Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-22-1990 Council Packet
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 22,1990,7:00 P.M, (*)Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion b^the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda.Discussion will be held upon request.Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION 1.Facilities Committee - Site Recommendation 2.Navarre Heights Drainage Continuation 3.CONSENT AGENDA* COUNCIL MELliNG OCT 22 1990 UITY OF ORONO APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 4. Regular Meeting of October 8, 1990 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - JoEllen Hurr Rep. 5.LMCD Comprehensive Plan/Shoreland Regulations PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦♦APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and denials. 6.#1334 Rebers Construction -Sugarwoods Plat - Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval - Resolution *7.#1497 Toberman Property,1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Request to Table 8.#1592 Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club Inc.,1955 Shoreline Drive - Renewal Variances - Resolution 9.#1555 Landstar Inc.,2501 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution 10.#1593 Philip Kaley,1395 Brown Road South - Variances - Resolution 11.#1594 Duane Luke,2465 North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution 12.#1596 Daryle L.Uphoff,2699 Kelly Avenue - Variance - Resolution 13.#159*7 Ralph D. Burgess,Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Road - Variance - Resolution 14.#1598 Irwin Jacobs,1700 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variance- Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER'S REPORT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1990, 7:00 P.M, CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. Lafayette Ridge Highway 12 Corridor 1991 Budget Meeting 1991 Meeting Schedule West Hennepin Human Services - Resignation Step Increase - Officer Dembouski Administrator's Information Cable TV City Assessor Stubbs Bay Sewer Well «3. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (22*) BILLS (23*) UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 10/20 10/22 11/06 11/08 11/08 11/12 11/13 11/19 11/22 11/23 11/26 p. m. Orono Fall Clean-Up Day - Saturday 8 - 4:30 Council Meeting General Election Day - Polls Open 7:00 a.m.-8:00 Canvassing Board Meets 6:00 P.M. 1991 Budget Meeting - After Canvassing Board Meeting Holiday - Veterans Day Tuesday • Council Meeting Planning Commission Meeting Holiday - Thanksgiving Day Holiday Council Meeting PUBLIC ATTENDANCE /~N CITY OF ORONO ' A MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. na:^ or number PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE jO ~ I PLEASE FILL OUT THE INF0R:-!ATI0N REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS NAME (please print)ADDRESS NA:1E OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 7 2. 1 L-' vV\/S•<>^C "^L-Aa'v^V 3 * i''r'V ■■' -*• "S S Uv *' V^v V'• < 4 . / • V > ^ 1 K ‘ v' 5.jC]/ L *J> -f \ / / fy ^ ^ 1^'L V '/j^.r -f' ''L. y - . a’ ‘ 'V :■f,*' i< J 1 TTTIf^lZrZi /--■( . ■ ' /y, (> i V' t't V V IrA r T fl V: - -aa;/ia7iC^ _ 9 ^ y a7'. ' ->r >.■ y \ ^ ’■’.•■•• V/ 77, -7 y/''’ n' ii\ ‘y^i.Arfiy ■^j-y> (j^X::A\ f.7- 1./ y^' ■ '7 1 "f / ' '•AY- K f>U:4 vTaTT^./A/2 .7...-..A'' ;PS 1 K" /A Ar ’ •■ ."V/^ M-, //' 5 £ Qr /Uc:^ ^ . -P y.U., , /..V ' a //’ . ' t~ L ' •■• •* "■• q " '>Cvr^r *> t '1 u\ ‘•'M.'- \P*' :o. / U J. y ----,f:<-, /■[ ■ il. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORT-IATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NA;^ OR NUr^BER 1 - 7 P l?l ’ V fCp .y\ 0 ^ Jv ' ' Fi., C/M Mi^y. Orv M.4I.L . >V/V, . /I*. ^ 2 '' ''4tp_ f ' :2 # / >71/ l>>b.:i^UU ^>s?^ /V -f .,.jL.---------------------— /I. > V '•—j/vi> , , 1-^ .- 1 /-^ <• '■ 0 . /I 1 'v J /v fc' •. ^ '7’ A t r ' / , ’<?.> • X ..-r •/ 'h --------/. , f t> 'l ‘> ' 6" ' (<.4> .cv l/./P t y^c >/it </' /. , fi.rr w ^ C ^ // /-'■ 7^ * y '7 ------------------------------------------- ^ ’ w ' 'r/'< •' 7.ZV/.-V “ —------- ' ^ V /'.. <j - H A ^.?.- Ac ;■/„ ^ -' -rl r PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORT-IATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER i r r 1 ^ Vi - i 1 / \ i . .f LAW fi> a: 2J A/i- y 1 ' / • vr U ^' '2 V-_* / ? 'A ‘ A tfrCtl /!__A-:L------ 4 . ^ ti/t jlO 5. P?vb ire': I >7 ; /Pc.A: 7. a. 9 . n. 1 7. •q . 4 . 5. 7 - Q q 0. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ADDRESS NATffi OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 1. / /' 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. • 7. 8. 9. LO. LI. L2. .3. .4. .5. .6. .7. • 8. 9. 0. 101690.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Facilities - Site Selection COUNCIL MEETING 0GT 221990 CITY OF ORONO / Attachment:A. facilities Memo Dated 9/18/90 B. Five Year Financial Projections/15 Year Payment Schedule Dated 10/16/90 C. Letter to Facilities Comraittee/Planning Commission Dated 10/15/90 D. Minute Excerpts 9/24/90 Meeting E. Updated Cost Projections ISSUE 1. Determine if Council desires to select a site in order that further architectural work can be done. 2. If the option site is selected, when to exercise the option. 3. Provide Council with any additional information regarding the financial framework for the project. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A the Facilities Committee had made their recommendation presentation at the workshop on August 23, 1990 and recommended that the City select a site on Highway 12 as the option and utilize the current Crystal Bay site as a park. It was on this recommendation consideration that the Council at its September 24, 1990 meeting decided to set October 22nd to discuss site selection. Whether they desire to designate a site and exercizk ' «^ption. The normal agenda notification was put in the paper regarding this ituxu, ^•’t based on Council direction, the proposed Mayor's Article was not placed in the paper. Attachment C represents the notification sent to the Facilities Committee members and Planning Commission members. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 - Site Selection - Soil borings have been completed on the site in order to more accurately reflect the costs for the site on Highway 12 together with updated estimates for well systems should a combination of Crystal Bay site and the sewer plant site be selected. As noted in Attachment E the cost differential is approximately $120,000 between the two sites. A primary cost option 1 is the cost of sprikler support on a site without municipal water. The code requirement is that office stru<ptures over 8.500 square _feet and sti^uctures similar to public worKs over 2^,000 square feet are required to oe sprinkled. This cost could go up to an additional $240,000. It should be noted that if there is a desire for City Hall in Crystal Bay the Council then needs to select a site for the Public Works. It has been my understanding at this point that the Orono sewer plant site may not be an acceptable site for Public Works, in which case an alternative may be to acquire the Highway 12 site for the Public Works site. (Assuming 10 acres for Public Works it would mean the 5 acres for City Hall at a cost of about $103,000.) The basic reasons outlined in Attachment A and as discussed at the Council's work session in August, were the following items: - Availability of sufficiently sized parcels; - Parcel size to allow for combined facilities plus a reasonable expansion area; - Diminishing supply of available land; - Compatability of facilities with surrounding land use; - Cost of land; - Degree of neighborhood intrusion; - Need for preservation of land for parks close to the lake; - Consideration of the historic nature of current site. A related item has been a question as to whether more definitive drawings should be developed for each site. In discussing this with the architect a more definative site development information and cost information would go to the step of finishing the schematics and doing design development which would entail on each site a fee of approximately $60,000 for each site which is why specific site selection is key. The architect would not recommend this further until a spejific site has been selected. Issue #2 - Exercising tjie Option - Even if the Council were to designate a specific site, they would not necessarily need vo exercise the option at this time and could wait to e'^arcise it towards the end of the option. Once the option is exercised it must be closed within 60 days as set forth *n the option agreement. The financial consideration is that by delaying it, the City is able to accrue interest on the total purchase price. However, the cost of exercising the option, is only a down payment of $5,000. If the City would close on v.he property at approximately the same time in order to start construction, exercising the option now or in a few months is of little monetary difference. Issue #3 - Financial Information - Attachments B and C represent additional ” financial information including three scenarios. Contingency Means for Additional Levy (Outside of Levy Limits) - Levy for *89 Bonds to pay early - Levy Limits Off for 1993 - Use of Capital Notes or Certificates of Indebtedness for Capital Equipment (vehicles etc.) $75-125,000 - MSA/Street Bonds (could include sealcoating program) $100-200,000/year - Sewer/Water Revenue Bonds - fund major improvements to existing systems - Referendum for Levy Limit increase - Depending on actual levy, passage may not increase taxes - Exceed Levy Limit/ITo penalty ORONO FACILITIES Building Fund Sewer Water PIR General Fund 66-76 Bond Fund 2,200,000 450.000 50,000 r',000 100.000 300,000 3,200,000 Still Available $600,000 PIR $280,000 1980 Bonds (1996) $150,000 Street Lights (90-99) $160,000 Equipment Outlay $900,000 General Fund Working Capital plu5 monies in sewer/water $150,000 Park unds Financing Primary ERA Revenue Bonds - Establish ERA -tj- - Finding of blight of current buildings - Special levy outside of Levy Limit - BRA can make separate levy for - Designate funds to pay bonds (availability for short term transfers.) °^Park/SttLrimp°ovemen!: Bonds (Land and improvements Wa"ter/Sewe? 5mproveLn"tf'(Water/Sewer portions of buildings) Both outside Levy Limits Generally need $100,000-200,000 levy to insure continued strong financial position. Alternate Means a. ) Building Authority Lease Purchase (Not outside Levy Limit) b. ) Bond Referendum 101 ■s TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator _ DATE: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Facilities Financing - 5 Year Projection - 15 Year Projections Attachment: A. Proposed Sources for $3.2 Million B. Excerpt of Financials Dated 10/30/89 & 6/ll/9u C. Financial Projections Dated 10/5/90 D. Financial Projections for Financing the 1.2% Total Increase E. Projections $3.2 Million with 2% Overall Levy F. Financial Projections - 1991/General Fund G. Financial Projections Other Related Funds - 1991-1995 H. Excerpt - 1991 Budget/Proposal As noted in Attachment A and B the City has been looking at approximately $3.2-3.3 million in available internal financing and both outline possible sources for that. The City does have selected additional monies which ic could utilize apart from that. A. $3.3 million fund - $3.6 mi1lion in bonds - As noted in Attachment C this places the money for the building aside and uses it to pay the bonds. It would not have any levy but leave a need for $100,000 levy make up in the General Fund. 3. Projection of $3.2 million fund/$3.6 bonds/1.2% tota l l.evy^ o ver 19 90 - This projection which was in your packet last time shows that if the City would levy about 1.2% decreasing to about less than 1% over the 15 years that the City would have approximately $2 million when the bonds were all paid up. This however, does have a declining amount into the General Fund and in future years this levy level may not support the financial position of the City as strongly. It would however, be at a level not appreciable greater than that proposed for 1991 taxes overall. C. Projection of $3.2 mil lion fund/$3.6 bonds/with a 2% total levy increase - This is similar to the previous one except the Tevy now goes from 1.2 to 2% under the IIRA/re f er endum scenario with the results giving substantial monies to pay off the bonds and strengthen the amount instead of decreasing as in scenario B going to the General Fund leaving $2.3 million when the bonds are paid off. Fund pro jection 1991-19 95 Genera l Fund - This shows the utilization of monies under the scenario B given expected levy limits and some projection for expenditure inflation. It additionally lists anticipated expenditures such as increased maintenance costs for a larger facilities and possible position increases over the next 3 to 5 years together with other things the City could undertake to fund revenues to make up any difference. The balance from scenerio C is placed as one of those additional revenues. Even with adding positions and differencial between what the City is able to levy together with inflation rate differential the City has more options chrougn 1995 to levy the appropriate amount. In addition the City will have approximately $250,000 available to it in 1996. Parks/Permanent Improvement Revo lv ing/Water Operating/Sewer Operating - The projection over the next 5 years for each of these 4 looks healthy. The condition of the parks will be dependent unon the amount of income from subdivisions together with any capital program for expenditures of those monies. The City's permanent improvement revolving fund which apart from $120,000 set aside for vacation and sick leave liabilities is essentially a rainy day/working capital fund apart from the general working capital fund of over $800,000. From one operating funu reflects the increasing rates which is needed but should continue to grow in strength. The sewer will also continue to grow in strength, this being financed primarily for future improvements to the future. There has been a question raised as to how the City generated the "surplus" over the years. This is a result of conservative budgeting of revenues and conservative budgeting of expenditures on the "high side". These surpluses have been generated after cash flow problems the City experienced in the late '70s and given the budget cycle where this budget has to be set several months in advance of knowing the current year results has resulted in this ever increasing surplus. As noted in Attachment H the City did not levy the maximum :ax possible between the '82 and '87 and only did so in 1988 when the Legislature cut them back to a small increase over the previous actual levy. Since then the City ..as levied the maximum, however, this has been at a level that was previously levied and lost approximately $185,000 in levying authority because of under levying in previous years. Additionally not included are an equipment outlay fund of $150,000 and the various bonding funds. These are projections only and as we have done before they have to be modified with each years budget, however, decisions can be made fairly comfortably in the future in any position additions within a framework that would not negatively impact the City. There are a number of economic variables that may not make the projection realized however, for the most part taxes are eventually paid including penalties and interest and it is just a matter of cash flow and if interest rates drop substantially the City could refinance the bonds to accommodate that. Scenarios B and C end with a fairly healthy cash position at the end of the 15 years being 2% levy would be reduced and the City would still have the investment income on the cash should it choose to use that. Should a recession or "deep recession" occur, while the City can not be promised a bright financial future while all else is chaos, it would be with good management in better shape than just about any other community being faced with the same situation. MAYOR'S ARTICLE CITY FACILITY Many of you have been aware for sometime of discussion^ to do something with our out of date and inadequate city facilities. For those of you who have recently visited our facilities you must marvel at the fact that your Orono staff are even able to perform their jobs, given the conditions within which they work. I do not think many of you and I certainly know myself would not allow my employees to work in these kinds of conditions on a longterm basis. Not only are our employees having to work in unproductive, cramped facilities, but we have a Public Works facility were people have to work under vehicles and work in puddles of water on cold unheated ground in wood sheds. O-^r Police Department has to use an eye bolt and handcuffs £*s a holding facility. These are just a few examples of the shambles to which we have allowed our facilities to degrade. Some people have suggested that a bit of fixing up here and there could assist us, but I think we have gotten to the point that the most cost effective solution is to start over again and do an entirely new facility. This would not be a five or ten year cure. At present the City has utilized an architectural firm to determine the amount of space requirements we have without being superfluous. We are looking at a total cost for a new City Hall, Police facility and Public Works facility for a total of just about $3.C millioa. The fincinciny of this would translate, as we estimate it now, into a 1 to 2% increase in your tax bill. In April we, as a Council, submitted 8 names apiece for a Citizen Advisory Task Force on facilities. From this group 18 persons were selected at random to give a good cross section of the community. They worked during May thru August meeting ^ times. They reveiwed issues of need, site, architectural design and cost. They presented to us their preliminary report at a Council worksession held with them on August 23rd. Their recommendation, without descent, was for a site on Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road opposite the schools and that the current site in Crystal Bay be used for a park. Their reasons for this included: - ConipaLibdlity with surrounding land uses and did not intrude on peoples homes - Adjacent to schools and the future Hennepin County Library site - Sufficient size for future growth - Limited availability of land in Orono of sufficient size - Visibility - Cost of land lower than ether available sites The Committee was sensitive to a site that would not present problems for neighbors to any great .jxtent through the 24 hour operation of the Police Department, the 8 hour traffic of the City Hall nor the type of activity which can be around the clock of the Public Works and their heavy equipment that would be found In the other locations. Subsequently the City has gained an option on the recommended parcel. It may not seem popular to do, but we think we have come up with the plan that is in the longterm in the best interest of the City providing adequate facilities from which to operate. These are not plush facilities by any means, unless you compare what we have with what we need. At this point we would like public input on the Facilities Committee's recommendation to acquire this property and make the current site into a usable park in Crystal Bay. If you have comments either submit your comments in writing or attend our Council meeting on October 22, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. On behalf of Barbara Peterson, J. Diann Goetten, Edward Callahan and Alan Nettles look forward to your support for a new facilities. James R. Grabek Mayor BOARMAN& ASSOCIATES A r\ c II t N c, I I N t C K 1 322 NORTH iCOONO IT nCET U1NNEAI>0US. MMNtSOTA SMOl tUVOMTU ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL . IF : z: BOARMAN& ASSOCIATES C N G I >• ( i I N I c fv I o rx □ [ 222 NOmH SCCONO STREET MINNEArauS. MMNESOTA SM)I |6l2)U»-3rS2 ORONO MUNICIPAL FACIUTIES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL IE BOARMAN61' ASSOCIATES, AftClilTCCIUl^l E N & I H t t I N Q iNicr»ior\ otiiOK 22j Noni H secc»iO SI nc £ t MM4EAPOUS. MMriCSOIA &&40I ISI2I3M J'S2 ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SITEPLAN 1 pfwrosM. ID ■ p«w » .