, and quad roaidontial davalopnont; lake claaaaa. C-6 •120.3300 Su^p. 3. •120.3300 Si^. 4. •120.3300 SiiOf. 10. Oth«r parti wot liitad abova Otliar part! not liitad abova. StatiOarda for eoMarctal, mduitrial, public and lani-public uaaa. FlMlbllity tftm tha DM and LNCO atandarda «d crltarla nap ba •rantad la aatabllahla« local abaroLand ratnlaOiaM aban najor aaiatlag aaaMretal or aalUpLo fa^ly aonaa fail witbla tba aharaUbd wmm. ■anavar. anvtrianiatal. aaathotle. pubUa hoaith and aafaty, and tan baaa pratacllan nnai bn aatntainod to tba hltboat poaaibla dapraa. Tha **0(aaPotar HanapaBaBb FratraB aball ba tba pclnary naana of controlling advaraa affaati ,,toratad bp and radavalBpnant. ODXlixTxan Fat tba parpa** tha Standarda and Crltarla. cartaln tama or aarda uaad ihall ba intarpratad aa faliowa; tha aard '‘ahall" la nandatorp, not paialaaiva. All dlatancaa. uniaaa otharwlaa apoclflad, aball ba aaaaurad horlaantallp. ar FiCXUTT: anp baildlng or inprovanant aubardinata to a principal uaa ahlch. bacauao of tba natura af ita aaa, can raaaonabla ba locatad at or graatar than notnal atructura aathaeka. t having all of tha fallowingWMF: a topagraphlc foatura aaab aa a hill, cliff, or eharactarlatlca: a. part or all af the taoturo la locatad In a ahoraland araa: b. tba alapa rlaaa at Laaat 23 faat abova tha ordinarp high watar laval of tha vatarbedy; a. tba grade of tha alopa froB tba too of tha bluff to a point 23 faat or nora abova tha ordinary high watar laval avaragaa 30 pareant or graatar; and d. tba alopa Boat drain toward tha watarbodp. An araa with on ovaraga alopa of loaa than 10 pareant ovar a dlatanca for 30 foot or nora ahall net bo eanaldarad part of tha bluff. t: a atructura daalgnad and uaad aolalp for tha atoraga of boata or boating a^lgBcnt. MIUIM LXM: a Una parallal to a lot lino or tba ordinarp high watar laval at tba raifulrad aatbach bayand wbieh a atructura nap net aatand. fla-MB MIT MFILOIMRl: ara tpplcallp uaaa that provlda tranalant. ahora-tam lodging apooaa, reoao. or parcala and tbalr oparat'ena ara aaaantlallp aorvica-oriantad. For axanpla, botal/aatal occaandatlona, raaorta. roctaatlonal vablela and cBiplng parka, and othar prlnarilp aarvtea orlantad octlvltlaa ara coaBcrelal plannad unit davalo^anta. B: tha principal uaa of land or bulldlnga tor tha lala, laaia, rental or trade of produata. gooda. and aarvicaa. ■i: tba cawlaalonar of tha Dapartaont of Natural Raaourcaa. OQMITIOML DM: a uaa aa thla tarn la dafinad In Hinnaiota Statutaa, 38i. MB: a herlaontal. unaneloaad platfoxB with or without attached ralllnga, laata. trclliiaa. or other faaturaa, attached or functionally related to a principal uaa or aita and at any point oatandlBg nora than thraa faat abova ground. lUTLB AM MAD; a dwelling itructura on a aingla lot. having two. thraa, and four untta raapactlvaly. being attached bp coBBon walla and each unit a<tutppad with lapanta alaaping. cooking, aating, living, and aonltatlon fecllitlaa. C-1 L.I fMti ft sxtt: • dttlsnattd location for rasidantial uta by ona or nera parsons using tanporary or anvabla ahaltar. Including camping and racraational vahlela altaa. IHflT'nBI mt: any struetura or portion of a atructura, or othar ahaltar dasignad as ahora** or loog*tarm living quartars for ona or aora parsons, including rental or tiMsharo aecaanodations such aa aotal. hotal, and rasort rooma and cabins. ■DliCTm OS: uaa of land for surfaca or snbsurfaeo ran *al of sand, graval, rock, industrial Binarala, othar noHWtallle minarals, and paat not ragulatad under idnaasota Statutaa, saetiooa 93.44 to 93.SI. FGBST LUD OCSmBSIOK: tha elaar cutting of forastad lands to prapara for a naw land uaa othar than raastabliahmant of a aubssquant forest stand. amST GOfTTdfili a struetura used as a dwelling unit that may contain slaeping pacas and kitchan and bathroom facilities in addition to those provided in tha primary dwelling unit on a lot. BABDSaiP: tha same aa that tarn is defined in Minnasota Statutes, 394. ■KTiaiT or BOXLnilB: tha vertical distance batwaan tha highest adjoining ground level at tha building or tan feat above tha lowast ground level, whichavar is lowar, and tha highest point of a flat roof or avaraga height of tha highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. TMtaTUTSi- 0SI] tha use of land or buildings for tha production, annufactura, warehousing, storage, or transfer of goods, products, eommoditias. or othar wholesale itaan. IMMSIVK VBSrtAnor CLEA&IRG: tha complete removal of trees or shrubs in s contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. LOT: a parcel of land designated by plat, nates and bounds, rsgistarad land survsy, auditors plot, or othar aecaptad naans and separated from othar parcels or portions by said dascription for tha p>irposa of sale, lease, or separation. lat MUni: the shortest distance batwaan lot lines measured at tha midpoint of tha building lina. F: tha sane as that term is defined «.t dascribad in Hinnasota Statutaa, 394. rmuTmaav noH HklEK LK9EL: the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall ba an alavation dalinsating tha highest water level tdiich has bean maintained for a sufficient period of time to laava avidence upon tha landseapa, commonly that point whara tha natural vegetation changss from predominantly aquatic to predominantly tarrsstrial. For watareoursas, tha ordinary high water level is tha alavation of tha top of the bank of tha ehannel. For casarvoirs and flowagss, tha ordinary high water level is tha operating elevation of tha normal susuar pool. fLMOOD Onr DIFSLORaT: a typo of davelopmant eharactarisad by a unified site design for a nu^er of dwelling units or dwelling sites on a pascal, whether for sale, rent, or lease, and also usually involving clustering of thaaa units or sites to provide areas of common open space, density increases, and a nix of structure typos and land uses. These development nay bo organised end operated aa condominiums, tine-share condominiums, cooperatives, full fee ownership, commercial enterprises, or any combination of these, or olustar subdivisions of dwelling units, residential condominiums, townhouses, apartment buildings, cmapgrounds, rscroatlonal vehicla parks, resorts, hotels, motels, and conversions of structures and land uses to these uses. PUBLIC HAXKB8: sny waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, 103.37, subdivisions 14 and 19. Tha official d.tfrmlnatlon of tha site and physical Mmits of drainage areas of rivers and streams shsll he made by the ^sibner. c-e USXODinAL RJUnZD OBIT DEVELOnDIT; m ui* wh*r« th« nstur* of raoldvncy la non-tranaiant and tha major or ptimmrr focua of tha davalepmamc la not aarvlca-oriantad. For araaipla. raaldantlal apartmanta, manufacturad tiOM parka, tima'ahara coadomlnliaa. townhouaaa, cooparatlvaa, and full faa ownarahlp raaidancaa would ba eonaldarad aa raaldantlal planaad unit davalopmanta. SBS'fnLXC OS: tha usa of land by a prlvata, nonprofit organUatlon to provlda a public aarvica that it ordioarily epaa to tom parsona outaida tha ragular conatituancy of tha organlcation. aantXfl HMUGBOT: tha praaarvatlon and managaaant of araaa unaultabla for davalopmant In thair natural atata dua to eonatrainta auch aa thallow aolla ovar groundwatar or badzock, highly aroalva or aspaaaiva aolla, ataap alopaa, auaeaptlblllty to flooding, or occuccanca of flora or fauna In naad of apaelal protaction. —minlMai heriaontal diatanea batwaan a atruetura, aawaga traaf ant ayatam, or othac facility and an ordinary high watar laval, aawaga traatmant cyataai, top of a bluff, road, highway, proparty llna, or othac faaiUty. nEAXMVr STSTDI: a aaptic tank and toll absorption aystam or other individual or oluatar typa aawaga traatmant ayatam aa daacrlbad and cagulatad in chapter 70B0. am— sfBTBf: pipalinaa or conduita, punping statlona, and forca main, and all othar conatructiona, davicaa, appUaaeaa, or appurtanancaa uaad for conducting tawaga or Induatrial waata or othac waataa to a point of ultiMta diapeaal. a»w— OmCT son: land locaf>d batwaan tha ordinary high watar laval of a public watar and a llna parallal to it at a aatback of 30 pc'cant of tha stmetura tatback. a—at At. land located within 1,000 feat from tha ordinary high watar laval of a lake. SICnnCAR HX8TCX1C SmS: any archaeological aita, atanding atruetura, or othar property that maata tha criteria for aligibiUty to tha National Rogistar of Bistoric Plaeaa or la liatad in tha State Register of Blatorie Sitaa, or 1a dataminad to ba an unplatted camatary that falls under tha provialona of Minnesota Statutaa, saetion 307.08. A historic site masts these criteria if it is presently listed on aithar ragiatar or if it ia dataminad to Mat tha qualificatlona for listing after review by tha Minnesota Blatocieal Society. All unplatted eamtariss are automatically considered to bo a aigniflcsnt historic site. snip SLOPB: land whara agricultural activity or davalopmant ia aithar not raeoauMndad or daacrlbad as poorly suited duo to slope staopnass and tha sito'a soil eharactaciatics, as mppad and daseribad in available county soil surveys or othar taehnical reports, unlaas appropriata dasign and construction tachniquaa and farming praotieas ara uaad in aceordanca with tha provisions of thaso regulations. Whara specific information is not svailabla, ataap alopaa are lands having average slopes ovar 12 percent, aa Masurad *v«r horizontal distancaa of SO feat or more, that ara not bluffs. SIIULIUU: any building or appurtenance, including decks, aaeapt aerial or underground utility lines, such aa aawar, alactric, talaphona, talagraph. gas linas, towers, polaa. and othar supporting faeiUtiaa. SOBOmSXaii land that ia divided for tha purpose of sale, rant, or lease, including planned unit davalopmant. SUWAt^-Miint OUIRED mirnmi OSI: tha use of the land for coamareial purpossa, whara access to and use of a aurfaea watar feature ia an integral part of the normal conductance of buainaaa. Marinas, raaorts, and restaurants with transient docking facilities ara examples of such usa. TQK (W THB BUIFT: tb« low point of a SO-foot sagnant with an avaraga tlopa axcaadlng IS parcant. ▼AUiUCX: tha aaoM aa that tana la daflnad daacrlbad in Mlnnaaota Statutaa, 3S4 MAm~<XZBRn) hjH IfURKI STSOCTDRE or FACILITT: a aoMll. abova ground building or othar Inprovanant, axcapt stalrwaya, fancaa, docks, and catalnlng walla, which, bacausa of tha ralatlonahlp of Ita usa to a aurfaca watar faatura, raaaonably naada to ba locatad cloaar to public watara than tha normal atructura aatback. Ezanplas of aach atrueturaa and facilltlaa Includa boathouaaa. gataboa. acraan houaaa. flah houaaa. puap housaa, and datachad dacks. WTUM): a aurfaca watar faatura claaalflad aa a watland In tha Unltad Stataa Flah and Mlldlifa Circular Ho. 39 (1971 aditlon), which la haraby Incorporatad by rafaranca, la avallabla through tha Mlnltaa intarllbrary loan ayatan, and la not aubjact to fraquant changa. C-10 81490.4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: August 14, 1990 SUBJECT: LMCD Budget COUNCIL MEETING AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO Attachment: A. Proposed Draft Letter to LMCD Regarding the Budget B. 1991 LMCD Budget Dated 7/27/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council of a draft letter outlining Council's objection to the projected increase. 2. Determination by Council as to whether they desire to transmit such. INTRODUCTION - The LMCD's 1991 Budget was included as part of the 1991 budget process packet for the July 23rd meeting and placed on the agenda for the August 13, 1990 meeting. At that meeting reservations regarding the increase primarily as it focuses on additional personnel to carry out the LMCD's plan was questioned. Staff was directed, in conjunction with the Lake Use Committee, to draft a letter for Council's consideration at the August 27, 1990 meeting. DISUCSSION - As noted on Attachment B the City, except through the persuation of its representative, has no direct veto of the LMCD's budget. (There is also a question of the timeing and a definitative response limit.) Concern relating to the budget is the 19% increase primarily which goes to expanding staff in order to carry out the proposed Comprehensive Management Plan. The City of Orono has proposed several changes to that draft and the outcome of that draft may indicate: A. What additional personnel are needed. B. Determination as to whether Council desires to support that plan. It has been staff's understanding, at this point, that Council does not object to continuing operations plus some monies for milfoil, but only tkftincremental portion for assistance in implementing the new Comprehensive Plan. The alternative obviously may be that by not allowing LMCD to strengthen its staff role it may compromise their ability to affectively deal with other agencies who may also desire to have a role on the lake. In a discussion with JoEllen Hurr she indicated the addition was primarily for: -xJ Freeing the Executive Director to spend more efforts managii^ the milfoil program and thereby reduce the cost of contract supervisor. b.) Allow the district to do more work in areas of current responsibility that they have not been able to adequately acco’-'>l<sh. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt draft letter for transmittal. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table pending review and revision of plan. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council amend the letter as they choose and transmit the letter as proposed. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seo'onded by __, Council indicate its objections to the proposed LMCD budget by transmittal of its attached letter to its representative and LMCD. Ayes __, Nays Auguat 23, 1990 Board of Dirootora Lako Minnetonka Conaervation Diatrict 402 Baat Lake Street Wayaata, Hinneaota 55391 Mai 1991 LMCD Budgat Gentlefflen and Ladieat The City Council of the City of Orono objecta to the propoaed 1991 LMCD budget and the inoreaae in real property t^xea enviaioned in it* Aa a general propoaition, an increaae of the magnitude propoaed, coming on top of aubatantial percentage increaaoa in yeara immediateJy past, ia unwarranted, particularly in view of the fact that the milfoil problem la ‘^.ot the cauae of the increaae. Zn particular, it appeara that a aubatantial portion of thia increaae ia for additional ataff (a) to permit the LMCD to aaaiat the DNR in implementing DMR ahoroland management regulation among the 14 communitiea; (b) to aaaiat the LMCD in implementing ita own ahoreland regulation objectivea euoh aa reviewing land uae applicationa covered by them and, preaumably, (c) to aaaiat the LMCD in other programa related to lako uae or changea in the governing atruotura or taxing authority of the Diatrict aet forth in the propoaed Comprehenaive Management Plan. Laktt Minnetonka Conservation District August 23, 1990 Pago 2 Since the plan is still under revision, it is possible that either the plan will be rejected by the 14 cities or modified so as to make additional personnel unnecessary. But, the City disagrees with the current proposed plan about most, if not all, of those goals; we object strongly to a budget increase designed in any way to assist the District to reach them. Finally, to the extent the budget reflects the receipt of moneys from the ONR to help with its own shoreline management objectives and the use of LNCD staff for that purpose, we believe activities by LMCD which tend to enhance the DNR control of the lake and its environs, and tend to make DNR money and District personnel devoted to DNR projects a factor in the functioning of the X«NCD, are extremely undesirable. Once begun, they may well come to dominate LNCD affairs and causa a sarious conflict of interest between LMCD government and its LNCD purposae, [Notai We do understand that the $45,000 item is presented as a "pass through" of moneys from the DNR to the Cities if they agree to certain procedures.] We request that consideration be given to these comments and that budget increases, if any, be limited only to expected cost increases for current activities. And we will encourage our representative to vote against the present proposal. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO Mayor 1643Y (T : 72690.’mia/»aiT 3 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat July 21, 1990 SUBJECT: 1991 LMCD Budget Attachments; A. 1991 LMCD Budget Dated 6/28/90 ISSUE - Determination as to action Council desires to take regarding the LMCD budget. INTRODUCTION - Attachment A was presented to the Council as part of the 1991 Budget package at the Council meeting of July 23r 1990. The City annually reviews the budget but there is no specific adoption of the budget by the City required nor a specific date by which cities need to respond. DISCUSSION - The budget as presented represents a 17.9% overall budget increase. The administrative portion of the budget is increasing 19.2%. Of that, the revenues which come from the cities and make up just under 50% increase from $149,490 to $166,825, approximate 11.6% increase. About 40% coming from the cities is for the milfoil program ($63,000). For Orono the share is up 12.8% from $25,862 to $29,1 73. This is still below the $32,000 paid by Orono in 1 989. (If there was not a mill cap on the individual city levies, which currently effects only Minnetonka, the Orono share would have been only $17,050. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt as presented. 2. Request changes. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council approve the budget as proposed. The only significant reduction could be in the elimination of the technical position which was added not only for doing the shoreline regulation but for generally assisting the District in carrying out their mission. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council agree with the LMCD budget for 1991 and so direct its representative. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Eugene Strommen, 402 East Lake Street, Wayzat< JoEllen Hurr, 930 Partenwood Road, Long Lake •7 '■».- r' r^.-1 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVE 402 EAST UKE STREET WAY2ATA. MINNESOTA 55391 EUGCNE R. St /• ?:•'c.'.•A 'n .* ■OMIO|MMMM OavKl M. Cochran. Chair Qraanwood Albart O. Roaiar. V»ca Chair Oaaphavan Jan aosvwinkol. Sacratary - Mtnnatonka Baach John Laivman. DMaurar MInnatnata Oouglaa E. Baocock Spring Park Marvin Bjorlln Ibnka Bay Jamaa N. Qratniwoi Excaiaior JoEllan L. Murr Orono John Q. Maiinka Victoria Thomaa Martinaon Wayzata Rooart K. Ptilaeury Mtnnatonka Rooan Raacop Shorawood Thomaa W Raaaa Mound Robart e. Slocum Woodlar J June 28, 1990 fjUN 2 9 1990 TOi 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 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. ConauUlng services for Che long-term managenenc program will be complete. Public information budget is being reduced, shifting a portion of that reliance to the non-profit "Save the I^ke;;, fun^y jotential^ » • •• ■ ** ‘V- A* contlngeAy-of $10,000 repre«iits:,three as "exceptionalljr modest '■'»*»**?<* ' -.cer ^m ’weed ■h«rv«eing" obligations^^- a^^ .- “ ■^the 1990 level of $63,000. :consldering,5X,,foriJnfUtion.^^_------------------- ------------------------------------------—-----------------------------------------------„ Tir::a__ . ..c:(fS wmmr.S VaeiviVf encouragedv^^:--—,3 - ----------- ■ A ,>yl •. i.-j:;:rc:_Trr.z.".*r_:rc. •v»r UKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTLMCD MunicipaliCies June 28, 1990 Page 2 Minnesota Statute Chapter 907, Section 4, provides: "Expense of district shall be borne by the municipalities. The portion of expenses borne by each municipality shall be in proportion to assessed valuation." the the its Section 5 provides: The.board of directors of the district shall on or before July 1 of each year, prepare a detailed budget 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 I enc Lake Minnetonka Conservation District a 1991 BUDGET 1989 1989 1990 1991 Budget Actual Budget Adonted 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 & permits )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 Adrain/Cons.-0--0--0-15,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $219,022 $291,442 $286,490 $337,825 t ♦Total LMCD communities ■ $166,825 • DISBURSEMENTS Administration e Personal Services $ 84,060^^^ / t Salaries $ 68,172 $ 70,196 $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 1,473 Postage 1,900 2,597 1,900 2,280^^ 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 ’ 1 Provision for computer equip, maint. Janitorial Services -0- 780 -0- 637 -0- 720 9,080^*.^ 1,800 { 900^**- ! • Professional/Contract Services 10,800 4,111 5,800 Total Contractual Services 18,370 11,322 17,460 16,455 j Lake Minneconka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET - Continued / CoiBBodities & Supplies Office Supplies General Supplies Subscriptions Total Commodities & Supplies Lease, Insurance, Employee Benefits Office Lease Provision for new office lease Insurance and Bonds Employer Contributions Mileage, Expense, Training Total Lease, Insurance, Employee Benefits Capital Outlay Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Administration Legal Legal Services Prosecution Process Service Total Legal Consulting Services Long-Term Management Program Shoreland Rules Total Consulting Services edamd-tteea Studies, Lake Inspection, Reports Public Information Total Committees 1989 Budget 1989 Actual 1990 Budget 1991 Adopted 2,100 9,285 2,500 2,625 380 1,472 * 400 450 490 180 210 210 2,970 10,937 3,110 3,285 3,600 3,600 4,140 5,400 -0--0--0-4,*200 3,300 4,077 3,500 5,050 12,300 10,548 13,810^^^14,800 1,360 1,151 1,300 2.360 20,560 19,376 22,750 31,810 1,800 350 2,500 3,oou;- 1,800 350 2,500 3,000 112,522 112,931 130,630 155.825 18,000 13,643 18,000 20,000 14,500 20,043 13,500 20,000 -0-206 1.400 500 32.500 33,892 32.900 '>0,500 30,000 145,011 -0- -0--0--0-12,500 30,000 145,011 42,960 12,500 4,000 1,696 5,000 4,000 15,000 2,457 15,000 5.000 19,000 4,153 20,000 9.0T 2 e ; Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET - Continued Conclngencj Contingency Total Contingency Deposit Refunds Deposit Refunds Total Deposit Refunds Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program EWM Harvesting Program Total Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program Shoreland Rules Shoreland Rules, City Reimbursement . Total Shoreland Rules, City Reimo. TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS (a),'Transferred $3,000 from Consulting Service to support salary for Administrative Technician position addition. ^Average increase figured at 5Z. ^*^^Projecting 20Z postage cost increase. ^**\ncludes 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 Contribu to support Administrative Technician position. ^«^Anticipating computer equipment addition, partial donation, plus software and operator training, office furniture and files additions. 6-28-90 I I Lake MinneConka Conservation District Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland Total '*Maxlaiua of $33,365 6-28-90 1991 BUDGET DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE 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 I, 922,112 2,694,546 2,094,664 8,003,606 J, 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 1.32 100.00% 7, 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 2.31 3.66 2.84 10.86 2.27 100.OOX r:^ Share of $166,825 1991 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 - ‘i. .— \ $166,825 T ‘ • • •/• V (• • CRIME WATCH PUBUC EDUCATION NORTH TONKA CRIME PREVENTION COALITION (a Minnesota non-profit corporation) SERVING THE COMMUNITIES OF LONG LAKE, MINNETONKA BEACH, ORONO AND SPRING PARK F\|oiL__ ; COUNCIL MEETING ' AUG 27 1S90 CIT’« OF ORONO 2 1 1990 Board of Directors Terry Albers Long Lake Busineiaman >Ianire Berg 1 nno Heeident Michael B3rrne Long Lake Bueineaaman Gene Deterling Orono Biuinetaman Richard Erickson Long Lake Pcutor Melvin Kilbo Orono Police Chief Burt Lindahl Minnetonka Beach Reaident Gretchen Menzel Orono Reaident Barbara Peterson Orono Council Member John O’Sullivan Orono Buaineaaman Desyl Peterson Orono Reaident Jerry Rockvam Spring Park Buaineaaman Arlo VandeVegte Long Lake City Attorney lOrona Uc-UjtjCtC f (Lajv£, 445 Willow Drive • P.O. Box 267 • Long Uke. MN 55356 • (612) 473-2811 1 ssiPilsni m OOOHUOflHDIBN i I 0 1 ! ? 11 p. sllilll Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson COUNCIL MEETINGAUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 23, 1990 #1476 David & Suzanne Brass, 1065 Linden Lane - Request by Applicant for Further Consideration by the Council List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Council Minutes of June 25, 1990 Exhibit B - Prass Letter dtd 8/12/90 At the June 1990 meeting of the Council, Council directed the applicant to provide a plan that would render the pool permanently safe until a primary/residential structure is constructed on the si< A tentative deadline scheduled for the completion of the work was September 30, 1990. Staff was further directed upon receipt of plans to draft an appropriate resolution for presentation before the Council for final action. Since that time Mr. Prass has questioned staff on various methods either to fill or provide a permanent wooden deck cover over the subject pool. Each plan was to address the need for the relief of surface runoff that may collect beneath either the fill or the wooden deck covering. After discussions with several contractors, Mr. Prass realized that the expense would be considerable and has asked staff to present a new request before the Council for further consideration. Please review Exhibit B. Mr. Prass now asks that he be allowed to install a commercial safety cover to be anchored at grade level that would cover and protect the pool area. Prass contends that this would also provide the needed safety in the area. The applicant will provide information as to the type of cover at your meeting. Prass proposes obtaining a building permit for a primary residence by October 1991 with construction completed sometime in 1992. Options of Action - A) Adopt applicants proposal requiring the commercial covering of the pool by September 30, 1990. Prass is to continue maintaining fencing around pool area. In addition the owner is to provide proof of liability coverage throughout the entire period that the property remains without an occupied residence. The following deadline schedule is recommended: 1. Building permit issued by October 1, 1991. 2. Completion of residential construction by December 1, 1992. Council may wish to adjust these deadline dates. Zoning File #1476 August 23, 1990 Page 2 of 2 B) Rejection of applicants proposal and require the immediate permanent covering or filling of pool to remain until occupancy permit is issued for a new residence. Such improvement plan to be approved by staff and the project completed by October 30, 1990. Council Action ~ To provide conceptual direction to staff so that an appropriate resolution can be presented for Councils action at their September 24, 1990 meeting. Staff may be advised to draft a resolution that establishes deadlines for alterations to pool that is considered a potential hazard to the public welfare and safety because the property does not sustain a residence. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 25, 1990 ZONING FILE #1476-PRASS CONTINUED Mayor Grabek indicated that he would favor allowing staff and the applicant time to design a suitable cover for the pool. Councilmember Goetten stated that she may agree with the Mayor, but that a deadline for construction of a principal structure must be defined. Mr. Prass explained that he had not been aware of the consequences they would face once the principal structure was razed. He stated that had he known the facts, he may have opted to repair the home. Mr. Prass asked v/hether it would be possible to delay construction for five years. It was moved by Callahan to table this application until the July 9, 1990, Council Meeting and that by that date the applicant must have submitted a plan, agreeable to staff, for the pool covering, and that a bond be provided to assure that the work is done. Further, that the applicants be given until September, 1991, to construct a principal structure. Mayor Grabek suggested giving the applicants a specific time limit to have the pool permanently covered and sealed properly and if that deadline is met that the Prasses be given until December 31, 1991, to construct a new home. Grabek suggested that the pool be covered no later than August 15, 1990. Mr. Prass interjected that it would not be possible to construct a home by December 31, 1991. Councilmember Peterson asked Grabek whether his suggestion included that the house be constructed by December, 1991. or that a building permit application be submitted by that date. Grabek indicated that the Prasses must submit a building permit application by December 31, 1991. Mabusth informed the Prasses that construction must begin within 6 months of obtaining a building permit. Mr. Prass indicated that he would still be unabl'^ to comply with that deadline. Grabek stated that Council would jiave to either have the pool removed, or give the Prasses five years to construct a home. Callahan withdrew his motion. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to prepare a resolution requiring that the pool be filled or removed by September 30, 1990. Mrs. Prass asked whether filling the pool would be acceptable. Mabusth replied that filling the pool would be acceptable. Cook indicated that he would have to review the proposal to assure that water will be able to drain from the structure. Grabek amended his motion to request that staff explore the least expensive method’of rendering the pool useless v/hile providing safety as well. Staff is directed to bring that information in the form of a resolution back to the July 9, 1990 Council Meeting. Councilmember Nettles seconded Grabek's amended motion. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 6 - I I-I I I —. ■* ■i'. ' 1774 Freaiont ?»venue Swcr. Minneapolis. Minnesota 5o403 (612) 374-1575 August 12. l<)90 Jeanne A. flacusih ^Building and Zoning AdDinistratorCity of pronoMunicipal OfficesPost Office Box 66Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Ret SwiiBDing Pool Covering ana Bousing Plane- Dear Jeanne A. Habueth: In an effort to resolve this matter oefore the Orono City Council we wish to suMii the following: Ve PMueflt that a coamefcial safety cover oe installed and anchored at grade level to cover ana protect the pooi area ano seecificially provide safety to the area. Ve would apply for a ouilding permit oy Octooer l99i and construction completed in 1992. Thanx you. ^ David Prass m I-COUNCIL MEETING AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO 7. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Ftob: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: August 2A, 1990 Subject: #1497 Toberman Property, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit ~ Request By Applicant For Further Consideration by The Planning Commission List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - James Gilbert Letter dtd August 16, 1990 Toberman Letter dtd April 17, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes dtd March 19, 1990 Council Minutes dtd April 9, 1990 Plat Map Review of Current Application - At the April 9, 1990 meeting of the Council, Council conceptually denied the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit/ Variance Application that would have allowed continued use of the residential zoned property as a legal non-conforming use for boat sales. Please review Exhibit B, Mr. Toberman's response to Councils conceptual action. The letter specifically responds to claims made either by members of the public attending the meeting or specific comments of the Council. Staff has discussed potential residential use of either 1960 Shoreline Drive or an expanded residential use with inclusion of 1950 Shoreline Drive property. Since April, the marina property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive has been involved in litigation. Please review Exhibit A, a letter from Mr. Toberman's attorney James Gilbert that advises that 1960 Shoreline Drive property is an integral part of the marina operation. In fact the letter suggests that the sale of the marina hinges on the inclusion of the 1960 property for potential joint marina use. The letter goes on to encourage either that the Council reaffirm the Planning Commission's original approval recommendation or allow Mr. Gilbert to prepare a more factual presentation reviewing the history and proposed future use of the property for reconsideration by the Planning Commission at their September 17, 1990 meeting. Zoning File #1497 August 24V 1990' ^ i- Page 2 of 2 Options of Action - A) Accept Mr. Gilberts proposal to refer application back to the Planning Commission for further review. Applicant should be advised that additional fees will be required to cover staff's additional review time. Deadline for the submittal of new information for the September Planning Commission meeting is Wednesday, September 5, 1990. If it is the intent of the applicant to propose a new use, exclusive of original boat sales use that applicant file a new Conditional Use Permit application. Deadline for the October 15, 1990 meeting is September 22, 1990. B) Or adopt Planning Commission approval recommendation of their March 19, 1990 meeting that would allow the property to be used for retail boat sales. C) Or reaffirm Council's original action of their April 9, 1990 meeting (Exhibit D) that would deny the renewal of the Conditional Use Permit/Variance application and would ask the applicant to provide the City with a plan for the use of the property with a conforming residential use. i.e. Duplex, joint use of property at 1950 Shoreline Drive for possible triplex, other uses deemed appropriate by Council. Council Action - To provide conceptual direction to staff so that staff may direct applicant and applicant's attorney as to required preparation and deadline for next phase of review. m KSXXBTH .nZSBBBSBER* JtONAiA I. .HKSHBBSUER OBRA.X.D M. SIROBR RCSSBU M. SPBNCB* •JAMES H. OXLBBRT* •JOHN P. CLXrrORO DBNXIS H. JOR5fSON»»* •JACK XOROBY PAUL W. BERGSTROM PATRJCS K. aORAJJ •iLiAO aAMTTM to roAOTiea iir wtbgowuw • ••aim Aomrrms to foacticb tm wiaeowaw • neora aiutoT* LA.W omCBS MESHBESHER. SINGER & SPENCE, LTD. IBIfl PARK AVEHTB MZNNEA.POZ.IS. MZ^RJESOXA SS404 («ia) aao-9iBi REP1.Y TO MINVEAPOLIS OFFICE OAXIEZ. J. BOIVlJf** MICHAEL C. SRYDER • •JAMES A. WBX.LNER JOHR P. SBEBUY DAXX2Z. C. OUZRRZb O J. K. KATHEfUXZ S- PLOM JOHN GREER ••AIAO e AMSTTBO ro »a*CTiCB ur fiAUrota AJ>M1TTSI> TO FOAeytVS Ilf TUU^ August 16, 1990 Mr. Mark Bernhardscn Administrator CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Smith's Bay Marina Property Our File No. 28/23825_ _ _ _ Dear Mark: Pursuant to our telephone conference of August 16, 1990 concerning the Smith's Bay Marina conditional use permit renewal/variance, I would respectively request that my client s application be placed on the August 27, 1990 agenda of the Orono City Council for further consideration. If the Council will not follow the Planning Commission's recommendation at this point in time and approve my client's request, I would request that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and a more detailed factual development of my client's past use of this property. As I mentioned to you, my client will never concede that there has been a lapse of commercial use on this property. There is no question because of other hardships relating to the marina, there has been a decreased use, but there has been a continual use of this property lor commercial purposes related to the marina business. Ihis has included, but has not been limited to the storing of property, the conducting of meetings, the storage or boats and other marina equipment, sales and leasing efforts ting to jthe marina property, and other miscellaneous commercial work. ST. PAUL OPPICB: a«00 WORLD TRADE CENTER ST. PAUL, MJN OOlOl IV MESHBESHER. SIXGER Sc SPENCE. LTD. Mr. Mark Bernhardson August 16, 1990 Paae Two _ _ _ _ _ Based on the above, I do not think the City is in a position to deny my client the continued use of his property. To say that this property should be used as residential at this point in time would render this property economically valueless. It is further my opinion that if the City Council does not allow my client to continue to use the property as it was intended, there would be an inverse condemnation, which would require the City to compensate my client for his lost property rights. Also, as I mentioned to you, this property is an integral part of the marina. We have a tentative agreement set with a potential buyer of the marina, and the acquisition and use of this property as related to the marina is a condition precedent to buying the entire marina property. This matter is of grave concern to my client and has major economic impact on his financial wellbeing. I would respectively request that you circulate this letter to the appropriate Council and Planning Commission members. I will personally plan on appearing at the Council meeting on the 27th. Thank you for your courtesies extended to date. Yours truly, MESHBESHERj^SyiGER & SPENCE, LTD. reu^s H.^ilbert JHG/nj cc: Gerald E. Toberman Eric Nilsson, Esq. KENNZTH >t£SHB2SHZR* RONAiJD t. MSSBBBSUER OBRALB .H. SIXOER RUSSBZ.L M. SPBNCB* JAMBB R. OZZ.BBRT* aOHX P. CLIPPORB BBRKIS H. JOH2fSOIf ••• JACK XORBBY PACT. W. BEROSTRO>t PATRICK K. BORAX a SMITTM to rBAOTtea iir wracoMaia • ••ALSO ASMirrao to roAonea tm wiscowaar a Moara dabota tAW OPPXCBS a VIESHBESHZR. singer & SPENCE, LTD. 1610 PARK AVEXTTE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SOAOA reiai 300-9121 REPLY TO .niNNBAPOLIS OPPICE g . (JOHN F. ! Oa NIZL ,7. BOlVtjr*. .MICHAEL C. SNYDER* JAMES A. WELLNBR JOHN P. SBJBBUY STBEEO HOWARD f. oJjS^ Oa NZBL C. OCERR^RO J. K. XVEY*»«* KATHERINE S- TLOM JOHN ORBBR .'Atao AOMirras ro aaAcnca la iLuaeia •••.AASO ASMTTTaO TO aBACTiva la tokab August 16, 1990 Mr. Mark Bernhardson Administrator CITy OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Sxaith's Bay Marina Property Our File No. 28/23825 _ _ _ Dear Mark: Pursuant to our telephone conference of August 16, 1990 concerning the Smith's Bay Marina conditional use permit renewal/varicuice, 1 would respectively request that my client's application be placed on the August 27, 1990 agenda of the Orono City Council for further consideration. If the Council will not follow the Planning Commission's recommendation at this point in time and approve my client's request, I would request that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and a more detailed factual development of my client's past use of this property. As I mentioned to you, my client will never concede that there has been a lapse of commercial use on this property. There is no question because of other hardships relating to the marina, there has been a decreased use, but there has been a continual use of this property for commercial purposes related to the marina business. This has included, but ^’S nor been limited to the storing of property, the conducting of meetings, the storage of boats and other marina equipment, sales and leasing efforts rela ting to jthe marina property, and other miscellaneous commercial work. ST. PAUL office: 9600 WORLD TRADE CENTER ST. PAUL, MN B6IOI MESHBESHER. SINGER & SPENCE. LTD. Mr. Mark Bernhardson August 16, 1990 Page Two_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Based on the above, I do not think the City is in a position to deny my client the continued use of his property. To say that this property should be used as residential at this point in time would render this property economically valueless. It is further my opinion that if the City Council does not allow my client to continue to use the property as it was intended, there would be an inverse condemnation, which would require the City to compensate my client for his lost property rights. Also, as I mentioned to you, this property is an integral part of the marina. We have a tentative agreement set with a potential buyer of the marina, and the acquisition and use of this property as related to the marina is a condition precedent to buying the entire marina property. This matter is of grave concern to my client cind has major economic intact on his financial wellbeing. I would respectively request that you circulate this letter to the appropriate Council and Planning Commission members. I will personally plan on appearing at the Council meeting on the 27th. Thank you for your courtesies extended to date. Yours truly, MESHBESHER,_SINGER & SPENCE, LTD. JHG/nj cc: Gerald E. Toberman Eric Nilsson, Esq. Ja/es H.filbert April 17, 1990 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Grabek & Council Members, I’m sorry that I was unable to attend the previous council meeting, which denied our request for a Conditional Use Permit for our property at 1960 Shoreline Drive. At this time I would like to review with you the status of our request for the Conditional Use of that property. At the time that we purchased Sailor's World, which is now Smith's Bay Marina, the former owner's of Sailor's World wanted to stay in the retail sales of boats. The property of the marina would not be able to accommodate retail sales, as our plans call for a new clubhouse in addition to adequate parking for members. Wc then took au option on tho gas station across the street, subject to getting approval from the city, to use this property .or retail boat sales, which the council approved. After the approval from the council, we purchased the property for $105,000.00 cash. We then had the gas tank removed and remodeled the building by installing air conditioning, insulating the building and practically re-constructing the building for a cost of over $65,000.00. At this time, we have over $170,000.00 in vested in thii; property. After we completed the remodeling, the people from Sailor's World decided that they did not want to go into the retail sales of boats and since we weren't in the retail sales, the building has sat empty. As we have tried to sell the property over the last couple of years, we haven't had any luck finding a buyer, as we were looking for a buyer that we felt the city would approve for a Conditional Use for something other than what we had been approved for. We have had many interested people on the property who have wanted to open a fast food business or a retail car sales lot but we felt that this would be a use the council would not approve, so we did not go any further. It was told to me that at the last counc' one of the council members said that I was asking too muc.. ' i« the property and that is why it has not sold. For your infottv , . have not had a bona fide offer of any kind because most of the peop.a !'-s. t would consider the pro perty wanted to rent with an option to purchase and I did not want to get into a rental situation, as we have the property in new condition and that Smith's Bay Yacht Club 1955 Shoreline Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 612/474-2534 A Distinctive New Dimension To Sailing Facilities 'V is Che way Chat I want Co sell Ic. Ac Chis Cime we are making arrangemencs Co make Che necessary repairs Co Che fence and Co do Che spring cleaning. I am asking Che council Co reconsider Che use for a recall boaC sales, which was originally granCed. Because of Che condiCion of Che lake, iC is almost impossible Co be able Co place sailboaCs inCo SmiCh's Bay Marina as we have between 2^ to 3h feet of water which will only accommodate small power boats. Over at Wayzata Yacht Club they are now taking power boats for the same reason. As this building remains empty and I have not found a buyer, which is really causing a financial hardship, I have decided to open a retail boat sales operation where we will be selling small boats and water toys such as waverunners, in addition to leasing water toys. I am asking Che council to reconsider our request for Che Conditional Use of this property. I really don't see how this property could ever be a residential piece of property. Due Co the water problems on the lake, this has caused a real hardship Co marina operators and has put aloe of improvements on hold since we do not know whether we are going to be able to rent slips. Thank you f r your consideration. Sincerely, 1 \ 4T'L*- Gerald E. Toberman GET/kw NIHOTSS or MARCH 19, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING *1497 GERALD TOBERMAH 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE REHENAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8x13 P.N« TO 8:30 P.M, Th« Affidavit of Publication and rertificata of Nailing we. e duly noted. Mr. Toberman was present for tni3 matter. Nabusth explained that Mr. Toberman wished to renew the original conditional use permit that approved the sale of sail boats from the property. It is now Mr. Toberman's intention to sell motor boats» not just sail boats. Mabusth noted that all other aspects of this renewal remain the same, with the exception of some zoning issues. Kelley suggested that this property snou:.^ <£xther be rezoned for commercial use or that the building trj reiroved. Kelley said, "This conditional use permit is just revcxvi:g. The site has not been used since 1987. I don't liJce to see tnese conditional use permits for non-conforming zoning areas continually coming back for renewal." Hanson concurred with Kelley. Johnson indicated that he agreed with Kelley, but felt i. Mr. Toberman had done everything that he was required to dc the property. Johnson believed that a conditional use perm, should be granted. Mabusth referred to her .Trr.o of* March 15, 1990, which sets forth the ramifications ct approving the ci^nditional use permit. Nabusth said if the Plannirg Commission intends to recommend approval of the conditional permit, there will need to be a further rwview by the City Attorney prior to the matter going to Council. Mr. Toberman said "The person frcm .••am I purchased the marina had intended to or»rate a retail bo.K ^ales operation from the property across 'r«f with this person to do last minute, the lear the property, but wa^ low lake level has 4t. difficult to find attempted to find the '“ity and not < ? a ’ • ^cnaser for ch^s ^ rty off of the ma«. marina ^ h^a <»ntered into a lease T .etr i the property and at the trough. X was left with .less of selling boats. The ... in general and it has been lease the property. I have . *t th-» property that would satisfy .^ -he isa of the property. I had found jczv ^everaj. months ago and tc-'k the 'e are now in litigation regarding that, but in the mean time, tr.is property is sitting vacant and 's not generating any income. We intend to open this up ourselves by going into a business that was approvevi for the . 