« v«-* BOARMAN& ASSOCIATES Af\ciiiiLciur\t ( N o < '• L ( r; I N 0 lNi:aiorv DCii&N 212 NORTH SECOM) STREET MiNNCAPOUS. MM«SOTA U40I HIDmirU ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL 1C BOARMAN& ASSOCIATES Af\CMii:c Ijr\^ I N O I N I i rv I 0 iNtct\ior\ ociiON 222 NORTH SKONO STRCn MNN£AraUl MMNCSOTA SMOl I»l2)32»3ru ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITiES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL IB BOARMAN& ASSOCIATES m NomH KCCNo srnccr SMI |ll2)SM]rS2 ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL 1A i i iim f » ZONE 1 - SCHOOL AREA CITY HALL/POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS ZONE 2 - CITY SEWER POND AREA CITY HALL/POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS ZONE 3 - EXISTING CITY HALL PUBLIC WORKS AREA CITY HALL/POLICE ONLY ZONE 4 - CITY OWNED LAND CITY HALL/POLICE ONLY ZON&5 - NAVARRE AREA W CITY HALL/POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS \ \\ ■ .X- City of Orono, Minnesota ORONO CITY HALL/POLICE Advisory Committee Cost/Qualily Review EOARMAM & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE; APRIL20,1990 (COUNCIL REVIEW) AUGUST 10,1990 (REVISED) BUILDING COST ITEMS COMMITTEE ACTION Saxon Brick, Asphalt Shingles, Rock Face Block 18,000 S.F. @ S75/S.F. OPTIONAL ITEMS Mankato Stone for Rock Face BIr. ck S31.320 Accent Metal Roofina A«;phalt Shinales $68,450 Accent Interior Brick at Public Areas $41,435 Reiect Vinvl Wall Fabric for Painted Walls $6,850 Accent Divisible Council Area $24,580 Accent Burnished Block at Police Secured Ares $28,552 Accent Basement Storaqe Soace $173,000 Hold 4,325 S.F. @ S40/S.F. Modular Brick for Saxon Brick $13,660 Hold Lobbv Ceilino Skvlioht $16,460 Hold Elevator $60,000 Hold ..... ...... G. H. At this point in the advisory committee process the City Council needs to review the site recommendations of the committee and explore the option possibilities such that preliminary design work can begin at a specific site location. There was discussion about the existing city hall site for a new building with concern by the committee members about the positive or negative attitudes of the Immediate residents to the current site. Input directly from the residents about how the land Is to be used wculd be discussed in any public hearing that would normally be a part of the project as It would move ahead from this point Preliminary discussions with respect to residents in the area would be helpful to get a general sense of where they are at To date, the concensus of the committee Is that the site shou be in the general area of the school for reasons of accessibility, visibility, functional definition with other institutional structures, non-conflict with residential and potential availability of land. Sites 2 and 3 on the school property were workable although current statements by the school site planner makes Site 2 directly across from the school potentially not available due to their requirements for that area to be used as a new elementary school. Site 3 was viewed by the committee to be somewhat less visible and too removed. The school site planner stated that this area of the schoo' site was for secondary functions and the architect took that to mean that there was some room for discussion on the availability of this site. Site 4 Is a part of a 50 acre track and with the frontage road access, cuts a portion of the area si !Ch that the city hall and the public works would be across the street from each other. The comer site proposed for the city hall would be at a higher cost premium in the $40,000 + /- per acre. The site does not seam readily available since the owner wants to keep the track Intact. From the geological maps there appears to be poor soil immediately adjacent to the public works area to the north. The committee directed the consultant to look at two more sites at Willow and Highway 6. BUILDING COST/QUAUTY REVIEW The committee reviewed the same options as the council reviewed with all the respective materials and samples. The committee had questions on various items most of which were answered at the meeting. The discussion of floor materials brought up the issue of quarry tile versus terrazzo. There were some discussions about cost, maintenance and safety in regards to these hard surface lobby materials. The architect's concern is the slipperiness of terrazzo. and the its respective cost. Quarry tile is somewhat less expensive and can be installed with a texture to maintain a less slippery surface when wet. The cost comparisons from Grazzini Brothers for these two materials presented that quarry tile is approximately S5.50 per s.f., with terrazzo '’anging from $5.50 up to $9.00/s.f. depending on the size of the installation. The small lobby areas for this project would be in the S9.00 range. The attached list of cost/quality items illustrates the committee’s concensus. Specifically, the committee felt that the 18.000 s.f. projected building size should be the maximum building developed, and earlier design schemes should be revised to maintain this 18.000 s.f. limit. The committee rejected the use of interior brick proposing that the interiors be vinyl of a light and open feeling as opposed to dark and institutional. Several Items were put on hold (i.e. basement, modular brick, lobby skylight, and elevator) until a site has been picked. The committee felt that the overall cost of the project could be reduced If the respective site would allow a first floor arxl lower level design with windows into the lower level. This could create some savings, but would requ ? an elevator. All of thf other items on the list were acted upon by the committee. The committee reviewed 16 different city hall projects as presented by the architect in the slide show that they prepared. Similar to the council ’s tour of facilities, the committees concern was to have a quality looking building but not one that was loo expensive looking. General feelings were that the buildings should have varying height sloped roofs with brick and stone exterior wall finishes. BOAP.MAN^ ASSQCiATF.S A R C H : T £ C T ■_ S E E N G I N £ c R i N C cii.C'. TO: Orono City Council Orono Citizen ’s Advisory Committee RE: Orono Municipal Facilities Study FROM: JackBoarman DATIZ: August 17.1990 Comm.#: 1124.02 \ 1»I6 1990 On July 26th the Citizen ’s Advisory Committee met to review site plans and building aspects of the municipal facilities study. At the previous meeting, the committee had requested a slide show of various city hails around the metro area to establish an understanding of the types of buildings, their materials, arrangements and appearances. They also requested site plan development on various sites in the area of Old Crystal Bay Road and the school. The meeting reviewed the above issues and directed the architect to explore two new sites at the Intersection of Willow and Highway 6 at the southeast and southwest quadrants of the intersection. Those site plans are attached for council and committee review. Also included is an area map showing all of the sites currently being considered by the committee. Also included is a breakdown of the cost/quality items that were reviewed by the committee with their action. All of the items reviewed to date have progressed on the basis of 70% of those in anendance resulting in a concensus of the comminee At each meeting we have had 70-80% of our committee in attendance. At the previous meeting, the committee stated their concensus for a city hall, police, public works joint site location as the preference and a location adjacent to the Orono School area (Site Area 1 on anached site map). The attached enlarged map of Site Area i illustrates the 6 sites that site plans have been prepared and attached for your review From the committees work to date, their direction to date is as follows. 1.SITE PLAN REVIEW The committee reviewed sites 1 through 4 as possible lo^tions for the Municipal Center. Site 1 was felt to be the preference due to location, visibill^. anticipated cost, and adjacertcy to the future Hennepin County Library . ----• - ............... • I*# - • f • ' ■ ' .r- * * " -.‘1 ::: Surih 2nd siree» Min.-icapoiii Minne ♦ Otj S54 0 1 *,1J-339 )752 91490.7 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: September 18, 1990 SUBJECT: City Facilities Attachment: A. Facilities Report Dated 8/17/90 B. Proposed Newspaper Article A,'vjX\ €vri ISSUE 1. Establish a process for determing whether the City desires to exercise it purchase option on the land on Highway 12. 2. Presentation of information for a public information meeting. INTRODUCTION - At Council's workshop session held on Thursday, August ^irdT at which they received Attachment A staff was directed to obtain a option a property on Highway 12. This option has now been obtained. DISCUSSION - The facilities group that was selected, based on nominations by the Council, recommended approval Highway 12. A Highway 12 site has also been the general consensus of the Planning Commission. The facilities committee in addition to recommending the site on Highway 12 recommende the land vacated by the City in the Crystal Bay area be converted to park land for the neighborhood. options for deciding whether Coucil exercise the land are: 1, Direct staff to exercise the option. 2. Place on the regular agenda for public input prior to exercising the option. If the City is to have a public input oppor tun it y Attachment B would be an appropriate placement in the paper prior to a meeting. This is labeled as a Mayor's Art icle gi ven the format that has been used in the past for such transmissions indicating that it is from the City Council. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Direct the City exercise the option. 2. Place as an item on an agenda for such input. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMEND ATI CM - Ic is recommended that if the Council was to establish a date for a public input meeting it be set for the October 22, 1990 agenda a time for public input as part of the regular Council agenda and that Attachment B be submitted to the paper as an information item prior to that. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council direct a public information meeting regarding exercising the option on the property. Ayes , Nays __. Issue #2 - Given that the closing date probably will not change substantially looking at a possible spring construction that the City exercise its option by 1 January to alleviate the small potential for a competing offer as it is not anticipated to make a financial difference given the closing dates would probably similar . Issue #3 - It is recommended that the Council ask any questions that they may have about the financial information and proceed further to discuss financing options as more definative costs are developed. If the City were to go with the HRA option the necessary preliminary work could be done in a fairly shortly period of time. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Council designates site on Highway 12 as the site for construction and directs staff to exercise the option by _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1990. Ayes _/ Nays _. Department Heads Facilities Committee Planning Commission A. Using $3.3 million to pay off $3.6 million in bonds with no revenue flow back to the General Fund. B. Utilizing tax levy outside a levy as either an HRA or a bond referendum of approximately 1.2% which pays off the bonds with some money at a decreasing level b?ck to the General Fund and leaving the City with approximately $2 million in 15 years when the bonds are paid off. C. Utilization of a 2% overall tax increase levy in conjunction with an HRA and a bond referendum which would substantially make up for lost revenue to the general fund plus pay off the bonds plus leave the City with over $2 million when the bonds are all paid off. Accompanying this scenario are also financial projections for expected expenditure increases and available revenues to pay off any additional expenditures and rough projections on the other funds the City has. As noted, the City in particular this third option would be in excellent financial shape through the funding of this project. A review of costs estimates from 1986 bega; with the building in the range of $2.3 million which is now at $2.9 million. Following this initial space study done in January of 1988 it was estimated in the range of $3.4 million The estimate since last December has been $3.6-$3.7 million. ALTERNATIVES - Issue »1 - Site Designation 1. Select the option site. 2. Select an alternate site for: City Hall/Police Public Works 3. Table for further discussion. Issue #2 - Exercising the Option 1. If option site is selected a. Select to exercise it with a closing date commenserate with timetable for construction 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - Issue #1 - It is staff's recommendation that Council accept the TiSSimSTT-iation of the Facilities Committee for the site so that the next steps can be taken relating to complete schematic design and go to site specific design development. 3 1901 1993 1993 1994 1999 1996 1997 1998 1999 NZIDXM eOftWICTIOIt fVMD OtsJi Mlaae*3.300.000 3.319.900 3.117.139 3,027,093 2.991.084 2.876.138 3,808.347 2,744,380 3.684.948 toVMMB (M !.■■■ 300.000) 2S0.000 333,360 323,370 218.167 212.086 206.091 300.660 193.930 190.799 tvOtetal 3.490.000 3,433,060 3,342.903 3.349.360 3.163.170 3.082.229 j '08.907 2.939,930 2,873,743 top—dltar— Traiifliprp Oat 0 —«rai Puatf 100,000 90.000 90.000 70.000 63.000 60.000 33.000 30.000 30.000 ■Idf Pmd 130.300 349.939 233.413 224.174 232.032 213.982 209.336 204.982 193,890 Cash toiane*3.319.SCO 3.::t.:35 3.:;*.392 2 031.384 2.876.138 2.808.247 2.744.181 2.684.948 2,631,893 Manr ))—«•• Bldf. Cm■«.130.300 343.929 335.413 224.176 222.032 213.983 209.326 304.982 193.890 T— t—y 190.000 160.000 170.000 173.000 180.000 189.000 190.000 300.000 toi«m 7.at« toto s«m—130.500 399,939 399.413 394.176 397.033 393.983 394.926 394.983 393.890 ■ ' ; ■ .•'••' — . • .•..........•. 1—" - .J- .V _ “;-,i IVv ■•... aoeo 2001 2002 2003 3004 2009 300« J«.M1 j„.i44 SccMAitva fi *3.2 QuLiLA 3§7,3t$397.102 399.344 399,479 391.994 UMa «3.i, • 1.1.7. J) ssfsrrsTTzrr^FSiW.nJILVJ^V.^ 1 ' 1 2.931.993 2.579,913 2,515.814 2.499.990 3.399.993 2,313.495 2.234.6C9 r..*•. 199.991 192.149 177.2*5 172.499 166.876 161.078 154.775 2,119.444 2.799.999 2.693.079 3.6.39,149 2.552,829 2.474.563 2.389.464 1 t 90.000 50.000 5C.000 so.occ 5C.S00 50.000 50,000 r 1191.931 193.144 197,399 192.182 199.344 189,875 188.594 2.979.913 2.919.814 2.455.690 2.399,993 2.3:3.485 2.234.688 2.150.970 r191,431 193.144 197,291 197,192 169.344 189.87S 189.594 200,000 200,000 200.000 200.000 200,000 200.000 200.000 r- ...------fc-.- . ...,.■— . -•. -- \ •. -i. . —» . . r-^ ' " - .'. ■ t r—.. _ . ■• ..... . .... l»fX l»f2 l»f3 1914 199S X996 1997 1991 1999 2000 Coafe tolaaeo 3.200,0003,219,500 3,147,135 3,114,492 3,080,475 3.040.881 3.001.169 2.957,280 2,909,000 2,099,tat 250.000 233.560 227,770 225,159 222.438 219.270 216,935 212.502 200,790 204,705 10% low 400.000) taferotal 3,450,0003,453.060 3,374,905 3.339.651 3,302.913 3.26C.1S1 3,2:5.104 3.169,862 3,118,670 3.064,605 Xspooiltoros Trwsiors 0«« Conorol Pond 100,000 105,000 110,000 115,000 13C.000 125.COC 130,000 135.000 140.000 145,000 Udff road 130.500 155,925 150,413 144,176 142.032 133.982 129.992 124.962 118.050 111,031 Cow ialoaeo 3.n9.500 3.192,135 3.114.492 3.000.475 3.040.811 3.001.169 2,958.122 2.909,MO 2,059,020 07.974 nms •cvtaaa* lldf. Const.130.SCO 7u Lovjr (ro?70soBto 2%) UssBoo 2.5% tox frooth) 1SS.929 24C.000 150.413 345.000 144,176 350.000 394.176 14:.333 355.000 397.032 133.98:139.983 134.983 118.153 111.631 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S 3000 t 2,007,174 2.750,407 2,C»4,UC 2,023.463 2,554,990 2.400,017 200,037 196,037 191.529 105,077 100.399 160,000 3.000,011 3.940,504 2,005.645 ?.909,340 2,735,395 3,500.007 ISO.OC' 155.000 160.000 165,000 170,000 175,009 •" 100,144 97,300 102.163 09,344 04,675 78,594 ; 2,750,407 2,694.116 2.633,463 2,554.996 2.480.520 2.314,493 100,144 97,380 205.000 290,000 U: *2 £9.344 84.875 70,594 295...U'. 30C.OOO 305,000 310.000 ! 393.144 307,300 397,182 309,344 309.675 300.594 ccKsua rtJHO Inflation 1991 4% Inflation 1992 4%1993 Inflation 4% Inflation 1994 3% 1995 Salanca 810,000 vnuaa Taxaa 1,644,831 5,910 6,499 3.50%1.702,400 20,000 3.!0%1,751,994 22,000 4.00%1,332,463 22,000 3.5',%1,897,000 20,000 ..'anaaa/ ^mita 123,300 128,000 4.30%133,000 4.00%138,000 3.00%1,421,400 •.tarqovt a'/anua 180,700 180,700 180,700 3.00%186,000 3.00%191,580 cnar^aa for iarrieaa 770,000 797,700 4.00%829,000 4.00%862.000 3.00%<137,860 'inaa. rorfalturea 118,130 115,000 3.00%118,000 3.00%121,000 3.00%124,630 4lac. Incaraat Incoaa Oaneral Funda 53,300 55,000 33,000 36,000 38,000 Tranafara In bld9 fund) 102,690 90,000 80,000 70,000 65,000 ?ther 17,680 16,700 18,000 17,000 19,000 17,500 19,000 17,500 18,000 18,000 3,039,760 3,-i3,100 1,215,184 3.322,963 4,701,470 sanditarea 'arsonnal arvicaa 1,649,930 1,715,927 4.00%1,784,300 4.00%1,855.000 3.00%1,911,356 :appllaa thar Sarvicaa ira Protactlon apital Outlay >cllca ;ap/Eq Fund 261,680 845,880 180,020 43,000 60,750 272,147 858,915 187,220 43,680 63,180 5.00% 5.00% 291.000 891.300 194,700 46.000 66.000 5.00% 5.00% 294.320 929,032 202,408 48.300 69.300 3.00% 3.00% 303,150 >6,902 208,600 50,700 73,000 3,041,260 3,141,069 1,267,300 3,399,320 3,503.908 lalanca >dad) 810,000 711,406 ia Cxpanditura ovar ravanua 8,000 52,316 76,359 81,698 nalt iaantal ndituzaa ■0• •• a Kaintananca/ntllltlaa-Faellltlaa 50,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 , » jonnal .35-45,000/potltion) nan 95-1/nayba .nanca 95-0 ildg/Zonlno 95-0 tl In 91 budqat) 'ilica 1-2 .95 (coat to Orono).75 -Dlie Morka (.5) Balanca to Sawar/Watar) 20,000 25.000 30.000 18,720 .. ‘ K 30,000 » 35,000 18,720 ;.ona - 1 nat? 95 aaalnq-95 0 . al-95 0 ditlonal on Salarlaa 917.000/1% i .7AI.68,000 142,116 225,077 245,418 ■la Ravanuaai 'und Tranafar (froo 2%) -aant Tranafar FIR tl Notaa/CartlfIcataa of •totaduad (actual) (75000) Matar Fund Rantal (40,000) 30/a.f.-1/2 >acial Saal Coatlnq Proqrao 15.000 20.000 75.000 40.000 UOjJda 33.000 22.000 73.000 45.000 43.000 24.000 77.000 30.000 55.000 28.000 77.000 ; 55.000 ;da/Ejirly Lary (If pald-int 99-$79,000/100,000 yt ) 9M .Imitai Ra«ovad or no panalty lavy Halt ratarandua • . lal Avallabla Ravanua :ura Raducelona J-100.000 190,000 218.000 238.000 258,000 (a) 1998 flaad payaant at 1980 bonda aatlaatad to ralaa^a about 9280.(00 1991 150,000 Interest Earning: Parks (capital) CasrT^H^ance Revenue Transfer in Expenditures Transfer out Cash Balance Equipment (may bond for it) Outlay 160,000 Cash Balance Revenue Transfer in Expenditures Transfer out Cash Balance 1992 7.5 1993 7.5 1994 1995 Permanent Imorovemt *500,000 650,000 680,000 709,000 735,000 Revenue Fund (300 (100,000) Cash Balance Revenue ,000-emergency contingency) 50,000 50,000 51,000 50,000 51,500 Transfer in Expenditures Transfer out 20,000 22,000 24,000 28,000 Cash Between 650,000 680,000 709,000 735,000 753,500 (Minimum liabilities) Water Operating Cash Balance 120,000 90,000 110,000 135,000 159,000 Revenues Transfer in 20,000 (increase 30,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 Expenditures Transfer out 50,000 rates) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Cash Balance 90,000 110,000 135,000 6,000 159,000 6,000 183,000 (rate increase) Se\-er Cash Balance 582,014 302,014 422,000 546,000 664,000 Revenues Transfer in (270,771) 170,000 other current assets /yr net 150,000 165,000 160,000 165,000 Expenditures Transfer out 450,000 (30,000)31,000 32,000 33,000 Cash Balance 307,014 (plus connection charges due various projects - 20-30,000/yr) 12,000 13,000 422,000 546,000 662,000 781,000 CITY OF - ORONO CITl Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, ^ On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 17, 1990 THIS LETTER WAS MAILED 10/17/90 TO ALL FACILITIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALL PLANNING COMuMISSION MEMBERS Subject; October 22, 1990 Determination Relating to Site Acquisition Dear At it*s September 24, 1990 Council meeting. Council established October 22nd as a date to discuss further actions on the Facility Committee's recommendation tt select the Highway 12 site for the facilities and using the current site for a park. As you may be aware, the City obtained an option for the property based on the Committee's recommendation which was presented without dissent to the Council at the August 23, 1990 workshop. As a person interested in this issue, we would recommend and encourage you to be in attendance to voice your opinion on the matter. Please feel free to communicate with either Jack Boarman at J39-3752 or myself regarding any issues, ideas or concerns that you have on this matter. Look forward to seeing you at this meeting. Sincerely, Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator BUILDING & ZONING - 473*7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRMION A FINANC E - 473-7J5H FAX-473-0510 PL Bt.lC WORKS - 473*7359 t ! ! II A . iiI 1982 1983 1V8-,1085 1906 1987 1988 1987 iwu IWI GENERAL FUND REVENUES (EST) EXPENDITURES (EST) 1,574,376 1,574,276 1,602,184 1,611,752 1,772,323 1,758,014 1,876,193 1,853,525 2,163,193 2,203.383 2,322,590 2,322,590 2.461.070 2.491.070 2,664,565 5,122,550 2,924,010 2.876,180 3,040,2 3,040,2 urruAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES 1,n3,282 1,478,230 1,864,019 1,632,011 2,061,930 1,786,613 2,129,764 1,781,311 2,343,116 2,126,563 2,567,914 2,246,748 2,751,232 2,489,422 2,863,897 5,141,232 - - GENERAL FUND REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES ACTUAL 255,052 232,008 275,317 348,453 216,553 321,166 261,810 (2,277,335)4^-- PROPERTY TAX LEVY LEVY LIMIT (INCLUDES HOMESTEAD CREDIT) LEVY LIMIT GENERAL FUND LEVY 829,425 818,914 921.573 909.573 1,090,109 1,021,426 1,155,992 1,001,044 1,283,746 1,089,557 1,389,395 1,206,520 1,263,426 1,263,426 1,352,690 1,352,690 1.413.944 1.413.944 1.644.1 1.644.1 X OF LEVY 98.7X 98.6%93.A 86.6X 84.5X 86.8X 100.OX 100.OX ICO.OX 100 GENERAL FUND SPECIAL LEVIES ---■-•-••---•--■--5.' TOTAL GENERAL FUND ALL LEVIES TAXES AS X Of GENERAL FUND RUDGET EST 829.425 921,573 1,090,109 1,155,992 1,288,746 1,389,395 1,263,426 1,352,690 1,413,944 1,650. BSBBBsss&sasa ssssaaasasaas ssaaaasasasaa sssss&s£2ss£s sasssasassass ssBssassssaas BBsa^sa&ssaaa ssassasssssss BBaaassasa 52.ox 56.7X 57.6X 53.3X 50.4X 51.9X 51.3X 50.8X 48.4X / P.K, . --•tf \ -.1 ut *• REQUEST ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 19 PAYMENT #5-WELL #3 ybv Mayor Grabek, seconded by-' E 15 to Keys Well Drilling Coor^ ../ _ 468.00. Motion, Ayes-4< Nays^.“Motion artie ■^sted in door information regarding the ^rested persons. He noted He said, "We have been he project. He has -toNjoor to talk with the It was nt>siyed approve Pay Requ< in the amount of passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPOR' STUBBS BAY PROPOSED SEWER PROJE ^ Bernhardson presented updat response from interested and that there are now 13 interested approached by a person inte indicated that he would lik^to go area residents about the o;?Oject Goetten supported-" such an effort. She saX"It be helpful to know th^pecific reason why people areNiot in favor of the project." It was the/consensus of Council to accept the information and recommenda'cion presented by staff. CITY FACILITIESBernhardson stated that the option for t.he property on Hiahway ;.2 has now been obtained. He askea Council -or -u..