10 - MINUTES OF MAUCH 19, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE #1497-TOBERMAN CONTINUED property." Brown agreed with Jo!'naon in that the Planning Commission had approved this use at one time, and that this use is an improvement over the previous use of the property. Brown aslced Kelley his reasons for want\ng to have the property rezoned. Kelley replied that if the City is going to identify that property for commercial use, vMch it has ail along, that it should be zoned for commercial use. It would eliminate the need for the conditional use permitting process. Kelley indicated thau his idea of a conditional use is something that is temporary, but continual. Kelley said that the continuation of the conditional use has been interrupted for three years, Mr. Dan Crear, 1980 Spates Avenue, indicated that he would be opposed to giving that property a commercial zoning classification. Mr. Crear said, "I do think Mr, Toberman did a good job in bringing the property up to date. The property is r.»j down agai.i because it has been vacant for three years. I disagree with the reason the property has remained vacant. In my opinion, it is because the property has been unrealistically managed. I know of several people that hi /e tried to rent the property for uses that were in line with the original conditional use. I am in the sail boat business and made a recommendation to two people to rent the property. However, they could not reach an agreement with the property owner.” Mr. Crear read a letter that his wife had written expressing her concerns about the property. Ms. Crear was concerned about the condition of r only this property, but the residential property ne '•'jr .• *11. hansc matter un:.. asked if ta. Toberman. cated that he would be inclined to table this j City Attorney's ''pinion is rendered. Hanson ,j..ig this matter woul- cause any hardship for Mr. Mr. Toberman replied that tab!’ng the application would not pose any problem. Hanson asked Mr. Toberman what he would plan to do with the property should the conditional use permit be denied. Mr. Toberman said, "In response to Mr. Crear's comments about potential tenants for the prope-'^'v, it is not our intention to get involved with the rental of th -operty. We would prefer to sell it. I feel that with the mar . and lake access across the street, that the property sho**' used in the manner for which original approval was given." - 11 - MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ZONING FILE «1497-TOBERMAM CONTINUED Johnson noted that the conditional use permitting process provided the most opportunity for the public to express concerns regarding the use of the property. He stated that there would be little or no opportunity for public input if the property were rezoned. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. There was no second to that motion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Conunissioner Brown, to recommend to the City Council that they direct the City Attorney to explore options for •enewing the conditional use permit. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Nay, motion passed. #1500 ERIK G. CELMS 4050 HIGHWOOD ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:37 P.M. TO 8:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mail.ig were duly noted. Mr. Celms was present for this application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided information regarding this application for a lot area variance. Mabusth noted that the address of 4050 Highwood Road was incorrect and that it would be necessary to hav/«^ Public Works Department assign a correct address. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of the lot area variance for Erik Celms, subject to staff recommendations. Motion, A/es-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1501 ROBERT J. RITCHIE 3572 SHORELINE DRIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Mr. Ritchie and Dr. Roshar were present for the review of the commercial site plan for 3572 Shoreline Drive. Mabusth noted that the commercial site plan presented this evening was part . of the conditional use permit granted in January. Mabusth advised the applicant that the parking area to the rear of the property should be expanded to be 40* from the - 12 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 9, 1990 ^#1495 ROOHET JOHNSON *3740 NEST NAYZATA BOULEVARD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2788 Mr. Johnson was present for this matter. Bernhardson explained Mr. Jonnson's proposal for a two lot subdivision. Mr. Johnson asked why he was only receiving preliminary approval. Bernhardson informed Mr. Johnson of the City’s policy requiring a two-step approval process for subdivisions. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles. seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2788, granting Preliminary Plat Approval for Rod Johnson. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays- 0. Motion passed. #1497 G* TOBERMAN SHORELINE DRIVE Cconditional use PERMIT RENEWAL Mr. Vern Larson, Mr. Toberman's Associate, was present for tins matter. Bernhardson summarized the history of the use for this property He said that the question is that since the conditional use has lapsed, can it be renewed. The City Attorney has indicated that renewing the use would require a use variance. If Council wishes to approve the renewal, Bernhardson suggested that the matter be tabled pending further research by the City Attorney on the legality of such a variance. Councilmember Nettles stated that he resides near this property and is opposed to renewal. Nettles had voted in favor of renewal last year due to the improvements that had been made to the property. He said that nothing has happened with the property since that time and it has become a nuisance. He said that a commercial use is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Nettles thought that the property ought to be classified as a residential property and dealt with in that regard. Councilmember Goetten objected to the sale of motor boats from this property. She believed that the Council had provided Mr. Toberman ample opportunity to develop the property. Goetten concurred with Nettles that the property should revert back to a residential zoning classification. Dan Crear, 1900 Spates Avenue, stated that he is against the commercial use of this property. Mr. Crear stated that he would not object to the original use which was sail boat sales, with no - 7 - rs^4^1 MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 9, 1990 ZONING FILE #1497-G. TOBERMAN J repairs. Mr. Craar read a letter written by his wife, ;.n which • she too objects to the commercial use. Mrs. Crear also indicated that she did not believe the property was suitable for residential use and would cost a great deal to convert. Mrs. Crear made reference to the adjoining residential property owned by Mr. Toberman that is in a state of disrepair. (See Planning Commission Minutes of 3/19/90). Mr. Crear believed that Mr. Toberman was asking too much for the property which is why it will not sell. He did not want the City to "bail Mr. Toberman out* if this is ail due to a bad business decision on his part. Mr. Crear said, "If the Council recommends that the conditional use be renewed, most of the property owners in the area feel that Spates Avenue should be dead-ended." Mr. Crear also suggested that as part of the renewal approval. Council require that the property be continually maintained. He aslced the City Council to require* a high level of excellence for the property since it is in a residential area. Mr. Crear said, "Right now the fences surrounding the property are broken, the paint is peeling off of the building and the landscaping has not been )cept up. Another problem is that an incredible bat population has developed underneath the eaves. I have had more problems with bats in my chimney than I have ever had before. If I walk out of my house at sunrise I can barely get out the door because the bats are flying by to get to the bac.< of that building." Mayor Grabek asked the City Attorney what happens to the property should the Council deny the conditional use renewal. City Attorney Barrett said, "That is my dilemma with this property. It would seem to me that the 'grandfathered’ status of this property was lost because of a lack of use. As a consequence, we could determine that the underlying zoning, which is residential, applies and we could then compel the owner of the property to conform. One of the considerations that you have to keep in mind is that there has to be some use of the property. You may wish to ask the applicant to discuss his intentions for the property with staff." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to conceptually deny the renewal of the conditional use permit/variance and ask the applicant to provide the City with a plan for the property within thirty days. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays- 0, Motion passed, #1500 ERIK CELNS 4050 BIGBWOOD VARIANCE RESOLUTION *2789 Mr. Calms was present for the review of his applicauion. Bernhardson provided Council with information regarding this j ^ - 8 - 7 CtTY OF aHONO August 22, 1990 CITYofORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Munidnai OfBcea On the North Shore of Lahe Minnetonka CGu^ClL MEETIHG AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO Earl Freeman RT 5, Westbluff Road Lament, IL 60443 RE: Application #1509 - Variance for Accessory Structure at 4545 Watertown Road Dear Mr. Freeman: Upon further review the City Attorney has advised that it would be inappropriate for Council to vote on the variance application as proposed. As a result. Council ch ^se not to formally act on the above referenced variance application at their August 13, 1990 meeting. Council has provided further direction to the staff to proceed with the enforcement of the many zoning violations on your property as recently noted in Lyle Oman's letter of August 16, 1990. Please advise Mr. Oman if Paul Anderson (3533 Crystal Place, Wayzata, MN 55391) continues to be your local representative for this property. If you have any further questions concerning this matter please feel free to contact my office. Please also be aware that failure to comply with the directives of Mr. Oman's lett-^r will result in the required issuance of citations by the City. Sincerely, 7- Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator cc: Orono City Council Mar)c Berhardson, City Administrator Tom Barrett, City Attorney Enclosure: Letter of August 16, 1990 ■uildipm ; a zoning - 4jy-iiS7 AJiSESSING ADMIMSnunON A r:NA,NCE - KX 47vas>f wauc wrwKS - m-rm Cl TV OF QRONa CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66*CrystaJ Bay, Minnesota 55323•Monki|»al OfHow On the Nort*-. Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 16, 1990 Earl Freeman Rt 5, Westbluff Road Lament, IL 60443 Re: 4545 Watertown Road Dear Mr. Freeman: The City has notified you in the past about zoning code violations that exist on youi property at 4545 Witertown Road in Orono. As of this date these violations still exist. They are as follows: 1. Various piles of brush and debris stored on property. 2. Root: cellar open to children and animals. 3. Tall grass and weeds - should be cut and maintained at least within 50' of the building to eliminate a fire hazard. 4. Wells on property must re properly abandoned per State law. This letter is to notify you that these code violations must be eliminated before September 1, 1990. If this deadline is not met, the City will issue citations. If you have a problem meeting this deadline or if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector LO/tln Enclosure - S9.55 cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building £ Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adminiatratcr Bruce Vang, Building Inspector MJlLDtNC A ZONING - TI.T357 ^NIESSING AOMiNisnurrrN a itnance - 4rv7Mi PtmJC WOMS -4TS.7M* Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson CGUHGIL MEETING AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONOdministratorFrom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning A Date: August 21, 1990 Subject: #1554 Timothy R. Gramentz, 4680 North Arm Drive - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - RR-lB, Single family rural residential, 2 acie, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct second story over existing garage. list of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action Exhibit C - Memo and Exhibits of July 7, 1990 Discussion Please review the Memo and Exhibits of July 7th. Briefly, applicant's residence was destroyed by fire in February. He is requesting to rebuild on the same foundation, of which a portion is less than the required 30' from the side lot line. The need for the variance stems from the fact that applicant wants to construct a second story over the garage, where there was no second story previously. Planning Commission at their August 20th meeting recommended 5 to 0 to approve, finding that the neighboring residences are far enough away that this addition will not be perceived as a noticeable change in the neighborhood. Staff RecoBBiendation Staff recommends approval per the recommendation, per the attached resolution. Planning Commission A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1554 WHEREAS, Timothy Gramentz (hereinafter ”the applicant") is the owner of property located at 4680 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The west 140.00' of the east 567.86' of the south 311.15' of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 6, Township 117, North Range 23 vest of the 5th principal meridian, Hennepin County, MN, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of an addition above the pre-existing attached garage, such addition and attached garage being located 19.3' from the side lot line where a 30' side setbaeJe is normally required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1554. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August ?0, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed varianc*' on a vote of 5 to 0 based upon the following findings: a. The property has contained a single family residence for many years. The residence was destroyed by fire in February 1990, with the foundation remaining and still useable. Applicant proposes to reconstruct the house using the existing foundation. The need for the variance stems from a proposed story above the pre-existing one story attached garage having been located 19.3' from the side lot line. Page 1 of 4 b. Neighboring residences to the east are sufficiently distant so that addition of a story above the attached garage will have no detrimental visual impact in the neighborhood. 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 varia*ice 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 genera 11 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 the above .indings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of an addition above the pre-existing attached garage located 19.3' from the side lot line where a 30' setback is normally required, s< b ject to the following conditions: 1. 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 dace of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date August 27, 1991. 2. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation af the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority 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 Orono City Council on this 27th day of August, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of August 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 3 cf 4 CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING PILE #1554NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 08/22/90 TO:Timothy R. Gramentz COPIES TO: 4680 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: August 20, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Connnission recomoiends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, August 27, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bayr NN 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1554 Z^i23 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 07/17/90 TO: Timothy R. Gramentz 4680 North Arm Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against tiling Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below \ £S AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: ( Planning Commission tables the request because neither applicant nor a representative was present to answer questions. Applicant*s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as Planning Commission on Monday, August 20, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Applicant is advised that you or your representative should be present at the August 20 meeting. If you cannot attend, please advise City staff (473-7357). ^ * ' W ' TABLE 7 Change in Potencial Active Boats and Boat Density for Alternative Density Standards Acres Existing Density Growth to: 8.00 Acres per Boat 7.00 Acres per Boat 6.00 Acres per Boat 5.00 Acres per Boat 4.00 Acres per Boat 3.00 Acres per Boat 2.00 Acres per Boat 1.00 Acres per Boat Active Boats 1453 1472 1682 1962 2355 2943 3924 5887 11773 Change in Active Boats 19 229 509 902 1490 2471 4434 10320 Total Acres Per Boat 14043 9.66 9.54 8.35 7.16 5.96 4.77 3.58 2.39 1.19 Usable Acres Per Boat 11773 8.10 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 ... ,.4 '.1 Land use data base from 1984 aerial photographs). TABLE 2 Household Estimates Study Area Coirmunities Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland Total Other Hennepin County Other Carver County Other Metropolitan Area ‘ SOURCE: Metropolitan Council, 1988 Households- - - - - 1988 Perc ent- --- 1980 1988 Hennepin Metropo Census Estimate County Area 1,223 1,332 .32 .16 1,149 1,258 .30 .15 234 255 .06 .03 12,667 17,162 4.12 2.01 187 220 .05 .03 974 1206 .29 .14 3,384 3,747 .90 .44 2,291 2,629 .63 .31 1,484 1,807 .43 .21 684 /58 .18 .09 495 598 .14 .07 427 692 .17 .08 1,560 1,699 .41 .20 183 181 .04 .02 27,463 34,105 8.18 4.00 339,021 382,686 91.82 44.85 11,584 14,977 -1.76 693,894 819,067 -96.00 TABLE 3 Forecasts of Population and Households Lake Minnetonka Service Area Conununities Lakeshore First Tier First Tier Counties Other Metro Area “ Source: Metropolitan Council, 1986 and 1988. Population Percent Household?Percent 1988 2000 Change 1988 1990 Change 86760 93620 7.91 33544 37330 11.29 221755 243620 9.86 90148 101665 12.78 737657 747880 1.39 341059 361815 6.09 1154149 1224880 6.13 388421 430190 10.75 3 leaving a sandy layer that included limestone and shale, thickness ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet. Glacial drxft Lake Minnetonka is located on the western end of a bedrock formation generally known as the Twin Cities artesian basin. This bowl-shaped basin consists of a relatively complex layering of bedrock formations from the Precambrian, Cambrian and Ordovician Eras. Because of the position of the lake relative to this basin, successively older formations come into contact with the glacial drift when moving west to east across the lake, •^hese formations of either sandstones, dolomites or shales comprise the bedrock surface. GEUMORPHOLOGY Geomorphology is the study of processes that shape the surface of the earth. Lake .Minnetonka is ccxnprised of both till region and moraine geomorphic types. The Lonsdale-Lerdal till region includes Halsted Bay and all of Lake Minnetonka that lies north of County Road 15 e.xcept Crystal Bay. St. Alban's Bay is within the St. Croix Morainic area, with the remainder of the lake, including Crystal Bay, in the Emmons-Faribault Moraine. The till area is generally composed of unsorted clay, silt, sand and boulder materials transported and directly deposited by the glacial lobe. The till region is characterized by a thin layer of drift in the form of gentle hills. Moraine geomorphic type, in contrast, was formed by till deposited at the edge of glaciers. These formations are distinguished by steep hills, rolling topography and occasional deep depressions resulting in small lakes. Lake Minnetonka's intricate shoreline is characteristic of a morainic formation. Lake Minnetonka is entirely within the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The lake receives runoff from the entire upper portion of the watershed. The lake discharges to Minnehaha Creek at the Gray's Bay dam. SOILS The general soil type is predominantly deep silty or loamy, well-drained and lightly colored. This soil type is moderately fine to moderately course in texture and has moderate transmission and infiltration rates. An area located at the southern shore of Wayzata Bay and Gray's Bay is comprised of a soil type that is generally deep, sandy, well drai.ned and lightly colored. It has a high infiltration rate and correspondingly low runoff potential. An area of sandy, well drained, dark colored soils is located adjacent to the north shore of Wayzata Bay. This soil type is characterized as having low runoff potential, high infiltration rates and correspondingly high rate of water transmission. CLIMATE The climate is predominantly continental with weather influenced by warm air from the south and west and cold air from the north. Fluctuations in temperature^ wind direction, precipitation and cloud cover are caused by high and low pressure systems .migrating across the area. Summers are generally mild and occasionally humid. Winters are usually cold and generally dry. Most precipitation comes during the warm season. While winters are sometimes characterized by heavy snows, it is actually the dry season in Minnesota. The Maple Plain weather scation located north of Lake Minnetonka has been collecting weather data for over 95 years. Seasonal temperatures have been found to vary greatly with a record high of 103 degrees occurring in July, 1936, and a record low of minus 34 degrees in January 1936 and 1970. July is the warmest month with an average of 71 degrees. The coldest month is January, which averages 9.9 degrees. Annual mean temperature is 43.6 degrees. Precipitation averages 30.20 inches annually, with most occurring during the summer months. The wettest month is June which averages 4.83 inches of precipitation. February, the driest month, averages .78 inches of precipitation. Winter snowfall averages approximately 49 inches, with snow cover generally present from mid-December to early March. Lake Minnetonka is usually ice-covered from mid-December to Mid-April, with an average ice-out date of April 15. WILDLIFE The abundance and diversity of suitable habitat largely determines the extent of wildlife populations. Continued development within the Lake Minnetonka area has resulted in significant changes from the original prairie, forest and aquatic habitats. However, wildlife populations can be found in relative abundance within the numerous and varied habitats surrounding the lake. Breeding populations of prairie animals include white-tailed jackrabbit. Brewer's blackbird, ground scjuirrel, and prairie horned larks. Hearty wildlife populations associated with wooded and brushy habitats can also be found. Species indicative of the habitats include meadow voles, rabbits, deer, shrews, moles, skunks, foxes, mink, weasels, raccoons, hawks and owls. (Baseline Environmental Inventory: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1977) . Wetlands and marsh areas are refuge to large numbers of birds. Waterfowl are relatively abundant and diverse with both migratory and year-around species known to inhabit the area. A diversity of aquatic habitats are present in Lake Minnetonka. These habitats support a fish community typical of bass-panfish lakes in the region. Game fish include: bluegill, black and white crappie, largemouth bass, muskellunge, northern pike, walleye pike, sunfish and perch. Non-game species present include bullheads and carp. VEGETATION The growth and associated land use changes of the Twin Cities metropolitan I ^ II. RECREATION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE The ultimate goal for recreation management is fourfold: 1) to more effectively manage access growth, 2) to establish priorities for such access growth as occur, 3) to implement a set of controls that will be progressively mere restrictive as use of the lake continues to increase, and 4) to reduce conflicts, thereby maintaining the quality of the recreational experience. The LMCD does not encourage increased summer, use, but it will more effectively control such growth that as it occurs. The intent of the program is to present modifications to existing management practices and regulations and not to supplant those rules and regulations. Terms used in this chapter are defined in Appendix B. Achievement of these goals requires chat the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) move to an active management posture from a more passive one. Implementation requires increased staff and funding; a level of commitment beyond the present financial capabilities of all of Che managing entities active on the lake. Lake Minnetonka managing entities face significant challenges in the coming decades as suburban development continues and use of the lake increases. But growth in access and peak use depends on changing Che level of law enforcement presence on Che lake. Proposed management practices can reduce conflicts and provide a more satisfactory recreational boating experience only if there is a concomitant increase in Water Patrol presence on the lake. More presence need not mean more citations; increased presence can also generate greater compliance with existing rules and regulations. For this recreational management program to work, significant new sources of funding must be found. In the absence of new funds, growth of access and peak use must be terminated, and terminated soon. Growth in access and level of use during peak hours can continue as long as resource managers adopt improv'ed regulatory practices, provide more enforcement, better control growth of access and use, and assure boaters alternative destinations on the lake. Future recreation Management on Lake Minnetonka relies on increasingly stringent access and use controls as boat density continues to increase. To protect the quality of the recreational experience as use increases, ocher management objectives call for increased law enforcement presence on the lake and stress improved boating education and operator skills. To decrease the adverse effects of increased boat density, boating destinations are identified and protected; new boating destinations are to be developed. Participants in developing the program examined boat density standards and ocher use capacity concepts and found them of little use for Lake Minnetonka. Boat density standards seem to vary with population density and Che amount of freshwater resource available. That is, states with few water bodies seem to sec low (few acres per boat) density standards; others with abundant water resources seem to set high (many acres per boat) density standards. Accordingly, no "capacity'' for Lake Minnetonka is established or identified. Historical Background In 1972 the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District adopted the LMCD Code for regulating access, use and recreational facilities located on the lake. The Code continues to be the basis of LMCD management of boating access, whether across private riparian lands, at marinas, through homeowner associations or across publicly owned property. The code also provides the rules and regulations governing recreational activities on the lake during both the summer and winter. Since 1947, the DNR has held the responsibility for providing public boating access to lakas in Minnesota. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan places high priority on the development of public access sites. In the 1970s, the DNR began placing a higher priority on acquisition of metropolitan access sites (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979). During that same decade, the .Metropolitan Council adopted its Regional Recreation Open Space System, which gave the Council a direct interest in developing public boating access sites. "Against this backdrop, staff from the Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural Resources and State Planning Agency (now Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED)], with encouragement from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources, formed a Task Force to develop a strategy for improving access to metro area lakes" (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979, p. 2). In 1979 the Metropolitan Access Committee adopted an access standard for metropolitan lakes of one boat (or parking space) for every 20 acres of water (1979, pp. 4 and 11). The 1979 report defines "adequate" ramped public access as where there is "access for one boat per 20 acres of water surface" for metropolitar. lakes (1979, p. 4). Development guidelines for implementing that policy include "One [parking] space for each 20 acres of lake surface" (1979, p 11). Further, this policy for Lake Minnetonka was adopted by the 1982 Governor's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka (Governor's Task Force, 1982, p. 6). That standard for access was re-affirmed by the Metropolitan Council's Task Force (Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986, p. 5). Therefore, state and regional agency programs require 700 car/trailer parking spaces for Lake Minnetonka. Studies sponsored by the DNR and LMCD in 1984 and 1986 indicated that there are approximately 350 car\trailer parking spaces used during normal high use periods on the lake. An additional 350 must be added to meet these access goals. Authority Appendix A contains a more comprehensive discussion of authority for recreation management. There are parallel authorities over access that involve the DNR, Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, LMCD and the 14 lakeshore communities. All of these organizations have the authority to acquire, construct, operate, and maintain public boat access to the lake. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District has plans to develop a regional park in the southwestern part of the lake. The LMCD regulates docks, whether private, homeowner association, commercial marina or yacht club. The Hennepin County Sheriff also approves dock placement to assure that a hazard to navigation is not created. The DNR and Watershed District are involved under authority over construction in public waters, dredging and the placement of fill. The LMCD, Hennepin County and the DNR are most active In managing the use of the surface of Lake Minnetonka. Of these, the Department of Natural Resources and the LMCD have the most comprehensive authority, but the LMCD and Hennepin County are most actively involved through their day-to-day management activities. Public safety on the lake is the responsibility of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, the DNR and the LMCD. The LMCD has the authority to form its own police force or to contract with another law enforcement agency to enforce its rules. It contracts with the Hennepin County Sheriff, who provides most of the patrols on the lake. The DNR has authority in this area, but it complements the Water Patrol activities by generally being present at different hours and frequently focusing on compliance with fish and game laws. LAKE ACCESS AND USE MANAGEMENT Conceptual Framework Future recreational access and use management utilizes controls that are progressively more restrictive as .oat density on the lake continues to increase. The program does not establish an upper limit for the number of boats that will be allowed on the lake. Growth will be allowed, but it will be concentrated on those types of access available to all citizens of the state that wish to use the lake. The approach of progressively more restrictive regulation satisfies managers who subscribe to the two different alternative futures for the lake. The two futures are: 1) the lake is self-limiting and, 2) the lake must be managed by use and access controls. The first group believes that the lake is self-limiting. That is, the users themselves will impose an upper limit on peak period use. Once use reaches too great a density, this argument espouses, individual boaters will be displaced to other less heavily used resources. Implicit in the argument is that this displacement will occur at an acceptable point, keeping normal peak use .sufficiently low so that the recreational boating experience is protected. The second viewpoint is that access controls are needed, if not now, then at some point in the future. This alternative proposes that as use increases some desirable user groups will be displaced from the lake. User groups more tolerant of heavy use will remain and these remaining groups likely will be the less desirable. That is, boaters chat are willing to tolerate high wakes, encounters with higher speed watercraft and rule infractions will remain. While use restrictions can solve some of these problems, the correct approach is to manage the level of access. Regardless of which philosophical view a manager subscribes to, the best management approach is to establish progressively more stringent access limits as use increases. If the increased growth does not occur, or if conflicts are kept at an acceptable level through use management, then these access controls need not be implemented. But the management strategies are in place and are available at the appropriate instance. The approach is flexible. Through proper use of long-term monitoring, emerging problems can be identified. Appropriate management strategies can be implemented within the framework of this Long-Term Management Program. The LMCD has implemented a set of access controls that have served the lake relatively well. Limits are imposed by relating boat storage to length of shoreline controlled (owned or leased). These controls have prevented unrestrained growth on individual properties. But, taken collectively the rules are too generous for future recreation management. An ever increasingly greater number of households are gaining access to the lake. Historical Pattern of Access Growth Table ^ demonstrates the change in boat storage on the lake between 1974 and 1987. There is an overall decline in boat storage of approximately 1.4 percent. All of that decline occurs at individual lakeshore homes (-19.47 percent). At the same time, storage increased at municipal docks, marinas and homeowner associations. Throughout this same period, where was no significant change in parking available at boat access ramps, even though the King’s Point access was added in 1987. The increased parking at King's Point seems to be offset by corresponding losses at other locations. The records presented in Table 4 illustrate that there has been an increase in restricted-rights access. Restricted-rights access includes homeowner associations and municipal docks, were residence in certain subdivisions or in lakeshore communities provides the right to the dock. At homeowner associations, individual households may or may not be riparian and may or may not hold an interest in the riparian land used. M nicipal dock access is based on riparian lands owned by one of the 14 munic palities on the lake. In practice, these docks slides or lifts are rerted to residents of the owning municipality whether or not there is a formal policy of restricting the use to residents. No city rents a slip that is not either to the resident or to the immediate family of a landowner in the city. The stated policy of the LMCD is to "Preserve and promote Lake Minnetonka as a recreation and natural resource for all the citizens of the state" (LMCD Code, p. 1) which would encourage balanced growth in all forms of access. New management programs are needed that are cognizant of past inequities then assure that the general public has adequate and continued access through marinas and public access ramps. TABLE 4 Change In Boat: Storage on Lake Minnetonka 1974-1987 Year--- 1974 to 1987 Percent 1974 1980 1987 Change Change 6175 3555 4973 -1202 -19.47 632 797 1145 -1- 513 +81.17 1433 1716 1743 + 310 +21.63 231 395 453 + 222 +96.10 213 229 239 4- 26 +12.21 242 216 245 + 3 + 1.24 8926 6908 8798 - 128 - 1.39 Type of Storage Lakeshore Residents Municipal Docks Marinas Homeowner Associations Yacht Clubs Apartments Total Based on LMCD file data. Lakeshore residents live in single family, detached housing. Municipal docks are maintained by seven communities on public lakeshore lands. Marinas are commercial boat storage and service operations. Homeowner associations include condominiums, subdivisions where purchase of a residence gives the owner access through an outlot, groups of riparian homeowners, and at least two multiple docks that allow non-residents households the right to store a boat. Yacht Clubs are non-profit membership organizations that provide storage for some members. Apartments are rental housing units with a common dock for some residents. "1974-1987 Change" is measured in boats. "Percent Change" is the 1987 count divided by the 1974 count. Alternatives for Large Watercraft Large watercraft have limited alternatives where they can safely and properly operate. In 1987 a demand study was conducted for the DNR which provides data on alternative water bodies for boats of marina size (Department of Natural Resources, 1987). Lake Minnetonka, the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers, and White Bear I •’ke are the most attractive for sail boats. Power boat owners prefer these same resources, but also Forest Lake in northern Washington County. There is no question that Lake Minnetonka is the primary attraction for both sail and power boats in the metropolitan area. The St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers are i.mportant alternative attractions. Management practices of all agencies should be changed to reflect the needs of these large power and sail boats. Lake Use Density Standards In considering management options for Lake Minnetonka, it necessary to examine the density standards that other agencies and organizations have adopted, then examine their implication.*: for this lake. The data on density standards are not particularly useful because there is such a range in the standards. Table 5 presents a suimnary of standards that have been applied to various water bodies managed by a range of Federal, State and local agencies. The standards fall into two groups: single standards and individual boating activity standards. Agencies that have adopted a single standard include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the States of California, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the Province of Manitoba. Examination of the single standards seems to justify two conclusions: 1. The greater the population of the state, the lower the acres allocated per boat, and 2. The more acres of inland water available, the greater the acres allocated per boat. TABLE 5 Summary of Boat Density Standards In Acres Per Boat Single Anchored 10 hp Sail Water- Agency Standard Fishing or Less Boating skiing Army Corps of Engineers 1 1 California 1 ! Minnesota DNR 10 : Ontario 10 Wisconsin DNR 20 - Manitoba Soil Conseirvation Service bO 0.2 3.0 3.0 5.0 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 3.6-8.0 - -20-40 Ohio 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Park Planning Guidelines 0.2 1.0 0.4 - Pennsylvania 5.0 3.0 2.6 - Modified from: Development. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1987: Lake That does not help managers a great deal since Lake Minnetonka is neither an average lake nor is it used by average sized watercraft. Nor do standards for individual boating activities provide a great deal of guidance for Lake Minnetonka. Standards for anchored fishing range from 0.2 acres per boat to 8.0 acres per boat. The standard for waterskiing varies similarly between 5 and 40 acres. In actuality. Lake Minnetonka serves a variety of boating markets. Individual bays are alternatively and concurrently used by: sail boats, fishing boats, small power boats, large power boats, personal watercraft, and non-motorized craft including canoes. The diversity of activities and types of boats active on the lake depends as much on the different resource characteristics, attributes, or features available on the lake as well as the range of boating densities available. The lake is a general boating lake; one that supports a broad range of activities and supports a diversity of use intensities. c) d) Usable Acres In considering density standards for Lake Minnetonka, adjustments should be made to the traditional way that boat density has been computed on ’ •’ke Minnetonka. Part of the lake has been dedicated to other uses, su the 150-foot buffer zone along the shoreline as well as marinas and othej. multiple docks that extend beyond the 150-foot buffer. In recognition of this, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has published guidance for determining the usable portion of a lake for planning purposes (DNR, 1987, Lake Development, p. 21). The method suggests subtracting the following areas from the gross lake surface: a) a 60-meter band around the shore, b) a 120 meter band in front of marinas, public beaches, and access points, a 30-meter band around all navigation hazards, and the center portion of a lake more than 1.6 km from the shore (optional) The LMCD has established regulations that provide for a 150-foot buffer zone rather than the 180-foot zone (60 meters). It would appear that a satisfactory alternative would be to take the shoreline length and multiply by the 150 foot zone to obtain the square footage unavailable for general boating. Table 6 presents those computations by bay, expressed as "usable acres". Accounting for the extra distances in front of marinas, beaches, access points, and hazards does not seem warranted, since there are probably mors errors in the shoreline computation than in those minor adjustments. Lake Minnetonka has a gross area of 14,043 acres. Adjustment for the shoreline buffer zone results in a net 11,773 acres that is actually available for customary boating uses. This adjusted acreage is best for regulation of the lake. Table 7 compares the existing situation on Lake Minnetonka with various boat densities. The comparison begins with 8 acres per boat (existing) and extends to 1 acre per boat. Active boats, in Table 7, means that the boat is away from its dock on the lake, or that it has been put on the lake through one of the public access points. An active boat may be moving on the water, on the open lake but anchored or otherwise dead in the water, at a transient dock (bar, restaurants), or rafted at one of the popular anchorages. Table 8 presents the change in the density of active boats by bay for the alternative densities ranging from 8.0 to 4.0 (usable) acres per boat. The assumption essential to the table is: Boats added to the lake will be distributed in proportion to their present distribution on the lake. There are problems with that assumption, but only to a limited degree. Boats are distributed on a water body as the result of a range of different factors, but two of the most important are: 1) location and availability of access points (public, marinas, private docks), and 2) the distribution of features, characteristics, or attributes that attract the different boating markets served by the lake. That is, given equal access, the geographic distribution of boats on a water body will reflect the features, characteristics and attributes that boaters find attractive. Thus, sail boats tend to be found in different places than large power boats. Water-skiers tend to be on a different bay of this lake than heavy concentrations of boats. Fishermen go to known places of success. If the assumption were not true, then boats would be distributed on the lake randomly. That is, if features, characteristics and attributes have no effect on the boaters decision on where to go, then boats would be randomly or evenly distributed over the lake. That is not what happens on a water body, and on this lake in particular. Therefore, Table 8 distributes the new active boats in proportion to their present distribution. In all probability that will not happen, at least beyond a certain point. When conditions become too crowded, then certain markets may leave the lake (sailing seems most susceptible). When one bay becomes too crowded, another nearby bay with similar attractions may be more heavily used. With this shortcoming noted. Table 8 still represents the best distribution of new boats on the lake that the available data and literature permit. LONG-TERM RECREATION MANAGEMENT Management Framework The recreational use of the surface of Lake Minnetonka, the public and private recreational lands surrounding Lake Minnetonka and the related recreational lands in West Hennepin and adjacent Carver counties shall be for the broadest public use, with minimum conflict between different uses. Further, the lake shall be managed to maintain the lake's regional role as a general boating lake. Specifically, the LMCD and ocher agencies responsible for managing recreational resources shall continue to manage recreational access and use of the lake to: TASLE 8 Effect of Various Density Standards on Lake Minnetonka Active Boat Density f 7-- t • Area Number Description 13 Emerald Lake 31 Libb’s Bay 14 Seton Lake 19 Coffee Cove 38 Echo Bey 39 Bis Island Passage 36 Excelsior Bay 12 Black Lake 33 Bay St. Louis 40 Veteran's Bay 34 Carson's Bay 18 Forest Lake 24 Maxwell Bay 27 T^mager Lake 32 Robinson's Bay 15 Harrison’s Bay 35 St. Alban's Bay 30 Gray's Bay 41 Lower Lake South 20 West Crystal Bay 3 Cook's Bay 10 Old Channel Bey 22 North Am 6 Sfflithtown Bey 2 Priest's Say 23 Stubb’s Bay S South Upper Lake Number of Bays With Acres of Water 13 17 44 57 15 36 90 76 20 82 116 82 300 51 92 215 161 180 978 325 343 106 319 110 144 195 722 Usable Acres 0 0 4 24 6 21 66 9 62 67 49 233 31 23 151 108 122 898 280 303 82 234 68 105 ISO 602 Existing Density 0 0 .15 .20 ■ 39 Acres Per Active Boat By Incremental Density 8.00 0 0 .15 .19 .37 7 00 0 0 .13 .17 ■ 33 .61 .89 .58 .85 1.09 1.20 1.91 3.13 4.21 4.36 1.04 1.14 1.82 2.98 4.01 4.16 4.92 4J4 .51 .75 .91 1.00 6.00 0 0 .11 .14 .28 .44 Levels 5.00 0 0 .09 .12 .23 .36 .64 .78 .86 .53 I. .65 ■ 71 1.59 2.61 3.51 3.64 4.31 4.32 4.80 4.89 1.38 2.24 3.01 3.12 3.69 3.71 4.11 4.20 4.50 4.83 4.95 1.14 1.86 2.50 2.60 3.08 3.09 3.43 3.50 3.75 4.02 4.13 4.43 4.76 4.00 0 0 ■ 07 ■ 10 ■ 19 .29 .43 .52 .57 ■ 91 1.49 2 2.08 2.46 2.47 2.74 2.80 3 3.22 3.30 3.54 3.81 4.02 4.19 4.26 4.69 4.79 Lass than 0.5 acres/boat 5 5 5 6 6 7 Lass than 1.0 acres/boat 7 7 9 9 9 10 Lass than 5.0 acres/boat 13 15 20 20 22 27 Usable Acres of Lake Surface Less than 0.5 acres/boat 34 34 34 55 55 123 Less than 1.0 acres/boat 123 123 150 150 150 212 Leas than 5.0 acres/boat 561 620 879 2179 2564 37i3 Percent of the Lake’s Usable Surface Lass than 0.5 acres/boat .29 .29 ■ 29 .47 .47 1.04 Less than 1.0 acres/boat 1.04 1.04 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.80 Less than 5.0 acres/boat 4.77 5.27 7.47 18.51 21.78 31.80 Total New Active Boats Added 19 229 509 902 1490 Total Active Boats 1453 1472 1682 1962 2355 2943 a) preserve and promote Lake Minnetonka as recreational and natural resource for all the citizens of the state; b) promote and regulate the orderly utilization of the lake and its shorelands by all users of the lake and those placing structures within it; c) achieve a balance between the interests of public use and the conservation of the lake as a natural resource; d) pre\ * pollution of Che lake and preserve its ecological balance by 1. ating recreational use In the lake ind in individual bays, arras, lakes and channels; and e) provide for the health, safety, order, convenience and general welfare of users and lakeshore residents by ordinances not inconsistent with the laws of the state. Accordingly, Lake Minnetonka access and use shall be managed to remain open Jor all citizens of the state. While riparian landovmers have certain constitutional and common law rights of access, no other group shall be recognized as having special privileges or other rights of access. Management methods required to achieve this include: equitable regulation of access through ordinance, imposing limitations on certain types of access, and restricting certain access and use temporally and spacially. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. The LMCD shall continue its present system of managing access to, and use of, the lake through ordinance and regulation. The LMCD Code shall continue to be the basis of regulating lake use and access. The policies and practices shall be reviewed from tine to time a. use density changes to determine if more or less restrictive management practices are appropriate. 2. The management of recreational boating access on Lake Minnetonka shall be based on density of use. As density increases on the laK-! as a whole or on individual bays, lakes or arms, regulation shall become progressively more restrictive. Usable lake surface will be the basis of determining density on Lake Minnetonka (11,800 acres). Past growth patterns indicate an increase of 450 boats over the last 10 years, or 45 new boats per year. That means in twenty years, the lake could be at a density of 5 acres of water surface per boat. It is difficult to project with Che limited data available so Che growch could be fascer or slov»er chan indicated. Thac is why achievement of actual densities trigger regulatory changes. Growch of boating use on Lake Minnetonka during the normal peak use period is inevitable. As the population changes, should boating participation increase in Che market area, or should boat size continue to increase, it is likely thac the lake will be subjected to greater pressure. The purpose of progressively more restrictive access controls is to av>id conflicts, to laJce'3 role as a general boating lake. To implement this objective, the following management practices shall be imposed (each of these is explained in detail in the appropriate Preliminary Plans and Working Papers): Density 8.0 (Present Conditions) Regulatory Actions 8“1 Allocate 350 additional (to 700) car/trailer parking spaces for public and private access ramps. Marina docks converted to individual ownership (condo) shall cause the marina to lose grandfathering and shall be subject to the most restrictive frontage-foot rule applicable to any riparian parcel. Establish and enforce to the greatest extent allowed under law a policy of no further use of outlots for non-riparian landowner access on lands previously developed. Develop a policy restricting outlet use at new subdivisions subject to the 1:50 rule, a length-width limitation, one single croup dock for all landowners, and subject to other restrictions imposed by the LMCD. *.o3ure licensed marinas remain available to all citizens of the state. Additional special density permits at municipal or homeowner association licensed docks shall be banned. Review the rules governing individual riparian storage of boats. Restrict use of and/or license operators of personal watercraft sailboards, and hovercraft. Designate anchorages on the lake with appropriate restrictions. Intergovernmental Coerdination/Cooperation 8-10 Improve law enforcement presence on the lake. 8-11 Coordinate development and implementation of an aggressive boater education program in Hennepin County. 8-12 Coordinate a legislative program to obtain state boat operator licensing. 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 8-7 8-8 8-9 Studies 8-13 Develop a plan for providing further beaching/rafting areas. 8-14 Develop a plan for managing excursion boat docking and parking. 8-15 Refine the established program of imposing limits on the use of bays with the greatest use density. 8-16 Study means of limiting boat wakes. Density 7.0 Regulatory Actions 7-1 Fix municipal access at existing levels. 7-2 Link further access growth in any form (including ramped public access) with increased law enforcement presence on the lake. 7-3 Determine the source of the growth in density, then impose restrictions to slow growth of the forms of access responsible for the growth. 7-4 Determine if more restrictive frontage-foot rules (1:50 and 1:10) are needed. 7-5 Review the need for lowering the speed limit, day and night. 7-6 Review use and storage densities of individual bays for further regulation. 7-7 Require a certificate from an approved boater education course to operate a boat on the lake. 7-8 Restrict ultralight take-off and landings between 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends and holidays. 7-9 Review the maximum boat length for private watercraft and excursion boats. Intergovernmental Coordination/Cooperation 7-10 Continue to develop anchorage opportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian property. Studies 7-11 Undertake a study to identify groups in conflict and to determine the appropriate management remedies. Density 6.0 Regulatory Actions 6-1 Link further access growth to development of anchorage opportunities at a ratio of one additional access unit to two rafting/anchorage units. 6-2 Initiate a program to reduce and ultimately eliminate grandfathering at municipal and homeowner associations docks. 6-3 Review the frontage-foot rules to determine if a more restrictive one is need-^. 6-4 Review the rules governing riparian storage of boats. 6-5 Impose use restrictions between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekends and holidays. 6-6 Review the need for additional patrol hours on the lake. Intergovernmental Coordination/Cooperation 6-7 Continue to develop rafting/a.ichorage opportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian property. Density 5.0 Regulatory Actions 5-1 Further restrict resident riparian storage. 5-2 Review the frontage-foot rules to determine if a more restrictive one is needed. 5-3 Impose a policy of no growth on all forms of access. 5-4 Eliminate grandfathering at all forms of wet storage on the lake Intergovernmental Coordination/Cooperation 5-5 Continue to develop rafting/anchorage opportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian property. 5-6 Review the need for additional patrol hours on the lake. Justification for these progressively more restrictive limitations are: provide for public safety, provide for the broadest, most general boating use without displacing traditional boating groups, provide for orderly growth, minimize conflicts between competing groups, encourage open and free access to all residents of the market area, and provide a safe, satisfactory and aesthetically pleasing boating experience on the lake. The LMCD has the legislative mandate to control boating and growth of boating on the laJce. access is mandatory. Since growth is inevitable/ management of use and 3. The LMCD shall adopt comprehensive ordinances, including zoning, to implement its access controls. The purpose of this objective is to better categorize the LMCD access rules and regulations into an ordinance that links boat storage with existing municipal zoning. This gives the LMCD the same tool that riparian municipalities use to control changes in land use. In this case, the LMCD shall zone the water surface in the nearshore areas co control changes in water surface use and boat storage. This adds a new regulatory tool to the LMCD procedures that is readily understood by developers and municipal staff alike. It further provides a clear procedure for controlling changes in access to the lake and assures that such changes are consistent with this Mar. jement Program and with the policies of the district. This separates decisions concerning use of shoreline areas from how many boats will be stored at the property. To implement such an ordinance, the LMCD shall meet with each individual municipality to determine the classification of the nearshore waters of the lake. It is conceived that the classifications adopted would be that of the city. The known exception would be the manufacturing district in one city on the lake. Such zoning will be a useful tool in assuring that less densely used areas are not converted to a more dense boat storage use unless it is consistent with LMCD policy and with this Management Program. 4. Future public access points shall utilize remote parking and shuttles as appropriate. It is inconsistent with this Management Program (Shoreland and Environmental Protection) to create significant new hardcover surfaces adjacent to the lake. Therefore, future access ramp design shall include provision for off-site carXtrailer parking. Shuttles shall be included as appropriate to carry boaters and their gear from parking to their launched boat. Parking and/or shuttle fees may be charged to recover service costs. 5. The LMCD shall cooperate with the Metropolitan Access Committee (composed of DNR, DTED and the Metropolitan Council) to embark on an aggressive program to obtain funding for assuring the availability of 700 car/trailer parking spaces at public and private launch ramps including improving or closing existing access points. The overall objective for Lake Minnetonka is to provide one car/trailer parking space for each 20 acres of gross lake surface. As parking in formal, controlled lots increases, on-street parking will be reduced. When there are 700 car/trailer parking spaced provided in formal parking lots, then on-street car/trailer parking shall be eliminated. The Metropolitan Access Committee composed of the DNR, DIED and Metropolitan Council staff have adopted a policy of providing public trailered boat access at a level of one boat for every 20 acres of lake surface. For Lake Minnetonka that is 700 car/trailer parking spaces. That number was also agreed to during previous Task Forces addressing access to Lake Minnetonka. Given those policies, which the agencies involved are fully capable of implementing under their own statutory authority, this objective recognizes that level of access and goes one step farther. In order for growth to take place with minimal dxsruption to access management on the lake, the access points should be constructed as soon as possible, certainly before use density significantly increases on the lake. But all managing entities must understand that if patrol hours do not increase on the lake when density 7.0 is reached, then there will be no further access growth at public access points allowed until the problem is rectified. A working partnership of the appropriate implementing agencies—DNR, DTED, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, LMCD, and other agencies is long overdue. Since development of such access is likely to generate controversy, it is intended that the public debate be held once and legal battles minimized. The study for implementing the access plan should be jointly sponsored by all of the major managing agencies and should include municipal representation. Small lots serving anglers shall provide access to as many bays as possible. The study shall also address the issue of pricing boat ramp access to the lake. 6. The LMCD shall use existing authority to regulate parking, hard cover and sanitary facilities at any facility that requ -j a multiple dock license. The LMCD traditionally has used this authority at most marinas. The practice should now be extended to any facility requesting a multiple dock license. Attention should be focused on any component of the site plan that has the potential to impact the water quality, lakeshore aesthetics, and lake use. From a functional standpoint, homeowner associations are marinas operated for the convenience of a special public and not for profit. Yacht Clubs function as marinas, but are not for profit. Apartments have group docks that differ little from some of the smaller profit-making marinas on the lake. All of multiple dock facilities have one important factor in common: they generate the same concentrated impacts to the lake as a commercial marina. It is inconsistent that o.n-shore facilities at marinas should be subjected to LMCD review, but multiple dock on-shore facilities not. 7. The LMCD shall develop regulations for multiple docks that establish specific criteria for determining the dock use area under high, normal and low water conditions. The purpose of this objective is to establish criteria that permit the optimum use of the lake's surface. Present regulations of the LMCD encourage lateral expansion of marinas (where allowed by local municipal zoning) by application of its special density allowance (one for ten rule). The alternative approach is to trade lateral expansion for extension into the lake. Therefore, a regulatory plan for multiple docks shall be developed that considers high, normal and low water levels. The plan shall include: 1) criteria for deteirmining whether lateral or lakeward expansion are preferred, 2) the limits for dock adjustment under high water conditions, and 3) the limits for dock adjustment under low water conditions. This study should be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance for the lake. 8. Buffer zones and use regulations shall be reviewed from time to tLme to maintain protection of lakeshore residents, lakeshore developments, and certain users. The width of the buffer zone may need to be changed in order to assure use of the lake by the widest and most general population, both summer and winter. The buffer zone provides for personal security while on the lake and also protects lakeshore residents from high-speed vehicles and exposure to noise. Improved enforcement of rules and regulations establishing the buffer zo.nes is essential. This is especially true as recreational use increases, and as the density of boats (summer) and motor vehicles (winter) increases. Further protection may be required to protect visitors participating in low impact uses, such as: canoeing cross-country skiing paddle boating ice skating fishing hiking/walking for pleasure 9. Speed limits and quiet water areas on the lake, sturuner and winter, shall be reviewed from time to time. These are two management techniques that have been used by the LMCD to reduce conflicts and to provide an enjoyable recreational experience for the broadest spectrum of users. Utilization of these techniques shall continue. As appropriate, controls shall be imposed lakewide or on specific bays, lakes and arms. 10. The LMCD shall work to optimize use of all public lands for winter access to the lake for all user groups. The purpose is to utilize all public lands for winter access to the maximum possible extent and to produce a map of winter access for use by the general public. This means that fire lanes, road ends, parks and other public property should be open to at least some winter access consistent with municipal goals. The reason for utilizing all public lands is to offer every opportunity for minimizing trespass on private property and to enhance law enforcement activities. The advantages of these steps are; 1. .Minimizing trespass as a problem for lakeshore residents. 2. Maximizing convenience to legitimate users of the lake. Imple.mentation shall be by the LMCD, each local community, Hennepin County and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Implementation would involve: 1. Verification of data contained in the inventory of recreational facilities prepared as part of this Management Program. 2. Meetings with each organization to identify allowable accesses for each type of user group. 3. Assistance in needed ordinance changes, if any. 4. Preparation of maps and brochures for public distribution. 11. Improve regulation of ice houses. Improved regulation is necessary for the control of litter that accumulates on the lake in the winter and to support other regulatory programs on the lake. Fundamental to a regulatory program is providing regulators with the information necessary to enforcement agencies. That is not the case with ice houses on Lake Minnetonka. Too high a percentage of ice houses on the lake do not fully comply with identification regulations of the DNR. The DNR and Water Patrol shall maintain a continuing effort to improve compliance with ice house licensing and marking. The enforcement officers will then use existing regulatory authority to assure litter is removed from the ice surface on a regular and timely basis. Should these efforts fail for the LMCD, then there are three steps to implementation: 1. Obtain agreement from the DNR to implement a record keeping program that meets the needs of regulatory or enforcement agencie.*. 2. Obtain the authority from the DNR to issue ice house licenses for Lake Minnetonka. 3. Implement LMCD permitting authority for a separate permit for ice houses on the lake. Should item one not be achieved, then step two will be implemented. Should that fail, then step three. Regulators shall also consider requiring that a trash container be kept inside each ice house. III. USER EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION PERSPECTIVE Enhancing user experience and satisfaction on the lake is more than protecting personal safety. Minimizing personal injury and property damage, responding to drowning and investigation of property losses does provide the base of the public safety program. But protecting the recreational experience is also important. Density of boats on the lake will increase. As that happens, additional law enforcement presence will be required to maintain the current level of user satisfaction with their boating experience. Ultimately, it is expected that conditions will require the LMCD to exercise its authority to form a separate Lake Minnetonka law enforcement agency. Currently, law enforcement on the lake is provided by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. For now, the Water Patrol concentrates its resources on basic protection of public safety; enforcement of ordinances aimed at maintaining comfort and enjoyment appears to be a lower priority. There are three major goals to protect user experience and satisfaction: 1) continue and enhance basic public safety; 2) enforce all ordinances and rules, including those aimed at public comfort and enjoyment; and 3) facilitate coordination and cooperation between law enforcement departments active on the lake and the lakeshore. During the winter emphasis is on better control of litter. One part of the ensuing program is aimed at increasing the number of patrol hours on the lake. Resource managers express two major concerns in this important area of recreational resource management. The first concern is that there is a separation between the primary legislative body for the lake (LMCD) and the law enforcement agency (Water Patrol). Budget for the Water Patrol is ultimately funded by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Hennepin County Board. The DNR accounts for roughly 40 percent and the County for 60 percent of the $350,000 law enforcement budget. Thus, law enforcement on the lake depends on four separate public bodies each maintaining their commitment. Thf. LMCD enacts ordinances to be enforced. The Water Patrol determines the level of enforcement for the lake. The Hennepin County Board determines the amount of local Water Patrol funding in view of internal Sheriff Department priorities and county-wide priorities. The DNR ultimately determines the formula for distributing boating safety funds to individual counties throughout the state. The result is that four public bodies affect the level of Water Patrol activity on the lake. This Management Program seeks to provide more local control and to assure optimum funding for this lake. The second concern is that there will be increased competition for the patrol hours within Hennepin County. The Sheriff's Water Patrol is responsible for providing for user safety on all recreational water bodies in the county. In the future, it is likely that more water bodies will demand patrol time. Additionally, other water bodies, especially the .Mississippi River, will likely need more patrol hours than currently received. Resource managers on Lake Minnetonka believe significant new funds are needed to avoid a decrease in patrol hours on the lake and, indeed, to provide for more patrol hours. Accordingly, this Management Program calls for Che LMCD to directly contract with the Sheriff's Water Patrol for patrol hours over and above the basic protection now provided. The mechanism for this is a broader and more stable tax base for the LMCD and a new interagency agreement with Che Water Pavjol. This gives the LMCD more control over enforcement of its ordinances, and therefore, more control over the quality of the recreational experience. Public safety needs special attention because: 1) at peak hours an average of 1500 active boats generate conflicts and at times unsafe conditions, and 2) as growth continues there has Co be a corresponding increase in patrol hours. It is important to understand chat more enforcement need not mean more citations or more arrests. The goal of public safety on Che lake is to provide a safe and enjoyable recreational experience. Deterring violations is most important. So the emphasis is on maintaining existing patrol hours and enforcement priorities, and then increasing general visibility, e.g., Che mere presences of patrol boats on the lake. AUTHORITY The responsibility for enforcement of rules and regulations, by statute, lies with Che Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Hennepin County Sheriff jointly. The LMCD has authority by virtue of Chapr«i 907 of the laws of 1967 as amended. This responsibility includes traditional water surface law enforcement as well as regulating liquor licenses on charter boats operating on Che lake. In addition, Che LMCD enabling legislation gives the District "operation, maintenance and police" authority over all lands used for access to the lake unless individual municipalities specifically reserved their local prerogative. The LMCD has never had its own police department. Instead, the LMCD has contracted for services with che Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrcl. An interagency agreement gives the Hennepin County Sheriff authority over chat part of Carver County in Smithtown Bay. The Hennepin and Carver County Sheriff's Patrol Division also has enforcement authority over adjacent upland areas around che shore of che lake. The DNR also actively enforces rules and regulations on the lake. Conservation officers are licensed peace officers in Minnesota and have full authority to enforce state and local rules and regulations. Three officers are assigned to southwestern Hennepin County. Two of these have assigned areas chat include Lake Minnetonka and smaller nearby lakes. The third officer does not regularly patrol Lake Minnetonka, but does assist periodically. Additionally, as with the Water Patrol, grant money has i 1 provided opportunity to supplement normal patrols in 1988 and 1989 with officers working overtime on weekends. The result is that the DNR provides approximately 36 hours of patrol each weekend, between Friday and Sunday, during the summer. These patrols are important for two reasons. First is quality; the patrols are conducted by licensed, professional peace officers. Second, the DNR personnel are likely to be on the lake during early morning hours if fishing regulations are being enforced. That is a time when the Water Patrol is not as active as later in the day. In addition to the Hennepin County Sheriff, there are nine other organizations that can enforce certain laws, ordinances or regulations. These include: Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District - upland areas within regiona’’ parks under their jurisdiction Local public safety departments include: Carver County Sheriff - City of Victoria Deephaven-Woodland - Cities of Deephaven and Woodland Minnetonka - City of Minnetonka Minnetrista - City of Minnetrista Mound - City of Mound Orono - Cities of Orono, Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park South Lake - Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay Wayzata - City of Wayzata These departments may enforce local ordinances but do not have the authority to enforce LMCD rules and regulations on the lake. The Suburban Hennepin Park District rangers have authority only on those lands administered by the Park District. In addition to these organizations, there is another state agency that has the potential of affecting law enforcement on the lake and its shoreline. The Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training licenses peace officers, part time peace officers and constables employed in Minnesota. In any effort for the LMCD to form its own law enforcement body, the P.O.S.T. Board will be involved. BACKGROUND Data on user attitudes towards law enforcement on the lake and its shorelines were collected through a series of surveys conducted during the summer of 1988 and the winter of 1988-1989. Surveys conducted on boater groups include boaters that enter the lake through: 1. public access points, 2. marinas and homeowner associations, and 3. private lakeshore residences. Overall, data from surveys indicate chat users have a positive attitudes Coward Che courtesy and performance of the Water Patrol. The users feel chat Che Water Patrol is doing a good job, but the users express the desire for more patrol hours. To have more patrol hours requires additional funds. 35 L Users were asked about unsafe situations encountered during their last boating trip on the lake. More than 50 percent of the boaters identified the following as having occurred: high wakes. alcohol abuse by boat operator, failure to yield the right-of-way, excessive speed, and near miss/collision. Other data from the summer surveys indicate: 1. Approximately one half of the access and shoreline resident respondents feel that observance of the rules of the road is lacking. 2. Approximately 70 percent of the marina-based respondents felt the rules were not being observed. 3. The Water Patrol is perceived to be doing an adequate job, but users believe that they are limited by staffing and equipment. 4. In all three groups, less than 40 percent (27.3 residents and 37.0 marina) have completed a boating safety course. 6. At the same time, 86.0 to 87.5 percent of the boaters in all three classes were satisfied or very satisfied with their last trip. Basically, the situation is as expected for a heavily used lake. More than one-half of all boaters in each class are encountering high wakes, alcohol abuse, right-of-way problems, excessive speed, and near misses/collisions during their trips. Such situations do not always adversely affect some boaters enjoyment of the lake. Boaters on Lake Minnetonka expect to encounter problems when they go on the lake. Further, boaters on the lake feel that there are enough rules, but those rules need to be better enforced. The major issues facing management of Lake Minnetonka with respect to user experience and satisfaction is finding a mechanism to increase patrol hours and determining the number of patrols that are needed during peak hours. Winter surveys were conducted between December, 1988 and April, 1989. In general, the pattern of responses parallels the findings of summer attitudes. Three groups were surveyed: lakeshore residents, residents not on the lakeshore but within approximately 1/4 mile, and persons with ice house licenses. Effective response rates were above 65 percent and below 76 percent. The overall level of enforcement was considered as deficient by 32.2 and 23.2 percent of the respondents with residents he highest and ice anglers the lowest. Focusing on the components of enforcement, alcohol abuse, then vehicle noise and the nighttime speed limit were perceived to be the major problems. Again, the number of patrols is perceived as too low by between 45.6 and 36.1 percent of the respondents. The staff is considered too low by between 42.0 and 29.1 percent of the users surveyed and the level of equipment is considered to be too low by between 27.2 and 16.0 percent. This pattern of responses is similar to those for summer use. While out on the lake, the primary problem encountered is litter. Between 75.4 and 54.9 percent of the respondents feel that the litter problem primarily arises from persons engaged in ice fishing. Ice fishing and snowTDobiling is believed to be jointly responsible for the litter problem by between 92.4 and 78.0 percent of the respondents. Unlike summer, only between 9.1 and 4.0 percent of the respondents indicate that the number of unsafe incidents exceeded expectations. Similarly, between 88.5 and b8.7 percent of the respondents were satisfied with their last visit. CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM SURVEYS Data available from surveys conducted in the summer of 1988 and the winter of 1989 reveal a consistent pattern of attitudes. The major conclusions that may be drawn from these data include: 1. The level of enforcement needs to be increased on the lake. 2. The staff of the Water Patrol needs to be increased. 3. The number of patrol boats available for use on the lake needs to be increased. 4. Emphasis should be placed on enforcement of existing rules and regulations instead of imposing new rules and regulations. 5. More parking is needed at access points on the lake. 6. Increased boating safety education is needed among the user groups on the lake. 7. Improved signage at and near access points should be considered. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. Managing entities shall work with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol for a consistent and stable state and county funding procedure. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol budget fluctuates from year to year, often because of changing state funding procedures. To use financial resources most effectively, funding sources need to be more stable than they have in the past. More stable and consistent procedures allows long-term planning which directly affects personnel assignments. 2. The level of staff and the number of patrol boats on Lake Minnetonka shall be tied to boat density. As boat density increases on Lake Minnetonka, the number of patrol hours on the lake need to increase. An important purpose of the additional patrols is to maintain the quality of the recreational experience on the lake. Ultimately, the goal is for 24-hour coverage seven days per week. But in the short terra, the goal is to provide 24-hour coverage for four days per week for the 17 week period generally between May 15 and September 15. The days would include Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, with the fourth either Thursday or Monday, depending upon the Water Patrol's judgement and experience. The purpose of the increased patrols is to increase: 1) general visibility on the lake, 2) enforcement of ordinances aimed at public comfort and enjoyment, and 3) proactive enforcement. The LMCD shall contract with the Sheriff's Water Patrol for the additional patrol hours. Funding shall be the property tax levy discussed under ''Management Structure". Implementation of the 24-hour coverage on four days per week and the additional 3000 patrol hours shall be prior to the lake reaching a density of 7.0 (usable) acres per boat. After that, the LMCD and the Sheriff's Department shall jointly determine the rate at which patrol hours increase as density increases. Specific duty assignments for the additional patrols must remain with the Water Patrol command. However, LMCD shall discuss priorities of enforcement with the Sheriff's Department annually at the time of contracting. 3. The LMCD shall take a leadership role in a county-wide boating education program. The purpose is to provide a forum for coordination and intensification of boating education in Hennepin County. Data indicate that less than 35 percent of the respondents to questionnaires during summer 1988 surveys have completed a boating safety course. At the same time, additional survey data indicate that observance of rules-of-the-road is lacking. Emphasis on enforcement needs to be only one part of a program to enhance compliance with safe boating practices. Boating safety programs are presently encouraged by the Power Squadron, sailing clubs and the DNR. The percent of Lake Minnetonka boaters completing a boating education course is in line with the average for the metropolitan region and the southern part of the state. Only the northern part of the state has a lower average. However, in view of the density of boats, the percentage of boaters desiring more enforcement and the complaints that boaters do not know the rules of tho road, improved boater education would alleviate some problems on the lake. The objective requires a multi-pronged approach which includes: 1. Meeting with organizations with common interests to establish priorities and program design. 2. Expand distribution of educational materials around the lake. 3. Assistance in development of informational programs. 4. Expansion of participation in boating education courses. Organizations to involve include: DNR Division of Water Safety Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Hennepin County Power Squadron Sailing clubs Coast Guard Auxiliary Minneapolis Park District/Other park districts Community education/service programs of school districts 4. The LMCD shall work with the Hennepin County court system to require pera>/ns convicted of major Infractions and repeat offenders to complete a boating safety course. For this to work, the following must be available prior to contact with the Chief Judge: 1. Regularly scheduled courses 2. Courses with a mixture of voluntary and compulsory attendance 3. A shorter version of the course than the traditional power squadron offering Presently, boating safety courses are available only certain tiroes of the year; they are typically not offered during the summer when most infractions occur. 5. Responsible agencies shall improve noise enforcement on the lake. Noise is an often-mentioned problem for boaters and winter us^-rs on Lake Minnetonka. Based on survey responses, suggestions at public meetings, and personal observations the following is the min:, u that should b? implemented for noise reduction: 1. 2. 3. The Water Patrol shall provide the latest technology for noise measurement in each patrol boat on Lake Minnetonka. This includes having trained staff on each patrol. Similar provision should be made for winter as appropriate for winter equipment and cold weather operation. The LMCD should revise their present ordinance to impose a 71 decibel limit after 11 pm and before 7:00 am summer and winter. Work with the Hennepin County Chief Judge to obtain increased fines along with a doubling of the fines for noise violations at night. 6. The use of personal watercraft, hovercraft and similar devises shall be limited by ordinance. Personal watercraft shall be limited to the same hours of operation as waterskiing. Restriction of other devises shall be determined by the LMCD. The LMCD shall work with industry trade groups, the DNR, Water Patrol and other interested organizations to encourage, education, self regulation and solutions to other problems associated with the use of these types of craft. 7. Responsible agencies shall improve coordination of special events on the lake. The LMCD shall sponsor semi-annual meetings to coordinate special events on the lake. The purpose of the meeting is to resolve problems that have arisen or may arise from scheduling such events. Participants at the meeting should be: LMCD Water Patrol Suburban Hennepin Parks Individual Public Safety Departments (Applicants notified and attending) 8. The LMCD, the Sheriff's Water Patrol and other involved Public Safety Departments shall hold semi-annual meetings to discuss priorities for enforcement of summer and winter rules on the lake. Twice each year, the LMCD shall host a meeting of law enforcement agencies to establish to enforcement priorities for the coming season. The meeting should address: 1. Past problems and proposed solutions 2. Priority for proactive enforcement activities 3. Allocation of resources to Lake Minnetonka 4. Coordination and communication between the LMCD. Water Patrol and local Public Safety Departments 5. Improvement of reporting between law enforcement agencies active on and around the lake 6. Mailing lists for notification of special events and other issues 9. The LMCD shall work with the Hennepin County Sheriff, the Water Patrol and local Public Safety Departments to assure direct communication using the latest technology available to the various departments. Presently, the radio frequency used by the Water Patrol is for the exclusive use of the Water Patrol and the narcotics division; local law enforcement organizations do not have access to the frequency. That presents a significant barrier to communications and coordination of activities. The problem is difficult and will -(ot be easily solved since all frequencies have been assigned. But technological changes are occurring and will continue. As these changes are implemented locally, all law enforcement departments shall work to assure the most direct and efficient communication possible. IV. SHORELAND PROTECTION PERSPECTIVE Lake Minnetonka is particularly affected by the actions of 14 lakeshore communities, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in controlling development and redevelopment within their jurisdictions. To protect the lake, controls need to be imposed beyond the shoreline and riparian parcels of land. Accordingly, this part of the L^ng-Terra Management Program for Lake Minnetonka presents guidelines for contic]Iing development, redevelopment and land uses within 1,000 feet of the lake (shortslands). The LMCD does not now have, nor does it seek, authority over land use decisions in the 14 cities. Instead, it seeks improved coordination and communication with the cities and the Watershed District to assure protection of the environmental quality of the lake. The overall strategy utilizes a two-pronged approach to minimizing the adverse effects of development. The first prong is to use the existing DNR shoreland management program as the basis for developing a consistent model ordinance to be adopted and enforced by the 14 municipalities. The second part is to use the 509 Plan being developed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) needs to provide an oversight review to assure that individual communities enforce the Shoreland Management Standards and Criteria (Appendix C) and the requirements contained in the 509 Plan. This approach does not alter the traditional jurisdictions and powers of local government on the lake. Instead, it depends on intergovernmental agreements and long-term cooperation to achieve the stated goals and objectives. That requires greater commitment by the LMCD in order to assure that all involved organizations consistently act in the greater public good and sometimes transcend more limited local interest. Accordingly, protection of the lake from the adverse effects of development and redevelopment requires a strong working partnership between managing entities and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District because the District does not seek expanded authority above elevation 929.4 (Ordinary High Water). Appendix C contains Standards and Criteria for municipal ordinances and Watershed District regulations controlling shoreland development in the 14 communities. The purpose of the Shoreland Management Standards and Criteria is to protect: 1) the lake from pollution, 2) the natural environment of the lake nd the communities, 3) the local tax base, 4) aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake surface, 5) public health, and 6) public safety. The Standards and Criteria are designed to be implemented under the Department of Natural Resource's Shoreland Management Program as well as the Watershed District's Regulations. Management Areas Shoreland Management concerns three Inter-related areas: 1) controlling development and redevelopment ••ithin 1,000 feet of the lake; 2) protection of upland areas from development and redevelopment induced by use of the lake; and 3) management of public recreation facilities on the lake. Therefore, this part of the Long-Term Management Program views shoreland areas from both the lake and from the land. It is essential to protect the lake and upland areas from adverse effects largely arising from the popularity and the quality of the natural resources of Lake Minnetonka. The use of the lake generates pressure for development as well as the development of on-shore attractions that affect water use patterns. Only some of these are bars, restaurants, bait shops, marinas and other water-oriented facilities. Public recreation facilities, including regionally attractive and neighborhood parks, vistas, lookouts, fishing piers, picnic areas and swimming beaches, present another set of problems to be minimized. Shoreland Protection is closely related to both Environmental Protection and Recreational Management Programs. Wetland and Water Quality management objectives provide further restrictions on development along the shoreline and in the upper basin. Recreation Management focuses on recreational use of the lake and the shoreline. AUTHORITY The LMCD seeks no new authority over land use decisions in the shoreland cities. Implementation of the Comprehensive Management Plan depends upon a partnership and coordination b#*»~>reen local, regional and state agencies. No single agency is positioned t ‘Icment a unilateral shoreland protection program for Lake Minnetonka. . il authority is divided between 14 riparian communities. The LMCD has extensive authority over the lake surface -it very limited authority over shorelands. Tlie Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Watershed District) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (CNR) have extensive authority, but both heavily rely on local implementation and enforcement of their shoreland regulatory programs. Because of the political and fiscal realities of budget and staffing, these two agencies tend more to establish policy, standards and criteria; implementation and enforcement customarily relies on local efforts. The Metropolitan Council is little involved in the day-to-day implementation of these regulatory programs. The authority for protecting the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka may be shared between local, regional and state government, but it is the local unit that must enforce controls. For Lake Minnetonka, implementation must be through a new partnership forged with involved agencies and through more consistent dialogue. This means that the LMCD is dependent on outside agencies to implement development and redevelopment controls essential to maintain the quality of the lake's recreational experience, to protect upper basin wetlands, and to maximize water quality in the lake. PLANNING CONTEXT The Shoreland Protection Plan evolved from three concurrent forces: 1) development of the management plan for Lake Minnetonka; 2) revision of the DNR shoreland management regulations; and; 3) preparation of the 509 Plan by the Watershed District. These three processes, arising from independent authorities and independent setting of priorities, culminated in coordinated and cooperative local response to state regulatory programs. To varying degrees, each of the 14 lakeshore communities on the lake have dedicated time, effort and resources to developing, implementing and enforcing programs that affect the lake. The i.