-he. direction and outlined the alternatives presented in his September 18, 1990 memo. Mayor Grabek said, "We have taken a long look at this. We know we need a facility. There were only^^a few sites recommended by the Committee established by the City." Goetten stated that she agrees a new facility is needed. .She said, "I was not av/are the Citizens Committee was going to take any action at their meeting on August 23rd. I have updated as to the status of this issue. Since we do ^ix months to exercise the option on the Highway 12 property, I would like to table this." Bernhardson apologized for not providing Councilmember Goetten with a full update regarding this issue. Peterson asked whether it was appropriate for an official vote to have been taken at what was deemed to be a Council Workshop Session. Bernhardson replied, "I balieve that it was appropriate for a vote to have been taken." - 13 - Peterson asked whether the public was notified of the Work ORONO COONCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 CITY FACILITIES CONTINUE-") Session. Bernhardson stated that the public had been notified. Nettles stated that it would be appropriate for Councilme.Tiber Callahan to be present to express his opinion. He said, "We have obtained an option on this property at a favorable price. The Citizen's Committee has carefully considered this issue and has provided us with their recommendation. I would hate to seo us lose this property and would suggest that this issue be scheduled for the next Council meeting and that Council take action at that time.” Peterson asked when the Advisory Committee will be. next meeting of the Citizen's Bernhardson replied, "We were waiting to make a determination on a site and would then proceed with the design phase. Once Council has formally accepted a site, the Committee would meet again. I do anticipate that they would attend the meeting where the site determination is to be considered." Mayor Grabek stated that there seems t be a consensus on behalf of staff. Council and the Citizen's group. He saia, "I believe we are the closest we have ever been to a public facility. If there is some way to move forward to commit to a facility this y*^ with this administration, I believe that would be advantageous to everyone." Peterson stated that this has been an issue for four years. She said, "'Waiting another month should not be a problem. I would prefer to have the Citizen's Group meet first. I recently talked with one of the Group members who indicated that he was upset that this matter on was the agenda for this meeting. He felt it would be better for the Group to meet again to discuss an overall picture before the press published anything. I also believe that Councilmember Callahan should be given the opportunity to express his opinion." Mayor Grabek noted that two members of the Citizen Group, Gabriel Jabbour and Gretchen Menzel, were present. He asked them to relay the consensus of the Group regarding the need for another meeting prior to purchasing property. Gretchen Menzel said, "I believe that the Committee has worked very hard in the long term on this. We have provided Council with our recommendation and would like to see the matter proceed." Gabriel Jabbour stated that the Citizen's Group was - 14 - 0 unanimous in their recommendation pertaining to the site. ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 CITY FACILITIES CONTINUED Gretchen Menzel confirmed that at least 70% of the Citizen's Group agreed to the site recommended. Jabbour explained that the Group was told that 70% consensus was required in order to proceed forward. He said, "During our voting procedure, that is what we had in mind." Peterson explained that she was not referring to the recommendation regarding the site. She stated that the Citizen's Group should meet to discuss the specs and plans now that a site nas been selected. Mayor Grabek stated that it is premature in the process to discuss specs and plans. Gabriel Jabbour said, "In my opinion, the Citizen's Group proceeded as far as we could without having information pertaining to a particular site. Once we know that information, we can proceed forward to make ether determinations regarding the structure itself." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to schedule a public meeting regarding the City Facilities for the October 22nd Council meeting. At that meeting Council can opt to vote on the Highway 12 site, or table action for another four months. The Citizen's Group should attend that meeting. Motion, .Ayes-3, Goetten, Nay. .Motion passed. Goetten indicated that she preferred to delay the public meeting until November. Bernhardson asked if it would be appropriate to use the Mayor's Article as a method of notifying the public about this issue. Goetten suggested that a regular article in the paper would suffice. Mayor Grabek stated that notification should be given in the manner that other Council Agenda iters are made public. COflPREHENSIVE^PLAN RESPONSES BernhardsoTk^resented information^egarding proposed changes in response to Meti^i^ouncil's transportation and sewer chapters. He suggested waiting^<o respond until more is known about the Highway 12 Corridor. H^^v^id, "There are areas that have been sewered but not included inth^current plan and we would provide that information in our respons^Vv^We would present the response to the Planning Commission at their Oct^er, 1990 meeting. Council accepted the information presented by and took no formal action. " Bernhardson - 15 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 DAVID PRASS Mr. and Mrs. Prass were present. Bernhardson explained that tha Prasses have indicated that water must remain in the pool. Otherwise the pool will heave out of the ground. He said, "Council's approval for the temporary pool cover included the condition that the pool be kept dry. Staff felt it was necessary to bring this back before Council for their review. The Prasses submitted a letter indicating that they would provide information from the company that services their pool regarding the water issue." Mrs. Prass distributed a copy of the letter from their pool company (Mark, I did not receive a copy for the packet). Mrs. Prass apologized for the misunderstanding regarding whether or not water could remain in the pool. Mayor Grabek asked whether the pool has always been filled with water. Mrs. Prass stated that the pool has always had water. Mayor Grabek asked whether there is presently a tonce around the pool. Mr. Prass replied, "There is a snow fence around the pool. There is insurance, liability on the property. We submitted proof of that sometime ago." Mrs. Prass said, "I would like to clarify that the pool cover is not temporary. It is a permanent cover that must be opened with a key. It is designed to last for 15 to 20 years." Nettles asked whether it might be appropriate to have the Prasses submit a hold harmless agreement. Barrett replied, "Taking into consideration the manufacturer's warranty, the insurance liability the property owner has, the insurance liability <-he City has and their Sovereign Immunity, that the City is well protected financially." Goetten noted that the City does not require fencing around swimming pools. She stated that the Prasses proposal JLs more secure than what exists for many pools in Orono. - It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to accept the Prasses proposal for the pool cover, provided that a hold harmless agreement is prepared by them and submitted to the City and that they adhere to the building dates as specified in the previou** Resolution. Mvjtion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 16 - /T ^o . . ■ «: - ■ V • »•; ] • ■ I ■I firmuiKair E ; -V ,» .;ii •iS; PHc LM.na HY COSTIMHACIS 12/B/H9 --------------------------H crrYCFOfTONo laie/goupcita i NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY ! ICTY MALL P'JBfC WORKS ST'E CPT.'ON^ t. BUrUJINO CCNSTRUcnON crrv HALL NfW CCNSTHUCTJCN pcuce PUBUC WCRK3 NEW CCNBTBcCnON •SXOO SP. UNHIA7E0 STCRACe SUBTOTAL COST S.P. COST CITY HAU. M4I S.F. POLICE CSPT g idt lA aaotP ii.4c?,r?a W3^. 11.411400 »ip. Li;o,m t2.3S4.720 'plbucwca <8 .u.iaiP. LNP2ATEO S7CMQM i.MCS.P. •• : '\E: \ •! s . <- • “ • ■ ‘f *1 > lly • • «i- :r '(I, -'V ‘'‘i■ V •. ' . ’’ll . j I ■ 1:', • .V i •• I ■ r: '•''V' I•; »V ' 0PTK5N1 eiTf A - SMSTTNO MUNICML srrc B. SEW0IPCNO snc tA - MIOH'A^AY ia ctyhall ,^uct O^ONA anru Mta r: /• h > ’• OOMMSOI CTVHAU. »^X.CB |AUBL.C ''<VC«U<3 X SITE DEVELOPMENr Ipudug i'ArjRxa •SJTlUTJUrES •80?LSCCWtCr0N3 •LANOBCAPtNa/SCPBWl.SO •BfTUMINCJSflC-JRB t auTW •DEMOunCN BUarOTAL J. CTHEfl COST IMPACTS f 3aMo » ’5.KC » a.cco • 99.*a0 t a.m I 4M.1K 'i uxc t ••:.:oo • «»0 ;i Mxo •W«il. Aums, t/>4 totdi«4 ;inii I! Men ut A A B. (4001 amn, et ew grwA neuiTQ t«i«} 'M.rof 19 txAUnfl C-'UAA. "&i (tng iricniecAi Cuiidlrct te e« emroittta . a(ni«iMecti94. .*■LANDCOfT •SALi CP COST. UL'SiCPAL &Tt! 3 1 J :a s»j.9r«i jli 34.100 ;a?oo.(wn1 •SALSCPPCNTICNCPSeVVEBPCNOSITE ’■NABINa CCSTB (CTPr MALL A PUBLIC WORKS MAVB SIPAAA7C CCMSTRUCTON BCHECUUB) 1 9 ^a 40.000 sms BEUTEO COSTS SUBTOTAL |t miM $ 427.S00 •1 4. PROFESSIONAL FEES 9 7 1/2 H a aajoo ! ja ao.190 development COSTS S3.7SB.37Q U.B43.S20 w 8. BCNOINQCCSrS TRPUu';^\...^.i»L-ii'i ■ 1 .. a M.300 !ao.coD r. COffTlNaENCYOlOT* $. RjnNI8HINQ8 S EOUIPMEKT 'C.H. AU jOWA«4C8 • «10 S.P. •P.W. BOUtPMBWALLXWAMCe ‘•ANOBBALTarronAai • M JW a tra.eoo :l 110.000 LJUB a asi4ra ;a i?j 000 a vo ooo 'a a.floa fi •PRQPOCOHALPH9 a sao.000 ii iT.aaa a aae.oco 1 a?eo I auVTCTAL a mran a aaT.000 t. MISCELLANeOUS ITEMS •POTSKnAL W«A COST INCRCAaS •POTwmALBonjcoawBcnoN inovasb •mSPMONE'OOMMUNICATIONB ICUIP. •OOMPUTW BOUIPMew 'MOVIMa COSTS •tIFLArON PACTOR »4» PER VSAR • ANNUAL ORtRATINQ COSTS a »4iaoo N/A PRIOR PURCM a SS pRion puRCMAas a 11.000 NIA 1 ieaA» PmCR PURCHASt PR1CR PUROUSB a la.ooo *aeo PL •««. tocr* raoa Acrtn* lim •9L.ici/ia CM wt«ta*n 11 iA«v« nwj. It 10. FLraiRBBXPANSION SPACE cnTTMAa I04A 1000 SP. B04A 1000 6.P.HOC. 900 $100,000 pusucwoRKa tOH looca.p. 90H 1.000 IP 1 aioa.000 1 aaioooo 1 I s 'l: SOURCES FOR fiUII.DTHG FiniD 10/30/09 n ? o o u o o o 1989 Fund Balances/ Retained Earnings 1990 Est Fund Balance/ 1990 Retained Changes Earnings Estimated Cash Available Estimated for Building Cash Balance 1,009.597 2,209,335 1,009,597 30,000 1.101,638 150,010 1.251.648 120,235 (25,330) 94,995 47.444484,504 531,948 General Fund Bldg Fund Sewer Fund Water Fund Permanent Improvement Revolving TOTAL Other Cash Sources GO 66-76 TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR BUILDIllC Future Cash Sources GO 80 MSA/Cty 15 (30,000/yr from General 89-98) Street Lights 90,000 2,239,335 2,239,335 360,000 40,000 ($15,000/yr from special asr.esament 90-99) B1 8 , u j 0 0 319,150 42.300 531,948 2,729,315 1,802,995 a) 315.000 (91) 3.044.335 23( Oable 1998) 300,0i,» «u.allablo $30,000/89-98) 150.000 (available $15,000/yr 90-99) Sources not Considered Sale of Land HcCulley Rd Sewer Plant Crystal Bay a) Does not include estimated caslt from park fund ($158,619) & Improvement 6 Equipment Outlay ($192,962) for total of $351,581 J 6390.3 General Fund Building Fund Sewer Fund V-Jater Fund Permanent Improvement Revolving GO 66-76 Debt Fund SODRCES FOR BUILDING PROJECT ESTIMATES AS OF 12/90 Fund Balance 1,000,000 2.250.000 1.250.000 100,000 550,000 Available for Project $100-150,000 2,250,000 450,000 a.) 45,000 3.) 315,000 (Available 91) 315,000 (a) $3,160,000-53,210,000 a.) Could be considered as loans for repayment in future. future sources GO 80 Debt Fund MSA/Cty 15 Street Lights $230,000 (Available 1996) ($30,000/yr from General 39-98) ;15,000/yr) Other Funds (Not Considered) park Funds 51^5,000 Improvement S Equipment Outlay $260,000 follll9o 10590.4 A J Mayor and City Council If Mark E* Barnhardaon# City Adnialatrat :: Oc .jbar 5# 1990 BQBJSCT s Financial Project / AteaciMd pleas* Clndi n'»*ii:r.‘r usr,."!.?, RaftraRdua) to help f'md a $3.0 utlllalng about $3 2 Ion intha law la about " craaaa of total property ta« levy. Thla doaa a continuing funding to the general fund alth ab ^2*0 aillion in ^ab *J*^^*^^* when bonda are paid. Tha aasuaptlona can be altered. b. ) Uaa of $3.3 aillion in caah to fund $3.6 aillion withc42t a aaparata law. c. j Sourcaa for $3.2 aillion In each. I'll be happy to review tht • with you together with the 5 year financial projection I aa preparing. • t City of Ororv} 1/1/91 7/1/91n 1/1/93 ■wttttn Pi Date 1/1/95 7/1/95 •eginmng ■alance t3,302.6S2 »3,434.75& 15.315,7A2 13.055.9B0 12.866,152 i!lK i/l/9n 12,701.695 7/1/97 12.S0B.623 1SW4S 1/1/99 12.312.974 T/1 taa #i*a -MM i 1/1/011 11,861.647 7/1/011 11.602.235 Semi -Armt-iat Interest at 8.001 1132,106 1137.390 1132.630 1126,918 1121,359 1114.646 11.136,2371/1/tti 7/1/03mm I’M 1/1/05 th9.535 7/1/05 1372.350 1108.065' 1100,545mm 192.519 183.576 174.466 164.090 0/S Paytncfit 10 (1130,500) (1275.425) (1119,988) f;iUli»^.'988) (tzev.iBS) (tior.Mt) (1301,138) (193.888) (1316,094) (177,756) (1333,875) (159.269) 153.449 U1.423 128,794 114,894 (1554,119) (138.065) *:'}:fl3c<3,\063) :!i:Kti^6.28ii (1376,2 b:) (113,594) *.::^i38a:59i> EnrJioij flalancc 13,434,758 13.441.648 ...;i5,308;8U: :;1!m.315.742 13,172,947 13.179.877 ■:;:i3,(93,98fai 12,866,152 12,872.954 12,508,623 12,515,080 12,089,399 12,095,219 .;j;^n»S6}S»/1; 11,602,238 11.607.059 Tr;*li;53?'.o74 v;l!it;J36;i3)r 11,035,567 11,038.928 ;ii’v«h7;42^ 13r2,350 1375,650 , Date 1/1/91 7/1/91 {•‘H/l/??m\r^ 1/1/93 7/1/95 1/1/95 7/1/95 1/1/97 7/1/97 1/1/w 7/1/99 ••:j';Ul/oo |H^1/4o 1/1/01 7/lyfii Principal 10 10 1150.000 1175.000 10 1200,000 10 1230.000 siii 1265.000 Coupon Interest 7.25* n 1130.500 1125,425 «riO GAS 1114,188 Debt Service 10 1130,500 1275.425 1119^988 1289,188 1107.844 7.25* 0 iiWi* 7.25* 0 7.25* A 1/1/03 7/1/05 r5i;V/1/04 1/1/05 7/1/05 ."‘l/0d6 1305,000 iii{;n2!J;boS- 1350,000 to ji'li’13^5,000 7.25* 0 1101,138 I 1301.118 193.888 186,094 177.756 168,8i^ 159,269 149.119 138,063 11^ 7.25* 1^,281 0 113.594 •on mm 1316,094 177,756 1333.875 159.269n 1354,119 138,063mm 1376.281 113,594 .'IV V.». 'l\ > : I I fi 'iV ) ! # M . * * ■:/h 'ir;, •' I \Oi'd '.'/i/J-l'l V|,vnr 3>CD j>05 '302 6.is iv<v V .iO Preivifwi Iry FMcrs ari Oates, Inc, « . f f;< \nT ,s\. .. ! -; TO; CRONO CITY CObNCIL FR: JACK BOARMAN BOARMAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. DT: JUNE 11. 1990 RE: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES CITIZENS ADVISORr COMMITTEE INTERIM UPDATE crrfOf -^=CNO ] m 1 3 1990 At this point in the Citizen’s Advi^ ~ Committee effort, the group is at the half-way point in their work on the municipal facilities is; ..cc The committee met on May 7 and May 24. At those meetings, approximately 80% of the committee were in attendance. The attached attendance list represents the final committee membership and those who attended each meeting. A number of issues have been reviewed with the committee. The citizen’s committee was briefed that their work was to review the spectrum o^ ssues involving the City’s facilities from the services provided by the City through cost and building image The consultant and staff role was to illustrate the various options that were under discussion and that the committee was free to ask for additional options plus challenge any of the work done to date. The staff and consultant ’s role was to help facilitate the committee's efforts and that they were not specifying any particular direction for the committee. The committee ’s goal was to provide a recommendation to the council on the most appropriate facility size, location, cost and image for Orono. The committee has worked very diligently through the first two meetings with considerable enthusiasm and interest. They have dealt with the following issues: 1. A tour of all of the existing facilities with staff discussion on how they were used and what were the problems. 2. Review of the current City services in relationship to the number of staff and what cities are required to provide for services. Detaii discussions on the staffing and cost for providing service contracts with the adjoining cities for services in building inspections, police, etc Other areas were discussed with regards to the projection of staffing based on the population projections for Orono. 3. The committee reviewed the current Orono staff projections as prepared by staff and consultant. The Orono population projection for the next 10-15 years was discussed at the 9-10,000 range. The consultant presented comparisons of other cities similar to Orono with regards to population and staffing. i, .i 4. T ie committee reviewed the space program that was prepa. v,d by the consultant and received a complete copy of the program document illustrating all of the individual spaces and their areas. As a part of this effort, the committee reviewed the various future space areas, their respective sizes in relationship to the total building area. The committee reviewed the public spaces for meeting rooms, lobbies, and service areas. 5. The committee reviewed the total building area for the projected size of a city hall, police, and public wo’’ks building. They reviewed the amount of area that was projected for the current staff and the amount projected for future staff areas. 6. A thorough review was provided for the committee for five different site location options. Zones of the City included specific parcels and representative site plans on each. The five zones/sites were as follows: * Zone 1 - Site F/School Board Property for Public Works, City Hall and Police * Zone 2 - Site B/Sewer Pond Site for Public Works, City Hall and Police * Zone 3 - Site A/Existing City Halt for City Hall and Police only * Zone 4 - Site D/Cily owned property at County Rd. 19 for Public Works. City Hall and Police * Zone 5 - Site E/Navarre Site adjacent to Hennepin County Public Works Building at County Rd. 15 for City Hall. Police and Public Works. 7. The committee discussed the siatus of additional City needs as it related to the potential for fire station, post office and library. The contracted fire department services would provide Orono’s present and future needs. There was not a projection in the near term for a fire station facility The library location at Highway 12. represented a two-plus acre site and was a long-term location for a new Hennepin County Library. The post office service was discussed per the old Crystal Bay facility. The committee consensus to date for the various topics as presented was as follows: A. REVIEW OF CITY SERVICES Staff presented all of the services that are currently provided by staff to Orono and to other cities under contract. The services that Orono contracts for with other communities for fire service was also reviewed. The committee felt that the overall level and quality of services and their respective cost in regards to contract services, seemed appropriate. The committee understood the relationship between the amount of staff and 1 ) What Orono has for its own service needs 2) How the contract staff is relates to the specific city as with police patrolmen 3) That those contract services help defray fixed administrative costs 4) Or have work that can be done by the staff in addition to the Orono work. In reviewing the overall current and projected services, the committee felt that the current services and contracts seemed appropriate. B. REVIEW OF STAFF AND PROJECTIONS The committee went over all of the current staff positions and how they were broken down between specific Orono services and those for contract communities. With the numbers of staff and their projections as presented, the committee concensus was that the staff projections seemed appropriate. There was considerable discussion that the City needed to have its own Assessor. For engineering services, the committee felt that it was a function of the council review and the cost of in-house services versu > the cost for consultant. The committee understood that as development increased in the community. 0 in-house services became more affordable. The overall projections for staff and area . ,r all City Hall represents 1.064 square feet which would cost approximately $85,000. There was discussion among the committee as to whether this area should be reduced The comminee felt that it was such a small portion that keeping it in the overall square footage allowed for expansion, regardless of whether it was for the specific staff currently being discussed. The committee reviewed the potential growth at Orono in relationship to the potential for expansion. Based strictly on population growth, as per the current development ordinance, it was agreed that Orono ’s population, at 9-10.000 would be the maximum for the 10-15 year time frame. The overall assessment was that the staff and service projections as stated would provide Orono for the next 10-15 years. The committee did feel that any building site should have ample room for expansion in case the overall future of Orono was dramatically changed due to development or incorporation of other community services through expanded contracts. C. BUILDING USES The committee reviewed the overall concept of keeping a postal facility at the City Hall. It was felt that the current postal facility in Crystal Bay served the adjacent residential community and really wasn’t a significant postal resource for the exp^mded Orono community. The committee asked staff to look further into options for the existence of that postal facility if the City Hall was no longer there and the possibility of maintaining that postal location for mail distribution regardless of the City Hall site and usage. A library was discussed for the City Hall site. The current location on Highway 12 was discussed in regard to it’s adjacency to that site for city hall/library accessibility. The potential to have an overall campus of public service buildings (i.e. city hall, library, school) was felt to be a service plus for the community. One committee member suggested that the building site be large enough to have a central medical helicopter pad for emergency use. The potential of a facility upus big enough to hold a fire station mentioned. The fire station location was stated by the consultant to be dependent as much on location of potential volunteers as well as adjacency for response time throughout the City of Orono. With this, the committee understood that the fire station facility, if it wore to occur, would be a separate type of need and should be independently studied for location. In reviewing the overall types of spaces, the committee concensus was that the public areas of the building (i.e. - council and mooting rooms) should be centrally located off of an easily accessible lobby space. All of these rooms should be flexible and divisible for easy community usage. The council area should be sot up such that smaller council meetings will not use the whole room. For larger meetings the room could be opened up as a larger area for seating. A central lunchroom, shared equipment, and service and restroom facilities for both police and city hall, was felt to be appropriate. The cor^* ‘tee liked the concept of having public works, city hall and police all on one site. Th:-- 3t was favored by the committee to provide a central staff and service potential as create any • ''onomies through shared usage. The committee also felt that the cnufOi area and meeting center should bo set up to allow for cable television with proper ventilation and acoustics for adequate meeting purposes. 