-::t<fnt of this Shoreland Protection Plan is to protect the integrity of ti.jse programs where warranted, enhance them when possible, and to attain consistency when appropriate. The result is a set of rules that are subject to DNR, Watershed District and Metropolitan Council review, but that are specifically tailored to protect the lake while reflecting the historical development patterns on the lake. Lake Minnetonka is a resource that merits protection. Future regulatory programs need to assure that the development and redevelopment that occurs on the lake in the next 25 years is environmentally, socially and managerially acceptable. To date, management of the lake's resources has not been comprehensive and has not been by consensus. The result has been ad hoc compromise and dispute, sometimes pitting local interests against regional or state agencies. The challenge facing the communities on Lake Minnetonka is to use the state-mandated shoreland management program to implement the more acceptable alternative Standards and Criteria that are contained in this plan. These Standards and Criteria are established to assure optimum protection for the lake, its shoreline, shorelands, and its resources. Reservations were expressed by some communities that these Standards and Criteria managed shorelands to the "lowest common denominator" on the lake. But that is not what has been done. Instead, this part of the program concentrates on raising standards without creating non-conforming lots within certain cities. The compromise adopted was that used by other cities on the lake with smaller than average lot sizes. Specifically, the standards set a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. At least one lakeshore community is presently developed at 6,000 square feet with some undeveloped lands still zoned at 6,000 square feet lot areas. By allowing flexibility to decrease lot size by up to 40 percent (60 percent of the standard), these smaller lots fall into compliance. This trade-off is allowed under the DNR regulations when areas falling below the DNR minirnuun standards are offset by areas that are more restrictive. The Management Program offers the opportunity for one community on the lake to be developed at smaller lot sizes as long as another community has more restrictive standards. Thus, the agreements reached do not encourage smaller lots, but the agreements do allow them to continue to be used within a more restricted regulatory framework. To protect cities that are more restrictive, the Staiidards and Criteria include statements that encourage cities to be even more restrictive. In order to achieve the goals set through the subcommittee deliberations, it is imperative that some municipalities remain more restrictive. Recreational use of the lake creates additional concerns for shoreland protection. Such use create pressures for on-shore developments within shorelands. Businesses and certain residential uses are attracted to the shoreline both because of the quality of the lake's resources and because of the large boating population on summer weekends. If Lake Minnetonka is to serve expanded regional demand for water-oriented recreation, the best place to do so is on its shoreline. During peak use hours there is an average of one boat for every 8 acres of usable water on a summer weekend day. However, the busiest day recorded on the lake had 2256 active boats during peak hours which is one boat for every 6.2 acres of water. That is significantly greater than the other regional water resources i metropolitan area; the Lower St. Croix River has an average of . ..res of water per boat. It is logical, then, to examine increased use of its shoreline to meet the expanding regional demand for water-oriented recreation. Regional opportunities for picnicking and swimming are presently limited on the lake. Development of the lake shore is largely limited to neighborhood parks and the Excelsior Commons. Picnicking and swimming opportunities have been developed largely to serve resident neighborhoods. Only the Excelsior Commons has the capacity to serve a significant regional population. LONG-TERM SHORELAND PROTECTION The uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely affects aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake. Uncontrolled use also adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare by contributing to pollution of Lake Minnetonka. Very significantly, uncontrolled development adversely affects the natural environment of the lake and community and impairs the local tax base. In furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Siratutes, chapters 105, 115, 116, 394, 396 and 462, and Minnesota Rules, sections 6120.2500 to 6120.3900, minimum standards and criteria are established for the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka. The standards and criteria are intended to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters; preserve and enhance aesthetics for shoreland residents and users of the water surface; conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands; and provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the lake. The intent of the cities, agencies and organizations involved in the development of the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka is to encourage and enhance efforts by local government with jurisdiction over land use and zoning to control development and redevelopment of the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka. Goals and objectives as well as the Standards and Criteria contained in this Shoreland Protection Plan that address -iiorel;> ;a management issues are to be interpreted as minimum standards. ng in these standards and criteria shall be construed as pronibitinp discouraging a local gove "jnenc from adopting and enforcing controls that are more restrictive. Individual municipalities are encouraged to develop more restrictive standards, rules and regulations in order to afford even greater protection of traditional uses, environmental quality and socioeconomic values. The LMCD has a legislatively-mandated responsibility for public water-oriented shoreline recreational opportunities on the lake. It is long been the policy of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to foster cooperation and facilitate ccordination for better located and developed on-shore recreational opportunities. The LMCD's interest includes: 1. each shoreline recreational facility in its entirety. the inclusion, siting and number of recreational and ancillary facilities in such parks to protect aesthetic, natural, and recreational values of the lake and its shoreline, reducing conflicts that exist between shoreline users and boaters on the laxe. encouraging and supporting county and regional funding for acquisition, operation and maintenance of regionally attractive shoreline recreational facilities. optimizing shoreline use to better balance the demand for boat access and the demand for shoreline recreational opportunities, utilize appropriate on-shore facilities as destinations for boaters to decrease the density of moving boats on the lake during peak periods. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The Lake Minnetonka Jonservation District has legislative authority over shoreline use and over shoreline public lands. The stated LMCD policy includes encouraging management of local parks locally and regionally attractive parks regionally. Both the cities and regional agencies have direct interests that need to be considered when additional parks are developed on the lake. Encouragement of transient facilities on the shoreline for boaters provides destinations for boaters that removes their boats from the lake temporarily, particularly during peak hours. Each boat beached, moored or docked during the day is one less contributing to the density and conflicts characteristic of peak periods. Further, the location, size and number of on-shore facilities such as fishing piers, transient docks, swimming beaches and other facilities affect the LMCD's traditional authority by potentially: a) affecting the water quality of the lake, b) impacting shoreline and lake aesthetics, natural and recreational value, c) creating conflicts between other traditional uses, and d) enhancing traditional uses of the lake by the general public and private residents alike. An example is shoreline fishing at narrow channels where there are conflicts between fishing and boating. There is also a direct link between public ownership of shorelands and boating patterns. Where large parcels are in public ownership, are available to the boating public, and where physical features are favorable, rafting and beaching are important activities. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. Managing entities shall facilitate, encourage and enhance local government efforts to adopt shoreland management rules and regulations that meet the standards and criteria that are contained in Appendix C. During development of the plan, participating organizations arrived at the conclusion that management of the shoreline was essential to protection of the lake. In light of the flexibility provision A(7) of the revised DNR shoreline management regulations (Minnesota Rules, Ch. 6120), the LMCO shall take a more active role in assuring consistent regulation of development and redevelopment of the shoreline. To do this, the LMCD shall actively encourage the adoption of the more restrictive Standards and Criteria in Appendix C by the 14 lakeshore communities as well as promoting acceptance of such ordinances by the DNR and the Metropolitan Council. The LMCD shall contact each city that actively undertakes land use planning for development to determine if the District may participate as an interested party. The District shall also meet with the Metropolitan Council to establish procedures to allow the District to comment on the plans and amendments as they are submitted to affected jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Council during plan review process provided by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. 2. To reduce the aesthetic impact of high-rise development, the LMCD shall encourage governing councils of nearby communities to exhibit restraint in approving variances and conditional use permits for buildings that will be visible from the lake's surface and shoreline. Aesthetics directly impact both the shoreline resident and users of the lake surface. Accordingly, the Minimum Standards and Criteria set maximum building heights for the shoreland. But, it is not practical to attempt direct regulation of structure heights beyond the shorelands given the suburban nature of the lake and the fact that structure height in non-lakeshore communities, e.g., Plymouth, have the potential to affect aesthetics on and near the lake. Instead, the LMCD shall influence case-by-case proposals through negotiation. This can be done directly with the developers, the cities involved as well as with the Metropolitan Council. 3. The LMCD shall develop the staff and procedures to review and comment on the following variance applications in all fourteen communities: a) building height variances anywhere in lakeshore communities, and b) all variances for riparian parcels on Lake Minnetonka. The participating organizations felt that the LMCD should take an active role in assuring that lakeshore communities consistently enforced the shoreland regulations adopted under the Standards and Criteria with respect to structure height. Since variances are the mechanism that developers use to exceed structure limits, the LMCD shall develop agreements with local communities to review variance applications. The LMCD shall notify the city of its position on the variance. Thereafter, the city shall notify the LMCD of the decision of its Plan Commission and its Council. In order to implement this process, the TMCD needs the staff and capability to rapidly respond to such applications. Irl 4. The LMCD shall take an active role in the development of plans for any public shoreline recreational facility that is potentially of regional significance. The LMCD has broad legislative authority over public lands on the lake. That authority includes operation, maintenance and policing of lands used for access to the lake. That authority shall be used to cooperate with implementing agencies to assure the interests of all users of Lake Minnetonka are considered during the plan process as well as during operations. Further, the LMCD shall facilitate cooperation and coordinate involvement between regional agencies and local communities while maintaining its role as advocate for the resource. As plans are evolved for future parks of regional attraction, the LMCD shall be involved from the beginning in decisions about facilities provided and their location. The basis for this involvement is their considerable authority over such facilities. 5. The LMCD shall maintain its policy of not owning or operating shoreline recreational facilities but shall continue to foster cooperation and facilitate coordination for better located and developed on-shore recreational opportunities. Presently, municipalities, Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District and the Department of Natural Resources actively manage public lands on the lake. There does not appear to be reason for LMCD to undertake responsibility in this area. LMCD resources shall be allocated more coward its traditional areas of operation. 6. The goal for parking at boat access points shall be to provide sufficient formal parking in the vicinity of major access points which utilizes remote parking facilities, facilitates handicapped access, and minimizes on-street parking, lake frontage, water quality effects, aesthetic intrusions and minimizes effect on local and neighborhood traffic flow. Large parking areas adjacent to the lake are inappropriate since they are counter to objectives developed to protect wetlands, water quality and intense development on the lakeshore. The hardcover lir'**ation of 25 percent of the lot aret. all but preclude continuing the existing practice of building access point parking immediately adjacent to the lake. Under the water quality, wetland protection and shoreland management objectives, such parking areas shall be removed from the lakeshore as opportunity arises. New parking areas shall be subject to the shoreland management, water quality and wetland protections afforded in this Long-Term Management Program. On-street parking causes congestion on city and county streets, disrupts neighborhoods, interferes with traffic flow and inconveniences users of access points. A better arrangement is to use remote parking, with shuttles as required. The level of existing shoreline development poses difficult trade-offs: expansion of parking lots displaces existing traditional uses. As new parking areas are developed, an operating plan shall be developed which includes the conditions under which the rarcp and/or parking lots may be closed. While these factors present difficulties to implementing a solution to the parking situation, the best course is to manage boat access more like the National Park Service. Popular parking lots must be blocked off when full, and then to let one vehicle in for each that leaves. Another needed control is to rigidly enforce parking regulations through citation and fine. These examples provide guidance for developing an optimum parking arrangement for Lake Minnetonka. 7. Operation, maintenance and law enforcement responsibility for shoreline neighborhood parks shall remain with the owning municipality. Shore-based recreation represents an important, but sometimes overlooked, part of the summer use of Lake Minnetonka. On the lake at the present time there are at least two types of recreation areas. Most of the parks on the lake are small and are designed to serve local neighborhoods. Their size and parking availability preclude them from being regional attractions or from serving a large population base. The second type attract visitors from outside of the local community. Noerenberg Park and the Excelsior Commons are examples. 8. Water-oriented shoreline recreational facilities serving a regional population shall have regional funding. Presently there are plans for developing a regional park in Minnetrista with significant public lands on Big, Wawatasso, and Wild Goose Chase Islands. Present LMCD policy is to encourage development of additional intermediate or regional parks. Funding of parks serving a county-wide or regional population shall be at the regional level. Basically, this is consistent with existing policy in the seven county metropolitan area. Through the Metropolitan Council's Parks and Open Space program an extensive set of regional parks have been developed that are under the management of county recreation agencies. This objective is consistent with existing regional practice. 9. Managing entities shall support enhancement of shoreline recreational opportunities serving the regional population. This is consistent with LMCD stated policy and represents no change from the present. The 1972 policy states that such areas are needed in only one or two locations on the lake. The number of regional parks needed on the lake is not specified; the intent is to let future studies determine the number and size of parks. Given the present plans for a park in Minnetrista and the existence of large public parcels on Big Island, it is now preferable to focus resources and effort on consolidation and development in these areas. After existing plans are inplemenCed, further demand studies can establish the need for further acquisitions and construction. It is logical to adopt a position enhancing shoreline recreational use. Use of the shoreline to develop attractive destinations for boaters could increase rafting/beaching on the lake. Any increase in rafting/beaching temporarily removes boats from the open lake, chereby decreasing the potential for conflicts. Coupling new rafting opportunities with expanded access decreases the net contribution of active boats on the lake. Proper development of shoreline recreation opportunities for boaters, as well as for the non-boating public, can enhance the boating experience on the lake. Presently, every significant public area suitable for rafting or beaching is heavily used by boaters during peak hours. Development of more of these areas would temporarily remove additional boats from the open lake. That decreases the density of moving boats and reduces the potential fo’* conflicts. 10. Managing entities shall encourage further public development and appropriate acquisition on Big Island. Present use of Big Island could be improved if there is additional acquisition and development. It is preferable to develop the future park to seirve a regional population with regional management and funding. Big Island represents the largest block of public lands and the resource shall be developed to its optimum extent. The Board of Governors for the Veteran's Camp on the island remain concerned that this management objective could be interpreted to mean that ownership of that camp should pass to another public agency. That is not the intent. Instead, the managing entities shall share common resources and services as appropriate and work together to maximize use of their respective areas. Ownership and management shall continue to emphasize the greatest public good. 11. Managing entities shall encourage coordinated development, management, policing and regional funding of all lands of regional attraction on the lake. Effectively, this means that the proposed park in Mini.<strista, Wild Goose Chase Island, Wawatasso Island, Big Island, Noerenberg Park, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way and future acquisitions shall be consolidated into a single cohesive recreation resource with unified and coordinated management. Funding shall be given priority to assure timely implementation. 12. A plan for fishing access shall be developed for the lake using fishing piers and provision for formal parking areas. Fishing can be enhanced on the lake and conflicts with boating reduced through the construction of fishing pieis on the lake. Fishing piexs can be positioned so Chat the activity Is relocated away from the shoreline at narrow channels to adjacent parts of the open lake. This maintains traditional uses In essentially the same location while Improving the recreational experience of both groups. The State of Minnesota has a program which funds construction of fishing piers on public property. The LMCD shall work with Hennepin County and local municipalities to obtain these funds Insofar as available. Further, the LMCD shall ui:. Its regulatory function for marina modifications to Include fishing piers as a high priority amenity where appropriate and as local conditions and municipal regulation permit. While Improving car/traller parking, provision shall be Included for shore fishing utilizing a site design that minimize contact between anglers and boats in the water. Buoys, surface use restrictions and other controls minimize conflicts. 13. Managing entities shall encourage development of scenic lookouts around the lake. As lands are acquired for other purposes (parking. Big Island) or developed (rail right-of-way), provision for parking and sightseeing shall be included as a priority activity. 14. Transportation agencies shall continue to provide ring routes to divert commuter and commercial traffic from shorelands and work to Incorporate recreational access to Lake Minnetonka In future public transit alternatives. Presently, Highway 15 carries considerable traffic through Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, Orono and Wayzata. Future highway construction that offers attractive, rapid alternatives away from the lake shall continue to be encouraged. This will become more important as development occurs west of the lake. Further, if the decision is made to serve western Hennepin County suburbs with alternative public transit, recreational access to Lake Minnetonka shall be considered. This includes use of public transportation as a means of reaching the lake shore for day use, as well as combining remote parking and with public transportation to the lake shore. 15. The LMCD shall coordinate placement and servicing of adequate trash containers at all summer and winter access points on the lake that are used by vehicles. Winter users of the lake strongly feel that litter is the primary problem. In addition to increasing enforcement, users need an opportunity to properly dispose of their garbage. Various institutional barriers preclude garbage collection on the lake, so trash containers shall be provided at the shoreline at all appropriate access points on the lake. lu V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERSPECTIVE The challenge facing resource managers proceccing Che natural environment in and near Lake Minnetonka is to implement development controls that will inhibit the inevitable decline in water quality and the functional values of wetlands. Programs to protect Che natural environment extends beyond Che shorelands within 2,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka to include the entire upper drainage basin. Water quality in Lake Minnetonka cannot be protected without aggressive implementation of management programs that include wetland protection and development controls in the watershed which drains into the lake. Accordingly, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) become particularly important agencies if the objectives for environmental protection are to be realized. These agencies need to carefully administer their regulatory programs and sometimes to modify their regulations in order to provide the requisite level of protection. Without chat protection and mitigation, Lake Minnetonka water quality -- and with it the quality of the recreational experience -- will decline. The management program for environmental protection is integrally related to shoreland protection programs. Most of the Standards and Criteria for the shoreland ordinances are needed in order to protect water quality, aesthetics and the quality of the recreational experience. Without adoption and consistent enforcement by all 14 lakeshore communities, these water quality and wetland protection objectives cannot be achieved. Implementation depends on improved cooperation and coordination among all managing entities, better intergovernmental relations, interagency agreements and modified regulatory programs. The role of the LMCD must be to improve its regulatory programs and to provide oversight for other managing entities during administration of their programs. The LMCD role requires expanded and new staff capabilities. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has been involved in assuring environmental protection of the lake since its inception. After its formation in 1967, the LMCD sponsored a series of committees to develop recommendations for action in several important areas. It also participated in the funding of the 1971 study entitled: "A Program for Preserving the Quality of lake Minnetonka". This comprehensive study reviewed all sources of water quality pollution to the lake. The study concluded that existing municipal wastewater treatment plants were the major cause of declining water quality. It recommended that the plants be phased out and the sewage discharge be routed away frcz» t'he 'Ake. This goal was fully realized by 1986 when the last wastewater p-.within the lake's watershed was phased out. Management Areas Water Quality management objectives call for improved monitoring, maintaining recreation and sport fishing, minimizing the effects of non-point source pollution and septic system leachate, and minimizing the detrimental effects of dredging and upland erosion. While the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has authority in these areas, most of the objectives need to be implemented outside the geographic jurisdiction of tho District. Implementation of the water quality objectives rely on interagency agreements, modification of agency objectives, improved enforcement, improved intergovernmental relations, and consistent cooperation and communication. Wetlands protection focuses on improved regulation both in the lake and in the upper watershed. Protection, both above and below the 929.4 contour, is essential if water quality and fishery objectives are to be realized. Identification and acquisition of the most important wetlands protects the natural environment and maintains the quality of the recreational experience. Noxious aquatic and emergent weed control assures functional values of the wetlands. The fishery of Lake Minnetonka appears to be in satlTfactory condition, although monitoring data is insufficient to support that conclusion. Fishery goals are focused on maintaining sustainable populations of native fish, improving regulation of fishing tournaments on the lake, and improved population monitoring. Additional information is needed on the effects of aquatic weeds and weed harvesting on fish populations. AUTHORITY The enabling legislation of the LMCD (Chapter 907, Laws of 1967, as amended) gives LMCD authority to manage lake water quality. Specifically, the District has been granted the following powers related to water quality management- o to undertake research to determine the condition and development of the lake and the water entering it, and to transmit their studies to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other interested authorities, and o to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution;, and o to receive financial assistance from and join in projects or enter into contracts with federal and state agencies for the study and treatment of pollution problems and demonstration programs related to them. Besides the LMCD, four other agencies have the potential to affect water quality on the lake. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was founded at almost the same times as the LMCD. The Watershed District has Independent taxing authority, power to implement projects and power to regulate the entire watershed of the lake and creek. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency establishes water quality standards and performance of on-site sewage treatment systems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have permit programs chat directly affect the water quality of the lake. Regulation of wetlands below the 929.4 contour is implicit in the LMCD's authority to regulate use of the lake and its shoreline. But the most active agencies are the Watershed District, the DNR and the 14 local communities. The LMCD's authority is limited to chose areas below Che 929.4 contour. Accordingly, implementation of imroi'ant parts of this program must rely on action by ocher organizations. and enhance the fishing resources. For Lake Minnetonka, the DNR has been the primary agency responsible for monitoring and managing the fisheries in Lake Minnetonka. Staff and budget limitations of the DNR have not allowed a full fish monitoring program. Fish populations are monitored only indirectly through the present fisheries survey program. Creel census data to determine harvest rates arp particularly needed. The limited availability cf fisheries data for Lake Minnetonka is a serious problem. LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM The uncontrolled use of shorelands, wetlands and fish resources adv'^rsely affects the natural environment of the lake and community; adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by contributing to pollution of Lake Minnetonka; adversely affects aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake; and impairs the local tax base. The Natural Environmental Protection Plan is intended to preserve ard enhance the quality of surface waters; preserve and enhance aesthetics for shoreland residents and users of the water surface; conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands; and provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the lake. Therefore, the LMCD shall use its regulatory authority, to the fullest extent allowed by law, to: a) mitigate, to the fullest possible extent, the degradation of the chemical and physical water quality of Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries. b) regulate the use of wetlands of Lake Minnetonka, especially in connection with navigational access to the lake. c) protect and manage wetlands within the OHM elevation contour of Lake Minnetonka for preservation of their functional values, including water quality enhancement, flood control, aesthetics, wildlife habitat protection. d) promote a policy of protection and management of wetlands within the watershed of Lake Minnetonka, yet outside the 929.4 contour, at least for water quality protection and flood control since these functions directly benefit the lake. e) encourage a more comprehensive wetland management program in those communities now having minimal protection. f) encourage projects and programs by responsible agencies to maintain and restore the ability of wetlands to provide water quality improvement, flood control, wildlife habitat and aesthetic enj oyment. g) encourage programs to control the infestation of exotic plant species in the lake and in wetlands. h) encourage a scientific approach to wetland management for water quality benefits through appropriate sedimentation and detention practices. i) assist the DNR fisheries management program by aiding in local regulation of lake use and habitat protection. j) serve as an advocate for the lake resource during formulation of DNR fisheries programs. and In other aspects, PCA and Watershed District should remain the lead agencies for water quality; the DNR and Watershed District should retain the lead for management and protection of wetlands in the upper basin; and the DNR should continue the lead in managing fisheries on the lake. management objectives 1. Ensure that s eo^>rehenalve water quality aonitorlng prograa capable of diagnosing preplans is conducted for Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is currently the only government agency that conducts routine ar , jal water quality monitoring of Lake Minnetonka. Other agencies, i r• ding PCA, DNR, and the Metropolitan Council have occasionally m-rit ei Lake Minnetonka water quality. The scope of the Watershed Dlstii . ronltoring efforts is severely limited by financial constraints. Current ,, , only six bays of the lake and seven tributary streams are sampled on a semi-annual basis. Analyses are limited to only basic limnological parameters. The LMCD shall encourage all responsible agencies, particularly the Watershed District, to expand the scope of their cur-»int water quality monitoring activities to collect data that are diaf; ^ of lake water quality problems. The expanded water quality moni ng program allows understanding the interacting physical, chemical ai. *>iologlcal processes which control lake water quality. Such a program documents whether water quality problems, including blooms of potentially toxic alg^e. are developing in Lake Minnetonka. The water quality monitoring of Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries shall be overseen by f committee comprised of water quality experts and interested individuals Irom cooperating governmental agencies including, but not limited to, the LMCD, DNR, PCA, Metropolitan Council, Suburban Hennepin Parks, Wate.shed District, and interested lakeshore communities. The LMCD shall convene the committee. 2. Maintain or restore the water quality of Lake Minnetonka to allow continued use of the lake for primary contact recreation and bass-pan sportfishing. As a preliminary goal, a moan summer total phosphorus concentration of 50 ug/1 will be set, except In Halsted's Bay, Tanager Lake, and West Arm. The LMCD shall work through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to reduce the levels of phosphorus in the outflows from several small lakes previously impacted by wastewater treatment plant effluents. Internal phosphorus loads derived from the sediments of Langdon Lake, French Lake, Tanager Lake, and Peavey Lake are significant source.^ of phosphorus reaching Lake Minnetonka. The Watershed District plans to address these problems shall be supported by other managing entities. Fisheries are largely the purview of the DNR under Minnesota statutes. The DNR has the responsibility to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife in the state. Further, Chapter 97A.045 directs the Commissioner of the DNR to manage fish and wildlife to ensure recreational opportunities for anglers and hunters. The LMCD traditionally has not been active in fisheries management; its regulatory efforts have focused on managing fishing tournaments. The potential exists for the LMCD to take a more active role in this area. PLANNING CONTEXT Water Quality Generally, the various bays of Lake Minnetonka have exhibited improved water quality since the diversion of wastewater treatment plant effluents out of the waut-rshed of the lake. Measurements demonstrate improved summer water quality conditions. The quality Ss now adequate to support most recreational uses of the lake. Exceptions to this are Halsted's Bay, Crystal Bay, Tanager Lake and West Arm. The lack of improvement in these bays is probably due to internal phosphorus loading from lake sediments and high loadings from non-point !iuurce pollution. The major threat to the water quality of the lake is the development and redevelopment of the watershed of the lake. Additional phosphorus loading appears unavoidable. Detention ponds can reduce, but will not eliminate, this impact. Because of that, eventually, in-lake treatment methods may be needed to maintain water quality for recreational purposes. Additionally, lesser sources of phosphorus loacl ng include excessive and improper '.»ve of phosphorus fertilizers, disturbance of highly erodible areas, filling of wetland and poor agricultural practices in the basin. The aquatic wet \ Eurasian Waterrailfoil has became established in all parts of Lake Minnetonka and represents a threat to traditional recreational use patterns on the lake. The weed may also cause depletion of dissolved oxygen in the lake during periods when the plants die and decompose. Generally speaking, the institutional frrework necessary for effective water quality management exists, but curre.it standards and criteria do not afford sufficient protection for the lake. Wetlands Many wetlands have been lost in the last few decades a the result of development. The shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and adjacent wetlands have undergone intense development over the years. As presrure increases for additional lake access and redevelopment of low density residential and commercial districts, the pressure to alter wetland areas will also continue to increase. The dredging of channels in Lake Minnetonka for navigational access through wetlands is an activity that may have significant impact on wetland environments and their functional values. Accordingly, the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers, DNR, the Ur?tershed District and most of the lakeshore communities have regulations or ordinances that control the use of wetlands in and near Lake Minnetonka. The Institutional framework necessary for effective wetland protection exists, but enforcement and inspection of construction activities is lacking. The infestation of the exotic plant species, purple loosestrife, in wetlands in the Lake Minnetonka area has the potential to adversely affect the wildlife habitat value of the wetlands. The plant aggressively displaces the native wetland vegetation required by wildlife, while having no value for wildlife itself. Loosestrife has been declared a noxious weed in Minnesota. It is the responsibility of landowners to eradicate the plant on their land and the responsibility of the DNR to control the plant in protected waters and wetlands. The most effective control program involves the eradication of the plant before it becomes a dominant part of the wetland ecosystem. The LMCD shall track ongoing research and the potential for improved control methods. Fisheries The primary objective of fisheries management is the protection and enhancement of fish habitat. This includes maintenance of good water quality, protection of spawning and nursery areas, and provision of adequate cover for juvenile fish and forage species. These activities are essential for self-sustaining populations of fish in the lake. Potential impacts on the fisheries of Lake Minnetonka are primarily related to loss or degradation of fish habitat. Some of the potential threats to fish habitat include: - invasion of exotic plant species such as Eurasian watermilfoil - filling or alteration of wetlands or the lake - development and redevelopment of lake shoreline - degradation of water quality - dredging and ihannelization - invasion of exotic plant species such as Eurasian watermilfoil - excessive control of aquatic vegetation Regulatory programs have been implemented that protect fish habitat either directly or indirectly. These programs include: - mU’ icipal sbwreland protection ordinar.''es - Corps of Engineers Section 404 permii - DNR protected waters permits - DNR aquatic nuisance control permits - Watershed District permit programs. In addition, the DNR protects a few designated bass spawning areas for the purpose of obtaining fish stock for other lakes in the state. Lake Minnetonka provides the most productive fishing in the seven county metropolitan area. The lake is rated as the finest bass lake in Minnesota, the diversity of aquatic habitat in the lake supports an abundance of fish species. More major bass tournaments are conducted on the lake than on any other lake in Minnesota. The exceptional quality of the lake and its proximity to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area makes it imperative that the lake be managed in such a manner as to protect 3. Minimize the impacts of non-point pollution on the quality of Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries, by controlling urban and agricultural stormwater runoff and erosion, and other appropriate management practices. b. The LMCD shall work with the Watershed District and the Board of Water and Soil Resources to require that the following occur: a. Constituent communities shall adopt the stormwater management provisions of the new Shoreland Rules. Manage stormwater runoff according to the regional detention basin concept recommended by the U.S. EPA Nationawide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), On-site or regional detention of stormwater runoff shall alsc be required for developments in any land use category, regardless of impervious surface area, if its stormwater runoff would otherwise be discharged directly to a lake or to a stream discharging to the lake without passing through an intervening wetland or properly sized regional stormwater detention basin capable of improving stormwater runoff quality. Wherever possible, stormwater detention basins, both regional c«nd on-site, should be constructed to NURP guidelines. Impervious surface coverage of lots should not exceed 25 percent of the lot area without an approved .'.tormwater management plan. Where detention ponds cannot be con.rtructed according to NURP design guidelines because of spatial constraints imposed by the site, smaller ponds in series .nay be used instead to control runoff water quality, provided they perform at least as well as a NURP pond. Performance cf c»’or.nwater detention ponds shall be estimated according to the algorithm contained in PONDNET (Walker, 1989) or other comparable model. Permit requirements for each constructed detention pond should include a Maintenance Plan and provisions for access to perform maintenance. d. f. These items should be incorporated into the Section 509 Water Management Plan of the Watershed District as requirements for modification of local ordinances under Minnesota Statutes 473.878, Subd. 4(g). the LMCO shall petition the Watershed District that it modify its Rule B to specify these criteria, and that these requirements be applied to the entire Lake Minnetonka watershed, not just shorelands. The LMCD shall also encourage the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District and the Hennepin Conservation District to identify critical non-point iources of pollution from agricultural land within the Lake Minnetonka watershed. The LMCD shall support the adoption of best management practices by area farmers. 4. Minimize the impacts of fertilizers and pesticides contained in watershed runoff on the quality of Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore communities shall adopt restrictions on the use of fertilizers and pesticides by the Shoreland Management Regulations of the DNR. The LMCD shall work with these communities to adopt comprehensive lawn fertilizer ordinances and to provide adequate staff for control of both commercial applicators and homeowners. Shoreland Ordinances shall incorporate requirements that bare ground areas be vegetated, and that vegetative matter not be placed on impervious surfaces or in natural drainageways since it appears that urban good housekeeping is a significant factor in determining phosphorus export from the watershed. The LMCD shall work with the Watershed District and constituent communities to enforce these same requirements throughout the Lake Minnetonka Watershed. 5. Minimize the pollutants reaching Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries via septic tank leachate and residues from past treatment practices. The Shoreland Ordinances adopted by the individual cities shall include the requirements of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080, concerning individual sewage treatment standards. These standards are consistent with the sewage treatment provisions of the new Shoreland Management Regulations of the DNR and the Shoreland Management Standards and Criteria contained in Appendix C 6. Protect receiving water quality from the detrimental effects of serious erosion, either during or after construction of residential and commercial developments, and to ensure that runoff from the developed site is of good quality. Erosion and sedimentation control plans, meeting the criteria established by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, shall be required on all developments in the watershed. The lakeshore communities shall require chat stormwater runoff be managed according to management objective 3, above. The maximum impervious coverage shall be limited to 25 percent of the area. 7. Reduce the spread of noxious aquatic weeds, including Eurasian watermilfoil, and to manage effectively the water quality problems their presence in Lake Minnetonka creates. The LMCD shall cort mue to work cooperatively with other resource management agenci co control the spread of Eurasian watermilfoil and other noxious aquatic weeds. 8. Minimize the adverse water quality impacts of dredging activities on the quality of public waters. The LMCD shall endorse Rule E of the Watershed District. The LMCD shall then enact its own wetland ordinance in order to assure minimal disruption of these essential resources. The LMCD, along with the DNR Division of Waters and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, are drafting an interagency policy resolution to establish uniform navigational dredging access criteria for Lake Minnetonka. A draft policy has been developed and will be discussed further with the agencies. Opportunities for public input are also being planned. 9. Inprove protection of wetlands lying within the 929.4 contour of Lake Minnetonka through regulation. The LMCD shall undertake a detailed inventory of wetlands below 929.4 on Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD shall then enact a wetlands ordinance which restricts the amount of dredging that may be conducted. Included should be a no-net-loss policy. A further purpose of the ordinance is to preserve wetland values. To ensure inspection and enforcement of dredging and filling regulations governing activities within the lake, the LMCD shall encourage funding of adequate staff for inspection of permits Issued by the DNR or the Watershed District. Should outside funding not be available, the LMCD shall fund such inspection and enforcement activities. The LMCD shall amend its regulatory programs to recognize that docks constructed across wetlands may have an adverse impact on the functional and aesthetic values of wetlands. In addition to its own ordinance, the LMCD shall encourage ocher managing entities to adopt a no-net-loss wetland policy that makes provision for variances for public purposes. 10. Encourage improvement and xiniformity of protection of wetlands above the 929.4 contour through regulation. The LMCD shall encourage all lakeshore and upper basin communities to formulate or amend their wetland ordinances as needed to Include minimum performance standards, a comprehensive wetland definition and map, and provisions for mitigation of wetland degraded. The DNR Area Hydrologist should be consulted in development of the wetland ordinances. The Watershed District shall be encouraged to amend its rules to include the protection of Type 2, 6, 7, and 8 wetlands. In addition, the Watershed District shall be encouraged to map these wetlands and other wetland protected by the District or to adopt the National Wetland Inventory Maps. 11. Encourage protection of wetlands above the 929.4 contour through acquisition. The LMCD shall encourage the riparian cities of the lake to use grant programs or other means to ensure the perpetual protection of wetlands through acquisition. Further, once regional funding is forthcoming, the LMCD shall consider establishing a fund supported by tax base revenues for wetland acquistion and in addition to other existing funding sources. I12. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality improvement, flood control, wildlife habitat and aesthetics. The LUCD shall encourage the lakeshore communities and the Watershed District to install and maintain improvements to protect wetlands from in*filling by sediment and to promote nutrient removal. In addition, the LMCD shall encourage the lakeshore communities and the Watershed District to adopt or amend ordinances that promote wildlife habitat values of wetlands by minimizing removal of vegetation and establishment of buffer areas. The LMCD shall encourage the control and reduction of purple loosestrife and other noxious weeds in wetlands. 13. Identify and protect fish habitat for the purpose of maintaining sustainable populations of nativ^e fish in the lake. The first step need is to identify critical habitat areas for designated target fish species (e.g., largemouth bass, northern pike and bluegill). The study should use accepted standard techniques for such detailed studies. This information should be compiled on a map delineating critical habitat at a scale of at least 1:2400. Ordinances shall be adopted by the LMCD that protect the critical habitat from disruption. 14. Improve monitoring of fish populations and fish harvest rates. Montoring fish populations allows diagnoses of imbalances in fish populations and determination of whether fish are being over-harvested. Accepted standard techniques shall be used for the study. Organizers of bass, walleye and rauskellunge tournaments in the lake shall report the lengths and weight of individual fish caught during at least one tournament per year with greater than 100 part ipants. 15. Improve local regulation of fishing tournaments for the purpose of reducing mortality of fish caught and to minimize the impact of increasing fishing pressure on the resource and other users. All tournaments for bass, walleye, and muskellunge shall be catch and release, with the exception of hooking mortalities and a limited number of "trophy" fish per tournament. Participants in bass, walleye and muskellunge tournament shall be subject to rules governing transportation of fish, weigh-in procedures, and evaluation procedures prior to release. At the time the permit is issued, regulators shall consider individual and cumulative effects on the resource, other users and landowners. 