1 SITE OPTIONS The committee reviewed ail of the sites. There was extensive discussion about what a city hall, police, public works facility is. how it relates to service location, and the overall relationship to »he community. The committee's overall response for their site criteria is as follows: Easy to get to Not in a residential area Does not take residential property Easy to locate per directions to peopie Near public facilities of a similar natu. e Accessible to City utilities Large enough to be a campus of facilities for future needs as yet tindetermined Open for building expansion and growth The consultant presented numerical site evaluation forms that were reviewed by the committee. The committee chose to rank tl e sites more on the above key issues and ranked by hand vote. The con "vttee ranker the sites as follows; Zone 1 - Site F This site was felt the best to meet all of the criteria tne committee. A location of somewhere between Highway 12. Sixth Avenue North, and Old Crystal Bay Road was felt appropriate. The committee didn ’t have any concerns about a more central location or a relationship to the existing city hail site. The general view was that Highway 12 is the main feeder for the community (as well as Highway 15). The school was the largest symbol for Orono. City facilities adjacent to the school area further reinforced the identity of Orono. The adjacent library and possible arena was a plus for other adjacent community facilities. Zone 5 - Site E at County Road 15 This site represented an appropriate area and was the second site considered by the committee. The public works was a good fit with the County facility. This site received far less interest than the Highway 12/Old Crystal Bay Road area. It was felt to be somewnal small and the access seemed to be sc'mewhat difficult. Zone 3 - Site A - Existing City Hall Site This site was regretted as being too small and would require buying private homes to be expanded. It would make a great park. The committee fell that this facility for a long-term home for the Orono police and city hall was in conflict with the residential development that was adjacent. Zone 4 > Site D This site was rejected by the Committee as far too residential and inappropriate for the area. Zone 2 - Site B This site was rejected as not accessible and inappropriate because it was dearly a residential area. This site was also felt to be better used as a park. The committee clearly favored a location near other institutional and community buildings within Orono as a location that was ciearly non-residential. The committee discussed upcoming meeting Items. The agenda for the next meeting was to include typical building floor plan arrangements, project cost projections, and financing options. The next neeting date is set for Jur^ 14th, with the following meeting date to be set at that time. • •PHELIMINAHY COST IMPACTS G/n/DO Ill OTYOFO<IONO NOJ3S A5SCSSMCNT STUOY arr 1 lAu I’uiM.ic vwonKS an; oihions 9.4«l SF. co.sr 5 F.COST OTY MALL POLICE DLPT. ' 17.520 S.F. 1. OUUXNG COMSTilUCnON CITY hall ncw congthlictioh POUCC PUiU-lC WOOKG NCV/ CONamuCTlON •5.000 S.F. UNHEAnO STORAGC AOOSF. A4ASF. A1.402.320 A 1,412.400 A 150.000 inillLlC WOHKS UNMEATED STOI1AOE 29.425 S.F 5.000 SF. rAjoTorAi.A2.'K14.720 yiL OI'IIONS SITCTOOCSUXCTCO OIMION4 arYIIALL I'OLICE 1‘UIILIC WOlIKS 2“3«TE otvcLOHMair •an uTHiTics •aaiLS coMMtCTioNS • L ANDSCAI**! T,'- - • NINO •UiUiMtl'fOWaCL' IITCH •OEMOLII'ON m.u *oial A r..t)on A (jN.oun A tiO.OUO A A .l'...000 A 2/0.000 3l OTHcncooriMi'Acn •LANO C03T •SALE Of LXtST. MUNlOPAL aTG •sale Of POnriON of 5f. /tn i*ono aiE •HiiAaHO COSTS (CITY HALL 4 mmuc WOIWS HAVE SCHAHATC tONSTHOCTION SCHLCXJLtS) • A 205.000 A .14.500 A 150.000 arc RCEATCO COSTS SUOTOTAL A 350,500 4. HOOFCSaONAL FEES 0 7 U2 H A 250.100 OCYCLOPMCNT COSTS SUUTOTA A3.505.320 a OONOINC COSTS A CO.OOO CTtOTAL f'a CIUTY COS I IIAliCE ai.si4.n7o __________________________________________ 7. CONI1NCCNCY0 10%A 333.4/0 a. F'uitNia iNCs A couitmeht •C.ll. ALLOWANCE 0 Sto SI*. •IVY/. EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCC •SANO A SALT STOUACE A 175.000 A 110.000 A Ts nno •IllOf ESaONAL FEES A 3(X).000 A 7/.noo ‘SUIIIOIAI.• MM) 0. MlSCI LLANEOUSIII.MS • TCLLP1 lONE/CO*4MUNlCATlONG EOUIP •COMr^lTLII EOUIIY4LNT •MOVINO COSi S •INFLAIIOTJ FACTOH 3% 1*01 YEAH ‘ANNUAL Oin-PATINT. COSTS iiiioiiiimciiASi; IIUOHIUMCIIASE A 15.000 A 109.300 A 00 000((^l»'I.OIrt ’nl<o) A 5n.000(Piil>l< W(¥ks) • 101790.1 TO: Mayor auid City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra DATS: October 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Navarre Heights Drainage COUNCIL MEETING OCT 2 2 1990 CITY OF ORONO Attachment: ISSUE - A. Navarre Heights Memo Dated 10/3/90 B. Proposed Schedule for Project Development C. Drainage Area Map D. Letter to Neighbors Dated 10/11/90 1. Provide an opportunity for those individuals who were given the wrong time for the public hearing an opportunity to voice tbmlr comments regarding the project. 2. Present a possible schedule for further pursuing the issue. 3. Determine whether Council desires to proceed further with plans and specifications on the project at this time. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's October 8, 1990 Council meeting the issue'relating to the incorrect notice times of the public hearing were addressed. It was decided to provide additional opportunity for persons to express their opinions on the matter. Attachment D represents a letter transmitted to the persons in the neighborhood regarding this item. Additionally Attachment C indicated on the petition originally presented to the Council where they are located as there was some question as to whether they were in the proposed district or not. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the input. 2. Direct plans and specifications be continued and establishment of a project public hearing on the matter for the November 13, 1990 Council meeting. 3. Direct staff to take no further action regarding this matter. 4. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATI^ON - It is recommended that unless there is subs'tanrfal evidence or new objections to the contrary that the plans and specifications be prepared with a public hearing on the project to be held at the Council's November 13, 1990 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council direct continuance of the project for a public hearing on November 13, 19i>0. Ayes __, Nays _ . cc: Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, 55391 Tony Gleekel, John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer 10390.2 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator\^ TO: FROM: DATB: October 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Navarre Heights Drainage Attachment: C. Paulette A. Bohlen Letter Received 10/2/90 ISSUE - Subsequent to the p*,h iTshfnc'^the 7”jo’.»a'd..lr.a to ..p,... t»,it oPi.c.100., “"''"■..".““.o' ff/iio'."'and specifications are are accepted or bids are receiveu ALTERNATIVES - Alternatives in this case are as follows-. 5ofrlr‘=vT^i-. '.;il.."thyVto)«t'‘i'. Si:-;..'. specs are drawn prior to going to bids. ■to“.X“t.'.'^^ .u; ■ express any further information regard!..^ the p 3 3. Table foi further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the following process be Utilized: lot/r •-vt. '.“/s the plans and specs. Hold a proj. -t public hear, ar the time that the plans and snels ire r^eived beto.e bids are ordered. upon receipt of bids have the special assessment hearing . Order the special assessment. Depending on alternatives received order the project PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council ?llow those interested to present their thoughts and concerns regarding this item on the agenda at the October 22, 1990 meeting prior to further work being done on this project and another public hearing would be scheduled at the time plans and specs are completed. Ayes __, Nays __. 83090.1 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING i,«,.. s,:™ k5.%u"ch “S«.f%i77V;o “VK^ South. The public hearing is for the purpose of considering an tmderground storm sewer system for Navarre Heights geMtally described as those properties east of 31aine Avenue north of Lyric Avenue south of Crystal Place and west of Shadywood Road (County Road 19) . Engineers estimated cost of this project is $32,200. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Dorothy M. Hallin City Cleric Published in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of September._10, 1990 and September 17, 1990. c. 91390.5 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate September 13, 1990 '' 1 -C'; SUBJECT: Storm Sewer System - Navarre Heights Area Attachment: ISSUE - A. Storm Sewer Memo Dated 8/23/90 B. Hearing Notice Published 9/10 and 9/17/90 to ordering plans and1. Hold a public hearing prior specifications on the project. 2. Determine whether Council desires to have plans and specs developed on the project. 3. Determine type of desired solution. INTRODUCTION - This issue was discussed at the Council*s^ August 21 f 19$(5 irfeeting with a public hearing scheduled for the September 24, 1990 meeting. Attachment 3 reflects the h.aring notice that was transmitted. DISCUSSION - In addition to the issue of whether the Counc^il desires to go ahead with the proposed project or not is an issue what alternatives exist for resolving the issue. Alternatives regarding the storm -.^ater ponding are as follows: A. Status Quo - Taking action to leave matters^as they are with no formal drainage system. The resident may choose to do something minimal on their property. B. Surface Drainage - As noted in Attachment A a surface drainage outline had Deen prepared as a possible alternative that could be done privately. It is our understanding that a neighborhood petition to request that this matter be undertaken and the City do so as a public project to be assessed has been circulated although the City has not received a copy. C. Underground Storm Water Piping - This is the project that has been proposed for a considerable period of time and is designed for a five year storm. In this situation this may be more expensive than a surface solution, but also the one that perhaps limits the city's liability tv. the greatest degree. • In addition the alternatives for financing are: 1. Private Financing - Any of these alternatives could be "do’ne by the neighbors in conjunction with I each otherr howaver, the larger the cost of the project the more difficult it becomes. 2. Public Financing - This would entail the City engaging a contractor and specially assessing the cost against the storm sewer area that is served. Not only does this put -he city’s stamp of approval on the project but regardless of the route taken puts the city at risk for financing to the degree the risk has not been limited by special assessment waivers. The City does have some concern regarding the city's oarticipation inabove ground a storm sewer project in this particular situation. The underground solution would be built to the 5 year standard and the city's liability would probably be to the extent of the 5 year design, however, the above ground solution may in fact result in the assumption that it will handle any storm. while this may not be the case, it may handle the water better than not doing anything. An avenue related to an above ground solution wou-d be the possibility that the City "reacquire" this parcel from the Cuffs as part of the solution. ALTZRNATI^/ES Issue 1. Public Hearing 1. Hold the public hearing. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Continue the public hearing. Issue 2. Develooment of Plans and Specs 1. Direct plans and specs be developed. 2. Direct an alternative system be designed. 3. Take no action. 4. Table for further discussion. Issue 3. I J 1. Approach a) Status Quo b) Aboveground c) Underground 2. Financial a) Private b) Public c) Waiver of Assessment RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the public hearing be herd*"?nd upon "conclusion of the public hearing not undertake plans and specs until the neighbors have agreed upon a solution and signed "^pet it ion waivers if they desire the City to do a public project. G PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council after the public hearing direct staff to undertake plans and specs to the point that a significant majority of the neighbors are interested in doing the project and have signed petition waivers if they desire the City to do a public project. Ayes __, Nays 2 laso September 25, 1990 Mayor and Council Members City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear sirs and madams: Last evening I, and a group of neighbors, arrived at the council chambers for a public hearing on the Navarre storm sewer project at 7:30 as indicated on the attached notice from the city. by this time the council was acting on the issue, the attached agenda shows it was heard at 7:00 not The outcome was ordering an assessment survey (costing an estimated $2,500) and waiting to see how many would appeal their assessment. I am NOT in favor of this project and do not feel we should be assessed for it. In addition I am very angry about attending a public hearing and not being able to be heard. I feel that before $2,500 is spent on this project the affected neighbors should be able to express their opinions. When the Cuffs purchased the vacant lot next to their heme there was a puddle in front, they lived there and knew the problem existed yet they went chead and purchased it. Some time after that they cleared the lot of the brush and dead trees and did some landscaping with earth-moving equipment. While it improved the appearance of the lot, it exaggerated the water problem. Much of the water which now sits in the street used to drain to the back of that lot. I understand th wanting to have a dry lot ... I DO NOT understand them moving water out of their lot and into the street and then claiming it's all of our problems and we should all pay for it! I further resent being told by their attorney after the meeting that there is really no reason to appeal the assessment because even if a judge would reduce the assessment amount you have to pay an attorney to fight it sc you're spending the same amount of money. It appears that appealing an assessment is not a viable alternative; we should not have to pay an attorney to make our opinions known! He then expressed his opin:.on that $700 "really isn't that much" Ours is a double lot (as are many others) so we are looking at $1,400 and maintain that it IS a lot to us. I would challenge him to explain to the widow who lives next door that $700 "isn't much money" I uooke with her and her son this morning and they feel it is! September 25, 1990 Page Two As you are well aware, the majority of the signacures Karen collected on her petition were from Lyric Avenue and therefore wouldn't even be affected by the assessments. There are many of us opposed to this project and we want to be heard. We are requesting that a public hearing be held on this matter (with proper notification) BEFORE any further action is taken. I trust we will be hearing from you shortly regarding this matter. Sincerely, / - ^ i Ll J (Mrs.) Beth Escher 3556 Livingston Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 AG3NDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1990, 7:00 P.M. (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. BOLL CALL 1. Recognition of Employment - John Sass PUBLIC HEARING - Storm Sewer System Navarre Heights Area ^:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING > I 3. Highway 12 Imorovements 83090.1 CITY OP ORONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I 1990, South. A public hearing will be conducted on September 24, a^7;30 P.M.^ in the Orono Council Chambers, 1275 Brown Road The public hearing is for the purpose of considering an underground storm sewer system for Navarre Heights generally described as those properties east of Blaine Avenue north of Lyric Avenue south of Crystal Place and west of Shadywood Road (County Road 19) . Engineers estimated cost of this project is $32,200. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed Improvement will be heard at this meeting. !i Dorothy N. Hallin City Clerki I i : : I.published in the Laker and Pirneer newspaper September. 10, 1990 and September 17, 1990. the week of 0 1 5^^ i90D /-dLocxlcfec . ^(sCC • • v3 -5 V 4. Cl^ )C^, 3'^'')0 Ci-c^ CO^r<,L^y.CcL^ AIM ■S5s^i ^(I’/jJ ^ ^1 ~ C(j) 'iJ vJ^<l/V Oid-CCTj cH-cL CcL<^i,tLC . J _ w 6^x OPi^csEh Ce tA-C ^K-ii-p c-<^CoL (iiacA^^CJ y<i'i- '){(lL'C‘~'^\ji. fictti^Ltj , )Cin.<:C -OCc ct-tq^ “ A-CCc^w C^-'* y^CcCz-iccL^ ^‘C 7 oC^ / t^C 'LtyiLL. C^kiLic/c.v.ci CC cm ' c V C /C<5-C(.C5_. J<3i-)<_4 'A.*-), iLcyyCx. J cAjCccIcC cV^ ~? CO p tL>~- iicu iCcC'^ axL^C<rC /Ci 'l>.-<_ /Ax.aA<a ^U /tC 4l :>^iL6-4t_ i\UrL^' ii /(iloroUtC. -UU;(.<vcTC^j Jj./Uo'u- c^j- C-Cctl<r)0’ a.'(4J (t<-j d<-\XM.(:C <;-/(ciJ Lc(UC«-:cf ■t/(.v_ 0 ‘j ■ ■ dA^i^cCc y\.e^Y‘<^\Aiu K.^ -(jLc d<rj,<--)C4<_C /"■)Cc^:tc^^ nC (Xc cuv-u^ cy' 6Ac jpu'tU.cKj. Cyt /oU 4(.’-<.t/ i/x 6 n<yC'Uuy-6cr>0 -tXoA X-^OtCrXJ Xdt do iXcJ pC(MC6t; ■ 'dP c0(4j 't<:h6'(J iyc\^(xca^CCu -Xx? -ti^jp X'-Xt/ ^ jonth } X (dt^ Me-L^c^cr iXc pct(^U(L tXtt ycxax • ^'Aidct Aa<^ .^8*70 r/ d/4. .CtXcflX, ^L^TCiLCU-V^xy 44tii4LoC do jO^-CVi/C fc/co jy^o-JCcC iLtc-yLfp ^ I'-a.i. ^ (jdcV i (/tC<c(/<j t/jL C-( -t/tf-U.O' U.~Lo kl(-<\-iLCci.- U'tCC c::6i--c:edt.Cti cij , C'c->lc,.cc<u.\^ Ic <M- ' (yjX<-*rK (r/ njx CXt&^ ,<Ji(j^^ hU r^c/U;auuc^i^ <^-^Lc(.Lua<C^^. cHicru /Koui^ 'U (-<-•-; \crC t-j /U.-i.( dXA.~jXo-,<stc fjc/ ' / u /“tiu- C'cyi/o L-'ry.‘.uiJ^ •£/-(. c:.dt-'<rtiU-,cc‘' Li^<. I ^ , ^ ^ j 0 ♦JLucCC /L r^<Ttv."'V.C(1L ^'^ Cv^u.L' A. C-C o v«_^ (cv_ V,■cL*.^c/(:^.CC^^ S^"^- c- iU.^S (->-,c/Ltu-^Sui<xu {./u:.’^ CVCiCtCfJ^ -JtjL. /DI^V x X c ;i.f Ck _AJ-C(_/ l iC "C/U. j . / . - , Nj Uf^ • » A. c w C Lc -) X c ;C I "to /Ldt C tiJCiK i^ /cc o tcV- ■ ‘0 cCl ;Lc-C. Cv-OnCL cl VccL'LcrC u C/Ul yo'toU Y^iX (Tw ' J t • Ctc')^ 6't>C'wCcif')0 l-^.l«.-4 AC (HL/l<- Vw S-,C-t>-<L /u.^LVc'.C'- f is (Co,LC T:/L<^ I V -/ / ^ • \ u) - '.V A-vico ur£ totcj M<^p<n^d^ t;/A ^UCLAClo i'jL oCx. c6c'uc (lC<. {T>0 Lk^-'iL/L /-X-LCcttc ^ - ( ■ N I t ; PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT NAVARRE HEIGHTS DRAINAGE Receive Preliminary Report Order Plans & Specifications Approve Plans & Specifications Receive Bids Public Hearing Assessment Hearing Award Bids Start Construction Complete Construction 1989 October 22, 1990 November 12, 1990 December 6, 1990 December 10, 1990 January 14, 1991 February 25, 1991 May 20, 1991 June 28, 1991 II CITY I OF ■ OROND / Post Office Box 66•Crystal Be On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October Hr 1990 Dear Resident: '■’he u'-;^ hea-ir.c was nelc at : C *. -**a - “V~ no-.ic; naiT^c'^c ycu however s-.a-.ed oha- --he rur lie rear_rrg woulo be held at T:3C p.m. Therefore,, sene of yet we.e^^.c- ..-e opportunity tc express your feelir.es or. t.-.is ratter. The Council action or. September 24tr, was tc Engineer re proceed wrrh plans and spedr-oarions anc .c ^.e-- bids. Since rhe public hearing V wof-'--nc'.'f -his voluntary on the part of the City, arot.ner pu^-xw " * rime is nor nandarory. Ke will however scnec--e —-y?““®r Oorober 22, 199C ro allow rnose persons rnar were no.^a^llo^e soeak the opporruniry rc cc sc. T.