16. Obtain additional information on the impacts of exotic plant species on fish populations and the impact of aquatic vegetation harvesting on fish populations. The LMCD shall encourage involved agencies and organizations to determine the effect of an extensive weed harvesting program on fish population, as well as determining the effect of the vegetation infestation on the fisheries. If necessary, an educational program should be implemented that would instruct anglers on effective fishing techniques in and around dense mats of aquatic vegetation. VI. HANAGEMENT STRUCTURE Perspective The managenent program forges a new working partnership between the municipalities, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, and the DNR. An important role of the LMCD will be to keep that partnership functioning and to maintain consensus with respect to management priorities and programs. This management structure builds on strengths and does not create a new layer of government with the concomitant bureaucracy. An essential function of the LMCD, beyond its regulatory programs, is to assist other agencies to achieve the resources to implement their programs. The LMCD does this by being the foremost advocate for the lake, not by direct funding. In this way, traditional authorities and programs are maintained and enhanced when warranted. In the late 1970s, regional and state agencies shifted thelt priorities to place more emphasis on public access to the lake. That change in priorities, without concomitant modification of intergovernmental relations, institutional arrangements and funding contributed to a decline in communication, cooperation and understanding between managing entities. Locally-oriented organizations also contributed to the decline in relationships by failing to perceive the significance of the regional and state policy changes. The Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka stressed the importance of changes in funding for the LMCD. Specifically, it called for making the LMCD funding completely l.idependent of the municipal budgets. Management Areas The Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka calls for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other managing entities to alter their management postures. In the past, managing entities, particularly the LMCD, have been active in regulation and reactive in enforcement. This Management Program ; -:juires active regulation, active management and calls for the LMCD to be a strong advocate for Lake Minnetonka programs. That requires additional funding, with a modest increase in staff. The future role for the LMCD is as much to advocate, support, and coordinate the programs of other active agencies as it is to initiate new management programs. Funding is to fall on the user to the fullest extent allowable. Legislative action will be sought to shift even more of these costs. Existing means of funding LMCD activities are to continue, but the taxes levied are to be independent of local levy limits and approvals. Added to that, the area of the tax district shall be increased to encompass all of Hennepin County. In that way, all households benefiting from lake use and lake programs will bear their fair share of the costs. The regional nature of the lake resource and its regional use requires a more equitable tax base. In the process of developing the future management structure for Lake Minnetonka, the original decision that established regional lake management was reviewed. It was agreed that the LMCD should continue to exist in order to achieve coordinated management. Division of powers, communication networks, mechanisms for coordination and cooperation were then reviewed and delineated where necessary. An analysis of existing statutes leads to the conclusion that the legislature does not intend for lake management to be conducted by one single Implementing agency. The statutes grant various units of government powers to implement lake management programs. The laws also provide for a variety of coordination and consistency mechanisms. Consequently, neither the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Metropolitan Council, nor individual municipalities have exclusive control over lake and lakeshore development. Proper management of Lake Minnetonka depends on a working partnership between: LMCD, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Hennepin Conservation District Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Individual municipalities. And these organizations offer much to the lake. The DNR and Metropolitan council have regulatory programs, review authority, funding mechanisms, and technical expertise of direct benefit. The Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District is well suited to manage and develop regional recreational facilities. Hennepin County Department of Transportation has long been maintaining navigational aids on the lake. The Hennepin County Sheriff has developed a fine Water Patrol. The municipalities and the Watershed District have authorities and control programs of great benefit to the lake. But, individually, these programs are not enough. AUTHORITY A detailed discussion of authority is contained in Appendix A. The discussion that follows focuses on funding -- the most important aspect for this part of the Management Program. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District The LMCD was established under the Laws of 1967, Chapter 907 as amended by I-<ws of 1969, Chapter 272. Section 4 ot that act states: "...the expenses of the district shall be borne by the municipalities, the portion of the expenses of the district borne by each municipality shall be in proportion to its assessed valuation; provided, no municipality shall bear more than 20 percent of the total expense, and such portion shall not be less than $200 per year." Included in that section isSection 5 provides for the budgeting process, the following provision: "The municipalities may each levy a tax not to exceed one mill on the taxable property located therein, to provide said funds. Said levy shall be within all other limitations provided by law." Lake Improvement Districts The Minnesota Lake Improvement Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 378.405 ff.) provides for the formation of lake improvement districts within one or more counties of the state. Established by the County Board(s) or the Commissioner of the DNR, the district has powers nearly identical to the LMCD. However, financing the district's activities is quite different from that of the LMCD. ”(1) (3) (4) Chapter 378.52 provides that financing may use any of the following methods, singly or in combination: assess the costs of the projects upon benefited property within the district in the manner provided under chapter 429; impose a ser/ice charge on the users of lake improvement district services within the district; issue obligations as provided in section 429.091; levy an ad valorem tax solely on property within the lake improvement district, to be appropriated and expended solely on projects of special benefit to the district; or (5) may impose or issue any combination of service charges, special assessments, obligations, and taxes." Subd. 2 excludes these taxes "...from statutory limitations on the amount of taxes levied and does not affect the amount or rate of taxes that may be levied for other county purposes." The budgeting process is controlled by the County Board, which controls the membership of the board of directors (Subd. 3). Comparison The LMCD legislation (1967 as amended) predates that of a county lake improvement district (1973 as amended). Examination of the two sets of authorities leads one to the conclusion that the LMCD legislation was used as the model for the later county district. The legislature used a very different means of funding lake improvement districts from that used for the LMCD. The development of the Comprehensive Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka is an opportune time to update LMCD funding. Without altering the funding available to the District, the Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka cannot be implemented. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE PROGRAM PERSPECTIVE A primary objective of the Management Program is to determine the framework for implementation. But without a change in the way the LMCD is funded, this program cannot be implemented. When funding changes, so shall the membership of the LMCD Board. Change in the working relationships between organizations is imperative. Whether accurate or not, local organizations often feel regional and state authorities act unilaterally, are sometimes arbitrary, and too often leave local interests out of the decision-making process. Agencies with regional and state-wide legislative mandates sometimes feel that decisions too often reflect local interests at the expense of the greater regional good. This program provides the framework that establishes and maintains meaningful dialogue and communication. To the extent that this component of the program succeeds, the development of the Management Program will be a turning point in relationships between the managing entities. But the close relationship between the LMCD, the cities and the Watershed District must remain and be enhanced. This Management Program relies on the individual cities and the Watershed District to adopt, enforce and otherwise implement major components of the environmental and shoreland management programs on the lake. The water quality, wetland, and aesthetic protections needed for Lake Minnetonka fall under the joint jurisdiction of the individual cities and the Watershed District. The LMCD has little authority in this area and seeks no new regulatory authority. This Program calls for an improved working relationship between the cities, the Watershed District and the CiCD. Changes in priorities by state and regional agencies in the late 1970s, coupled with the failure of local managing organizations to adjust to the demands for greater regional access to the lake created a period of decline in intergovernmental relations among managing entities on the lake. Managing entities on Lake Minnetonka face increasing demands for access to the lake in the next 25 years. The demands imposed by providing greater public access, development of the remaining open spaces around the lake, and redevelopment pressures on the remainder of the shoreline, require greater expenditure of public funds for management programs. Management of Lake ..innetonka as a regional recreation resource requires additional regional funding. Unless both the level and source of funding is changed, then access, public safety, environmental protection, shoreland management, and use management objectives presented in this program cannot be met. Growth of boating cannot be permitted without a higher level of ordinance enforcement. Existing funding of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol may be sufficient to meet today's use levels, but expanded patrols will be needed if this Management Program is to succeed. Further, changes in state and regional priorities for access to Lake Minnetonka have strained intergovernmental relations between managing entities. That stress cannot be relieved without fundamental changes in both the level and source of funding for management activities. Those changes will have to be made by the State Legislature with the active support of the regional and state agencies. A much broader tax base is appropriate for Lake Minnetonka. The lake is truly a regional recreation resource chat serves a regional population in the context used by the 'Metropolitan Council, the seven counties, and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District for their regional park and open space programs. Lake Minnetonka attracts boaters from the seven county metropolitan area. Just like the re^^ional parks in the seven county metropolitan area, most users come frcn the immediately adjacent cities and counties. Table 9 provides data on visitor origin to Lake Minnetonka. These data indicate chat more tha" from Hennepin County, based on t‘, AC the same time, approximately 6i ^ come from Che 14 lakeshore communities. .'ne percent of Che users come lable data on visitor origin, f Che users during the suiiuner Thus, approximately 40 percent of the summer users of Lake Minnetonka reside outside of Che municipal funding source of the LMCD. Since most programs of the LMCD are geared to protect the recreational resource and to keep it available to "all citizens of the state" more of the funding for the lake needs to be allocated over a greater geographic area. It is most equitable that all property in Hennepin and Carver Counties be subject to an extremely small tax to pay for the cost of operations on this lake. TABLE 9 Computation of Visitor Origin by Type of Access Lake Minnetonka Marinas and Yacht Clubs Access Ramps Resident Total Boats Point of Origin Boats Percent Boats Percent Boats Boats Percent Lakeshore Cities*160 34.30 84 24.39 643 887 61.05 Second Tier Cities 169 36.10 66 19.20 0 234 16.10 Other Hennepin Co.120 25.70 120 36.16 0 244 16.79 Total Hennepin Co.423 90.53 262 76.47 G43 1324 91.40 Other Seven County 17 3.60 54 15.74 0 71 4.89 Other Minnesota 1 .30 14 3.98 0 15 1.03 Adjacent States 0 -2 .52 0 2 .14 Total Boats Allocated 467 100.0 343 100.0 643 1453 100.0 * Includes boats from the City of Victoria in Carver County. Source: Surveys conducted on Lake Minnetonka between 1984 and 1989. FUTURE MANAGEMEWT STRUCTURE Ai^D FUNDING Implementation of this Management Program is particularly dependent upon a close relationship between the LMCD, the 14 lakeshore cities, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Without a close, working partnership the environmental and shoreland protection goals cannot be achieved. The cities and the Watershed District more than all other managing entities control day-to-day enforcement J and Implementation of regulatory controls over development and shoreland redevelopment. Proposals to alter the LMCD Board and the method by which it is funded need to assure continuation of those essential relationships. The LMCD has little authority in the area of shoreland and wetland protection above the 929.4 contour. It is only through understanding, cooperation and communication that Lake Minnetonka will be protected from the adverse effects of development. For these reasons, as well as the information presented earlier in this chapter, future funding of the LMCD shall be as follows: 1. User fees shall be used to maximum possible extent. This means continuing present programs assessing fees on users. The user fee system should be expanded to include a Lake Minnetonka boat sticker (license) for each boat operated on the lake. If that is not possible, then authority for a regional license should be sought. But the Lake Minnetonka sticker is the preferred alternative. 2. The LMCD shall aggressively seek grants from regional, state and Federal agencies to fund their programs. 3. The existing tax levy should be continued, but it should be outside of the cities' tax limitations. Presently, the legislation authorizes a 1 mill levy, of which the LMCD has been utilizing only about .5 or .6 mill. 4. The tax district should be based on visitor origin, so that all households that benefit from lake programs contribute to their operation costs. This means that the area of the levy should be expanded so that revenues are split according to a formula based cn visitor origin. Present visitor origin data indicated that approximately 6(> percent of the revenues should be generated in the 14 lakeshore communities. Hunnepin County housciiolds, exclusive of the.ie 14 communities, should contribute tne ocher 40 percent. The exact split could be determine by an interagency committee composed the LMCD, Metropolit-. Council and the uepartment of Natural Resources, using visitor origin data derived from a jointly conducted survey of boaters. The split in revenues shall be reviewed from time to time by these agencies, with the levy adjusted (after public hearing) to reflect changes in user patterns. Carver County, because it abuts a portion of Che southwestern bays of the lake, should be included in Che area covered by Che tax levy. However, the political battles that are likely to result from such a proposal do not seem to justify its inclusion. The additional revenues are too low; the political costs are too high. Given this funding mechanism, which requires approval by the State Legislature, the LMCD Board membership should be adjusted. Board membership should follow funding decisions: 1. As long as the 14 cities remain the sole source of tax revenues, Che LMCD Board should remain as presently constituted. 2. When regional fun . 7’^ .iided, either by a Lake Minnetonka user fee, a regional boar license, . *»on of the area covered by the tax levy, then the State Legislature sho' >. - : >ur new members. These members should be 68 appointed by the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The new LMCD Directors from these four bodies shall be: a. appointed, and b. citizen volunteers comparable to those now serving on the present LMCD Board, In addition, they shall not be: a. elected public officials, or b. paid staff. It is prudent to continue to t ist lake management to the same type of interested citizens that have served for more than twenty years. While there has been controversy and dispute over access to the lake, those problems are not related to the type of Director that has served on the LMCD Board. It is advantageous to continue this tradition on the LMCD Board. Participants in developing the Management Program rejected direct election of the LMCD Board for two basic reasons. First, when the LMCD was formed the State Legislature did not create a body that reported to their constituents, but created a board that would look after regional interests and approach problems from a regional perspective. For more than 20 years voting records of individual board members have not traditionally been subjected to review by voters in the 14 communities. Change- in board membership most often reflected changes in administrations or in director willingness to serve. Appointment of directors to the LMCD Board continues a process that has worked well throughout its history. In addition, appointment assures the LMCD Board remains close to the 14 cities that control so much of the shoreland and environmental protection programs for the lake. Without consistent and extensive cooperation by the 14 i*ties, the watershed district and the LMCD, the environmental goals will not *'ealized. This dependence on outside bodies for implementation of essential pror •'-'tions outweighs arguments for a broader distribution of county and r<jgio:..il ,eats on the Board. FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OBJECTIVES 1. The LMCD shall maintain its existing authority, augmented as specified in other parts of the plan. The LMCD is the agency capable of devoting the greatest focus and attention to problems and issues arising from use of the lake and its shoreline. Other organizations either have larger or '•.iller geographic areas of concern that dilute their focus on the o *. lake. The future role of the LMCD shall be to serve as an advocate fc xa programs in addition to its regulatory functions. 2. The LMCD shall be funded by a combin-ition of user fees, new user fees, the existing tax levy, and an expanded levy district. When funding is inadequate, attention focuses on the highest priorities. For lakes and for state agencies, chat means individual lakes may not receive the level of attention the agency would like. Instead, programs are established to protect lakes generally; protection of Individuals requires other regional or local agency action. That is the situation on Lake Minnetonka. The DNR, PCA anr : -shed District have various programs, but lack the funds or staff ^ avs give special consideration to this lal:e. For dredging that means sv>'j^ •'^cks of permitted operations, respondinF, to specific complaints and target problem areas or contractors. Nor all dredging operations are monitored. For water quality it means that there is not an adequate sampling program. Water quality sampling is left to the Watershed District or another local agency since the PCA does not receive sufficient funds for such programs and monitoring lakes is not a high priority for the available funds. The local agencies have been no better funded. The Watershed District doea not conduct a water quality monitoring program that provides the requisite data for modeling or for determining the long term trend in quality. The District does not maintain a staff, instead it relies on outside consultants. Funding 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. for District regulatory acttvities shall be by: continue user fees to maximur. extent allowed by law, obtain legislative approval for a Lake Minnetonka boat sticker (license) for each boat operated on the lake or, alternatively, another Innovative funding source, aggressively seek grants from regional, state and Federal agencies, the existing tax levy, but it sha'” be outside of tiie c* ‘ 's' tax limitations, and expand the area covered by tne levy to include all .-in County outside of the 14 lakeshore communities. User fees have long been an important so- rce of revenue for lake programs. Such fees shall continue c^rd new fees 'rrpe.^ J chat are ronsistent with state It u. But these user fees are not enough. imposition of a new license, in Che form of a boat sticker, to use Lake Minnetonka, enjoys widespread local support. The DNR objects to such a li^e.-se whio:; is now barred by statute. New methods are needed to fund more of -lie programs called for in this management plan. If a boat sticker is not acceptable, then a1'rernative innovati’f '♦liable, consi.stpnt funding programs shall be .duntified. The DNR .u ’■ne LMCD w<ll need to work closely to develop Che b? t islative proposal. Certain prog * regional, • procedures ** the lak' (’ dually lelated to research) may be funded by Accordingly, the U1CD shall establish .id obtain as many grants as possible. Both th<* yfK . on Lake Minnetonka recommended chat the existing tax le''* .0 -inc of local levy limits. Accordingly, when the legisla ..V3 -irepcrei* to implement components of this Management Prog,. - il. le to p >ace the existing levy outside of local limi tacit The expanded tax district shall be based on visitor origin, using a formula developed and approved by the LMCD, Metropolitan Council and the DNR. Jointly funued studies can be designed to provide accurate data for Che split. The split In revenues shall be reviewed from time to time by these agencies, with the levy adjusted (after public hearing) to reflect changes in user patterns. Present visi'or origin data indicated that approximately 60 percent of the revenues sho.ld be generated in the U lakeshore communities. Hennepin County households, exclusive of these 14 communities, should contribute the other 40 percent. 3. The LMCD tax levy shall be excluded from statutory limitations on the amount of taxes levied by other taxation authorities. There are three reasons for making this change: 1) it is in agreement with previous Task Force Reports calling for this change, and 2) it is consistent with Chapter 378.52, Subd. 2. 3) it provides a more stable fxxnding source that is not affected by other priorities in Hennepin County or the Cities. 4. A system of service fees shall continue to be imposed on the lake that distribute the cost of regulatory programs directly to the users. This is actually contained in Objective 2, but is included separately to assure proper weight is given thij» important source of revenue. The LMCD presently uses a series of service fees to fund a portion of their programs. This simply continues tha». practice while calling for review of the present system to assure it refl’.cts existing cost to government. These service fees shall include, but not be limited to: 1) inspection of permits to construct in a waterway, 2) operation of shore-based facilities, including swimming beaches, 3) residential docks/moorings, ^ parking fees at ..amps and parks, and temporary dock inspections. The Regional Park nnd Open Space Capital Improvement Program funds should be made available for implementing capital programs called for in the Long-Term Management Program and that are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program. New re {onal recreation facilities shall be funded regionally. This makes available, subject to established priority setting processes, regional capital improvement funds administered by the Metropolitan Council. The funds should be provided through one of the existing implementing agencies for improvements owned and operated by that agency. 6. Managing agencies acti .^n Lake Minnetonka shall cooperate to obtain legislative approval f*" iacropolitan boat license; revenues from such a program shall be divide< ^:cween participating lake management agencies. This is the first preference for additional funds for Lake M.'..atonka programs. The emphasis shall be on innovative financing techniques. The DNR Is presently opposed to special boat licenses. Perhaps that could be used to obtaltt another Innovative method for financing local lake management activities. Such innovative methods would be best if not dependent upon State Legislature appropriations. Current thinking around the lake favors a Lake Minnetonka boat sticker. This would allow a greater share of the management of regional recreational resources to be borne by the users. For a boat to be operated on the lake a license, in the form a of sticker, would be required. The LMCD shall work with the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, other lake improvement organizations in the metropolitan area, and user groups to address the implications of a metropolitan boat license or other innovative funding mechanism on state-wide management of water resources and the impact on the existing licensing system. 7. Modify the existing mei^ership of the LMCD Board. Legislative action shall be sought to alter the membership of the LMCD board. The future LMCD Board shall be composed of: 14 Lakeshore community seats Metropolitan Council Hennepin County Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Minnehaha Creek Watershed District The reasons for adding four new memoer organizations to the LMCD Board after regional funding is obtained, include improved cooperation and coordination, recognition of the role of the lake in regional recreational use, and the county-wide fundii'g sought under Management Objective 2 (above). As pointod out earlier in this chapter, the 14 cities, the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district all have regulatory programs that directly affect the environmental quality of the lake and it recreational use. The new board provides a forum for the 18 organizations with the greatest interest in the lake to establish and implement regulatory programs, and to better assure consistent enforcement, while these organizations have essential regulatory programs, no formal coordination mechanism now exists. It is appropriate to use the lake management agency for such coordination. Further, Management Objective 2 (above) calls for a county-wide property tax for funding lake pror,rams. .\dding r,ur new organizations provides for regional representation while expanding the tax base. The expanded tux base is linked \ith expanded regional representation on the LMCD .^oard. 8. Provide for Staggered Tenns of Directors. Presently, the three year terras provided by Section 2 of the LMCD enabling legislation all expire at the same time. In the future, the terms shall be staggered so that one-third of the terras expire each year. Assuming the 18-member board: Year 1-6 terms Year 2-6 terms Year 3 - 6 terms Should the Board be otherwise changed In size by legislation, the terms of office shall still be staggered. Specific positions shall be determined by lot. The four county and regional seats shall be similarly staggered, with no more than two turning over In any one year. This objective shall be implemented by changing the by-laws of the LMCD. 9. Bylaws for the LMCD shall hr reviewed. The review shall Include, at a minimum: 1. Determining the month in which election of officers should occur. 2. Formalizing procedures for nomination and election of officers. 3. Determining when newly-elected officers should be sworn In. 4. An Executive Committee, with specified powers should be formed. 10. The liiCD should enter into an Interagency agreement with the DNR and the Hennepin County Attorney to provide prosecution services for citations issued by DNR Conservation Officers. Working with the DNR, the LMCD shall seek an Attorney General's opinion as to the conditions under which the LMCD may provide prosecuting services to the DNR or the Hennepin County Attorney. If legal barriers exist, the LMCD, County Attorney and the DNR shall work to have them removed by the State Legislature. The purpose of this Interagency agreement Is to provide for more uniform and centralized prosecution of violations occurring on the lake. Presently, the DNR relies on the services of the County Attorney; the LMCD utilizes its own attorney for prosecution. The advantage of this would be more consistent enforcement and prosecution of offenses. Fines could be split between the LMCD and the DNR. An increase in total revenue is likely under this proposal. 11. The LMCD Shall Act as a Technical Clearinghouse for Data Concerning the Lake, Lake Use, Access and Shoreline Development. Presently, the LMCD is a repository for data concerning the lake Jtiid Its use. However, since its Inception, the LMCD has lacked a technical staff that could maintain an aggressive and utilitarian program. When research on lake issues has been required. It primarily relied on other government agencies, private consultants or other organizations to conduct the studies. It has participated in or wholly funded studies. The authority to Iraplement this is presently adequate. However, the LMCD needs to hire professional staff, qualified in certain, high priority areas, particularly in regulation and enforcement, and Ir: either water-oriented recreation or in limnology. 12. The LMCD Shall Continue and Shall Expand its Coordination and Review Functions. The purpose of this to unify lake programs to achieve both local and regional goals. This includes, but is not limited to, the review of state, regional, and local plans, policies and programs that affect the lake. Nominally, this has been one of the LMCD's major areas of concentration. But coordination often has been informal, lacking in definitive agreements, objectives and goals. Review of plans or proposals has been limited by staff time. Authority need not be expander, but the LMCD role needs to be enhanced and clarified in specific areas through interagency agreements. Again, professional staff capable of handling the work load and technical demands need to be provided. Funds to accomplish this need to be located. 13. The LMCD Shall Continue its Communication, Lobby and Public Inforroation Activities. This simply continues the existing LMCD roles in these areas while placing increased emphasis by: a. Fostering and channelling discussions on issues affecting the lake. b. Presenting lake management issues to legislative, regional and county delegations and committees. c. Serving as a focus for public Information and public involvement. d. Providing a unified approach to resource management. Several important contributions have been made over the years in providing information to the public, as well as establishing and maintaining communication. Lobbying activities have been limited by staff, reliance on volunteers and budget. These roles have been filled by the LMCD, but need to be enhanced. VII. IMPLEHENTATION PERSPECTIVE The Long-Term Hanagemenc Program for Lake Minnetonka provides a 25-year guide for maintaining, and enhancing where possible, the environmental quality, recreational experience and aesthetic quality of the lake. But the Program cannot be implemented unless users benefiting from the lake provide substantial new funds. Presently the management entities maintain active regulatory and reactive enforcement postures. The overall objective of this program is to be active in both regulation and enforcement, and to develop the LMCD into a strong and consistent advocate for Lake Minnetonka programs in all Involved organizations. Implementation of this Management Program requires a new level of courage. If the environmental quality and user experience on the lake is to be protected, difficult decisions will have to be made by all managing entities. Decisions that limit certain types of access and to impose necessary environmental controls on intensive development will not be popular. In the first years following adoption of this Management Program, the LMCD will need to provide the lead in these difficult decisions. Without that, other managing entities are more likely to avoid their difficult decisions Development of The Implementation Program assumes that significant new funds will not be available until aC least the third year after adoption. Therefore, activities by the lilCD are planned to increase through time, reaching a peak after the first three years following adoption. Implementation is limited by the available finances, staff and resources of the LMCD as presently configured. When the legislative program is achieved, significant new funds vill be available. At that point, the LMCD Board needs to change the fundamental way that it operates. Presently, Directors, when meeting in committees, perform functions normally reserved for professional staff. With the limited available funds, the LMCD has no other option. But when funds are available, then the LMCD Board may decrease its staff function and rely on hired professional staff. At that point, the LMCD Board will set policy and act on professional staff recommendations. The ensuing Implementation Program classifies management objectives into four areas: Legislative Program Research Program Regulatory Program Intergovernmental Coordination Program Further, the timing of the action by the managing entities is divided into six categories: General Objectives Year One Activities Year Two Activities Year Three Activities Periodic Activities Density-Based Activities 75 G«n«ral activities refer to managamenc objectives chat influence the way the LMCD and other agencies conduct their business. Sometimes, only the emphasis of existing programs need change rather than introduction of new programs. The programs for Years One through Three reflect the staff and funding limitations of the present LMCD. Periodic objectives are recurring Kesearch studies. Density-based activities are triggered by the number of acres per boat during peak periods. GENERAL ACTIVITIES The following general objectivas either re-confirm or re-orient existing programs of managing entities. At times the LMCD is to take action exclusively. At other times the LMCD is to work with agencies to assure that their programs reflect the best interest of the lake. In the latter case, the LMCD will not administer the program, but will advocate adoption and monitor performance. Regulatory Program 1. Maintain the existing LMCD authority. 2. Develop and manage access to, and use of, the lake through ordinance and regulation. 3. Continue to impose service fees. 4. Manage recreational boating access on Lake Minnetonka based on acres per boat. 5. Establish a policy that recognizes the need for 700 car/trailer spaces at formal parking lots in the vicinity of major access points which: 1) utilize remote parking; 2) facilitate h.ondicapped access; 3) minimize or-street parking, lake frontage, water quality effects, and aesthetic intrusions; and 4) minimize local and neighborhood traffic disruptions. 6. Provide remote parking and shuttles as appropriate at access points. 7. Use existing LMCD authority to regulate parking, hard cover and sanitary facilities during implementation of the multiple dock licensing program. These seven action items shall be implemented within three months of adoption of the Long-Term Management Program. Intergovemmenta?. Coordination Program 1. Enhance comaunication, lobby and public information activities. 2. Enhance coorolnation and review functions. 3. Act as a technical clearinghouse for data concerning the lake, lake use, access and shoreline development. 4. Develop anchorage opportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian property. 5. Encourage coordinated development, management, policing and regional funding of all public lands of regional attraction. r ’ VII. IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE The Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka provides a 25-year guide for maintaining, and enhancing where possible, the environmental quality, recreational experience and aesthetic quality of the lake. But the Program cannot be Implemented unless users benefiting from the lake provide substantial new funds. Presently the management entitles maintain active regulatory and reactive enforcement postures. The overall objective of this program is to be active in both regulation and enforcement, and to develop the LMCD into a strong and consistent advocate for Lake Minnetonka programs in all involved organizations. implementation of this Management Program requires a new level of courage. If the environmental quality and user experience on the lake is to be protected, difficult decisions will have to be made by all managing entities. Decisions that limit certain types of access and to Impose necessary environmental controls on intensive development will not be popular. In the first years following adoption of this Management Program, the LMCD will need to provide the lead in these difficult decisions. Without that, other managing entities are more likely to avoid their difficult decisions. Development of The Implementation Program assumes that significant new funds will not be available until at least the third year after adoption. Therefore, activities by the LMCD are planned to increase through time, reaching a peak after the first three years following adoption. Implementation is limited by the available finances, staff and resources of the LMCD as presently configured. When the legislative program is achieved, significant new funds will be available. At that point, the LMCD Board needs to change the fundamental way that it operates. Presently, Directors, when meeting in committees, perform functions normally reserved for professional staff. With the limited available funds, Che LMCD has no ocher option. But when funds are available, Chen the LMCD Board may decrease its staff function and rely on hired professional staff. At Chat point, the LMCD Board will set policy and act on professional staff recommendations. The ensuing Implementation Program classifies management objectives into four areas: Legislative Program Research Program Regulatory Program Intergovernmental Coordination Program Further, the timing of the action by the managing entities is divided into six categories: General Objectives Year One Activities Year Two Activities Year Three Activities Periodic Activities Density-Based Activities 75 General activities refer to management objectives that influence the way the LMCD and other agencies conduct their business. Sometimes, only the emphasis of exlsring programs need change rather than introduction of new programs. The piograms for Years One through Three reflect the staff and funding limitations of the present LMCD. Periodic objectives are recurring research studies. Density-based activities are triggered by the number of acres per boat durin^j peak periods. GENERAL ACTIVITIES The following general objectives either re-confirm or re-orient existing programs rf managing entities. At times the LMCD is to take action exclusively. At other times the LMCD is co work with agencies to assure that their programs reflect the best Interest of the lake. In the latter case, the LMCD will not administer the program, but will advocate adoption and monitor performance. Regulatory Program 1. Maintain the existing LMCD authority. 2. Develop and manage access to, and use of, the lake through ordinance and regulation. 3. Continue to impose service fees. 4. Manage recreational boating access on Lake Minnetonka based on acres per boat. 5. Establish a policy that rt ognlze*: the need for 700 car/trailer spaces at formal parking lots in the vicinity of major access points which: 1) utilize remote parking; 2) facilitate handicapped access; 3) minimize on-street parl.ing, lake frontage, water quality effects, and aesthetic. Intrusions; and '•*) minimize local and neighborhood traffic disruptions. 6. Provide remote parking and shuttles as appropriate at access points. 7. Use existing LMCD authority to regulate parking, hard cover and sanitary facilities during implementation of the multiple dock licensing program. These seven action items shall bo implemented v adoption of the Long-Term Management Program. n thr> months of Ir tergovemmental Coordination Program 1. Enhance communication, lobby and public information activities. 2. Enhance coordination and review functions 3. Act as a technical clearinghouse for data concerning the lake, lake use, access and shoreline development. 4. Develop anchorage opportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian property. 5. Encourage coordinated development, management, policing and regional funding of all public lands of regional attraction. 6. Encourage development of scenic lookouts around the lake. 7. Take an active role in the development of plans for any public shoreline recreational facility that is potentially of regional significance. 8. Maintain the LMCD policy of not owning or operating shoreline recreational facilities. 9. Continue to foster cooperation aid facilitate coordination for better located and developed on-shore recreational opportunities. 10. Encourage regional funding of water-oriented shoreline recreational facilities serving a regional population. 11. Support enhancement of shoreline recreational opportuuities serving the regional population. 12. Encourage transportation agencies to continue to provide ring routes to divert commuter and commercial traffic from shorelands. 13. Work to incorporate recreational access to Lake Minnetonka in future public transit alternatives. 14. Encourage use of regional park and open space Capital Improvement Program funds for implementing capital programs on the lake. 15. Increase Water Patrol hours spent on Lake Minnetonka. 16. Improve noise enforcement on the lake. 17. Encourage owning municipalities to continue to operate, maintain and police shoreline neighborhood parks. 18. Enhance communication between all law enforcement agencies on and near the lake. 19. Work with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol for a consistent and stable state and county funding procedure. 20. Ensure that a comprehensive water quality monitoring program is conducted for Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries. 21. Protect water quality to allow continued use of the lake for primary contact recreation and bass-pan sportfishing. 22. Protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka by controlling: a) non-point pollution, b) fertilizers and pesticides, c) septic tank leachate and residues from past treatment practir«»s. d) erosion, either during or after construction of residential commercial developments, and e) runoff from the developed sices. 23. Reduce Che spread of noxious aquatic weeds, including Eurasian watermilfoil, and to manage effectively the water quality problems their presence in Lake Minnetonka creates. 24. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality improvement, flood control, wildlife habitat and aesthetics. 25. Encourage improvement and uniformity of protection of wetlands above c!.e 929.4 contour through regulation and acquisition. For the first three years, the LMCD Directors will need to set priorities and concentrate on Che most important. But at the end of three years all of these should be incorporated into Che LMCD Code or into its lobbying and coordination programs. YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES Legislative Program Implementation of the Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka begins vith the formulation of a program for changing the LMCD enabling legislation. The Long-Term Management Program cannot be implemented unless the Minnesota State Legislature changes the way the District is funded and organized. Therefore, Immediately upon adoption of the Long-Term Program, the LMCD shall embark on a program to obtain the following changes in its enabling legislation; 1. Expand the tjx base of the LMCD. 2. Exclude the LMCD tax levy from statutory limitations placed on other taxation authorities. 3. Obtain authority for a boat sticker or other innovative funding. 4. Modify the membership of the LMCD Board when regional funding is forthcoming. 5. Stagger the terms of Directors. The LMCD shall initiate implementation of this legislative program within two months r . adoption. The legislative changes should be completed within the first biennium following adop^’ion. In obtaining the changes, the LMCD shall first meet with their legislative delegation, then obtain the support of other managing entities, particularly the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County and the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Follow-up coordination and lobbying shall receive hi_,h priority until the legislative package is passed. Research Program During the first year following adoption, the LMCD shall undertake four studies. It is anticipated that the District can coraplet the following using existing Board and staff resources: 1. Develop a plan for managing excursion boat docking and parking. 2. Refine the established program of imposing limits on the use of bays with the greatest use density. The District will need outside assistance to complete these studies: 3. Develop an action program using comprehensive ordinances, including zoning, to implement access controls. 4. Inventory and improve protection of wetlands lying within the 929.4 contcur of Lake Minnetonka th ough regulation. Each of these inv Ive either obtaining or setting aside funds for the study, developing the Scope of Work, making staff assignments or hiring consulta’its, and monitoring progress of the study. In order to undertake research projects for subsequent years, the LMCD shall explore funding options and seek regional, state or Federal funds for undertaking. 1. Fishing access plan. 2. Launched boat access plan. Regulatory Program In addition to Implementing management objectives affecting .managing entities regulatory policies, the LMCD needs to act on ten specific management objectives in the first year. 1. Initiate a program that recognizes there ultimately will be 350 additional (to 700) car/trailer parking spaces for public and private access ramps. Further restrict conversion of marina docks to condominium docks by eliminating grandfathering at such facilities. Establish and enforce to the greatest extent allowed under law a policy of no further use of outlets for non-riparian landowner access on lands previously developed. Assure licensed marinas remain available to all citizens of the state. Additional special density permits at municipal or homeowner association licensed docks shall be banned. Review the rules governing individual riparian storage of boats. Restrict use of and/or license operators of personal watercraft sailbo^’-cls, and hovercraft. Designate anchorages on the lake with appropriate restrictions. Limit the use of personal watercraft by ordinance. Improve local regulation of fishing tournaments for the purpose of reducing mortality of fish caught and to minimize the impact of increasing fishing pressure on the resource and other users. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Intergovernmental Coordination Program Intergovernmental coordination and cooperation activities focus in six areas during the first year following adoption. Coordination activities need to be with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, appropriate State review agencies Water Patrol s>»^d law enforcement agencies, and local communities. 1. Encourage and enhance local government efforts to adopt shoreland management rules and regulations that meet the standards and criteria that are contained in Appendix C. 2. Coordinate development and implementation of an aggressive boater education program in Hennepin County. 3 Work with the Watershed District and appropriate state boards to assure that the Watershed District 509 Plan conforms to the goals and objectives contained in this management program. a. Assure the 509 Plan is consistent with the Shoreland Management Minimum Standards and Criteria. b. Ensure that a comprehensive watei aality monitoring , * capable of diagnosing problems is conducted for Lakv Mi ".onka and its tributaries. c. Minimize the impacts of non-point pollution on the quality of Lake Minnet and its tributaries, by controlling urban and agriculture rmwater runoff and erosion, and ocher appropriate 3ment practices. d. Minimize the iL.r.*ccs of fertilizers and pesticides contained in watershed runoff on the quality of Lake Minnetonka. Minimize the pollutants reaching Lake Minnetonka and its • '’'u-aries via septic tank leachate and residues from past ment practices 79 4. 5. 6. f. Protect the lake from the detrimental effects of construction. g. Maintain or restore the water quality of Lake Minnetonka to allow continued use of the lake for primary contact recreation and bass-pan sportfishing. h. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality Imprcvement, flood control, wildlife habitat and aesthetics. I. Encourage Improvement and uniformity of ectlon of wetlands above the 929.4 contour through regulation J. Encourage protection of wetlands above • ♦ 9P.9.4 contour through acquisition. k. Reduce the spread of noxious aquatic uaeds, including Eurasian watermilfoii, and to manage effectively cne water quality problems their presence in Lake Minnetonka creates. Improve coordination of special events on the lake with other responsible organizations and law enforcement agencies. The LMCD, the Sheriff’s Water Patrol and other involved Public Safety Departments shall hold semi-annual meeuings to discuss priorities for enforcement of summer and winter rules on the lake. To reduce the aesthetic impact of high-rise development, the LMCD shall encourage governing councils of nearby communities to exhibit restraint in approving variances and conditional use permits for buildings that will be visible from the lake's surface and shoreline. YEAR TWO ACTIVITIES Research Program Six studies shall be conducted and completed during the second year after implementation. Three of the studies can be completed by available re.sources of the LMCD; three require the assistance of recreation professionals. Studies implemented by the LMCD available resources include; 1. Develop a program for implementing "'insity 7.0 restrictions. 2. Study means of limiting boat wakes. 3. Review the Bylaws of the LMCD. Outside agency or consultant assistance is required to -‘itplete these studies: Develop a launched boat access plan, including siting and funding, in cooperation with the members of the Metropolitan Access Committee. Develop a plan for providing further beaching/rafting areas A plan for fishing access shall be developed for the lake -7..)ig fishing piers and provision for formal parking areas. 1. 2. 3. Intergovernmental Coordination Ptc 4 lua 1. 2. 3. Subject to legal review, the IMCD should enter into an agreement with the DMR and Hennepin County Co provide prosecution services for citations Issued by DNR Conservation Officers. Improve regulation of ice houses The LMCD shall coordinate placement and servicing of adequate trash containers at all summer and winter accoosa points on the lake that are used b^’ '^'•hicles. YEAR THREE ACTIVITIES Legislative Program 1. Coordinate a legislative program to obtain state boat operator licensing. 2. Managing agencies active on Lake Minnetonka shall cooperate to obtain legislative approval for a lake or metropolitan ooat license, or obtain alternative Innvative funding sources. Research Program In the third year studies. a.fter implementation, the LMCD shall conduct 1. Develop regulations for multiple docks under high, normal and low water conditions. 2. Assure that fish habitat is Identified, mapped and protected. 3. Obtain funding for research the impa :ts of exotic plant species on fish populations and the impact of aquatic vege*-^tion harvesting on fish populations. 4. Identify, map i.nd optimize winter access to the lake. 5. Work with the Gray Freshwater Institute to determine the status of exotic species in the lake and in its wetlands. Regulatory Program 1. Develop a county-wide boating education program. 2. The LMCO shall work with the Hennepin County court system to require persons convicted of major infractions and repeat offenders to complete a boating saii'y course. 4. The LMCD shall develop the staff and procedures to review and comment on the following variance <*ppllcarions in all fourteen communities: a) building height variances anjVneie in lakeshore comaunities, and h) all variances for riparian parcels on Lake Minnetonka. Intergovernmental Coordination Program 1. 2. Minimize the adverse water quality impacts of dredging acc wties, either in-lake or within wetlands, on the quality of public wjh. Managing entities shall encourage further public development and appropriate acquisition on Big Island. PERIODIC ACTIVITIES Research Program Two on-going research pi ii-c.';s shall be conducted uy regiona'. and state agencies. The first she . i.d be conducted every two years. The second every five years. 1. Conduct routinu recreational use monitoring. 2. Monitoring of fish populations and fish harvest rates. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CcH,uxaM]r^r^f\k‘^ilyihoCITY OF ORONO • ’ . l l /y. MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER 1 »A J 77^ ■ > /- _____?€'C c' J/A^l M /V 7 ,:m}A/ V.% Av'iT ^VY7 3rT£jf\RV ^(yViL^i-M Aue ^ ?o 4. fXAr // ^_________ 6. - W'Q •. 4 k c X A//A--Z? 7. VO'MC'W.■5 i\0 rA H 1 *0 1 Ls r .V 8 . ( -TfH V r - 1 ^ S N ■Mui‘<' Ai. K'H ul issA 9. ^ IcC/^4it >______________ 10 va^'-jic,/ V- tin x-/iA^ic>:i! Pd'A /^. a V.TX^ /; / /^;v /4X;.r4 /A 17 tC^5‘ ' y 1 . ^ViV \L cV C <-«. : V S^'» 1 L»,. .V J /‘I 14 biv Xix^UX y\' 1 if'- 1 vet-'—C V A'AA ct'-vw Af iV^i 15. w./V 1 / L 0/Pj __±J^-------- 1 . ‘ ' ) 17. * 18. 18. 20.___________________________- AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1990, 7:00 P.M. Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items a^ * available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of August 13, 1990 AUG 27 1990 CITY OF ORONO LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - JoEllen Hurr Rep. 3. LMCD Comprehensive Plan Revision 4. 1991 LMCD Budget NORTH TONKA CRIME PREVENTION COALITION 5. Report by Gretchen Menzel PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Linit 5 Minutes Pec- Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT •♦APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and denials. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. #1476 David Prass, 1065 Linden Lane - Variance #1497 Tobe-man Management, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Refer to Planning Commission for Further Review #1509 Earl Freeman, 4505 Watertown Road - Variance #1554 Tim Gramentz, 4680 North Arm Drive - Variance Resolution #1556 Gerald Nelson, 1629 Bohns Point Road - Variance - Denial Resolution #1559 John Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road - Variance - Resolution #1571 Grimes/Hoffman, 4720-4730 North Arm Drive West - Easement Vacation - Resolution #1574 Jim & Susan Ronald, 2565 Dunwoody Avenue - Variance - Resolution #1576 John Wojcik, 3310 Bayside Road - Variance - Resolution #1582 Carol Burgess, 2800 Pheasant Road - Variance - Resolution ENGINEER'S REPORT * 16. Payment Request #1 - Highway 12 Restoration 17. Payment Request #1 - Lift Station #43 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 18. Highway 12 Citizen Group Interviews CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 19. Livingston Avenue Drainage 20. Street Lights - Lyric Avenue 21. Transient Merchant - Ordinance Amendment AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1990, 7:00 P.M, CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Continued 22. 1991 Budget and Public Hearing Dates - Proposed Maximum Tax Levy - Resolution 23. 1991 Police Car Acquisition 24. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 1991 Budget 25. Navarre Redevelopment 26. Flexible Benefits 27. John Sass Resignation 28. Salary Adjustment Public Works Supervisor - Level II 29. *i.y Adjustment - Jamie Bosma 30. v J^roaram for Deferment of Special Assessments - solution 31. .se? Ing Service 32. Temporary Employment - Golf Course 33. Disposal of City Property 34. Administrator's Information Highway 12 Reservist Status Septic Position Long Lake's Goals CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT LICENSES (35*) BILLS (36*) UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 08/27 - Council Meeting 08/28 - First Day (8:00 A.M.) for Candidates to File for City Council 09/03 - Holiday - Labor Day 09/10 - Council Meeting 09/11 - Last Day (4:30 P.M.) for Candidates to File for City Council 09/11 - State Primary Election Day 09/17 - Planning Commission Meeting 09/24 - Council Meeting COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 AUG 27 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. PITV AP The Council met on the above date with the fol iMfUl|bi(||fQ|||Q present: Mayor James Grabek, Councilmembers Diann Goetten, Barbara Peterson and Edward Callahan. Councilmember Nettles was absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffror., City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held July 23, 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS: There were no Park Commission comments. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commission representative Bellows was present and indicated that she had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, presented a petition for the City of Orono to undertake a storm sewer project. The petition represented over 35% of the persons in her neighborhood. Ms. Cuff stated that the neighbors are anxious for the project to begin. Mayor Grabek accepted Ms. Cuff's petition. He said, "We will schedule this item for the August 27th Council Meeting." There were no further comments from the public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1334 REBERS CONSTRUCTION SUGARWOODS PLAT RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF PRD APPROVAL City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that Mr. Rebers had requested that this item be tabled until the September 10, 1990 Council Meeting. PlaVining Commission representative Bellows said, "I spoke with Chairman Kelley regarding this matter. He wished to express - 1 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED to the Council the Planning Commission's concerns involved with this request and asked that it be monitored close*!/. He suggested that the resolution allowing any diversion from what the City originally approved be very precise. Chairman Kelley also asked that the Council, in dealing with this matter, once again speak to the developer about the conditions at the corner of Brown Road and Highway 12. The Planning Commission would like to see some kind of plantings or screening around the retention pond." Mayor Grabek asked Bellows what specific concerns Planning Commission has regarding the recent request. the Bellows replied, "We were assured that all trees that were to be preserved would be clearly marked before work began on the site. That is not being done. The Planning Con'^mi ssion is concerned because trees cannot be replaced after-the-fact." Mayor Grabek asked staff to review the concerns raised by Bellows. He asked if the retention pond had been constructed in a manner other than what :he developer had proposed. Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied, "The final seeding is lacking from the retention pond area. However, the City did not request the developer to provide plantings. The developer did not provide much detail on the actual retention pond because it was located within the commercial outlet set aside for future development. The City did not expect the pond to be as large as it is. The final plat approval only specified that the developer provide ground cover around the retention pond. In fact. City staff would discourage the use of plantings along one side because of a sighting problem that may be created." Gerhardson added, "The City has not completed its project along the west end of the pond and that is contributing to the unsightliness of the area." It was. moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this item until the September 10, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1473 JACQUELYN KELLY 2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE REQUEST TO TABLE Bernhardson explained that due to the pending denial and a discrepancy in the hardcover calculations, the applicant has requested that this item be tabled. Councilmember Callahan noted that this matter was first presented some time ago. He questioned why there is still a - 2 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1473-KELLY CONTINUED discrepancy in the hardcover calculations. Mabusth replied that it was the applicant's understanding that removal of landscaping would result in a 10% reduction in hardcover. She stated that staff's calculations determined that only a 5% reduction would occur. Mabusth said, "I would like the opportunity to meet again with the applicants to discuss the hardcover. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table application #1473. Motion, Ayes- 4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1506 CAROL SENN 3220 WATERTOWN ROAD FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2844* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan. seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2844, approving the Plat of Senn Orono Addition. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1509 EARL FREEMAN 4505 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Freeman was not present. Bernhardson said, "Staff has reviewed the possible actions that the City can take in relation to the free standing accessory structure. We feel that it is appropriate to grant a variance at this point. Staff has determined that since a principal structure did exist on the property and that it was removed by a hazardous building proceeding, we cannot remove the accessory structure because it is a legal non-conforming use. Approval of a variance would allow the City to set the conditions under which the structure can remain." Councilmember Callahan indicated that he would not be in favor of granting such a variance. Mabusth asked City Attorney Barrett whether it would be appropriate to require a conditional use permit to deal with the aspect of the legal non-conforming structure. . City Attorney Barnett replied, "The non-conforming use status arises either from the Constitution, because Mr. Freeman has property that we cannot take, or from the recognition of such uses within the City's ordinances. The City has no provision to license non-conforming uses. Granting a variance would provide the City with a negotiating tool to assure that certain improvements on the property occurred." - 3 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1509-FREEMAN CONTINUED Councilmember Goetten asked what deadline had been established for Mr. Freeman to bring the accessory structure into conformance. Kabusth replied, "June 1, 1991, was the deadline Council established.'' It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to deny the variance requested in application #1509. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1528 CONSTANCE ft DON SCOTT 2300 LONGVIEW CIRCLE FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2845* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2845, approving the Plat of Longview 3rd Addition. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1536 STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD VARIANCES RESOLUTION #2846 Mr. Gardiner was present. Bernhardson presented a summary of the information contained in Michael Gaffron's memo dated Auaust 8, 1990. Councilmember Callahan asked whether the alley vacation is included in this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron replied in the negative, noting that the Planning Commission felt the revised changes are so minor that the alley vacation should be a separate issue. Bellows noted that the location of the garage is such that other .issues must be addressed in addition to the alley vacation. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2846, granting side and rear setback variances to construct main floor and second story additions- to the ^property located at 3770 Bayside Road. Motion, Ayes-4, ^ays-0. Motion passed. - 4 - I;; ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 #1539 DAVE FILKINS 3905 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE-REVISED REQUEST RESOLUTION #2847 Mr. Filkins v;as present. Bernhardson explained Mr. Filkins revised proposal, noting that the first option Council approved was the applicant's. He stated that Mr. Filkins discovered that the approved option would not work as well as the option proposed by City staff. Bernhardson also noted that as part of the revised proposal, Mr. Filkins is asking to retain a portion of concrete near the front door. He stated that as a result of the revised plan, the hardcover decrease will be from 53% to 50%, rather than 46%.. Councilmember Callahan asked Mr. Filkins why he had subsequently decided to keep the concrete sidev;alk apron. Mr. Filkins replied that he had hoped to provide an alternate method to access the house, but that also did not work as he thought it would. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2847, approving the hardcover, side and front yard setback variances for David Filkins, 3905 Shoreline Drive, as v.-ell as a variance for the location of the garage doors in relation to the property line. Further, Mr. Filkins is allowed to retain the 8' x 11' concrete portion of sidewalk, resulting in a total of 50% hardcover for the property. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1551 ROBERT WAADE 998 WILDUURST TRAIL PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2848 Mr. Waade was nor present. Bernhardson reviewed the information pertaining to this subdivision (see Jeanne Mabusti's memo dated August 7, 1990). Councilmember Callahan noted that development will occur very close to the flood plain. Mabusth stated that a portion of the improved public road ..ill be located within the flood plain. She depicted for Council where the 931.5' elevation is located in relation to the proposed lots. She said, "There will be filling behind the 931.5' line and a retaining wall will oe constructed for Lot 3. The structure will be 26' from the defined wetland at the 930' elevation. As tne resolution notes, the existing road is located within tthe flood plain. Should the City decide to upgrade the road, it will be necessary for them to compensate for any filling - 5 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1551-WAADE CONTINUED that may occur." It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek. to adopt Resolution #2848, granting preliminary approval of Wildhurst Estates. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. 11552 STEVEN FOSTER 1800 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE REQUEST TO TABLE* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this application until staff can verify whether the revised proposal requires a variance. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1553 MIKE PIERCE 480 DEBORAH DRIVE VARIANCE Mr. Pierce was present. Bernhardson presented the information provided in Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated July 11, 1990. He noted that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of Mr. Pierce's request for 7' monuments at the entrance to his property. Mr. Pierce stated that he no longer intends to install lights on the monuments. He said, "I am asking for the 4' fence because we wish to keep horses and llamas in our front pasture. A 3h' fence would not be adequate to retain the animals. Since the Planning Commission meeting, I have begun planting 18' to 24' pine trees which will totally surround the monuments. This will screen the monuments from the neighbors." Councilmember Callahan noted that Mr. Pierce would only require a height variance if he woulJ opt to place the monuments 100' in from the street. Mr. Pierce indicated that the monuments would be more beneficial if located nearer to the street. He said, "I have seen many monuments, exceeding 3h' in height, near the roads in Orono. Mayor Grabek explained that many of those monuments existed prior to revisions in the Zoning Code, and consequently have been grandfathered. Mabusth advised Mr. Pierce that he may have a fence in excess of 3*5' if it is located 100' back from the road. Coiincilmember Goetten asked Mr. Pierce what materials he intends to use to construct the fence. - 6 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE 11553-PIERCE CONTINUED Mr. Pierce replied, "The fence will white vinyl material." be constructed of a Mr. Bob Biesterfeld, 450 Deborah Drxve, stated that he is a member of the Architectural Committee for the Deborah Drive Homeowners' Association. He said, "We are seeing some changes here that were not presented at the Planning Commission. The Architectural Committee was not aware of Mr. Pierce's original plans either. We have submitted a letter to the City stating our objections to this proposal." Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Biesterfeld whether there are specific covenants relating to Mr. Pierce's request that have been filed in the chain of titl^ for the property. Mr. Biesterfeld replied, "Yes it is. It seems to me that the neighborhood association should have some say in this matter since it directly affects them. We have a mechanism set up with our Homeowners' Association, which has previously dealt with the Council, that these matters should be handled through the Association first." Mayor Grabek asked City Attorney Barrett for his opinion regarding the City's position in this matter. Barrett replied, "The covenants are a private contract which the City has no interest." Mr. Pierce said, "There is no Architectural Committee. It states in our by-laws that once the last piece of property is developed that the Architectural Committee will disband." Mr. Biesterfeld disagreed. Councilmember Peterson asked Bellows whether the fence was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Bellows .replied, "The fence was mentioned briefly. The discussion focused on the entrance monuments, which we felt were excessive in size." Mabusth added, "The fence was not included in Mr. Pierce's application and was not addressed in staff's memo." . Bellows stated that in light of that, there should be no discussion regarding the fence until Mr. Pierce submits an application for a fence. f-iayor Grabek said, "There seem to be some discrepancies involved* with the application. I would suggest that Mr. Pierce attempt to work on this a bit more with staff, neighbors and the - 7 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1553-PIERCE CONTINUED Planning Commission.” Mr. Pierce said, "I asked for three variances, but the major project I wanted approved was the fence. I don't want to proceed with the monuments until I know whether or not I can have a fence." Mayor Grabek reiterated that Mr. Pierce can have a fence over 3*5' tall, but that it must be at least 100' from the street. Mr. Pierce asked what height limit he would have for a fence placed 100' back from the road. Mabusth replied, "The fence cannot exceed six feet. T monuments can also be constructed to a maximum of six feet. However, at a height over six feet, the entrance monuments are considered an accessory structure. If they are considered an accessory structure, they cannot be in front of the front line of the principal structure." Mr. Biesterfeld asked whether it would be necessary for Mr. Pierce to apply for a variance to construct a shelter for his animals. Mabusth replied, "The structure must meet certain setbacks, but would not require any other variances." Ms. Ann Heggelman, 510 Deborah Drive, expressed concern about locating the monuments 100' back. She said, "If the monuments are placed 100' back, it would be directly in front of my living room windows on the side of my house." Mayor Grabek asked Ms. Heggelman if she has talked with Mr. Pierce and expressed her concerns directly to him. Ms. Heggelman indicated that she had not spoken to Mr. Pierce. Mayor Grabek reiterated his comments regarding the need for everyone to get together to discuss this matter and try to reach a compromise. Ms. Biesterfeld asked why the Council was not asking this matter to first be resolved by the Homeowners' Association as they did with the Deborah Drive speed bump request. Bernhardson replied, "The speed bump issue involved the aspect of liability for the Homeowners' Association for the road. The matter of architectural covenants is entirely different and should fcte resolved with the assistance of the attorney for the Association." - 8 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1553-PIERCE CONTINUED Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Pierce what action he would prefer to have Council take. He stated that Council must vote cn what has been presented, but that tabling was also an option. Mr. Pierce indicated that his questions had answered, but that he preferred tabling to denial. been It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table application #1553. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays~0. Motion passed. #1556 GERALD NELSON 1629 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Nelson was present. City Administrator Bornhardson reviewed the information regarding the subject property and Mr. Nelson's application (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 7, 1990). Mr. Nelson said, "We purchased the house 2h to 3 years after it was built. The areas of excess hardcover referred to by the Planning Commission \/as already there. I believe that 775 s.f. was allowed and that is not enough to provide an adequate driveway. The existing driveway is 1400 s.f. and the v/alkway to the side door and steps in front of the house bring the total excess to 1800 s.f. I am now asking for a rear entry closet. The alcove and concrete slab for the closet already exists. Vie are just asking for permission to put up an additional wall and a section of roof. It is my understanding that we exceed what is allowed in the 75-250' zone by 5%. However, in the 250-500' zone we have nothing. It seems to me that our request is fairly insignificant. I'm not asking to increase the existing hardcover." Mayor Grabek asked staff whether the alcove had been included on the original building plans. Gaffron stated that the alcove was not included on the original building plan. He showed Council a sketch of the original plan and depicted the areas where hardcover was originally proposed and allowed. Councilmember Goetten stated that she is sympathetic to Mr. Nelson because -the hardcover situation that exists was not his doing. She said, "However, I have taken a consistent position on the issue of structure over hardcover. There does not appear to be a real hardship in this case." Mr.* Nelson replied, "The hardship is that there is no other location for the closet because the house extends as far toward - 9 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1556-NELSON CONTINUED the side yard as allowed." Goetten stated that it is sometimes necessary to stay within the confines of the structure when large houses are constructed on limited lots. It was moved by Mayor Grabek to approve the hardcover variance to allow the construction of a rear entry closet. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to conceptually deny application #1556 and direct staff to prepare a denial resolution for the August 27, 1990 Council Meeting. Mayor Grabek believed that denying the enclosure of an existing area, 7' x 10', is extreme. Motion, Ayes-3, Grabek, Nay. Motion passed. 1557 MIKE CULLEN 2700 PHEASANT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2849 Mrs. Cullen was present. Bernhardson provided a summary of the information in Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 8, 1990. Gaffron asked Mrs. Cullen whether it is their intention to have a fence around the pool. Mrs. Cullen replied, "There v/ill be no fence anywhere on the property." It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2849.. approving the hardcover and average setback variances to construct a pool and patio at 2700 Pheasant Road. Motion, Ayes-4, tIays-0. Motion passed. #1563 MAURENE '& JERRY DENZEL 1295 ELMl#OOD AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2850 Mr. and Mrs. Denzel were present. . Bernhardson.and Mabusth explained the Denzel's application. Mabusth noted that the Denzels have discussed the driveway use of the unimproved right-of-way of Summit Avenue for access with the Public V/orks Director. She said, "The Public Marks Director sees no problem with this arrangement provided certain agreements are executed ibetv/een the parties." - 10 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1563-DENZEL CONTINUED Mabusth also noted that in lieu of removing 1.49% of hardcover, the Planning Commission recommended that the fire lane, which the applicants maintain and improved significantly with plantings, be credited in the area calculations of the property. Mabusth stated that this specific area of fire lane is in excess of 2,000 s.f It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Counci nember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2850, granting the side yard setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to the residence at 1295 Elmwood Avenue. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1564 JOANN GRIMES 4720/4730 NORTH ARM DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #2851 Ms. Grimes was present. Bernhardson briefly explained the information pertaining to this application (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 3, 1990). It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2851, approving a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Joann Grimes and James Hoffman at 4720 and 4730 North Arm Drive West. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1566 DR. & MRS. THOMAS REGNIER 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2852 Dr. Regnier was present. Bernhardson provided a brief summary of the information contained in Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 7, 1990. Dr. Regnier asked whether he could replace the existing section of fence by the garage once he removes that section. Gaffron replied, "You could replace what now exists with a section no more than 3V high. There may be a sight distance problem if a fence is placed where the fencing currently exists. If you decide to put a. fence in that location, staff could work with you to see what can be done." It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2852, approving a side street setback variance to construct additions to the existing residence at 1205 Elmwood Avenue. Motion, Ayes-4, - 11 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1566-REGNIER CONTINUED Nays“0. Motion passed. #1567 ROBERT ft LOUANN POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2853 Mr. Powell was present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief summary of Michael Gaffron's August 7, 1990 memo. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, tc adopt Resolution #2853, approving the average setback and hardcover variances to construct a deck on the lake side of the residence at 2916 Casco Point Road. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1568 JAMES ft JUDITH PIERPONT 1801 WEST FARM ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCF RESOLUTION 2854 Bernhardson presented Council with a brief review of this application. He noted that staff has recently learned that Lot 14 has the principal and alternate septic sites to serve the structures on Lot 15. Bernhardson stated that the Pierponts are purcnasing Lot 14 under a 7 year Contract for Deed, which will preclude a leg^l lot combination from occurring at this time. He said, "This would pose a problem should the terms of the Contract for Deed be terminated." Mrs. Pierpont said, "There is no question that we intend to combine the properties when we are able to do so. We would like to put the access driveway on Lot 14." Mabusth questioned whether the City Attorney could recommend a method to provide the City with assurance that the lots cannot be separated in the future until a legal lot combination can occur. Barrett stated that it would be necessary to have the fee '^wner of Lot 14 execute whatever agreement is used. Councilmember Callahan asked how the septic system came to be located on Lot 14 rather than the Lot with the principal structure. Gaffron replied, "The subdivision involving this property was done before the Septic Code went into effect in 1978. Prior to 1978. a review of septic system locations in relation to property‘lines was not included in the subdivision process." - 12 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1568-PIERPONT CONTINUED Callahan noted that Mabusth's memo states that the guest house/stable structure would have to be removed if Lot 14 is not combined with Lot 15. He said, "In light of information we received pertaining to another application this evening, I do not believe we can require removal of the structure." Barrett said, "The City could grant a permit based on the existence of certain health and safety structires, such as access to the septic system." Callahan agreed that Barrett's comments would hold true for now. He said, "If in the future, the property owners wish to subdivide and sell Lot 14, the structure we are discussing this evening should be removed." Bellows said, "If the property owners request a subdivision of the property, the guest house structure and septic needs would be addressed under the subdivision regulations." Bernhardson suggested tabling this matter to allow time for staff to explore available options. Mayor Graoek aske^ Mrs. Pierpont if tabling this matter for two weeks would pose anj* problems. Mrs. Pierpont replied, "There is a timing problem. We wish to complete the guest house so that we may reside in it while we remodel our house. I have a contractor ready to start on Monday." Bellows asked whether staff has explored the option of locating an additional septic site on Lot 15. Gaffron stated that staff has not looked at that option, but based on topography, would probably be difficult. Mayor Grabek asked whether there are any other unresolved issues involved with this application. Mabusth replied, "There are none. In fact staff has determined that footings do in fact exist under the stable. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff had been advised that the footings did not exist. The Planning Commission recommendation was based on that incorrect information." 9 4 Mayor Grabek suggested that staff be allowed to attempt to resolve the lot combination issue without the need to bring the matter back to Council. He said, "If there is a satisfactory solution, you may proceed v/ith construction. Hcwever, should difficul«ties arise, the matter will have to come back to Council in two weeks." - 13 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1568-PIERPONT CONTINUED Mrs. Pierpont stated that Mr. Tim Adams is the fee owner of the property. She said, "Mr. Adams has been very supportive of this project and wants to see it proceed." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2854, granting a conditional use permit and separation setback, side yard setback, and street setback variances, subject to a satisfactory resolve of the lot combination issue between all parties involved. If the parties are unable to reach a mutual agreement, the application must come back to the August 27th Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. Councilmember Goetten asked that staff inform Council of any decision that is made. #1569 S7VM MCCLOUD 4280 BAYSIDE ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2855 Mr. McCloud was not present. Mabusth stated that it was her understanding that Neal Weber, the applicant's Architect, intended to be present, but had not yet arrived. Bernhardson summarized the information contained in Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated July 13, 1990. He noted that the applicant's have revised their plan from a ten bedroom house to an eight bedroom house in order to address the septic concerns. He said, "An eight bedroom structure will only require one principal and one alternate septic site." Callahan asked how access to this property is achieved, Mabusth replied, "There is a 60' easement for access to this parcel from the adjacent parcel." It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2855, approving the front street setback variance to construct a residence at 4280 Bayside Road. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. PUBLIC FACILITIES - DIRECTIONS FOR ZONING Bernhardson said. "This is a follow up to our earlier discussions regarding public facilities and the zoning of such facilities. My memo outlines various issues that may stem from locating other governmental units within the community. I have tentatively scheduled a*meeting for August 22, 1990 at 4:00 p.m. Once I have confirmed that date and time with the City of Wayzata, I will provide written notice to you." Councilmember Callahan suggested tabling this matter. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember - 14 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 PUBLIC FACILITIES-DIRECTIONS FOR ZONING CONTINUED Peterson, to table this item until the September 10, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion. Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. WETLANDS PROTECTION* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information presented by staff and table this item to the September 10, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. HARDCOVER - PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT City Administrator Bernhardson said, "I am presenting this information for your review this evening. You may wish to table this matter to provide additional review time.” It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the information and table this item until the September 10. 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes- 4, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT; PUMP HOUSE - BID AWARD Bernhardson presented a request for a bid award for the well #3 pump house located on Highway 12. He said, "The low bid is $208,440.00. We are requesting approval of an additional $2,900.00 which will allow the use of metal for the roof rather than wood shingles. The total amount of $211,3 is below the City Engineer's estimate. Test pumping has been done for well #3 and the results today were 1,100 gallons/minute. At this time we are only intending to install a 500 gallon well." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to award the bid for the well pump house for well #3 to Richmar Construction Company for an amount of $211,340.00, which price includes the option of the pre-formed metal roof for the mansard roof in place of the wood shake shingles. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. LIFT STATION #8 RENOVATION Bernhardson presented information regarding the renovation of Lift Station #8. He said, "We included approximately $65,000.00 in the budget to renovate this lift station. Staff recommends awarding the bid to Northwest Mechanical Inc., for an amount not to exceed $48,000.00." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to award the bid for renovation of Lift Station #8 to Northwest Mechanical Inc. for an amount not to exceed $48,000.00. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 15 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 PAY REQUEST #4 - WELL #3* It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve pay request #4 to Keys Well Drilling Company for well #3, in the amount of $6,692.75. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT; HIGHWAY 12 CITIZEN GROUP Bernhardson presented the questionnaires and resumes of those persons interested in serving on the Citizens Task Force for Highway 12. He said, "It was felt that it would be best for each Councilmember to choose between four and six nominees. Staff would take the top four nominees and ask them to attend the August 27, 1990 Council Meeting to be interviewed." Councilmember Goetten indicated that six nominees would be too many. She suggested that four would adequate. It was the consensus of Council that they would select four nominees and that the top four persons would be asked to attend the Council Meeting August 27, 1990 to be interviewed. No formal action was taken. OTHER Councilmember Peterson stated that Council has been provided with the brief Budget Summary from the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Comtnission. She said, "If Council has any questions regarding the budget. I would appreciate it if you would let me know ^^riot r. • the August 21st Cable Commission meeting." CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this item until the August 27, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4. Nays-0. Motion passed. HIGmJAY 12 CORRIDOR Bernhardson referred to his memo dated July 26, 1990 which provides information regarding the upcoming meetings for the Technical and Policy Committees. Council accepted for'mal action. the information presented and took no FACILITIES CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE Bernhardson requested that a meeting be scheduled for August 22nd at 7:30 p.m. for Council to meet with the Facilities Committee to discuss the progress on their report. 1 - 16 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 FACILITIES CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to establish August 22, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time to meet with the Facilities Committee in the Council Chambers. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. BOW AND ARROW HUNTING Bernhardson said, "Chief Kilbo had approached me regarding his concerns about bow and arrow deer hunting. Over the last 3 years there have been only 5 takes a year. The number of road kills have been 20 to 25 deer per year. In order to control the process and address our concerns about safety, the City limited the number of sites and the number of hunters per site. Staff was involved with allocating time slots for the hunters. Chief Kilbo believed that because of the low number of kills the City may not need to be so involved. We have received letters from the Butterfield and Dumas families requesting that the City continue to allow bow and arrow hunting (see Loren Butterfield's letter of August 10, 1990 and Kathryn Dumas's letter of August 10, 1990). Staff is recommending that we continue to allow hunting this year without limiting the number of sites. Persons requesting that hunting be allowed on their property must be able to demonstrate a problem with the deer. The City will not regulate the numbers of hunters on each site. That will be left to the discretion of the property owner. The City will continue to issue a license to each hunter." A person in the audience stated that allowing more hunters would defeat the purpose. He said, "The deer will become nocturnal which v/ill make ic increasingly difficult to hunt them. The problem will only get worse. I believe that the present policy of allowing one hunter for every ten acres will be more successful." Bernhardson replied, "It will be up to the property owner to decide how many hunters he/she will allov/. If the situation gets out of hand, obviously the City will have to step in." The person in the audience said that the 5 deer per year taken by bow hunters, resulted in an 18% success rate when compared to the number of licenses issued. He stated that 18% is the average State success rate for bow hunters. Another interested person asked whether this change in policy will apply to private property as well as the commercial properties such-a Dumas Apple House and Butterfields. Bernhardson replied, "In the past we have allowed hunting to occur on properties with a demonstrated problem with deer. That does not apply to crops only and would not change. Goetten asked whether there should be any concern, from a I i - 17 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 BOW AND ARROW HUNTING CONTINUED safety aspect, about allowing property owners to determine the number of hunters on their property. Bernhardson replied, "If Council does not feel this is appropriate, the City can continue as it has in the past. Staff felt we could try this other method." The other interested person said, "I believe that the individual property owners will take precautions in the number of hunters they allow. Most prefer not to have numbers of hunters walking through their property. The property owners will be concerned for the safety of their families and personal property." The owner of property on Highway 12 and County Road 6 indicated that the deer are causing problems for his pumpkin crop. He stated that he has only a 5 acre parcel and questioned whether he would be allowed to have hunters on his property. Bernhardson replied, "I believe in the past we required a minimum of 5 acres and then allocated 1 hunter for every ten acres. The purpose of the acreage restriction was to alleviate the possibility of hunting in more densely populated areas." Ms. Carol Senn stated that she has had problems with hunters trespassing on her property. Mr. Loren Butterfield stated that as many as 14 deer have been sighted in a group. He said, "It has become a real problem. We do not wish to totally eliminate the deer population. We only want to reduce the amount of over grazing of crops." Peterson asked whether a maximum number for hunters allowed or deer taken on a given property will be established. Bernhardson replied, "Our proposal does not establish any limitations other than those required for licensing." It was moved by Mayor Grabek. seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to allow individual property owners to establish the number of bow and arrow hunters they will allow on their properties. The Oror.o Police Department will continue to monitor the situation. Motion, Ayes-3, Goetten, Nay. Motion passed. Goetten indicated that she is concerned about safety and the City re-linquishing its controls. OCTOBERFEST Bernhardson presented his memo outlining the items related to participation by the City at the Octoberfest (see Mark Bernhardson's memo dated August 10, 1990). He said, "The City of Orono has been asked by the Orono Schools to participate in the - 18 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 OCTOBERFEST CONTINUED fund raising for the Octoberfest. The School has specifically requested that the City participate in the purchase of a banner for the event. Staff is recommending that the funds for the banner be donated to the School and that the School purchase and display the banner." Mayor Grabek added, "I have learned, that should the donation be approved, it may not be possible to put a banner across Highway 12 as originally proposed. The Committee has suggested that whatever funds are raised be used to design and construct a large, 8' x 12' painted sign that can be used year after year. The sign would be placed at the intersection of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. City staff would assist with the placement of tne sigi to assure that it meets all requirements and does not pose ary sight problems." It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve a donation of $250.00 to $350.00 to the Orono Schools for a sign announcing the Octoberfest. The sign, and its proposed location, are to be approved by City staff. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Mayor Grabek abstained. Motion passed. 1988 BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE #87. SECOND SERIES Bernhardson presented an ordinance for Council's review and adoption which provides for the inclusion of the currently revised Minnesota State Building Code. Bernhardson noted that inclusion of the revised Building Code will not result in any changes to the existing fee schedule. Councilmember Callahan asked whether the revised Building Code clarifies the gray areas involved with structure heights. Mabusth said, "The Building Code does make reference to structure heights as does the City's Zoning Code." Callihan asked whether it would be possible to revise the Building Code to more specifically address the issue of structure height. Mabusth replied, "It is a long, tedious process that must be undertaken to amend the Minnesota State Building Code. The Building Code is amended by Public Hearings that occur at the annual ICBO convention. If we wished to amend the height element of 'the Building Code we would have to send our Building Inspector to the convention. However I believe that we could address your concerns by clarifying the City's Zoning Code." Callahan asked what steps he would have to take to have the Zoning Cdde revised. - 19 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 i >. . ^■4 1988 BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE CONTINUED Gaffron replied, "You would simply need to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Code." It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Ordinance #87, Second Series. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. LAKE USE MANAGEMENT* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information presented by staff. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. LMCD SHORELAND REGULATIONS AGREEMENT It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this item. Councilmember Callahan indicated that he did not favor joining in the Shoreland Management Agreement at all. He said, "I do not believe that the LMCD should be acting as a facilitative agency for the DNR. I believe the City will have better results if it deals with the DNR directly. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour said, "I addressed that particular issue to the LMCD at the Public Hearing. Their response was that they would like to act as an advisor to City staff. If that is the case, I do not understand why they are generating this ordinance. The LMCD claims that they have no intention of Kfrgulating the shore, they would like to give the cities input.” Callahan stated that he is not in favor of that. He said, "When I attended the meeting, I understood the DNR to say that they thought the LMCD plan was a good one. They felt that it would assist them in implementing regulations that, up until now, they have been unable to do." Mr. Jabbour said, "I would like the City of Orono to take a stronger position and will not leave the shoreland regulation in the hands of the LMCD or the DNR." Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. PARK DEDICATION City Administrator Bernhardson presented information outlining the objections and issues expressed in a letter received from Mr. VanEeckhout. He said, "It is my recommendation that Council accept this information and refer it to the Park Commission for their recommendation. Staff would prepare a letter to Mr. VanEeckhout indicating that Council has accepted his letter and referred it to the Park Commission." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to refer this*, matter to the Park Commission and table it until the Park Commission's recommendation is received. Motion, Ayes-4. Nays-0. Motion passed. - 20 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 1991 BUDGET PROCESS Bernhardson presented Council with information regarding the 1991 Budget. He said, "The 1991 Budget and maximum levy must be adopted by September 1. VJe do not have the budget information, but setting the budget does not restrict the maximum or minimum at this time. Setting the levy does set a maximum that we would use at the Public Hearings in November and December. This evening Council could either indicate whether the proposal for a maximum levy before you is acceptable. Staff would bring that back in the form of a resolution together with the budget. It would be my recommendation that we set a date late in September or early October for a budget workshop. This would be in advance of the November/December Public Hearing." Mayor Grabek asked whether Council preferred to table this until August 27th or vote this evening. It was the consensus of Council that a vote could take place this evening. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded for the purpose of discussion by CounciImember Callahan, to adopt the maximum levy and budget as recommended by staff. Callahan said, "Mark's memo includes information regarding whether or not there should be special assessments or a special levy. I am not prepared to vote on that portion of the budget this evening." Bernhardson stated that a combination of the general fund levy and the special assessments would constitute the maximum levy." Callahan suggested that this be tabled until CounciImember Nettles is present. Councilmember Callahan withdrew his second. Motion failed for lack of a second. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this matter until the August 27, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. 1991 LMCD BUDGET Bernhardson said, "This is being presented for the purpose of generating. Council's comments regarding the MCD budget. Those comments would then be submitted to the LMCD. If Council has no comments or concerns regarding the budget, they can approve it this evening." Councilmember Callahan suggested that Council object to the budget and that a letter be prepared setting forth the objections. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, that the Lake Management Committee, or other source, prepare a letter for Council's review at the August 27th Meeting, setting forth objections to the LMCD 1991 Budget. Mayor Grabek said, "It seems to me we would be cutting off our - 21 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 1991 LMCD BUDGET CONTINUED nose to spite our face. It is my understanding that a portion of this budget is for technical staff to assist the LMCD with the formulation of the Management Plan." Councilmember Goetten said, "I believe that the cities can opt to omit that from the budget." Bernhardson said, "That would be the area to omit if we wish to reduce our portion of the budget." Councilmember Callahan said, "I believe that the activities in which the LMCD intends to engage itself are not items which I believe should be funded. I believe the LMCD is going to create problems for itself by continuing to accept funds from the DNR as well. It seems to me that the LMCD is going to become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the DNR." Bernhardson noted that he would ask Representative Hurr to attend the August 27th Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. COUNCIL SALARY ADJUSTMENT Bernhardson stated that Council is required to make any salary adjustments in advance of the upcoming election. He said, "If it is Council's desire to adjust the current salaries, we would include that in the budget." Mayor Grabek said, "The word 'volunteer* encompasses service to your City. If this position were a full time job on which families and standards of living were based, I believe that annual increases would be warranted. I don't believe that this kind of commitment is worthy of an increase." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to maintain the same salaries for Council that currently exist. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. TRANSIENT MERCHANT Bernhardson presented an ordinance which more clearly defines and limits transient merchants for Council's consideration. Mayor Grabek read the three revisions that would be incorporated in the Transient Merchant Ordinance. Councilmember Goetten questioned how this ordinance amendment would affect the ability of churches to have flea markets. Bernhardson replied;' "I don't believe we have addressed that in'the past." Mayor Grabek believed that due to the non-profit aspect of such organizations that they v;ould not be affected. Goeiten ordinance. asked that staff review that aspect the - 22 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 SUB-RECIPIENT C.D.B.G. YEAR XVI CONTINUED Administrator to sign the agreement. Motion. Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. BARRY RATHBUN - SALARY INCREASE* It was moved by CounciImember Councilmember Peterson, Rathbun's hourly rate to with a review in October passed. Callahan, seconded by to adjust maintenance v/orker Barry $12.00 per hour effective July 6, 1990 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion RANDY O'BRIEN - SALARY INCREASE* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adjust maintenance v/orker Randy O'Brien's hourly rate to $12.00 per hour effective July 13. 1990, with a review upon certification in sewer and water maintenance. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. SEMI-ANNUAL RECYCLING REPORT* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the Recycling Report for the first half of 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. CASCO AVENUE DRAINAGE* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information provided regarding 3779 Casco Avenue and the private solution to remedy the drainage problem. Motion, Ayes-4. Nays-0. Motion passed. STUBBS BAY SEWER* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan. seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information presented by staff regarding Stubbs Bay sewer. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. ASSESSING SERVICES* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to concur in the termination and that they table this item for further consideration until the August 27, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. ELECTION JUDGES APPOINT - RESOLUTION #2856* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2856 appointing election judges, for the .Primary Election to be held on September li, 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Advisory Board Selection Process - 24 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 TRANSIENT MERCHANT CONTINUED Mr. A1 Penke. Route 2. Box 223, Cokato, said, "I believe that the revisions are inconsistent with my legal right to do business within the City of Orono." Mrs. Penke asked. "Has the City notified other entities involved in this type of activity that would be affected by this amendm^^tt?" Bernhardson replied. "We have only notified those entities that have expressed an interest in receiving information. Those entities include the Penkes and the Westonka Chamber of Commerce," Mrs. Penke requested that Council consider tabling this matter to allow more time for the City to notify all parties that will be affected. Mayor Grabek asked Mrs. Penke to provide staff with a list of entities she believes would be affected by this amendment. It . s moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilme.. ar Goetten, to table this item until the August 27, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. 1989 FINANCIAL REPORT Bernhardson noted that Council had previously tabled this item. He asked Council whether they had any questions or concerns regarding the report. It was the consensus of Council that they had no further questions or concerns regarding the 1989 Financial Report. Council took no formal action. 1990 POLICE LABOR CONTRACT Bernhardson said, "I am presenting this for discussion because there is one change from what had previously been presented to you. We currently have a maximum carry-over of 112 hours f'om one calendar year to the next under our Personnel Rules. The Officers have requested 120 hours. I would recommend that changt. because it is the equivalent of three, five-day weeks." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the 1990 Police Agreement as oresented. notion, Ayes-4,*Nays-0. ‘Motion passed. presented SUB-RECIPIENT C.D.B.G. YEAR XVI* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Pe‘-erson, to approve entering into the subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County for Community Development Block Grant funds for Year XVI and to authorize the Mayor and City 1 - 23 - f 4ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13. 1990 ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION CONTINUED Guidelines, Administrator's Vacation. Goal Setting, June Receipts and Disbursements, Wire Transfers, Corn Days Parade. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett indicated that he had no report for this meeting. LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the following license(s): Home Occupation: North Shore Roofing & Exteriors, Inc. 3980 North Shore Drive Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. BILLS* It v/as moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Motion. Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT 9:19 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:19 p.m. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hailin, City Clerk \ 25 - ■o*RO MCMBens David H Cochran. Chair Qrennwood Alban O Fosiar. Vice Chair Oeaphavan Jan Boswinkel. Sacrntary Minnetonka Beach John Lawman. TVeaaurar Minnelriata Douglas E Babcock Spring P-trk Marvin Biorlin Tcnka ‘Bay James N Orainwoi Ekcolsinr JoEIInn L Mure Oronii Joht> Q M.^linka VTlof la Thomas Martinson ^nyzni.t Roba.’t K Pillsbury Mifin tmeka Robert n.nsrop Shor»*woo«l Thom.^s W Reesp Mound Robert E Slocum Woodland COUNCiL MEETING 3 AUG 27 1990 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSEpl^'flfcWQfWfeTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOn Q'! ";n August 15, 1990 Hon. James R. Grabek Mayor, City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 AUC 2 4 1990 Re: Response to Comments Draft Lake Minnetonka Long-Term Management Program Dear Mayor Grabek: On behalf of the Advisory Committee, we want to express our appreciation for the time that your city spent reviewing the Draft Management Program for Lake Minnetonka. Attached are our responses to your comments. The Advisory Committee carefully considered each comment presented by your city. While we did not make every change sought, we did some major rewriting. Specifically, the chapter on "Management Structure" has been extensively reorganized to present the material more logically, clearly and coherently. At your suggestion, we revised numerous other paragraphs to better reflect our intent. We believe that you will find our explanations acceptable where we did not make changes to the Management Program. The review time we spent at a recent July meeting seemed to go far in clearing up misunderstandings about the Intent of the Management Program. If we continue that type of '^alogue, we believe that Orono and the LMCD will be able Co work more closely than ever to achieve common goals. Your review was quite detailed. If you need further clarification, do not hesitate to contact us. Again, thank you for your past support. We look forward to a continuing close relationship with the City of Orono. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Robert Rascop, Chair Advisory Committee c: Mark Bernhardson, Administrator CITY OF ORONO Attachment A, June 18r 1990 Paragraph 1, sentences 1 -5. "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." RESPONSE: We are pleased that the City of Orono now recognizes that the LMCD has the authority to prepare the Management Program. While the authority of the Metropolitan Council is not perfectly defined, its past actions indicates that it does believe that it has authority in this area. We invite the City of Orono review the Metropolitan Council's authority as it deems appropriate. Further, M.S. Chapter 473 also empowers the Metropolitan Council to order the preparation of comprehensive plans by any organization under its jurisdiction. 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 ana e 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 Citizens League's recent report. Pane 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: We agree that the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 7 should be changed to become a clause for the second paragraph. The paragraph would then begin with the sentence: "The Metropolitan Council is involved because the State's Executive Council ordered the Metropolitan Council to use its powers to study the problems associated with access to the lake..." Page 1, paragraph 3, aencence 1. “If the LMCD chooaea to aubmit the plan to the Metropolitan Council aa a oourteay, it ahouid ciearly atate that it ia oniy done with that in mind, up to the LMCD." What the LMCD chooses to do with any comments it receives is RESPONSE: There is a typographical error in the draft that contributes to the conclusion over this section. The cited M.S. 473.175 should read 473.165. After that change is made. The LMCD is submitting the final draft of the program to the Metropolitan Council for formal review under that section of the law. In April, 1990 we submitted it to the staff of that agency as a courtesy. Minnesota Statutes 473.165, Subd. 1 does give the Metropolitan Council the authority to review the plan and to mediate disputes between interested parties (Subd. 2). Page 1, paragraph 4, Authority for review. "While the City of Orono believes that LMCD'3 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. The question then arises aa 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: Again, our typographical error mentioned previously contributed to the problem. The Metropolitan Council does not have the right to review the plan and amendments in the same sense as for city plans under the Land Planning Act. Instead, the Metropolitan Council (under 473.165 has the authority to review the plan prior to implementation in accordance with its programs and powers. They may prevent implementation of parts of the plan under certain conditions. Their authority with respect to amendments is unclear, but it is not the same as with the Land Planning Act. As happens 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 moat 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 LMCD. The LMCD has limited powers over upland areas. This Program and the LMCD seek no substantive change in its authority. 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 , .’emitted 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." RESPONSE: Orono'3 advi'" ir noted. But we believe our clarifications offered in response to previo. xtements better explains the present and future role of the Metropolitat. .ouncil. The LMCD is no more under the control of the Metropolitan Council than it has been for the last 20 years. We know of no reason that relationship should be anything but improved. Such an improvement will better serve the lake, the LMCD and the individual cities. 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 ani intended effects on future actions of the LMCD and the rights of the other interested parties once the plan is submitted to Met rope .itan Council control." RESPONSE: We believe correction of the typographical error and change in the last paragraph on page 7 is sufficient to clarify this whole issue, with this, and a substantial re-write of the chapter on Management Structure, we believe that Orono's major concerns are satisfied. 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 its position was compromised? Why did it compromise?" RESPONSE: We have added a new sentence that states the LMCD ag.eed to complete the plan in 24, instead of 36, months. 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 focusing 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 u of the lake. There is a significant difference between allowing growth to occur r^.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. But we contributed to this misunderstanding by our wording in the Executive Summary and in the chapter on Recreation Management. Accordingly, better state the ultimate goal for recreation management, the first paragraph under Recreation Management on page vii (which also appears in the chapter on Recreation Management) is being changed to read: *The ultimate goal for recreation management is fourfold: 1) 2) 3) to more effectively manage access growth, to establish priorities for such access growth as must occur, to Implement a set of controls that will be progressively more restrictive as use of the lake continues to increase, and 4) to reduce conflicts, thereby maintaining the quality of the recreational experience. The LMCD does not encourage increased summer use, but it will more effectively control such growth that must occi:r. The intent of the program is to present modifications to existing management practices and regulations and not to supplant those rules and regulations.” Most of the growth in the future is likely to result from development and redevelopment of riparian lands, perhaps new marinas, and implementation of the policy of the Metropolitan Access Committee. New access ramps are recognized and planned for 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 to assure that standard is achieved on Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD cannot prevent it, even though it does regulate access points within 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. 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: We think the clarifications presented aoove change the position of Orono expressed in this paragraph. Even so, 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 led 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 questions present in Orono response. Now we encounter it again in the review process. What we are trying to do is explained in the Draft Management Program, and it cannot be digested in a cursory reading of the Management Program. Our approach is all explained in the document, 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 La)ce Minneton)ca from the adverse effects of development, redevelopment, government programs and recreational use. No traditional uses of the la)ce 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 framewor)c for improved cooperation, coordination and communication between all of those agencies that affect use of the la)ce. It attempts to get each organization with authority on the la)ce and lalceshore to wor)c 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 L*MCD is the wea)c 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 see)c 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 power? of limitation, the power to regulate, the power to limit and the power to police. These are limited also, no doubt, by constitutional and common law rights of various persons. It is lik^ewise 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 the power to spend money to reach the goal of 'rectifying past inequities and (sic] access growth'."" RESPONSE: The Management Program does not seek to expand LMCD authority But it does advocate using that authority more fully. Phrases like "lecreation management, user enjoyment, and access" are professional terms that enhance understanding of what we are trying to better accomplish on the lake. Such phrases do not affect the LMCD authority, nor the fact that the Management Program does not seek any significant change in existing authorities. Instead, it works within the existing power structure. But the LMCD clearly has 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 uhe LMCD own access or other recreational lands. We feel public corporations already in existence are better prepared to do so. Page 2, paragraph 5, sentence 5 and 6. "Ncr is there anything in the statute to suggest that it is an 'essential function cf 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 Program. 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, rerional 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 be a political challenge to vested interests in and around the lake. Therefore, we developed a set of goals and objectives to be implemented using existing powers and authorities. To do that requires cooperation, coordination and communication. The LMCD legislation specifically gives it authority in these areas. We believe that when the Management Program is adopted it will succeed. There will just be better cooperation, coordination, and communication with some legal entities more than others. Specific to zoning and land use control (above the 929.4 contour), 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 LMCD, through the Management Program, is trying to get these groups together to work toward a common goal. For Orono to conclude that the LMCD seeks power in this area is based on a misreading of the Draft, which in part po-nts out the need for clarification in the revised plan. We have added clarifying, definitive statements as needed. If there is any change, in LMCD's role for Lake Minnetonka governance, 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. We have done so in open public forum. Letter or Comment, submitted June 6, ''T90. 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; 61 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. The environmental controls included in the Draft Management Program exceed those now in place and being iinpleraented by the 14 cities, the Watershed District, the Metropolitan Council, the DNR and the PCA. We trust the City of Orono now realizes this. 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. 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 present its justification in support of that position to the LMCD and its Advisory Committee. Some participants began deliberations with that view, but shifted their perspective as they were offered alternatives during the planning process. The final result is the program as presented in the draft. 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 unsuccessfully 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 untrue that the Management Program attempts to remove land use regulation from local control. There is no 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. Protection of the environmental quality of the lake is largely dependent upon how these three political entities work toward common goals. The LMCD has almost no power in this area, but is extensively affected by the working partnership between the cities, the Watershed District and the DNR. Therefore, the LMCD is to act to foster coordination, cooperation, and communication. That is something that has been missing in the past. We adjnit to seeking to raise funds to pay for essential regulatory and coordination activities. The tax burden of such additional funds will be spread broadly over all Hennepin County households. We do not seek to dilute or eliminate and lessen local control over the LMCD and surrender it to state agencies. Instead, especi.. '.ly as re-written, the Management Structure Chapter seeks to assure that the ties between the cities and the LMCD remain closer than ever. 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 communicate or meet regularly with their City Councils. 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, when regional funding is forthcoming, 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 no 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 detecioration, 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 undei 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, and from its inception, 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. On the second count, Orono will note that the Management Program set goals and objectives for both environmental and recreational management. Implementation of the goals and 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. We are making changes in the text to better explain that. 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 invite the City of Orono to review the Chapters on Recreation Management and User Experience and Satisfaction again, especially in light of the above responses to comments. Pag« 1, Paragraph 2, a. "The LMCD plan ia 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);" RESPONSE: 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. 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. If the city wishes to verify thiSf 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, if it is not there now;" RESPONSE: The regional park, as presently planned, 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. It is true that the density of use during peak hours is likely to increase to 7 (usable' acres per boat in the first years after something close to normal water level return. That is why we believe it essential to get the controls advocated by the Management Program in place now. 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 overstating the case. While some such events occur on this lake, the Hennepin Sheriff's Water Patrol does not accept Orono's contention that the lake is unsafe. 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 durxng peak hours. To our knowledge, no one has taken up the Sheriff's challenge. We have no data demonstrating that boaters on the lake are unsafe, data does not appear in our Management Program or supporting documents. That Page 1, paragraph 2, e. The numerical majority of the bays are already drastically overused (Tables 6 and 8). RESPONSE: Tables 6 and 0 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 too complex to review in this response. Page 1, paragraph 2, f off the lake, etc.;" "That there are indicators sailing may be being crowded 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.) As part of their response to the Draft, the DNR has offered to cooperate with the LMCD in a study of "crowding" issues. We believe that such a study would be significantly to the advantage of all involved with Lake MinnetonJca. 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 ha« such evidence, we would appreciate copies. 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 M. aagement Program do we promote increased use of the lake. We are clarifying that in the Final Program. 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 members of the Metropolitan Access Committee to change the policy for Lake Minnetonka. They would not. Recreational land destinations are clearly within the purview of the LMCD as long as they are on the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. Page 2, paragraph 3, a. "These matters have been the subject cf 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. To our knowledge, 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. 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 LMCD 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. Page 2, paragraph 3, b. "While implementation of those plana 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. Page 2, paragraph 3, c. "The environmental question is not wno 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;" RESPONSE: Ail of these issues were considered by the subcommittees dealing with Lake Use and Lake Access. 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 a ate. 2. No limits would be placed on boat density, but that as d«i)4rLty increased, increasingly strict regulation will be impi 3. No growth in access in any form will be allowed once densxty reaches 7.0 unless the water patrol service 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 raised by Orono in open public forum. 'So far as the environment is concerned, the LMCDPage 2, paragraph 3, d. 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. The reasons are too many to reiterate 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 not supported by current recreationaJ thinking. Page 2, paragraph 3, c 2. ”feok 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 and 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 unrealistic for Orono to oppose the tax district on one hand and call for increased patrol hours on the lake. There catv >)t be one without the other. We consiaered, 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 Oro.no'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 included in the Management Plan. What Orono is overlooking is that the DNR must support efforts to require licensing of boat operators 'd they do not at this time. Page 2, paragraph 3, d 4. "Adopt appropriate rules relating to noise 'quiet waters,' speed, wakes, etc., and ensure enforcement." dilution. 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 ' issues. The Management Program calls fc*r improve. ■ Code already address these in certain areas. Page 3, paragraph 3, d 6. points by users." 'Encourage parking in areas away from public access RESPONSE That proposal originated here on Lake Minnetonka in our Management Program planning process. We are especially proud of its '• iclusion in the Management Program. Page 3, first paragraph. Safety, a pollution free lake, and enjoyab. -ser e.xperience, 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 it will not be accomplished. To do so, we need Orono's support. 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. 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 LMCD is to be complemented for its leadership role. But it cannot address :he 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 local control of our lakeshore. Neither is it acceptable to us for the LMCD to make decisions regarding dockage or other lake utilization which in effect force Orono to depart from its land use standards to accommodate parking, tree removal or hardcover limitations. 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 and do not wish to see those weakened. 1. 2. Dock and lake use regulation are basic responsibilities that the LMCD has had since its inception. The LMCD recognizes more restrictive municipal regulation on dockage. The other problems listed are those too often encountered with abutting or overlapping jurisdictions. A closer 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 alone: Item 3 d 2. of the Orono letter of comment requires an additional $30f',00-J. The existing limit can only raise $100,000. Item j a :. requires additional staff for the LMCD. The Executive Director cannot assume all majoi. 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, end its roads, and the watershed are basic considerations" with no now assessments over $100,000 (the existing limit). In 1982 the Governor formed the first Task Force on Lake * .nnetonka. Their findings included a recommendation for makina ►he LMCD levy independent oi the city's limitation. In 1986 the second Task Force was formed. They concluded that the levy limit should be independent of the city’s ^.mitation. The Management Program recommendation is consistent with past stuc 'S into LMCD funding. Present e.xpenditures 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 Ws 6 Patrol. In o.aer to accomplish what Orono want.** acccmplisl ed, it will take an additional $400,000. Three-fourths of that is tor noro patrol hours on the lake. The rest is for the increased regulatory avi oement programs needed for the lake. Page 3, paragraph 6. "While the present makeup of the LMCD board has i.-equities built into it which are readily apparent to the different communities, all members are essentially concerned with 'preserving the lake,' and that the sole reason for the 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 position on this boara, rs unacceptable to Orono." RESPONSE; The organizations that will be added to the Board after regional funding is forthcoming were selected by the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee members after protracted discussion of alternatives. 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 four agencies is specifically because they have essential programs on Lake Minnetonka. Their stake in the lake matches that the 14 cities. 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 than that of the combined 14 communities. The Metropolitan Council controls capital and operation funds for regional park and open space programs. In addition to these financial and regulatory commitments, the addition of the four new agencies reflects the desire to obtain county-wide funding for lake programs. The other cities have expressed a strong desire to have all persons who benefit from the lake and lake programs contribute to the cost of operation. That is the basis for the county-wide tax. We believe the same close relationship between the city and the city- appointed Director will be maintained under the proposed board structure in the Management Program. In order to achxeve the environmental protections for the lake, it is essential that the close relationship between the cities and the LMCD be evsn better than in the past. The four additional members increase coordination and communication and can directly influence the environmental quality of the lake. We do not see it as a significant decrease in local control. The cities will still have 14 votes. The City of Orono has taken considerable time and interest in analyzing the Management Program Draft and earlier reports. We trust this time investment and the LMCD's resultant recognition of Orono's concerns, coupled with the clarifications in this response, bring the City of Orono to it can support the Management Program. Further, we also trust it can place its full confidence in the current and future Boards and administrati^'ns to sensitively carry out the management program to the beat interei* -ake Minnetonka and the 14 cities, and the citizens affected by Lake Mxunetonka governance. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WA yZAIA MINNHSOIA 'j5391 I RLE PHONE 612/4 73 /033 EUOENE n sTROMMEN EXECUTIVE oinrf;ion •oahomkmkm OaviH H Cochrun. Chair OraantMOOd Albarl O Eosiar V»ca Chair Oaaphavan 3at« BoawinHai. Sacrarary MiniiaionXa Baaeh John Lawman TVaaaurar Minnainsia Douglas E Babcocii Spring Park Marvin B'orlln TbT'k I .lav Jamas i uraihwoi Encaisior JoE'lan L Hurr Orono John O Miilinkn Vicloii.i Thomnn M.-vlinHon Way/nlA Robarl K Pillsburv Minnalonha Robarl nancop Shornwood Thonra* W Raosa Mound Robarl E Slocum Woodland August 15, 1990 The Honorable James Grabek Mayor, City of Orono 3050 Jamestown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Jim: Enclosed is a letter addressing the written concerns posed by your city with respect to the draft long-term management program for Lake Minnetonka. It is our sincere hope that we have provi ed satisfactory answers to your concerns and that you can now fully endorse and support the plan. From the many public responses it was evident that some topics needed clarification, and a few needed modification. The Advisory Committee has so directed. I have attached a summary prepared by our consultant of the changes recom mended. We want to give everyone the chance to read and coimnent on the changes we are making in response to your comments. You are aware that the positions and concepts presented on each subject represent a consensus of the participants on the Advisory Committee and its subcommittees. In their judg ment this plan is the best guide for the management of growing pressures of lake use and development. Each lake- shore city had input to the deliberations, both through its appointed representative to the LMCD Board, and through whomever they sent (staff or elected official) as an expert on the subject under discussion. Lake Minnetonka by its very existence is the major attraction spurring the local growth of population, development, and demand for lake use. It is a prime contributor to the tax base of the lakeshore cities. It is a regional asset which we cannot allow to deteriorate. The Minnesota Legislature in 1967 established the LMCD with considerable authority to govern the lake through appointed representatives from the 14 lakeshore cities. Sincere, dedi cated, broad-thinking volunteers have given us 23 years of successful lake management. Other agencies have a somewhat (continued) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Th« Hon. James Grabek August 15, 1990 Page 2 parallel authority on the lake, which has caused some diffi culties and a considerable amount of negotiation. This plan seeks to more fully recognize the LMCD as the lead agency to coordinate the activities of all. The lakeshore cities have had control of the management (within the statutory limits and requirements of other agencies and obviously don't want to lose that level of control. Those cities have also provided 100% of the oper ating budget other than fees, fines, etc. This plan seeks to broaden the funding base and at the same time gain the advantage of direct input at our table from some of the agencies without seriously diluting the local control. 1 urge you and your council to subordinate local concerns to permit you to endorse this comprehensive plan. The alternative is legislative tinkering which in my judgment will be a superimposed bureaucratic agency with loss of local control. If the 14 cities can stick together on a single plan I believe we will be supported by the Met Council and the DNR, thus reducing the chances for legislative tinkering. We expect the final draft will be presented to the LMCD Board on Wednesday, August 22 for consideration, with probable adoption on September 26. Please call me (474-4743) or Executive Director Gene Strommen (473-7033), or any of the Board members if you have questions. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT *5^ David H. Cochran Chairman DHCijlm enc: Agency & Public Comments c/enc: City Administrator/Manager/Clerk LAKE MINNETONKA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS During the public review period, comments were received from the 14 cities, regional and state agencies, and the general public. Overall, the comments were favorable, supportive and incisive. Comments received fall into four categories: 1. supportive statements, which require no change in the program, 2. comments that require changes in the management program, 3. comments that do not warrant a change in the program, and 4. comments based on misunderstandings with no change required. Those falling into category 2 will materially contribute to the success of the program. Those in categories 3 and 4, while not requiring a change in the document, sometimes require detailed responses. There is a clear consensus of the laheshore communities and of the county, regional and state agencies to adopt the management plan. Most comments were directed toward the political aspects of implementation and the potential for a shift in the power base. Very few comments addressed technical aspects of the study. Most technical issues came from Suburban Hennepin Parks, Metropolitan Council and the DNR. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The primary criticism on this section was the wording of the goals for recreation management. As originally written, some construed the goals to favor growth of access. That is not accurate. Changes in wording were made to reflect the actual goals: 1. ¥»e recognize that growth in access will continue, 2. given that growth, the intent is to more effectively control that growth, In the shoreland management section, some cities construed the LMCD review of variances to mean that the District sought authority over land use decisions at the expense of the traditional authority of the cities. That is not true; the LMCD seeks no new authority in this area. A minor wording change was made to clarify that point. More extensive changes are made in the later chapter on shoreland nagement. INTRODUCTION In response to one city's comment, a change is made which clarifies the authority of the Metropolitan Council with respect to this management program, Also, a chapter of Minnesota Statutes was mis-cited that contributed to the misunderstanding. RECREATION MANAGEMENT Again, the ultimate goals of the recreation management program were clarified as explained under the executive summary. Management Objective 2, particularly the specific implementation objectives generated conunent. 8-2 (p. 29) was changed to assure conformance with Minnesota and comown law.8-3 (p. 29) was changed for two reasons. The first is to assure conformance with law. The second reflects a comment made by two cities concerning outlets. Several clarifications were requested by individual cities. The DNR and the Metropolitan Council expressed concerns for licensing requirements. Details on how the future access study for additional boat ramps were questioned. The Metropolitan Council requested that the issue of pricing ramped access to the lake be addressed. We feel that is more appropriate for the detailed access plan that the program identifies as needed. A change was made accordingly. The DNR raised an issue with ice house statistics, made to reflect those concerns. Minor wording changes were USER EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION One city sought authority to enforce LMCD ordinances on the lake surface, even though it did not plan on providing actual boat patrols. The Sheriff's Department continued its strong opposition to such proposals. The Department also took strong exception to common access to the Water Patrol radio frequency A clarifying statement was added about the P.O.S.T. Board's actual authority. The management objective on radio frequencies was changed to reflect more general technological improvements and innovations. Part SHORELAND PROTECTION This is the chapter that raised the most concerns with four of the cities, of the problems reflected legitimate concerns about the effect of the DNR shoreland management rules on cities with downtowns within the shoreland zone. Others reflected the concern that the LMCD was seeking further authority over land use decisions. One or two take exception to some very basic go& of the DNR's program. A major clarification is that the LMCD seeks no new authority over land use in .the 14 cities. Instead, it seeks voluntary processes that improve coordination and communication. The Metropolitan Council suggested that the LMCD seek to be added as an agency providing comments on land use plans and land use plan amendments. Again, thi.s is for comment purposes only, not for veto authority. It also requested that an operating plan be developed for new boat access parking lots where fees are charged. environmental PROTECTION A new section on Rare and Endangered Spec’es will be added. Management Objective 6 will be changed to call for approved erosion and sediment control plans on developments in the watershed. This is consistent with the Watershed District regulations. Further, the LMCD will adopt a policy of no net loss of wetlands from developments, with exceptions made for public agencies. At the request of the ONR, a statement explaining the efforts of the DNR, the Watershed District and the LMCD to jointly develop a policy on minimizing the effects of dredging will be added. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE The Management Structure chapter has been re-written to allay the concerns of a number of cities, to improve understanding of the intent of the program and to better organize the material. Several cities felt that the additional tax levy was not jus. ifiable. Others felt that the LMCD was seeking additional authority over upland areas. A final major concern was that restructuring the LMCD Board would make the LMCD less responsive to the needs of the 11 cities. Rewriting and restructuring of the chapter better presents the material so that these concerns of the cities are addressed. Clarification of our intent also should result in decreased opposition to some of these less well understood portions. First, funding for the programs contained in the Draft will be obtained according to the following priorities: 1. User fees a. maximize revenues to the full extent of the law, and b. seek authority for a boat sticker or other innovating funding mechanisms. 2. Grants, gifts and donations - improve the existing program 3. Tax levy a. levy to the full limit of the existing legislation (14 cities), b. extend the levy to the remainder of Hennepin County, and c. make the levy independent of the individual city's limitation. Even though it is not fair, Carver County will not be included in the district since the political opposition to that proposal makes it unrealistic in view of the amount of revenue expected. The LMCD Board will continue to be composed of the 14 city appointed Directors until such time as regional funding is forthcoming. After regional revenue is obtained, the four new Directors will be added. The 14 cities will continue to appoint their own Directors. The new Directors will be subject to the limitation that they must be citizen volunteers, and rot elected, public officials or staff. The latter restrictions assures that the LMCD Board continues to be composed of interested citizens as has been the case for more than 20 years. It is essential that the LMCD remain especially close to the 14 cities since the environmental protections for the lake are largely implemented and enforced by the individual cities. Unless the relationship between the cities and the LMCD remains at least as it has been in the past, there is a real danger that the environmental quality of the lake will degrade even faster than it will if the Management Program is fully implemented. Management Objectives were reordered. Minor clarifications were made to some. SUMMARYWe have attempted to resolve the concerns of each organization comn^enting. Detailed responses to each comment have been prepared and are being distributed to each organization or person that responded. The primary problems that remain relate to shoreland management. The continuing concerns of the few cities still unresolved directly relate to the provision of the DNR Shoreland Management Program. There is no change that we can make to our Management Program that will remove those concerns. Those cities will have to deal with the ONR. ' i i: 'A LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT DIRECTORS 1989-1990 Douglas B. Babcock 2450 Island Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Marvin Bjorlin 115 Crabapple Lane Tonka Bay. MN 55331 Jan P. Boswinkel P. 0. Box 117 Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361 David Cochran 4640 Llnwood Circle Greenwood, MN 55331 Albert (Bert) Poster 18900 Rutledge Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Janes N. Grathwol 216 Water St. Excelsior, MN 55331 JoEllen L. Hurr 930 Partenwood Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 John Lewnan 6250 Game Farm Rd. Mound, MN 55364 John G. Malinka 7300 Lilac Lane Victoria, MN 55386 Thomas Martinson 140 Barry Ave. N. Wayzata, MN 55191 Robert K. Pillsburj 16560 Grays Bay Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Robert P. Rascop 4560 Enchanted Point Mound, MN 55364 Thomas W. Reese 5641 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Robert E. Slocum 2530 Spirit Knob Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Home: 471-8757 Home: 474-7848 Home: 471-9448 Home: 474-4743 Home: 473-2240 Home: 474-9230 Bus.: 474-2955 Home: 471-9801 SPRING PARK TONKA BAY MINNETONKA BEACH (Secretary) GREENWOOD (Chair) DEEPHAVEN (Vice Chair) EXCELSIOR ORONO (Past Chair) Home: Bus. : 472-4524 341-4444 MINNETRISTA (Treasurer) Home: Bus. : 443-2580 941-2995 VICTORIA Home: Bus. : 473-5259 473-4133 WAYZATA Home: Bus. : 473-6642 476-3520 MINNETONKA (Past Chair) Home: Bus. t 474-1517 Pager number 640-0944 SHOREWOOD (Past Chair) Home t Bus. : 472-4435 540-2583 MOUND Home: Bus. : 473-4347 334-6212 WOODLAND 12-4-Ro I ll”'® ^ '■•S |.s « ^ * s-s I §lli ijll mil’ ” ipl jj|s®{a^l «Salja| «‘St^IeS^ilisi ll|-|a3ll ;j 5||si IS^lllll' i i IJII^ fl Tss ’l'sl if 5. 5 COSml |i slbl^ 4» '® 5 *® * e a silSIlS^I •si?».s'H.s aabSa slpp illljI W I <0 gK a u :l|i4i|it!| 'list! ill I if, §|=j5.s*g„aa ip^tf hinn4dm rils^lllil-ll hill 11111 IHl^^l-Ills g if iIt l||l-pl§^irsKiiHl'Jir IlSlI l;^'5 o ®.Sg>-2-gO .|||iliil||i|il>ls HPt5 5 0) ^ e S> ft .S3 _ S 9 lS||-S^^i-|S i«l|Jl!lil * »- c s _ a ;« s I-,. i »ir l-ill * frf». si* g g !il! sii^ii|i:iii |a|g “ES'B-? B|eislsi £■8^3 8 = ® >>S lip IP* Pll«s|| s~.So nPII III . ImPI jjs J| a |Sg.|2E fill b i! I Psti-h twill iCliliills $ ^*3 la H c 1^11 -lii _t|||| b| a*r|g.sf-J9-S |.5iS»a o e O 3. CO >5 «w c II aa*- ' ■isll!t!ll _ S J .1 I S’J « allliii 1 -rlsSs “ISsS 0^ I I •8?^*' i^'.-hrsaissa .5i .5I I5 ^ I w ^ « •?l »<8« «iii ipl|i!| Ipcll^l S ll?ltP.-«tf«'5 “"“WtMOTjjiB AUG 27 1990 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PROGR a B"^ FOR UKE MINNETONKA Prepared By UKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITH GUIDANCE FROM THE MANAGEMENT PUN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Prepared U nder the Direction of David J. Arndorfer, Ph. D. Arndorfer Associates, Inc. 8700 Villa Crest Circle Knoxville, Tennessee 37923 yith the Assistance of Frank Mixa Uilliani Kattner Barr Engineering Company This program was funded by the Lake Minnetonka C onservation District September , 1990 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ex-ends a special appreciation to the members of the Advisory Committee who dedicated many thoughtful hours and committed numerous evenings over the twenty-four months spent formulating this Management Program. Mayors, council m.-mbers, public officials, agency staff and interested citizens too numerous to mention contributed the ideas that are reflected in the ensuing chapters. To the extent that those programs and concepts are innovative or creative, it is because of them. Special thanks also goes to the patient staff of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District who helped facilitate the planning process. Individuals who come to mind who made particularly important contributions and were particularly dedicated participants include James Ault, Dr. William Becker, Jan Boswinkel, David Cochran, Albert Foster, James Crathwol, JoEllen Hurr, Timothy Marr, Jack Mauritz, Robert Rascop, Thomas Reese, and Eugene Strommen. Shale Nyberg helped maintain perspective during particularly important discussions. Frank Mixa, the Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District during the formative months of this project, contributed a wealth of knowledge, insight and past experience that greatly facilitated the development of the Management Program. His experience helped avoid pitfalls and clarified alternative approaches. The 14 lakeshore communities. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Hennepin County Lake Improvement Program, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Metropolitan Council and the Department of Natural Resources willingly committed resources and provided data necessary to the successful completion of this project. Additionally, their previous studies and experience provided the foundation upon which this program is built. The subconsultants, Barr Engineering Company and William Kattner made important contributions in their assigned areas. Finally, to all the individuals, whether in the cities, in government agencies, or of the general public, who took time to review the Draft, we express a special appreciation. Those comments either improve.u th» Management Program or caused us to pause and reflect on previous decisions. The fact chat we did not always change the Management gram to reflect some comments simply confirms the complexity of managing such a popular resource for the broadest possible range of users. LXECUTIVE SUHMARY The Long-Term Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka provides a 25-year guide for maintaining, and enhancing where possible, the euvironmencal quality, recreational experience, and aesthetic quality of the lake. But the plan cannot be implemented unless users benefiting froju the lake provide substantial new funds. Presently, the agencies managing the lake have regulations and are lacking in enforcement. The o/'^iall objective of the Plan is to be active in both regulation and enforcement, and to develop the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Into a strong and consistent advocate for lake programs in all organizations. Not all the new revenues are targeted for the LMCD. Incremental funds are needed for programs in other agencies who are already capable of implementing needed services if their funds could be supplemented. But implementation of the Management Plan also requires a tiew level of rac,e. If the environmental quality and user experience on he lake is to be protected, difficult decisions will have to be made all managing entities. Decisions that limit certain types of de/^lopr. ant and specific types of access will not be popular. Popular or noc, they are necessary. Every agency involved with Lake Minnetonka is affected by this Management Plan. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District need to better fund existing programs, tighten regulatory controls and provide more enforcement. The cities need more extensive shoreland management and environmental projection programs. The LMCD needs more clearly defined goals, more consistent access controls and a program for better regulating ever increasing use of the lake in the summer. RECREATION MANAGEMENT The ultimate goal for recreation n. iria.^cment is fourfol : 1) to more effectively manage access growth, 2) to establish priorities for su:h access growth as occurs, 3) to implement a set of controls .ir at will be progressively more restrictive as use of the lake continues to increase, and 4) to reduce conflicts, thereby maintaining the :ity of the recreational expe*fence. The LMCD does not encourage increased summer use, i. :r i will more effectively control such growth it occurs, to present modifications to ex •onae'.ne and not t-.< supplant those rul The iiv-nt of the program is icticts and regulations .£ la-,, on as boat density accomplish these goals, ’ 11: 1) continue present : . .,ui 2) Impose increasing res increases on the ; .-'•v. !'■ '"prove regulate. ighten existing p*. , upport a program to cJtdbiish .‘hO car/trailer parking spaces, 6) maintain and improve winter access. and vii USER EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTIONThe four major goals for protecting user experience and satisfaction are to: 1) continue and enhance basic public safety, 2) better enforce all ordinances, 3) improve and expand activic-les in public comfort and enjoyment, and 4) facilitate coordination anu cooperation between law enforcement departments active on the lake and lakeshore. Enhancing user experience and satlstaction on the lake is more chan protecting personal safety. DensiL/ of boats on the lake will increase during peak hours. As that happens, additional law enforcement presence and more active enforcement of all ordinances will be required to maintain the current level of user satisfactiou. A sl^V’ific<nr portion of the funds needed for improved lake services are targeted for increased patrol hours on the lake. Present density on the lake is eight acres of usable lake surface per boat (see definitions in Appendix B). When density reaches seven usable acres per boat, 3000 additional patrol hours shall be added. Otherwise, no further access growth will be allowed on Che lake. SHOP-ELAND PROTECTION The LMCD seeks no new authority over land use on the shore. But it does seek better coordination and communication between political entities with such power. Lake Minnetonka is particularly affected by th> actions of the 14 lakeshore communities, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the DNR in controlling development and redevelopment within their jurisdictions. To protect the lake, controls need to be Imposed beyond the «=horeline and riparian parcels of land. Accordingly, this Management Program presents guidelines for controlling development, redevelopment and land uses within 1,000 feet of the lake. •e a two-pronged approach to minimize the -*-vel ■ t. The first prong uses the existing DNR )rog - . as the basis for developing a consistent sec 14 lakeshore communities. The second prong uses the ti'd by the Watershed Dis rlct to assure objectives are .«os to provide review and comment and to assure that individual communities and the Watershed District adhere to rhelr rules and ordinances. The overall strategy is ; adverse effec*^ shorelard ma- of ordinance'^ 509 Plan bei;-f. met. The LMCD Beyond the two-pronged approach, specific g ais are identified to increas*- and enhance shoreline recre tional opportunities. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The challenge facing resource managers procec'^ng the natural environment in and near Lake Minnetonka is to implement develop*. controls that will inhibit the inevitable decline in water quality and the fu; onal values of wetlanos. Programs to protect the natural environment "d beyond Che shoreland within 1,000 feet of the lake to include the entity.- per drainage basin. viii In order Co achievenienC environmental protection goals, the LMCD has co rely on ocher agencies and the 14 cities. The LMCD has authority to regulate activities below the 929.4 contour (ordinary high water), but it must rely on cities, the Watershed District and the DNR above that level. Rather chan create a duplicative layer of authority, protection of the Lake Minnetonka environment will continue to rely on the programs of the DNR, Watershed District, and cities located in Che upper watershed. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE The Management Program forges a new working partnership between the LMCD, municipalities. Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin Re>;ional Park District, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the DNR. -in important role of the LMCD will be to act as an advocate for lake programs, to keep partnerships functioning and to maintain consensus with respect to priorities and programs. The management structure builds on strengths and does not create a new layer w£ government with the concomitant bureaucracy. An essential function of the LMCD, beyond its regulatory programs, is to help assure that other agencies have the resources to implement choir programs. The LMCD does this by being the foremost advocate for the lake, not by direct funding. In this way, traditional authorities and programs are maintained and enhanced when warranted. Funding for the lake shall be by shifting costs to users to the fullest extent of the law. Beyond chat, the existing taxing authority of the LMCD shall be extended to include most of the area from which users originate and Co be independent of the lakeshore municipalities. If and when regional funding is forthcoming, chav^ges are proposed to the LMCD Board of Directors to include four regional agencies as voting members. ir area have affected the vegetation surrounding Lake Minnetonka. However, many wooded, prairie and marsh areas remain as they were unsuitable for development or similarly preserved. Wetland vegetation typically found in the area include a diversity of submerged, floating and emergent plant species and a variety of tree species. Native non-wetland, non-aquatic vegetation in the Lake Minnetonka area is primarily that of the Maple-Basswood Community. This community is characterized by basswood, elm, maple and oak. Understory consists of shrubs such as hazelnut, chokecherry, Juneberry and elder, and herbaceous plants including hepatica, violet, Virginia creeper, climbing bittersweet, sweet cicely and large-flowered bellwort (Baseline Environmental Inventory; Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1977). Socioeconomic Profile POPULAV'CN The present population of the Lake Mirnetonka area communities is presented in iaole 1. The information is based on the 1980 Census of Population, updated by the Metropolitan Council. Populations of Hennepin and Carver counties and the entire Metropolitan Area are also provided. The 14 iakeshore communities have approximately 9 percent of Hennepin County's population and ‘.‘ percent of the Metropolitan Area's population. Table 2 contains the estimates of households in the Lake Minnetonka area. The 14 communities have an estimated 34,105 households. Of these, approximately 3,000 have frontage on Lake Minnetonka. These account for approximately 8 percent and 4 percent of the households in Hennepin County and the seven county metropolitan area respectively. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS Table 3 presents the forecasts of population and households in the Lake Minnetonka Service Area. The service area is that part of the metropolitan area where most users of the lake reside. Data presented later in this document illustrates that approximately 91 percent of the users reside in the service area is divided into lakeshore communities. Next are Hennepin County. For comparison purposes, four separate parts. The first are the 14 the 15 first tier communities that abut lakeshore communities in Carver or Hennepin Counties. The remaining portions of Hennepin and Carver counties present the rest of the primary service area. The last part includes the remaining five counties in the metropolitan area. Table 3 forecasts that both population and the number of households in both the lakeshore and first tier communities are expected to increase at a rate nearly double that of the other parts of Hennepin and Carver Counties. The rate of growth is also slightly more than projected for the other five metropolitan counties. TABLE 1 Population Estimates Lake Minnetonka Region Study Area Communities Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Hound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland Total Other Hennepin County Other Carver County Other Metropolitan Area Population--— 1980 1988 Census Estimate 1988 Percent—-- - - - Hennepin Metropolitan County Area 3,716 2,523 653 38,683 575 3,236 9,280 6,845 4,646 1,465 1,354 1,425 3,621 526 3,714 2,574 656 43,742 596 3,662 9,951 7,284 5,094 1,584 1,479 2,190 3,711 496 80,952 89,165 864,288 916,655 35,621 42,784 1,904901 2,111156 .37 .26 .07 4.35 .06 .36 .99 .72 .51 .16 .15 .22 .37 .05 8.86 91.14 .17 .12 .03 1.99 .03 .17 .45 .33 .23 .07 .07 .10 .17 .02 4.05 1.66 .94 5.95 SOURCE: Metropolitan Council, 1988 For the future of Lake Minnetonka, this means that households within the primary service area of the lake will be increasing at a rate of approximately one percent per year. As households increase, so will the number of households seeking access to the lake. Land Use The Lake Minnetonka area is a typical suburban setting viith single family housing the primary lana use. Shoreline commercial developments are concentrated along major transportation routes, especially in Excelsior, Wayzata, Spring Park, and Mound. Three areas of industrial or manufacturing zoning occur within 2,000 feet of the lake in Excelsior, Spring Park and Mound. Shoreland use is primarily residential, interspersed with commercial, recreational and one area of manufacturing. As with several other suburban areas, the Lake Minnetonka area is experiencing rapid growth. The natural beauty and water resources of the area make the area an attractive residential location. Urban growth is projected to continue in shoreland areas (Minnesota State Planning Agency, I. INTRODwCTIOri PURPOSE C) d) e> f) g) h) This Long-Term Management Program provides a 25-year guide for mt_ntaining, and enhancing where possible, the environmental quality, recreational experience, and aesthetic quality of the lake. It is intended for use by managing entities to control the level of change that occurs both on the lake and in the adjoining upland areas in order to: a) protect the lake from pollution, b) preserve and protect the natural environment of the lake and its communities, provide for open public access and use of the lake, protect the local tax base, enhance aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake's surface, protect public health, protect public safety, as well as assure protection of the lake from other detrimental effects of human activities and certain natural processes. To achieve these protection and management objectives, this Program covers not only the lake and its shorelands within 1000 feet, but provides some guidance in the drainage basin above th lake to assure environmental protection. The need for the Program arises from the multiplicity of political entities which have legislatively mandated programs affecting Lake Minnetonka. Review of Minnesota Statutes leads to the conclusion that the Minnesota State Legislature intends lake management to be jointly conceived and implemented. To varying degrees, each state, regional and local entity empowered by the legislature has programs that affect protection and use of the lake. The intent of this Long-Term Management Program is to enhance, not to supplant, those programs. The two-year, multi-organizational planning effort has culminated in a single program of action that protects the integrity of each individual organization's progreuns where possible, enhances them when warranted, but above all attains consistent protection for the lake. The greatest threat to the lake in the next 25 years comes more from re-development than from development. In order to control such pressures, this Management Program reflects the mnlti-organizational decision to assure that major actions which have effects extendl.'.g beyond the purview or jurisdiction of a single managing entity are subordinated to the greater public good and interest. The guidance for determining the greater public good and interest is contained in this Long-Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka. Within this context, the Program affirms traditional local, regional ^nd state controls and programs. The Management Program can be implemented without significant alteration of traditional authorities of State, regional and local political bodies. Instead, the Program provides guidance on how existing authorities shall be used to control develcoment on and near the lake for the next 25 years. That requires implementation through cooperation and communication at an unprecedented level. Each organization must for.mulate, or re-formulate, programs and implement policies that are consistent with this Management Program. Without that, the fragmented and uncoordinated policies of the past will continue to generate strife, controversy and conflict, with major decisions resolved by the courts. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Perspective In the last ten years, organizations involved in managinc the lake have developed increasingly divergent management goalc for the lake. Differences included shoreline uses, natural environmental protection, level and type of recreational use, but the conflict between management programs focused on access to the lake. The conflict between state and regional interests and various local organizations over boating access and management of Lake Minnetonka can be traced to the change in state and regional priorities for boating access during the middle and late 1970s. Prior to that, management of the lake and its access was left exclusively to local and county interests. But in 1979, the Metropolitan Access Committee listed Lake Minnetonka as a first priority lake with inadequate public access. In 1982 the Governor's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka was formed in response to conflict between state and local interests in locating a new access point on Halsted's Bay. In 1985 the Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka was established to further resolve that continuing conflict. Regional and state interest in access to Lake Minnetonka changed, but the institutional arrangements, ir.tergovernmental relations and funding for lake management and access programs did not change. Cn one hand, state and regional agencies raised their priority for involvement on Lake Minnetonka, but local interests, including the LMCD, continued to operate with their traditional goals and objectives. Ir.proved cooperation, coordination and understanding were absent; conflict, misunderstanding and separate priorities were inevitable. Changing state and regional priorities for the lake was not enough to change local programs and goals. Concomitant alteration of institutional arrangements and intergovernmental relations were needed but were not identified and implemented. A different level and source of funding were required but did not develop. The local institutions did not respond t.he way conditions required. The result has been misinformation, breakdown in communication, finger-pointing, and lawsuits. The outcome was predictable, inevitable and wrong. Changing Priorities From the late 1800s to the late 1970s interest and management of the lake was concentrated in local individuals and organizations. Despite advocacy by the LMCD and other local interests, proposals to form one or more regional parka on the lakeshore in the 1960s and early 1970s did not advance (LMCD Recreational Policy, 1972; Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986), presunably because regional agencies placed their priorities elsewhere. Within this framework of missed opportunities, in 1979 the Metropolitan Access Committee, reflecting changing state objectives (as expressed in the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan), listed Lake Minnetonka as a first priority lake with inadequate public access (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979 pp. 4 and 7). For the first time, regional and state agencies expressed interest in managing access to the lake to assure their regional and state objectives. Unfortunately, institutional arrangements and intergovernmental relations were not altered in response to this change in regional priorities. The 1979 Access Committee findings stated that their goals for Lake Minnetonka were to be implemented by the Metropolitan Council "at the regional and local service levels" (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979, pp. 6-7). Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District was Hennepin County's primary lead regional agency; the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was logically the lead local agency. But in less than two years it was th DNR (state) that began implementation of the access goals on Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, by 1981 the boating access situation changed from regional and local lead to one where the state began to take an active interest in management of access to Lake Minnetonka. Unfortunately, the change in priority and heightened state interest were not sufficient to achieve the goals without conflict with local communities. Lake Management The formation of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) in 1967 was precedent setting in Minnesota. As the State's first lake conservation, or improvement, district much of the impetus and the underlying concept originated from interested Individuals living on and near Lake Minnetonka. The organization formed had broad powers, but limited funding capability. Apparently, the founding fathers of the LMCD intended to limit the real power of the District through its funding mechanism. That mechanism precludes aggressive and active management of the type demanded by recent events and that proposed in this Management Program. In 1972 the Minnesota State Legislature enacted the Minnesota Lake Improvement District Act (M.S. 378.455 and 378.41 to 378.56) which was obviously modeled after the LMCD organic act. Significant differences lie only in the mechanism for funding; Chapter 378 districts are provided more realistic methods to finance their necessary activities. The first major focus of the LMCD was on environmental problems, reflecting deteriorated water quality problems partly related to discharge of sewage treatment effluent into the upper drainage basin and directly into the lake (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1971). Also, through its first two decades, the LMCD established an impressive Code for lake access and use management. It also fostered a water safety program centered on assuring law enforcement sufficient to protect public safety, and generally controlled structures placed on the lake and its shoreline, intergovernmental relations centered on fostering local communication and coordination to solve common lake management problems. One tacit objective of the LMCD through these years was to regulate "only as necessary" (Summary of Planning Conference, 1985). During the last decade, the LMCD was less successful in intergovernmental relations with regional and state agencies active on the lake, enforcement of District regulations, and management of conflicts both between users and between local and regional interests (Summary of Planning Conference, 1985). Throughout this period, and continuing today, the District relied on inadequate funding that only permitted minimal staff. Given the fiscal constraints imposed by the 1967 legislation, the District focused on local, not regional, relationships and concerns. At this same time, the lake was in transition. In the 1960s and 1970s various proposals were made for large recreational open space sites on the lake, but none were acquired. Thus, when boating pressure was lighter, when less shoreline was fully developed, regional interests did not seize the opportunity for assuring a high level of public access. In 1979 the Metropolitan Water Access Task Force (composed of State and regional agencies) identified Lake Minnetonka access as a priority goal for acquisition. By 1982 the shoreline of Lake .Minnetonka was effectively fully developed except for areas in Minnetrista and Mound. Late in 1981 the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) announced intentions to begin accjuisition of an access point at King's Point on Halsted's Bay -- too late to avoid conflict. The City of Minnetrista asked the State's Executive Council to intervene in the ensuing dispute between the City and the DNR. The Executive Council's response was to form the (Governor's) Lake Minnetonka Task Force. That task force addressed three broad issues and concluded: 1) inadecjuate public access existed on the lake, 2) density of boats during some peak hours on some parts of the lake present potentially hazardous conditions, 3) conflicts exist on the lake during peak periods, 4) existing law and regulations are adequate, and 5) enforcement is limited by inadequate funding. An important conclusion was that adequate and continuing personnel and funding are required to implement the recommendations of the 1983 Task Force (Lake Minnetonka Task Force, 1983). No significant changes in funding have been provided since. The dispute between the City of Minnetrista and the DNR continued. .. ‘95 the City again appealed to the State Executive Council over the DNR's r.ans for the King's Point access site. This time the Council instructed the Metropolitan Council to review access to the lake. The Metropolitan Council formed the Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka (Report, 1986) . This second Task Force addressed eight issues in four broad areas: 1. boat and shoreline access on the lake, 2. funding for management and access, 3. intergovernmental relations, and 4. status of research. The Task Force concluded that public access was indeed inadequate and that 700 car/trailer parking spaces were needed on the lake. Further, it called for a new process for planning and regulating surface use of the lake, formulation of a Management Plan for the Lake, and increased e.xpenditures for lake management. The Systems Committee of the Metrcpolitan Council maintained the interest of the Council in reviewing progress toward implementing the 1986 findings. In 1987 and 1988 it considered alternatives available for developing a management plan for the lake. Ultimately, it endorsed the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's efforts to develop this Program. But to gain the support of the Systems Committee, the t,mcd agreed to complete the Management Program within two years. PLANNING CONTEXT The Management Program was developed using concepts proposed by Stankey (Stankey and McCool, 1984; Stankey et al., 1985, Stankey et al., 1985a). The process focuses on Limits of Acceptable Change. That is, it involves the extent and type of change to be permitted on Lake Minnetonka and in its shorelands. The focus is on both developm.ent and redevelopment; those that are acceptable and those that are not. Limits of Acceptable Change, as applied to this planning effort, means that the various committees, subcommittees and the LMCD Board examined various local regional and state ordinances and programs to determine the type of change presently allowed. The second step was to determine the level of change that was acceptable to all those with a stake in the lake and its shoreline. Over the two-year period of development, goals and objectives were established to identify types of changes that were acceptable and those that were not. Implementation programs and long-term monitoring programs were developed to assure that change is limited to that which is acceptable. Conceptually, such limits on change need not always be uniform around the lake. Minnetrista, for example, has developable land remaining. Other communities have no developable land remaining, but are experiencing redevelopment pressures. Our planning efforts, management objectives and implementation programs consider these inherent differences. Further, the development of the management program for the lake was considered within a three-fold organizational fra.mework of concerns as explained by Manning (1986). These concerns are: 1} natural environment, 2) social ^environment, and 3) management environment. Each set of issues addressed were examined within these three contexts. The four steps proposed by Manning (1986) are being followed to develop and implement the Long-Term Management Program: 1) inventory existing conditions, 2) determine management objectives, 3) develop management prescriptions, and 4) monitor and evaluate success. The contents of this Long-Term Management Program reflect the completion of steps 1 through 3. Implementation includes the Long-Term Monitoring Program which provides guidance for monitoring and evaluating success (step 4) . u PROGRAJ-1 FORMULATION The LMCD Board formed the Long-Term Management Program Advisory Committee to formulate the final program for action. The Committee was formed prior to selection of a consultant and before the two-year work program was developed. The Advisory Committee which developed this Program was composed of: Representatives from the 14 lakeshore communities, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural Resources, and Other interested agencies. Membership on the Advisory Committee was open. Depending upon the topics being discussed, participation at individual meetings changed. Some agencies sent representatives only to some meetings. At times, members of the general public participated. Virtually all decisions concerning the content were b/ consensus. Consensus was also maintained throughout each of the subco.mmittees. Recognizing the level of effort and the time commitment required to develop che entire Action Program, the Advisory Committee formed subcommittees address specific topics. Each subcommittee made recommendations to the Advisory Committee concerning the twelve individual Preliminary Plans that were developed. The subcommittees: 1) identified problems facing Lake Minnetonka and its upland areas, 2) selected those problems that should be addressed, 3) identified management objectives for individual problems, 4) discussed alternative ways of meeting the management objectives, 5) recommended the preferred alternative or set of alternatives, and 6) considered the environmental consequences of the proposals. Thus, the Advisory Committee relied on the subcommittees to perform much of the actual planning. Suocommittee membership differed from the Advisory Committee in two ways. First, the Advisory Committee tended to be composed of agency representatives that were more policy, -i-st nec'.sS3arily technically, oriented. Participating organization* vRce asked to send their most technically qualified individuals to subcommittee meetings. Secondly, subcommittees otten had organizations represented that did not serve on the Advisory Committee. These organizations normally had a more focused interest in the lake and opted to participate only in those areas of direct concern. The active subcommittees were: 1. Shoreland Management 2. Onshore Facilities 3. Upland Environmental Protection 4. Public i^afety 5. Lake Access 6. Lake Use 7. Fisheries Management 3. Wetlands Management 9. Water Quality Management 10. Institutional Arrangements 11. Intergovernmental Relations 12. Funding Elected officials. Mayors, public officials, and policy makers comprised the subcommittees for institutional arrangements, intergovernmental relations, and funding. AUTHORITY The authority of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to prepare a comprehensive management program is contained in two sections of its enabling legislation. The first reference is in Section 3 (j): "To undertake research to determine the condition and development of the lake and the water entering it and to transmit their studies to the water pollution control commission and other interested authorities; and to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution." Secondly, Section 13 empowers the LMCD to "adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of its establishment and the powers granted to the district." Implicit in such powers to regulate is the authority to develop plans for implementation (Laws of 1967, Ch. 907 as amended). The Metropolitan Council is also involved because the State's Executive Council ordered the Metropolitan Council to use its powers to study the problems associated with access to the lake (Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986). To implement such directives, Chapter 473.244, Subd. 1 provides for the Council engaging in a continuous program of research and study in matters under its authority. Additionally, the Subd. 5 of the same section gives, broad powers to develop long range planning in the metropolitan area (Minnesota Statutes, Ch. 473.244, Subd. 5) . Section 473.181 grants the Metropolitan Counci’ specific authority to review management plans prepared by local or regional (metropolitan area) agencies (M.S. 473.165, Subd. 1). Subdivision 2 provides for a 120 day review period for such plans and precludes implementation during the review period. Subdivision 2 also grants the Council the authority to mediate and resolve differences of opinion that arise between participating organizations. The Lake Improvement District Act grants the DNR review powers similar to that of the Metropolitan Council (Ch. 378.41 subd. 1). However, the LMCD is not a Chapter 378 lake improvement distr. “he LMCD has separate enabling legislation tha; does not provide t 3 supervisory and review powers. The sections of Chapter 4/3 cited in the above paragraphs makes the Metropolitan Council a partic-1--* rlv impoi“ant participant in this planning process. REGIONAL SETTING role as a recreational resource. i^^Mn^^rM^a-couSty «t«poU '"rh^"?*Kr! Anti 19^ ^Minnetonka has a lake surface area of 14,043 acres comprised of areas less than 15 feet deep. Access and Circulation m l«I« Minn«tonIc. area ia aec-aaible by several major federal and state Highway 7, running east-west, is the major roadway providing access to the south.*” Highway 101 runs north- “EF-T— Considerable leisure and, to a lesser extent, non-reereatlonal S^mn^nons t;.«'*“ to residentialn ^ ? oeveral commercial establishments frequented by ice-over periods transportation occur, '>y car, truck'^ !c":T:u“*;cc*e"^s““-"‘" tL:::*i:r;n for Physical Features Much Hate (Eugen, -he material in the following paragraphs are modif .ed from "Draft Management Plan, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District" A. Hlckok and Associates, 1907> . GEOLOGf “*• comprised of gl.cia. ^drock i«f.rbr:voXi:rr:^*''r:^„^r:rtt^ ;t:co^r:,i »UWn“ a tandi igneous and metamorphic rockswithin t„u sandy drift material. The more recent Des Moinei lobe retreated TABLE 6 D«rlvaCion of Usable Acres of Water Surface Lake Minnetonka, 1989 Ar«a Acres of Shoreline Buffer Usable Daacrlptlon Vater Miles Zone Area Surface 13 Eoarald Lake 13.00 1.00 13.00 .00 31 Libb's Bay 17.00 l.io 17.00 .00 lU Secon Lake 44.00 2.20 40.00 4.00 38 Echo Bay 15.00 .50 9.09 5.91 33 Bay St. Louis 20.00 .60 10.91 9.09 12 Black Lake 76.00 3.20 58.18 17.82 19 Coffee Cove 57.00 1.80 32.73 24.27 Big Island Passage 36.00 .80 14.55 21.45 32 Robinson's Bay 92.00 3.50 63.64 28.36 27 Tanager Lake 51.00 1.10 20.00 31.00 18 Forest Lake 82.00 1.80 32.73 49.2" 40 Veteran's Bay 82.00 1.10 20.00 62.00 34 Carson's Bay 116.00 2.70 49.09 66.91 36 Excelsior Bay 90.00 1.20 21.82 68.18 10 Old Channel Bay 106.00 1.30 23.64 82.36 6 Smithtown Bay 110.00 1.20 21.82 88.13 2 Priest's Bay 144.00 2.10 38.18 105.82 35 St. Alban's Bay 161.00 2.90 52.73 108.27 30 Cray's Bay 180.00 3.20 58.18 121.82 23 Stubb's Bay 195.00 2.50 45.45 149.55 15 Harrison's Bay 215.00 3.50 63.64 151.36 9 Caman's Bay 294.00 3.90 70.91 223.09 16 Jenning's Bay 290.Ou 3.50 63.64 226.36 26 Smith's Bay 266.00 1.90 34.55 231.43 24 Maxwell Bay 300.00 3.70 67.27 232.73 22 North Arm 319.00 4.70 85.45 233.55 37 Cit:o"*'s Bay 330.00 4.40 80.00 250.00 7 Phelp's Bay 345.00 3.70 67.27 277.7> 20 West Crystal Bay 325.00 2.50 45.45 279.55 3 Cook's Bay 343.00 2.20 40.00 303 0>. U Spring Park Bay 378.00 2.60 47.27 330.73 Lafayette Bay 454.00 3.80 69.09 384.91 n East Crystal Bay 487.00 4.20 76.36 410.64 1 Halsted's Bay 545.00 7.30 132.73 412.27 17 Vast Arm 514.00 3.90 70.91 443.09 5 South Upper Lake 722.00 6.60 120.00 602.00 28 Brown's Bay 696.00 3.50 63.64 632.36 29 Uayzaca Bay 778.00 5.50 100.00 678.00 8 East Upper Lake 814.00 3.60 65.45 748.55 4 West Upper Lake 873 00 4.60 83.64 789.36 41 Lower Lake South 976.00 : 40 80.00 8?.f 42 i;/ver Lake North 2,090.00 ' j 100.00 1,9^0.00 Total 14. O'* 3.00 125.30 2.270.00 11,773.00 "**1 ' ■ ■ :v • ■ •-■. ■• , i ... ;C \/ X ♦fi 9 N /-s <n Z in Si /M 2 U 10 fO CM (0 8 ▲ (O s z N N 8 Ul ♦IaJ - $CD '^ W 1,1 -i:i « <v*r 0>8 ^8 i «0 g 2 tJ 1 h.1^-S < A . _o 2 Z 1 CD “A A N N t - u N r®>“\ f s s 1 Q n 1 i2 1 o II2 g t 2 ID 1 S31N3/1 JW s 3M»VA\^{6 1u N ▼ CM. T lO CM CM 8 o 1 4 [J 3"“2p CMCM A lO CM O la!.-^ f5 li’CM O t ♦CM ^|5 j£cy-"8 X 1 lO 8 t 1 .* 'r) 2 ^S’ ffi -1 f <0 ■ ® t A *»*>181K s ^•B « CD p-t CO '"A"- K 1 "r -0>2 = 1 mp -2 g u1> =2 4 f.= >♦1 mm 2 i:QJ I 2 1 M C ■. 3nlN3AV ’ 3INIVI8 ' i :tI Bmm wfm ^»*- ,• «.^ii '»ji^^ . . • • » ■-ri -• cva&~-«MaM« , IfM|i'^-' ^M- uoA'i-4<- P>H-AAf • vro r ^ COFFIN & GRONBERG. INC. Engineers,Surveyors•& Land Planner Lo ng : Lake .- .Mi njieso ti ^ .....—- mmm iim •■ % ;-:;V^AV'%:''-«: Na^'se-aes :8aaB-: y;mmi m .V:’\ ........: i ... ' ' *.. ■ ’.. ■“ * i : * . - '. • ■• '■niT . 1^^ r- ■ - ■ RA- ■ •' \ kiil:;"ISi .. -./ .. c'• 'j.^-^. :'y;s^'' mi^m mi ^ »>“‘|j'= ■'-■ ■ ‘viI lllhF . - . 'FilF #■ ' •' ^3 -H. 5-': : iVs mmW} MSI Iw^' ""^''SiiiT'’ ”' ■■■ '■'•'flte* vsili*;;- ® ■ fm-mm: l:s u w «O « M • MM « «• W M 9 ?"SS IS 7." 22 *1r.^«M «B ••.••«•• C •A) a s - g! Q m • o » « ‘ « *= « M S| 2ii«:i? .1 S55K1S5^S ais ^ o 4J c n c 3 **^g« *.2u ■gg&S ®"° ^Sg.« 2S§i« «fs S|S8 >5 S"5§ .S%| ji “S5S II I|:ip« sj Jill s!li Ili "•.■> s«r I ?s ?|5| Si“| g <I I ; ^f/ ;* # -'^•••, =';•• ...® - •* “I- &■'" msm m r-mM