-.e is - e. cpmenr^c. soecificarions will be nelc in abeyance penning --f ®“ha^“ mee^-rc. If the Council, at t.nat r'eeting, Cx-ew-s -..a- plans and'Voecificaricns be developed, anerher public hearing Sill be held prior rc ordering bids. Ir cios nl taken, the City will hold an assessment nearing p.io. -c o-oe-.n. the pr'-ject. The meeting starts at 7:CC p.m. ar.; cues , ^w-ease ca-.! me at 473-7157. Sincerely, 'John R. Gerhardson, Public Werxs Director JRG/tln BLILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING AI)NtlMsTR.MION & MNANCl - 473-735* lAX-4734)510 PI BLIC \50RK.S - 473-735V October 21, 1990 ocr i$ao Mayor and Council Members City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: The attached poll/petition was taken of accessible property owners who would be financially affected by the proposed Navarre Heights storm sewer project. It reflects that a majority of property owners are not in favor of the project as presently proposed. The signa tures on lines 10, 11, 15 and 16 are from people who did sign the Cuffs' petition but who have since withdrawn their support. Addi tionally, the first name on the Cuffs' petition, Donna (Bouchie) Meyers should also be removed as she moved out in the Spring of 1989. We are not unsympathetic to the Cuffs' desire to build a garage on their extra lot and would offer t 3 following solution to the Cuffs and the City for consideration Grant a building permit to the Cuffs to place a garage on the eastern boundary of the lot (opening to the west), and as far north as needed to accomodate the depth of driveway needed. Make the permit contingent on their regrading the western side of that lot to restore the natural drainage that existed when they made their lot purchase. Their present driveway would probably have to be removed as well to reduce the amount of hardcover and to aid drainage. We feel that this alternative would offer the Cuffs the garage and driveway they want, the majority of the rainwater would again drain off the street benefitting the City and nearby residents, and this could be accomplished without assessments having to be made to the entire neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ^ (Mrs.) Beth^Escher 3556 Livingston Ave. Enclosure (Mrs.) Shirley Spalding 3508 Livingston Ave. / i ^ PETITION N. th. undersigned, hereby petition for the installation of a ltor» 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 swaitp. This will be brought before the City Council of Orono at the next meeting. This will collect all run off between Ha^arre Ln. and Uain« Ave. Address // ) { U/iu<rm __--------------------2-s>'y^ 7 7? 2>^r'^9'S-/e>i^ — ' yyyrt/ t ^(2v.[3T?m-------------- /0y> .. -x<r^O --------S^-30-?C ^. /y^ ^ /^A . --------7 -! - fc ) y^yj^n^ufin llliL-----y-/'9z f' -----------------V :-y ^ - Z __ ?.<r^ c.u^-/zy P6£~c<----------------- 7-fO n -------/ *"-/—'c-------------D ----------------—----------- j ------------------------------------------------------------ — 1 OROKO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HEI.D OCTOBER 8, 1990 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 COUNCIL MEETING uCl2‘>ia30 CITY OF ORONO ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Callahan, Councilmembers Nettles, Goetten and Peterson. Mayor Grabek was absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building fc Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Tvorks Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Vee. #1590 MINNEGASCO, INC. 530 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PUBLIC HEARING 7:02 TO 7:18 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Tom Meyer was present representing Minnegasco. City Administrator reviewed this request for an up to 5 year conditional use permit on a piece of industrially zoned property on Old Crystal Bay Road. Minnegasco is looking to install a heat saving plant at this location. It is a fenced in area of about 150' X 150’, which during the winter months will have a semi-trailer with a vaporizer located on this site. During critically cold times when their supply is low a liquified natural gas tanker will come in. The operation will be supervised by individuals during that time and once the need is passed, the tanker will be removed and just the vaporizer will remain on 1 cation. During the non-winter months the vaporizer will be removed. The Planning Commission has recommended approval with conaitions regarding natural screening. Minnegasco feels because of the temporary nature that the screening will be cost prohibitive and are proposing an alternate type of false brickwork to meet the opaqeness requirement. Acting Mayor Callahan noted that the original application was also a public hearing but was for property located across the street. This public hearing is held to conform to the public hearing requirements. Goetten asked if the fencing issue had been resolved. Tom Meyer presented plans showing layout with fencing. He noted that this is a temporary use, a maximum of five years, and actually anticipating 1 to 3 years use. Distribution in this area is weak and would be used to forestall outages in extremely cold weather, below 15 degrees. The unit will sit in the middle of the property. Photos of a similar unit used in Spring Park last year were presented to Council for review. The vaporizer is mounted on a flatbed trailer and a tank truck would be pulled up in the cold weather for 3-4 months per year. During the OROHO REGULAR CODHCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING #1590 MINNBGASCO CONTINUED remaining months the property would basically be vacant except for the ^owAr pole. A map showing affected usage area was presented. A permanent installation will be piped from the Minnetrista area and connected to the distribution system on Crystal Bay Road. Netties asked if neighbors had a fencing preference. Meyer responded that they had not heard from the neighbors. Mr. Goetten asked if the City had heard from any neighbors. Callahan answered by stating that the screening issue came spontaneously from Planning Commission while considering other concerns of this application. Mabusth also stated that the applicant proposed cycloae fencing which offers no opaqueness. The City code requires 5T% opaqeness. The Planning Commission was responding to the code requirements not the concern of neighbors. Goetten raised the point of 6' fencing. Mabusth stated code requires a minimum of 5' for any kind of outdoor storage. Goetten noted that an 0' fence would then have to be very solid. Tom Meyers replied, "This 8' fence is what is required by the Federal regulations when we deal with the liquified natural gas facilities." Minnegasco feels the chain link fence provides best security with the screening required. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Nettles, to approve Resolution #2879, granting a conditional use p>ermit for the temporary installation of a portable liquid natural gas vaporizer at 530 Old Crystal Bay Road with chain link fencing and wind screening defined as "open" type. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-O. Motion Passed. CONSENT AGENDA* City Administrator Bernhardson asked to have item to the Consent Agenda and tabled. #6 added It was moved by Counci1member Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to app'rove the Consent Agenda with the exception of item #6, which is to be tabled. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays^C, Motion passed. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the September 24, 1990 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-O, Motion passed. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Dick Hint, Chairman of the Park Commission, was present and made a report to the Council of five areas of concern. 1. Planning - Park Commission has done an inventory of existing par’:s and have come up with preliminary recommendations regarding some inexpensive improvements, i.e. new signs and benches. They also have a colored map showing existing parks in Orono, including regional parks and private recreational facilities. 2. Neighbors - Park Commission is trying to work with neighbors surrounding parks. One difficult area has been Sandy Beach on Cherry ‘venue. Late night use and harassment has been an extreme prot m. The Commission is recommending that the dock at Sandy Beach not be put out next summer and the beach be closed at 6:00 p.m. If this does not help solve tha problem, the police will be asked to patrol the area more closely. Bederwood Park has also been an active area. The Orono Baseball Association was authorized to build a hardball field. A soccer field is also available. The neighbors in this area have co‘ «5 up with a series of recommendations including a playground, kidney~shaped ice skating rink, tennis court and track (Vita course) around the outside edge. The Commission is in favor of many of these recommendations, however the tennis court is probably too expensive and the need has not been established for it. The Commission would like to see the skating rink put in this fall. John Gerhardson states the City staff does not have available time. Nettles asked the dimensions of the ice skating rink. Flint did not have exact measurement, only that it would be kidney shaped so it could not be used for hockey. Goetten asked if costs for these proposals were available. Flint replied the tennis courts would be $25,000-30,000. The remainder would be less than $20,000. Playground equipment would be $5,000-10,000. The small picnic shelter/pavillion would be minimal. Nettles asked for an explanation of "Vita course". Dick explained that there are stations with something to do at each stop, such as a horizontal ladder or calf stretch. 3. Park Fee Interpretation - There have been questions regarding the adopted ordinance. The first question was in regard to language in Subparagraph 7 which provided that "if land had not previously been subdivided and a fee previously paid, the fee would be paid at the time of the issuance of a building permit for the primary structure and this would occur if the subdivision had occurred prior to the time we had a park dedication fee." Staff has indicated this creates difficulties because they have to check each building permit as it comes up to ORONO REGULAR COOliCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 3, 1990 PARK COmiSION COMMENTS CONTINUED see if a {.ark dedication fee has already been paid. It also requires that the fair market value of the property ba determined not at the time the building permit is issued bur rather at the time the subdivision occurred. This means possibly going back 20 years in records. The City Attorney has expressed concerns over the legality of the ordinance. The State Statute under which the park dedication fee is adopted provides that a_t the time of subdivision land or money can be taken for park purposes. The Commission is recommending that this provision be deleted. Staff also feels the revenue lost will not be substantial since most property in Oronc has had a park dedication fee paid with it or will have at the time of subdivision. PARK DEDICATION PEES ORDINANCE #89, 2ND SERIES It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Peterson, to adopt the amendment to Ordinance #82, to eliminate Section 2 (F) relating to the development of land previously platted. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED The question of how to value a property that has an existing structure on it is another matter in respect to the park dedication fee schedule. The value of the existing structure should not be taken into account. Should the value of the lot on which that structure is located also be excluded? More knowledge of previous actions is required before the Park Commission can make a recommendation. 4. Bike/Hike Trail. This was a high priority by most residents in the Parks Survey of Orono residents a year ago. The Park Commission had hoped to "piggyback" on work being done by the County to construct a bike path at the time the County improves roads within the City. This is more difficult than originally envisioned. John Gerhardson, Dick Flint, Tad Jude and Pat Murphy, the Director of Public Works for the County, met to discuss County Road 6. The County is requesting a wider right- of-way. Could there be a place to work in a bike path? The rural roads require a ditch, thus making a total of 80' needed for the road. One option would be to use the shoulder of the road and mark it as a bike path. This would be unsatisfactory for children going to school as there would be traffic on one side and the ditch on the other. The other option would be to give the County a wider right-of-way, however the County could just forget about the bike path and use the extra footage for a wider road, etc. The Park Commission has concluded it would be better to have control over the bike path outside of the ditch area. This can be done by asking for a fee interest at the time of the development or by asking for an easement at the time of development. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 PARE COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED The Park Commission has been working with Fullerton Properties to build a bike trail in connection with Shadcwood Farm development at County Road 6 and Willow Road. This is at the intersection of two tri^iis designated on the conceptual plan. They also feel it could be used to connect with the school property and us*»d to bring people from the Dickey Lane area, Sugarwoods area and the Shadcwood area to the schools. There would be Willow Road and Old Orchard Road to cross. This makes an important area for the bike trails to begin. Callahan asked if Flint was satisfied with the current proposition with Fullerton. Flint replied there have been several problems. The Park Commission was brought into discussions very late. Callahan asked Flint to wait until developer was present for discussion of the matter before Council. 5. Long Lake - The Park Commission is involved with this lake because of Summit Beach Park. There are many jurisdictions involved in the management of the lake. The Freshwater Biological Institute made a presentation to the Park Commission regarding actions that could be taken to prevent milfoil in the lake. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also made a presentation regarding a study they are undertaking on watershed. The "Save Our Lake - Orono/Long Lake Partnership" also had several members represented at the Park Commission meeting. No milfoil is known to exist in Long Lake and the Park Commission will be working with these groups to preserve the quality of the lake. The City of Long Lake has adtpted an ordinance to restrict the use of jet skis on the Lake. This will restrict the time they can be used and also prevent them from coming within a certain distance of swimming facilities. That ordinance is currently being reviewed by the DNR which also must approve such an ordinance. The Park Commission has approved the concept but has not seen the final language of the ordinance. When they see this, it will be brought before the Council with their recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE There were no comments from Jeffrey Johnson, Planning Commission Representative. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gabriel Jabbour reserved his rights to comment at the time of the LMCD Comprehensive Plan/Shoreland Regulations agenda item. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1532 FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. 2225 SIXTE AVENUE NORTH FINAL SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY ROAD NAME APPROVAL RESOLUTION #2880 Mr. Joe Franks, Vice President of Fullerton Properties, Inc. was present for the review of this application. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2880 approving the road names of Cox Farm Road and Shadowood Drive. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. City Administrator Bernhardson expla ■‘i that the other portion for consideration of final suDdiv :iO' is the issue relating to conti. ?ency on the easement being ranted over the drainage and utility easements for a bike trail. The application for this property was originally filed prior to new Park Dedication Fees going into effect. $200.00 for each lot was to go to City. After discussions, the City found the drainage and utility areas ^unenabie to bike trails and the applicant indicated a willingness to allow trails under certain conditions. The developer would like no construction on this drainage and utility easement until such time as the City has acquired and is constructing a trail of equal length connecting to this property. The Park Commission reviewed this condition and it is their recommendation that this contingency not be included. Staff sees that the proposal by the developer is not out of line with the development. The City will look at a proposal with all the bike trails, indicate where easements and property are availabe to construct trails, get quotations, study the budget of park dedication and come up with a proposal for constructing a trail in increments. This should help solve this impediment. Acting Mayor Callahan asked for clarification of "take and give back". Bernhardson explained this is a separate issue that entails right-of-way dedication on the western boundary of this property exluding the Jim Cox parcel for the Outlots. This has been used as a yard by Mr. Cox over the years. The City asked for additional right-of-way dedication as part of this plat. Mr. Cox was concerned about this. There is a possibility that Willow Drive, if it is ever reconstructed probably by the County, would be moved to the west so that the additional 7* right-of-way would possibly not be needed. It was originally proposed that the City would automatically grant that back to property owner if not needed. However, because of various laws regarding vacation of roads, the proposal now is that the City would only, at his request, set up the necessary vacation hearings to possibly allow that to happen. Joe Franks addressed the Council. He reviewed the July 9, 1990 meeting at which time the Council granted the preliminary plat approval and issued a resolution with some 15 compliance ORONO REGUUVR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE #1532 - FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. CONTINUED items in it. All of these items have been satisfied after much work and additional money to the seller to wait until the issue of the bike path has been resolved. Fullerton Properties and Mr. Cox have gone ahead based on that resolution and relied on promises by the Planning Commission and Council. After the resolution was passe'^, M»*. Franks wa« contacted by the Park Commission and asked to attend a meeting of the Park Commission. The invitation was received the day of the meeting and Mr. Franks was unable to attend. At that meeting, the Park Commission discussed and acted upon a request that Fullerton Properties grant an easement for the bike path. To this date he has not received official notification or a copy of the minutes of that meeting. At first Mr. Franks was against the bike path feeling that residents who will be affected should have an opportunity to provide input. After meeting with Mr. Gerhardson and Mr. Flint, he saw of their concerns for the master bike path and then agreed to work with them to resolve the bike path issue. The developer has done everything asked except for the bike path. He feels that if there is to be a bike path, it is oniy fair that it should go somewhere. If it does not, then it will not be used and subject to deterioration and will be an eyesore instead of a contribution to the City. After a lengthy conference call last Tuesday between all participants, Mr. Franks thought an agreement had been reached. They backed off on a 2-year moratorium and Mr. Flint agreed that the path should go somewhere. That was also the meeting night of the Park Commission. Mr. Franks was told in that conversation that there would be no reason to attend the Park Commission meeting and he didn't. The bike path issue was discussed again and the Commission decided that it could not live with that one restriction. To sum up, Mr. Franks requested the Council to act on the plat as it has been delayed and they would still like to start this year. He will live with whatever decision is made but would like to see that one restriction of the bike path leading somewhere included in the decision. Harry Martin, Old Long Lake Road, stated as a member of the private sector that it seems Mr. Franks has expressed a plaintive appeal to be informed and allowed to b_ involved in the process of investing in the community. It seems the Council should consider his plea because of the complicated and difficult process of bureacracy which is almost impossible to understand. Acting Mayor Callahin replied that both the developer and Park Commission have had a great deal of communication. He asked Mr. Flint to explain the Park Commission's view. Dick Flint explained that the bike path was conceptually approved by the City Council 2 years ago. This developer is doing a development in one of the key corners of this plan and the Park Commission had no notice until after the preliminary ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE #1532 - FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. CONTINUED approval. Procedures of the City need to be improved so this doesn't occur repeatedly. Mr. Franks should have been invited to the August Park's Commission meeting, but wasn't. This was the first discussion of this matter. The conclusion of the Park Commission is that they would like to build the bike path while the preliminary work is being done in order to show what can be done. The Commission feels it can get approvals to the west of the trail to connect it to City property. There are three private residences to the west which would need their assent to an easement across that property or a condemndation which the Council would need to approve. This is a good segment to begin construction of the bike trail and would like to connect it up as quickly as possible. The Park Commission needs the City's cooperation to build any of the trails. Mr. Flint stated that the current form of easement negotiated with Mr. Franks is not the norm. Most are clean, not subject to other restrictions. There is an existing easement for utilities along the north and west edge stated "you have an easement for utilities". Under the new’ as well as the old ordinance, the City had the right to request a reasonable portion of land to be dedicated for park purposes rather than $200.00 per lot. This could have been requested at the time of the initial application but was not. The request is for an easement over an area that is already subject to a drainage and utility easement. That would mean that telephone poles could be put up without restrictions. If a bike path were there, restrictions would be needed. The concern of the Commission is that it will take a long time to get the cooperation of the City staff to get the bike path pvshed through the rest of the way; whereas if the path were built first, more cooperation would happen and the project could move forth. Acting Mayor Callahan responded by stating that this is the first time the City has gone out to get specific land for park purposes even though land may have been given to the City. It seems there is some justification for the developer in this case to want to have or not have a bike trail system go into his property from one corner to an empty field. It seems what the developer is essentially asking is that he knows there is a plan that will occur in a set time frame so that the path ties in somewhere. Depending on how the easement reads and if there are technical restrictions, problems could occur. Under the circumstances, a bike trail that goes somewhere does not seem too bad. Mr. Pranks replied, "There need be no restrictions on the easement. Again, if we are both honorable groups here, I will accept your say so that when the bicycle path along 6 gets done that you are in the process to do the same thing somewhere else that it connects to, whether it be east, west, or whatever direction." ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 EOMING PILE #1532 - FULLERTON PROPERTIEF, INC. CONTINUED Mr. Flint stated that they would like to connect to the west. What is needed is instructions tor the staff to assist in going forward with this connection. This must be discussed at another time. Mr. Franks brought up the point that Outlet A is not being purchased by Fullerton Properties. It remains Cox property but it is part of this development. He does not feel it totally fair that he be giving easement to a property that he does not intend to purchase. At a better time this could have been negotiated with the Cox family. Callahan stated that there is no point in having an easement if there is a "hole in the middle". Mr. Franks said there will be a number of "holes" as the Cox residence is also not part of the subdivision. Mr. Franks does not disagree with the easement and does not need any restrictions. Glenn Cook, City Engineer, stated that if the Council elects not to allow the path to be constructed to at least indicate that the grading plan shalo. incorporate a grading plan for that strip. Regrading at a later date will be much more expensive to install. Part of the grading plan should incorporate provisions for a pathway 8’ wide. Mr. Franks stated this a new condition and could impact drainage, etc. Mike Gaffron could comment on this. Goetten stated this is one of many thinqs that comes up as a surprise to somebody. If we ask other peopx ? to make good faith efforts in what they are doing in response to us, that in return we made a good faith effort with Mr. Franks and we approved this subdivision. Are we being fair if we push this through because of the lack of attention that he received on this particular project? Acting Mayor Callahan reviewed the series of facts relating to the bike path and this particular property. After all of the trouble getting to this point, Mr. Franks is ■> n agreement with the proposal except for the fact that the bike path tie into a trail. The decision tonight is whether to approve the final subdivision which will contain in it a provision for the easement. Exhibit F in packet. The bike trail plan is a consideration but the City cannot decide in the future to have a bike trail just on the Frank property. Nettles then questioned the grading suggested by Mr. Cook. He asked Mr. Franks if he had any idea how much more this grading plan would cost. Mr. Franks had no idea. Goetten asked if these costs could be obtained. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetu^n, to adopt Resolution #2880 granting the approval of the subdivision as is and requesting the developer to work with the REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE #1532 - FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. CONTINUED staff and Park Commission on the problem of grading. The bike trail easement is included in the resolution. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. #1535 KENNEDy/BUTTERFIBLD 3745-3765 WATERTOWN ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #2881 Mr. Timothy Fafinsky, representing Mrs. Kennedy, was present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application was for a lot line rearrangement in a 5 acre area to place an existing garage totally within the boundaries of the appropriate parcel. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approvel. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2881 granting a lot line rearrange ant to place an existing garage within the property boundaries of 3765 Watertown Road. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1555 LANDSTAR, INC. 2501 OLD BEACH ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. James MacKinnon, representative for Mr. Blanch, was present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief explanation of this application. This is a subdivision that straddles the Orono and Minnetonka Beach line. There would be 3 lots proposed in Minnetonka Beach and 6 lots within Orono, 5 of which would be residential and 1 would be commercial. Both the Minnetonka Beach and Orono Planning Commissions have recommended approval. One of the original parts of this application was that there would be some filling of wetlands in Minnetonka Beach and do some compensation removals in Orono. The Corps of Engineers has denied them the ability to do this so there will be no alteration of wetlands in this proposal. As part of the approval, water and sewer capacity is available, however sewer and water lines would have to be extend' • to the north in Minnetonka Beach. There on or looping into the Lafayette Ridge to serve Lot 1 by County Road 15. would be the overlay and the engineer's CO and gutter for improvements to Old Beach Road. The Park Commission has reviewed this application and would like the cash valued at 8% of $136,000. should be a conr portion, extenr Additionally, t' recommendation of Jeanne Mabusth reviewed the wetland elevation of 932 outlined in yellow on a map displayed. The building envelopes have been designed so they are 26' from the elevation of wetland. The contiguous dry area is determined above the 932 elevation. There is an area of Glencoe soils and a drainageway that connects ORONO REGULAR COURCIL MEBTIfTG HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE #1555 - LANDSTAR, INC. CONTINUED to it. This drainageway area is not included in the dry buildable. Each envelo{,e well exceeds the 1 acre in area. The applicant does net need to apply for the wetland credits under Section 10.55 because he meets the dry buildable area above the 932. She noted the B-4 area. This lot will go back to the foundation for a possible future building or may go to the University. Mr. MacKinnon raised the issue of the City upgrading Old Beach Road. The City is €* iking the developer to share in the cost which is consistent with all previous information. However, in the Memo dated October 5, 1990, Page 5, 3 (D), the applicant is asked to be responsible for the whole upgrading of Old Beach Road. Mabusth stated that this is a conflict in what staff has presented to Landstar. In early reviews, a leveling and 2- bituminous covering of Old Beach Road had been proposed as upgrading by the City. Since ti'.Jtt time the City Engineer has recommended a 32* wide curb and gutter f^^ical urban section for this roadway. If this is the case, a share oy the applicant may be requested and possible assessing benefiting property owners. This was not discussed by the Planning Commission. City Administrator Bernhard son replied that first the Council has to decide if the subdivision is acceptable and then negotiate the type of upgrading. Goetten added that an informational public hearing would have to be held for those residents uiready on Old Beach Road. Mabusth asked for input from JoEllen Hurr as to the type of improvements being discussed for the City of Minnetonka Beach. Hurr replied that initially an overlay was discussed. Acting Mayor Callahan reviewed the history of the Old Beach Road area in which this subdivision is proposed. He questioned the building of homes in this swamp area. Netties replied that he was not comfortable considering this application without knowing what may happen in terms of the road development. He states the sewer may be a consideration because of the water quality. Mabusth stated that the developer has always been aware that he will be paying the costs for the extension of sewer and water. John Gerhardson was asked by Mabusth to comment on the kind of road improvement expected in this area. Gerhardson responded by saying that overlay had been planned for this summer but held off to see what would happen with this application. The neighbors are not being asked for any payment nor is it ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE #1555 “ LANDSTAR, INC. CONTINUED appropriate to ask Landstar for payment. Callahan stated that as the area develops, more boats will be involved and there will be problems with the riparian area along the beach and the LMCD, DNR, etc. will become involved. Mr. MacKinnon said, "I believe our engineer and the City Engineer have looked at some of the questions raised and both have passed on them." Mr. Callahan agreed. Goetten replied that she has also questioned the buildability of this area. Mabusth stated that the facts indicate this is a buildable area. Goetten has concerns over the houses falling into the wetlands, then who is responsible. Callahan notes that all the engineers have said it wouldn't h’^o*^'»n and all these things have passed. Goetten said, "But we ha ound sometimes engineers aren't correct." Acting Mayor Callahan stat that a few Council meetings ago that it became apparent this issu^ would be forthcoming and we look into the matter of wetland protection. The response of the staff seems to be that we don’t need any more wetland protection because we have all these codes. It also seems to Callahan that as more of the development gets into poorer land, we are not doing right by the land or community. Goetten states these are definitely marginal tracts and questions if the Council would be responsible in approving this application. Nettles asked where 26' came from. City Administrator Bernhardson replied that it has been in the City Code for many years and may be a DNR requirement. Mabusth stated that in earlier proposals of PRD's of this property there were up to 20 some units taking credit of the wetlands areas and that would have been a major impact on this property. It would have beeen difficult to deny coming in under Section 10.55 seeking credit of the wetland area. Mabusth suggested Acting Mayor Callahan may be interested in amending code to not give credit to wetlands in sewered area. That may be a way to get control. This developer has proposed a development with 1 acre lots above the 932 elevation. Bernhardson states that one of the concerns is the quality of the soils it is built on. There have been no soil borings actually done within the building pads at this point and is usually determined at a later time. This may address CounciImember Goetten's concerns about buildability of this property. Even though it is outside the wetlands, the soils may be such that they may not be buildable. ORONO R£GUIJUI COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE 11555 - LANDSTAR, INC. CONTINUED Mabusth reminds that this area received fill in 1978 and 1979 with the Lafayette Dredging project. Those areas are outlined in Exhibit N. Proposed house sites are not in these fill areas. Soil borings will be required with every building permit to determine the types of foundations to be installed. Mr. MacKinnon replied that many of these concerns had been raised with the Planning Commission at previous meetings. Because of that, additional engineering work had been done including total recalculation of the watershed area. The Corps of Engineers, the City Engineer and their engineer were all involved. Even if you go to the 934' mark there is still dry contiguous soils well in excess of the requirement. Nettles asked Mabusth if the building envelope that is separated by a drainageway is treated as a contiguous envelope. She replied yes, because it is a drainageway and it is not defined as a designated wetland. However, if someone wanted to build on that site it would require a conditional use permit and variance because you would be crossing over drainageways. The drainageway would also require a 26' setback. The dry buildable, ar* a calcs, are everything above the 932 elevation. The building envelope is not the area calcs and is much more restrictive. Nettles replied, "I don't see any way we can turn it down." Goetten asked if we have a history on this property. Mabusth replied the only history we have is the Old Lafayette Dredging project and they filled in areas with the dredged spoils. No building envelopes are shown within that filled area, but there is nothing that says they could not build in that area if they want to pay for the expensive foundation that would have to be built. Mabusth states both she and the applicant seek direction from the Council regarding the improvement of Old Beach Road. CounciImember Peterson asked, issues?" Isn't that two separate Goetten replied not really because it all comes along with the whole subdivision process. Peterson states that if you are going to assess adjacent property owners, they would also have to be notified. Mabusth states that's why John Gerhardson was asked to address this issue. Goetten asked, "If the road would have to be repaired and upgraded purely because of the fact that the developer is putting in these houses if that is approved, then explain why the adjacent propevty owners would have to pay for it." ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER S, 1990 XOHING FILE #1555 - LAHDSTAR, INC. CCNTINUED Bernhardson states that regardless of whether this property is developed or not, the City intended to do an overly. With this property in for subdivision, it was appropriate to wait until afterwards. It was not the intent that any of the abutting property owners help the developer pay for it. The only issue might be that if the road were upgraded to include curb and gutter and staff may explore that. Bernhardson's recommendation is to give the developer conceptual approval at this point and bring back to Council the road in.ormation as to what would be proposed, the costs and the developer's share. Acting Mayor Callahan states that Mr. MacKinnon is very justified in feeling that he has met the preliminary requirements. However, Callahan still thinks houses should not be built there, period. He would like to ha e this set over for two weeks and see if there is any information that suggests houses should not be built there. Goetten added that some of the other information needed would also be provided ut that time. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to table this application to the October 22, 1990 Council Meeting. In that time, staff will gather information on the questions that have been asked. Motion, Ayes- 4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1579 GARRY EVERSON 4755 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Everson were present for this matter. Bernhardson reviewed this application and noted that this request was conceptually denied at the September 24, 1990 meeting. The applicant has worked with staff and is willing to remove the deck so that there is a 10' setback from the property line, bringing hardcover down to 49.9%. The applicant asks that this be considered in the denial resolution. Mrs. Everson stated, "We have less hardcover now than before the deck went up. We think that is reasonable based on the fact that the Council approved our neighbor's request to have 51/52% hardcover based on the big driveway required to service both houses.• Acting Mayor Callahan asked if the neighbors request was for an after-the-fact variance. Mrs. Everson answered no. Nettles replied that it seems they have made a good faith effort realizing it is after-the-fact. "We are pursuing our stated goal to reduce hardcover and are moving in that direction QftOIIO REGULAR COUMCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 XOMING PILE #1579 - GARRY EVERSON CONTINUED SO I would be inclined to give them conceptual approval on the application as varied by the changes they proposed." Callahan thinks it should be sent back to the Planning Commission as they have more time to develop the views on this ana to consider the neighbors. Goetten asked if the Planning Commission initially denied this request and it had been. Acting Mayor Callahan indicated that the matter of the r^oval of plastic and the metnod of offsetting hardcover is of concern. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to send the application back to the Planning Commission for further reconsideration as a new proposal. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-1. Councilmember Goetten voted Nay. Motion passed. #1585 C. ARNOLD CARLSON 855 FOREST ARMS LANE AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2882 Mr. and Mrs. C. Arnold Carlson were present. City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application tor an after-the-fact conditional use permit for a wooden seawall constructed in 1988. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. Goetten stated that this seems like a fairly straightforward application. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2982, approving the after-the-fact conditional use permit for a wooden seawall constructed in 1988. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1586 JAMBS BURANEN 1085 BROWN ROAD SOUTH AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2883 James Buranen and Lori Reineking were present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided the Council with a brief summary of this application. This was for construction of an addition to the garage. The variance needed is for a side yard setback. John Gerhardson, Public Works Director, advises that a turnaround would be appropriate. The Planning Commission has recommended unanimous approval. In addition, Mr. Buranen is requesting that he not have to pay the double fee on the building permit as he has already paid a penalty fee for the OROMO REGULAR COOIICIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1586 - JAMES BURAHEN CONTINUED variance ($350.00). The work on the garage was stopped as soon as he was notified. Mr. Buranen asked why there is provision for a firewall on the north side when all there is on that side are horses. Mabusth replied that the building code requires that when you are in a substandard setback from a lot liner a firewall is requied as there could be a structure within 10' at some future time. Therefore, it makes no difference what is on the adjacent lot. Peterson clarified that the Public Works Director advised that there should be a turnaround even though the Planning Commission did not recommend this. Mabusth agreed but stated that a member of the Planning Commission did ask for the review of the Public Works Director and a recommendation to Council. Callahan asked if stretch limos were longer than average vehicles. He also verified that they turn around by backing out onto Brown Road. He asked where a turnaround would be placed on the lot. Gerhardson replied it would have to be on the front yard, somewhere between the house and the road. Peterson noted that this is a 30 m.p.h. zone and on a curve. Bernhardson stated that the turnaround could be as little as a backup apron and Gerhardson agreed. Callahan reviewed the suggestion that in connection with granting this variance that Mr. Buranen be required to build a backup apron. Mr. Buranen replied, "I don't feel that is necessary. I've backed up onto the road and never had a problem or caused a problem. It is a 30 m.p.h. zone with a corner coming up to it. I've driven an 18-wheeler for 7 years over the road and I know how to back up." Callahan stated that the Engineer believes this is an unsafe thing t'*- continue to do. Gerhardson added that it would be consistent with just about every other property to the south as they also have backarounds. Callahan noted that Mr. McCourtney was forced to have one so that he would not be backing out onto Ferndale Roaa. Ms. Reineking asked tor clarification of the surfacing and OR(»IO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 lONIHG FILE #1586 - JAMES BURANEN CONTINUED placement of the turnaround. Gerhardson stated that it would not have to be cement, that a gravel surface is acceptable. Mabusth added that it would also need to be maintained in the winter. Gerhardson also added that it would need to be an all-weather surface, not just grass. Ms. Reineking asked, "Would we be required to make the turnaround even if we don ’t want the building permit?" Callahan responded that the general feeling of the Council and Engineer is that backing the limousines out onto South Brown Road is not a safe • of exiting. Many times hardcover variances have been g.anted just so that the person will have a space to turnaround safely. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2883, granting the after-the-fact variance, waiving the double fee on the building permit, but also requiring a turnaround to be approved by staff of sufficient size and al’-weather surface to accomodate limousines. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-C, Motion passed. #1587 RUBY SIPORO 96 HACKBERRY BILL AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2884 Mrs. Ruby Siford was present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed this request for an after-the-fact variance regarding a separation between a principal structure and accessory structure for a deck. City Inspectors had noted that there was siding work being done without a permit and put a stop work order on the project. While they were out there, discussion regarding a deck took place. The contractor went ahead and built the deck without a permit after beingj told to stop within 5'. Although the building code only requires a 5' separation, the zoning code requires a 10' separation. Given the fact that the contractor did not come in for a building permit, there was no zoning review. The property owner was not apprised of ail of this by the contractor. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 5' setback. Mabusth noted that Mrs. Siford has not paid the penalty fee yet and she is asking for special consideration of the Council. Mrs. Siford stated that she and her son had discussed putting a firewall in the garage and would put one in the shed. Mabusth stated that there i- a shed that has not been noted on the survey that is not 10' from the existing garage. The Planning Commission has asked in their considerations that the OROMO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1587 - RUBY SIFORD CONTINUED Council direct the building staff to look at the substandard nature of the shed for possible firewall construction. The atplicant had agreed to this at tho Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Siford noted this shed is between the bottom garage and the house and is really the foundation of the upper garage which is attached to the house. Acting Mayor Callahan asked. Commission actually permit?" 'What did the Planning Mabusth replied, "They approved the 5' setback and asked that when the building staff was reviewing the need for a firewall in the detached garage to also look at the shed to determine if this has impacted safety or fire needs of the shed, house, and garage." Mabusth also explained that the contractor built the deck while waiting for a permit for the siding, forgetting that he alro needed a building permit for the deck. Rather than getting the building permit, the contractor quickly finished everything based on what he thought he heard from the building staff and got his payment. This is the problem for Mrs. Siford. Callahan stated that considering the size of the lot and the location of the buildings, if the garage is fire-proofed and the shed is either fire-proofed or removed, there is no practical damage done. Mabusth agree-^. Goetten states there is an issue her j of what kind of recourse the City has o a contractor who knowingly disregards notices. Mrs. Siford stated that the contractor had told her on two different occasions that he was going for the permit. He said maybe she should get it but Mrs. Siford told him it was up to the contractor because he would know measurements ai*d answers to any questions the City would have. She assumed he had the permit. Cs^etten asked what could be done about these situations. Mabusth replied, contractor." *We can issue citations immediately to the Bernhardson stated we could still issue citations if we can locate him. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt resolution 12884, granting an after-the-fact variance to the required separation between the principal structure and accessory structure. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. OROMO REGULAR COUNCIL NESTING HEI.D OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1587 - RUBY SIPORD CONTINUED CounciImemfcer Nettles also noted that {.enalty fees are being included. He sees this as a civil matter between Mrs. Siford and the contractor. A citation should be issued to the contractor. #1588 OS NEST MEN VECTOR GROUP 850 MAIZATA BLVD. COBiDITIOMAL USE PERMIT The following rej^resentatives were present for OS West New Vector Group: John Uban, Consulting Planner Oscar Grainger, Seattle, WA, Headquarters Dave Hellerman, Technical Engineer Tim Marx, Attorney, Briggs and Morgan City Administrator Bernhardson tuminarized this request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a cellular phone tower and antenna and accessory building on a property that is owned by Vineyard of the Lake. The issues are whether this constitutes a public service structure under our ordinance and if the antenna structure meets the criteria of our code. The Planning Commission recommended denial. John Uban stated that he would be addressing the issues of alternative sites explored in the Search Area and perceived impact of the tower through elevat-.on and perspective sketches. US West would also like to comment and ask questions on the ordinance and procedures of the City to cooperate with the City. Mr, Uban presented an aerial photograph showing the search area and the Church property where the antenna would be located. He noted that on both sides of Highway 12 there is a church and day care center, both occupying sites that are typically commercial in character and where single family houses would not normally be found. Residential areas, golf courses, right-of-way and cemetery/church/day care areas were pointed out on a map. Wetlands were noted as well as the historical alternate Highway 12 alignments. Mr. Uban reviewed the various sites that were considered. 1. Excess right-of-way. This has been secured as some possible future use for the alignment of Highway 12. This is not av J.lable to US West. nc* 2. Woodhill Country Club, igree. The Board of Directors would 3. Day Care Center. There were technical reasons making it difficult to use that site, such as no good access and sloping ground making it not practical to use. OROHO REGX7IAR COUNCIL MEBTimS HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1588 - US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED 4. Wayzata Country Club. To{,ogra{.hie situation was not good and the owners were jot interested in having a tower located on their property. 5. Conference Center to north, were present. Technical difficulties 6. Wayzata Water Tower. This has an existing antenna system for the other cellular system in the area. There are technical difficulties in cohabiting on a single tower. It is also significantly out of the search area. With the remainder ^f the area being divided into single family lots, the best location would be Vineyard of the Lake Church. Mr. Uban then addressed the issue of views. Views and site lines pertaining to the homeowners of Wells, Gopinath, Holliman and Anderson were presented. Photographs were also shown indicating views from the Church entrance, along the Luce Line, from the Anderson residence, the Gopinath residence and the Wells residence. The Hollimans did not want any photographs from their property. The tower is a light gray color to keep it from being very noticeable. The view of the tower for anyone will be the silhouette on the horizon above the tree line. The view is not significant, does not impair property values, does not create any impairment to the health, safety and welfare of the community and It has been located in similar situations all over. Mr. Uban summarized that the tower is nicely secluded for most people. They think the City's ordinance allows the tower. The process of a conditional use permit addresses {.ublic service structures in residential zones. Many sites have been studied and this one was found to be the best. Views have been analyzed and found to be reasonable. They feel it is appropriate to approve this proposal. He asks the Council to strongly consider this proposal because it needs to be here to complete the communications system they are licensed to take on. Tim Marx stated that a court repo..ter was present in case a transcript would be required. A Minnesota Supreme Court case states that if, for any reason, there should ever be litigation on this matter, a record of the proceedings would be required. There was some discussion as to whether having a court reporter present was threatening and if a transcript was going to be made. Acting Mayor Callahan asked Mr. Grainger if US West would have a transcript made and available to the City Council. Mr. Grainger replied that if that would help in getting on with the case, the trascript would be supplied. Mr. Grainger then agreed to supply the transcript. Mr. Marx reviewed the memo he submitted by fax to the Council and Mr. Barrett on iO/8/90. It is their feeling that the ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1588 US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED current zoning code allows that a conditional use permit could be granted for this communication tower. The first provision he refers to is alicwirg d conditional use permit to le granted for "essential services". These are traditional public utility services such as gas lines and utility poles They believe the communication tower fits in that struc* ire. The Federal Communications Commission has determined that cellular phone systems are in the public interest, regulated at the Federal level and have many of the attributes of a public utility. Callahan asked, "Is it your impression and belief that the company is a public utility with the rights of condemnation?" Mr. Marx replied, "It is not a public utility with rights of condemnation, but we think for the purposes of you*- zoning code and the way it uses the term essential service, that it qualifies as a public utility for the purpose of your zoning code, that's what we contend. Under that provision, unless it is demonstrated that there i damage to the health and welfare of the community, then the conditional use permit is to be granted." Callahan asked if it isn't the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that there is not any damage, not that the City has to demonstrate that there is d -mage. Mr. Marx agreed. A second provision which would allow the granting of this conditional use permit is under the public service structure provision. They don't believe this tower will be an accessory use or another principal use on the Church property. This is similar to other utility type uses such as telephone wires and poles and gas lines in that they function along with and are often a part of ether types of lots. Callahan asks, "If this is not a principal structure, then It must be an accesory structure." Mr. Marx replied, "We believe it is a public service structure as defined by your zoning code and is not accessory. It is a separate and independent entity defined as a public service structure." Acting Mayoi Callahan states, "The public service structure relates to the fact that the principal or accessory structure, as such, 13 engaged in public service activities, not whether it is a principal structure or an accessory structure and the third category, public service structure, but whether or not the public service structure is an accessory or principal structure. Which of the two do you think it is?" Mr. Marx does not think the use of principal or accessory fits in to the definiton of public service structure as it applies to this situation. For example, power lines running ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1588 - US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED through a lot are not viewed as princi|,al or accessory, it just is the {.'Ubiic service structure. Nettles asked how big this structure is at : uu",e. Mr. Uban explained that the base of the tower is 15 rrianguxar. uw ^ w -r --- lattice-work structure, 150* tall. There is a companion building that is 12' wide, 36' long and approximately 9 1/2' tall. Mr. Ma-y stated that US West is willing to work with the City. Callahan asked if the applicants understand that they are seeking to got a conditional use permit on top of a conditional use permit that the church already has and isn't that a little unusual to "piggyback" conditional use permits Mr. '’ban replied that it is usual ro have this type of structure to accompany a church building or activity. One is being installed right now that is part of the steeple of the church. Goetten asked again how a conditional use permit could be issued twice for the same area. Mr. Marx replied that he had not reviewed the Church's ccndi-ional use permit so could not give any direction on that. This ^pe of public service structure, or essciitial service structure, is a permitted conditional use in this zone and how it affects the existing conditional use permit would have to be discussed with the City Attorney. Bryson Hollimon, 60 Myrtlewood Road, referred to the petition opposing the tower signed by 34 residents of Orono. He stated that he was shocked to hear of a 15 story structure going up on this site and impacting the residential area. It is also his understanding that the Church is also a residential area with a conditional use permit. He states, "I can't believe this is being brought to rouncil to be put in a residential area. It is not why our family or other families that signed this petition moved to Orono." Other neighbors feel similarly. He views this as a competitive business situation. Cellular One services this area presently. He doer not believe this will hit the framework of essential services, particularly when one company is already providing that service. He opposes this and believes it is not in keeping with the zoning. Anand Gopinath, 705 Old Long Lake Road, is an electrical engineer teaching at tie University with an area c£ research in high freguency technigues. Mr. Gopinath states that there are other plans which might be used. It could be sited in a commercial area. The tower may need to be higher, may need more ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER ft, 1990 ZONING FILE #1588 - US WEST MEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED {;Ower, the beam may have to be sha|.ed and they may need a secondary tower in another commercial industrially zoned area. Ke feels tnis is net the only answer. He also states, "We were told by the City that this is a 2 acre res idential ly zoned area and I never thought I would come to a Council meeting to see the big guns of US West, especially the attorney, threatening us to say we will put this tower here and litigate if you guys don't approve. I don't think this is the way US West should go about it's business.” Bruce Clark, 625 Old Long Lake Road, states he has just spent thousands of dollars on a deck overlooking a very scenic marsh and this tower is unacceptable. Cathy Hollimon added that there was never a neighborhood meeting. The first they heard about this was when someone wanted to take pictures in their back yard and stressed the point that this would be done by the end of this year. Callahan stated that it seems an attempt had been made to contact residents. Mabusth stated that the applicant was using tax records that were about a year old and the Hollimons were new homeowners and didn't get the notice. Steven Champlin, 50 Myrtlewood, also opposes the tower, primarily for aesthetic reasons. He expressed concern over seeing the tower on the Luce Line as well as from his horn He expressed concern over the hazard of towers to birds. He complimented the US West group in their handling of this matter but does not want to see this tower in leir neighborhood. JoEllen Hurr, 930 Partenwood Road, asked if ' ‘ * Church would not lose their tax-exempt status if a commercial operation were on their f :te. Acting Mayor Callahan responded 'ihat it is possible that the income :: rom the project may be taxable but the Church would probably not lose it's status but does rr. know for sure. Betty WeJ..ls, 70 Myrtlewood Road, stated that the Church has changed hands three times since it was built and this group may leave once the tower is built also. Ray Wells, 70 Myrtlewood Road, stated that they do look directly in that direction and would be looking directly at the tower at all times. Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, indicated that he and JoEllen Hurr had worked on the original draft of the ordinance in the early 1970's. The intent of the people who wrote the code was that antennas of this kind would not be allowed in Orono. He ORORO RBGUIAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1588 - OS NEST KEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED referred to the after-the-fact variance for an antenna at Russell Lund's even though Mr. Lund has since moved. If the City allows such a tower, a precedence will be set. Dave Hellerman, US West Engineer, commented on Mr. Gopinath's theory. If a taller, more powerful tower were built, the signal would interfere with phone used in other parts of the City. One of the criteria of this site was to keep it down in the bowl as Wayzata forma a topographic bowl. Callahan asked for clarification as to whether this cellular system could, in certa’’ ’ locations, interfere with telephones. Mr. Hellerman responded that it could interfere with other cellular telephones. The key to cellular systems is to site these towers in such a way so they don't interfere with other ar*-as. You have to keep them down close to what you want to serve. Callahan asked how large the service area is for this tower. Mr. Hellerman responded roughly a 2-3 mile radius from the tower. Mr. Hellerman also commented that the bird interference would apply to tall towers over 900'. Short towers are not having this problem. Mr. Gopinath stated that he still maintains that this location is not the only possible site. Alternatives still exist and feels the tower should be located in an industrial commercial zone, not a residential zone. Harry Martin, Old Long Lake Road, as. ed if the City has an obligation to US West to provide such a facility under the existing law or does the City have the discretion to decide on this issue based on the best interest of the citizens of the City. Mr. Marx replied that generally a landowner has the right to do with their land as they see fit. In this case, the City has done this through the Zoning Code. The issue is whether it is permissible under Orono's Zoning Code. They believe it is permissible under the zoning code and therefore cannot deny the landowner the right to use the property for a communication tower without sufficient reason like the public health and welfare. If this location were not approved another location in the City could not be prohibited unless danger to the health and safety of the public were demonstrated. Mr. Marx was asked if they had been turned down by the Planning Commission and on what basis. ORONO RBGnUUl COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #1588 - OS WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED Mr. Uban responded that the Planning Commission wanted US West to explore alternate sites and they didn't feel it was compatible in a residential district. However, no specific healtn, safety or welfare issues were indicated. Callahan also stated that ir the Planning Commission meeting the public service interpretation being given was not the correct interpretation. Ray Wells asked why the Highway Dep« rtment would not be concerned about this structure being cxos» to the highway. No answer was known. He also is concerned about the value of his property. City Administrator Bernhardson followed up with comments on the Planning Commission meeting and issue of public service definition. Even if the tower were construed to be a public service structure, a conditional use permit would also be required in this zone for the intent. The test for this under Section 10.20, Subdivisions 3 is that the antenna has to be "subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot". It would be questionable that this antenna structure would be servicing the Church. A bigger issue rr.av be the commercial nature of the tower. Since this is a residential zone compatible items are normally allowed under conditional use permits such as churches and day cares. There is service already available by a competing com^.any. This is not in the same category as electrical, telephone, sewer or water lines to service that property. Acting Mayor Callahan agreed with a previous statement that despite the conversation, the applicant was not present in an attempt to threaten future litigation although there is no doubt that there is preparation for the eventuality that it may be necessary. The Council needs to be aware of this. The Council does not seem to favor the applicant, however the applicant is a reputable business entity and entitled to consideration as making a reasonable request. Callahan believes that the zoning ordinances would make it difficult, if not impossible, to grant the conditional use permit as they now stand. In the alternative, if some of the interpretations about this not being either an accessory structure or a principal structure but some other kind of structure are considered, then we have a situation ambiguously covered by the code. Considering the explanation of this being new technology since the zoning code was written, the commercial nature of the site chosen principally to be a competitor of the site at the Wayzata tower and because none of the landowners want it on their property, he advises that a 6 month moratorium be put in effect while consideration is given to the way this new and different entity should be regulated. Goetten stated that she feels this is sometl ing that should be in an industrial commercial zone, not residential. Based on OROMO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING FILE #15«8 - US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED concrete evidence, it could be denied without having a moratorium. In Orono Code, churches and day care centers are not COTimercial and approve^-* residential zones on a conditional use permit. They have no v e near the impact that a tower of this nature would have. Nettles favored a conceptual denial. The "piggybacking" of conditional use permits is a concern. He stated that although the application cannot be denied because of aesthetic reasons, US West seems to be going in the wrong direction. People are out in Orono because they want as much pristine living as possible. They have paid a lot of money for the lots and this may adversely affect the value because people don't want to see the tower. Under the Code, there are ways to deny the application which is how this should be approached. A point of interest noted was that US West says Orono cannot turn them down because of aestheic reasons and yet that is the re son Woodhill and Wayzata Country Clv.bs have been eliminated. Nettles agrees with Mr. Gopinath that other alternatives could be found and encourages US West to pursue tnose. Because there is an existing tower in Wayzata, the service is available and therefore doesn't mean the City is denying an integral public utility service. He asked US West what they are currently doing to service this area. Dave Hellerman replied that there is soir ignal. They have to build the capacity of the system. As th are more and more users, the quality deteriorates without Jding additional facilities. Nettles asked about using the water tower in Wayzata which already has a competing tower and if it is technically impossible. Hellerman stated that it is technically impossible, Peterson asked if this system is to serve Wayzata. Mr. Hellerman responded by saying that what is being proposed is part of a larger system. There are 37 cells functional within the Minneapolis area in 6 years of growth. In another 2 years of growth there will be approximately 50 cells. These need to be located to take advantage of frequency reuse. As cell sites get closer together, they will try to lower the antennas. They are trying to do what the community wants as well as service the present market of tens of thousands of phone users. The people who use the phones do not necessarily live or work in this area but travel throughout the area. It is not an issue of competiton or cost, but of the many people currently using both systems who rely of the best possible service and quality. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE #1588 - US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED An objection was raised to having a tower in this neighborhodd when it services someone driving by and not this neighborhood. Mr. Hellerman explained that this is to build out a system. Cellular One and US West systems are not interchangeable. They look for areas that will have the least impact possible but it is not always possible to locate in commercial areas. Cells are currently being located as little as .6 mile apart. They try to "hide" the cells as much as possible. Churches and schools are not residential per se but may exist in residential areas and may provide a spot for the system. They do need to exist within a grid or framework and these spots help in residential areas. Goetten asked, "Would you step back if you feel you are creating difficulty for the community?" Hellerman answered, "If you will help us to find a site that meets the engineering criteria that we have to deal with and recognizing that we have a site in Wayzata. We'll have another site in Long Lake. We'll have another site south and a site in Medina. We've got sites around here. We can't move the site a mile to the east or west or north because it interferes with other sites. As the system continues to grow out, we'll continually need to get more and more sites. Hopefully, we will be able to locate some of those sites in commercial industial areas. Right now the need is in the particular area we are looking at." The search area is a relatively large area but the available p..operties are a small number. Peterson asked why this tower could not be placed somewhere in close proximity to the Wayzata tower even though not on the Scime site. Hellerman answered that at some point they will have to be in Orono and surrounding areas. Cellular One will be looking for similar sites. Callahan referred to the move to widen Highway 12 into #394 and decide on corridors. No matter where these corridors run, the starting point would be at the base of the proposed tower. His feeling is that there should be a moratorium on any kind of development on all land involved in this area until it is determined where the highway will go and the corridor selected. He suggests that the placement of the tower may not be in the best location regarding this. Acting Mayor Callahan suggests, in view of the fact of the possible expansion of US West and Cellular One and that the zoning code is not organized in dealing with tower, that an interim mora^-orium be placed in effect on the granting of building perm -s, land subdivisions, rezoning applications, and other things relating to the siting of wireless telecommunication ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 ZONING PILE #1588 US WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP CONTINUED facilites in all zoning districtis in Orono for a period of 6 months to one year. The City can then properly consider what should be done and what impact there will be from these telephone companies. Acting Mayor Callahn moved, seconded by Concilmember Peterson, to adopt the resolution prepared by staff granting a moratorium ordinance. Motion, Ayes - 4, Nays - 0. Motions passed. Goetten noted that she was appalled at the request for this application and can't imagine ever voting for it. Mr. Hollimon requested this study be done in an expeditious fashion and reach a conclusion in a reasonable timeframe. Callahan stated that the moratorium was not moved in order to solve the issue of the tower although it has that effect. It was moved in view of the comments of the applicant as to what is really facing the City and the view that the current zoning code does not permit or is ambiguous about this situation. Mr. Marx commented that they are disappointed that the Council chose not to grant the permit and enact the moratorium and would like some direction on how this issue can be resolved. Callahan asked for an overall plan from US West and an opinion of what Cellular One might be doing in the area. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that within a month some information will be brought back. Both Cellular One and US West will be contacted about their current locations and plans for the future. #1589 MARCUS AND JUDY BLUE 2160 CRYSTAL AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION # 2885 Marcus and Judy Blue were present for this review. City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed this variance request for a side set setback for a house addition and garage requiring a side and front yard setback and a minor lot coverace variance. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval. Mabusth stated that the applicant had submitted the appropriate drawings regarding elevation. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2885, granting a front and side street variance and lot coverage variance. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 WETLANDS PROTECTION Callahan did not think that the sta^i s report was very useful. He reviewed t^is by noting that if we assume the wetlands are previous^ ^ defined and if we assume that we have 26' setback requirements, then if we wanted to change that ir would be very upsetting and affect the current application. There are some major wetlands within the City that are now going to come under developmental impact. Bernhardson referred to the issue Jeanne j^abusth brought up of taking wetlands credit and being able to place up to 20 some dwelling units on the property. Nettles asked if we should eliminate that credit by ordinance. Bernhardson stated that the City should look at that. It does not affect the Blanch application because they qualify. Mabusth noted that she did not know where the 26' setback came from. Discussion continued regarding inclement weather and special concerns in the areas where building is done near wetlands. Callahan suggested looking at the wetland credit and see if it is a good idea. Mabusth stares that the wetlands credit may be the way to go after studying the situation with the Old Beach Road application. Goetten also felt this a good place to begin especially with Orono's concern with environmental issues. Nettles questioned if there was some type of relationship between the type of soil and the 26' distance. Mabusth was not aware of any. Glencoe soils are often considered wetlands and would not allow construction within 26'. Mabusth was not aware of any zoning code which does not allow building in certain types of soils. MATOR/COUNCIL REPORT: There was no Mayor's report for this meeting. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: LAFAYETTE RIDGE - REQUEST FOR PUBLIC STREET JoEllen Hurr, Sally McCabe, John Larson, and Dennis Burgess, Jr. were present for this request. City Administrator presented a summary of the request for this 5 lot cul-de-sac to be made a public street and that they be given credit for hardcover split between the 5 lots. This subdivision was done between Minnetonka Beach and Orono. In ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 LAFAYETTE RIDGE CONTINUED 1978, a private street was made, however in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan it said that anything in the urban area, of which this was part, should be public streets. As far as the hardcover credit, m.ost of the properties in Orono are outside of 1000' but there are substantial wetlands. This credit could allow them to put hardcover on almost the entire lot because they are in a 35% zone. The City's lot coverage zone may govern this and may not make any difference. JoEllen Hurr spoke representing the people of Lafa>ccte Ridge. They requested action at this meeting rather than tabling. Bernhardson referred to the listing of private streets. John Gerhardson noted the streets that were private within the urban zone including Casco Cove, Church Lane, Herrick Circle, Maple Avenue, Pence Lane, Sugarwoods Dr. and Lafayette Ridge Ct. The only three meeting the City standards are Sugarwoods, Lafayette and Herrick Circle. Acting Mayor Callahan referred to the Urban Transportation Policies, Secti n 2 noting that it doesn't really say there must be a public roa- He asked the residents in attendance what they want to do this for. They felt it was in their interest to have the street taken over by the City because they pay the same taxes as the rest of the constituents. They have successfully done this with the City of Minnetonka Beach and are requesting the same consideration. Callahan asked if they felt it would be cheaper for the City to take it over. Bernhardson clarified that as private streets they are responsible for snow removal, repair maintenance, etc. In a public street, the City would be doing this work except possibly for a major reconstruction. This area would probably not necessitate that for a long time to come as it is up to City standards. Goetten stated this type of situation needs to be studied carefully and approved. There are other streets within Orono that may have similar requests. Nettles asked how long this street was. Since this is just a cul-du-sac it is not significant in cost cr City duties. Callahan states the Comprehensive Plan did not take the same view of public streets and PUD's and that may be of significance. He asked if all or some of the private roads are through PUD's. The answer will be found out. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 LAFAYETTE RIDGE CONTINUED The residents asked if they needed to come back for the next meeting if this is not acted on at this meeting. Council noted that they were in attendance and JoEllen Hurr will be their spokesperson at the next meeting. They asked for clarification on why the decision is being postponed. Callahan explained that this issue has come up occassionally. In this case, the Planned Unit Development had special zoning/building restrictions and part of that is relative to the next part of the problem. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that public streets should serve PUD's and would need further research as to the intent of this section. Mabusth referred to the Parten/Bayside property. As a PHD, you didn't have to exclude the area of the road. If someone went in now and made a public road, then a recalculation of the lot areas would have to be done and this could have an impact where additional area wasn't available and credit was given to units. Council then might be asked to look at some area variance. Comments from residents were added that this is a relatively short street, conforms to City standards and the City maintenance workers go right by on a regular basis. The costs to the City would be minimal. Hurr noted that the Comprehensive Plan talks about the exception being a PUD and this is probably the only PUD Orono has with a private road so that criteria could be used in future requests and may not have to grant to other private roads that may not be PUD's. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Peterson, to conceptually approve the request for a public street in Lafayette Ridge and to address the concerns expressed before further Council action. Motion, Ayes~4, Nays-0. Motion passed. LMCD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/SHORELAND REGULATIONS JoEllen Hurr explained that she tried to have this tabled. Nettles asked how the environmental impact statement get incorporated in. Hurr stated, "There wasn't any discussion. It was incorporated in as per our discussion and the recommendation to Dave Arndorfer and it wasn't discussed. No one objected to that." Nettles asked if Hurr had the feeling there would be any more commitment on behalf of Hennepin County to fund the enforcement. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HET.D OCTOBER 8, 1990 LMCD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/SHORELAND REGULATIONS CONTINUED Hurr felt the LMCD would not have to approve any more use or access, marinas or docks, if that wasn't already approved. Callahan understood that what was approved is everything the DNR was in favor of except the Shoreline Management and that they have a state law about the Shoreline Management. A number of the people who voted yes really don't like it, they just voted yes because someone else told them to. Hurr stated that there will be a meeting on October 10, 1990 chaired by John Stine of the DNR. Callahan suggested the City have someone go to the meeting on the 24th. He will try to go and a City representative. Gabriel Jabbour made his public comments at this point. He thanked those who responded to his request and expressed his fru3tation as things did not go as well as he thought they should. At a meeting approximately 4-5 months ago, he urged Council members to attend other municipalities meetings and talk to them. Mr. Nettles indicated to him that he was a little overanxious. The following day the Mayor told him his attitude could be counterproductive, therefore he should work within the parameters set by the Council. At the September 10th meeting, he left with the understanding that several Council members or Planning Commission members would approach other municipalities and lobby with them and coordinate their actions. On September 24th, he received information that the idea was scrapped. Between September 10 and 24th he was not informed of any meeting regarding this. On September 26th at the LMCD meeting, he was sitting next to Jerry Rockvam pushing for the same thing. He was frustrated to see that Orono was not organized or represented. When our representataive tried to ask for a tabling, she did not get a second. The only reason she was heard was for the sake of discussion. He wanted the Council to know that Orono could have been substantial had they had "their houses in order*'. He would have been very willing to give any time needed to this project. He feels that working within the system did not work out. Acting Mayor Callahan commented that getting thoughts written down to present to other cities took longer than one would think. Circumstances more than anything prevented Mr. Nettles or Mr. Callahan from being able to go around to other cities in the time frame available. You can't have these meetings with the Council unless there is a Council meeting. It wasn't that Mr. Jabbour was consciously left out of any meetings. Minnetonka, Wayzata, Orono, Spring Park and Deephaver were against the Plan. It seemed hopeful that conveying and writing the views of Orono was about all that wou ' be ncecessary to get these same people to vote. He agreed that /.ore could be done. Jabbour made the point that there are a lot of people in the community who are willing to donate time. They may not want to ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HET.n 8, 1990 * LMCD COMPRHENSIVE PLAN/SHORELAND REGULATIONS CONTINUED donate 4 years to Council but they may be willing to work here. ~ The homeowners association came up with unbelieveable ideas to try to recalculate the surface based on the navigable surface ^ excluding the milfoil that contaminated the area. ^ Nettles stated that one of the reasons JoEllen suggested that either Ed or himself go to these meetings is because they bad invested a lot of time. He tried to contact Minnetonka Beach but never got a reply. He noted that 60% of the shoreline have voted against acceptance of this plan. The LMCD is in a very equivocable position at this time and doesn't think they have much of anything. Those who have voted against it have thrown a "monkey wrench" into this plan. He thinks it was approved because so much money had been spent. He feels the LMCD made a mistake when they gave a 30 day extension. This would not be interpreted as an attempt to be reasonable in working things out. If further work is to be done on this and the plan is to become meaningful, they will have to come back to these communities and ask for input. Hurr commented that she has gone to many LMCD meetings as an extension of this Council. STREET LIGHTS - LYRIC AVENUE City Administrator Bernhardson stated that this is a suggestion for a way of looking at street lights and ongoing costs. Possibly it could be charged on the utility bill and those that don't pay could be assessed. Acting Mayor Callahan moved, Councilmemoer Nettles seconded, to table this item. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. NAVARRE HEIGHTS DRAINAGE City Administrator Bernhardson stated that some of the notices had 7:30 p.m. on them. Althougth the discussion did not come to a close until about 7:35, the public hearing was closed. It is being proposed to be put on the October 22nd agenda before proceeding >or comments by people who did not get their opportunity. A public hearing would be scheduled at the same time with plans and specs as part of the required public hearing before going to bids. There will be a public hearing for special assessments before they are spread over the property. Karen Cuff stated that she just found out the public hearing held two weeks prior was a voluntary public hearing and not the statute project hearing. It was never conveyed to her. Acting Mayor Callahan responded that staff intended and Council thought they were having the right kind of hearing. Because there was an error in the notice, legally it wasn't. ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 NAVARRE HEIGHTS DRAINAGE CONTINUED Bernhardson stated they felt it was a public hearing that was not required. Goetten asked if the people who did not get a chance to speak at the last hearing because of the time difference need to have another time to speak before the required public hearing. Bernhardson stated that is why they are having another opportunity at an informal hearing. On October 22nd this issue will be an agenda item. Then a notice will be sent out to people, not posted in the paper. A motion was made by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to allow residents to present their thoughts and concerns regarding the Navarre Heights Drainage on October 22, 1990 prior to anything further being done on this project and another public hearing shall be scheduled at the time f plans and bids. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. Ms. Cuff stated that she wanted to be sure that t re will be a statute public hearing so this will not come back to her again at some point in time. HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR This was an informational item. A motion was made by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to accept the Highway 12 Corridor information. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. LICENSES* It was mo.' ; Counc i Imember Goetten^ seconded by Councilmember Petr.v - to approve the following license: Septic Installer - Marty Bros. 9436 Quaker Lane Gambling Permit Resolution #2890 Special Event - National Multiple Sclerosis At Jimmies Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive January 1, 1991 - December 31, 1991 - Viking Bassmasters fishing tournament October 14, 1990 7:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m, North Shore Drive Marina Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ORONO REGULAR C >0K. IL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 8, 1990 EXECUTIVE SESSION - 11:50 P.M. Acting Mayor Callahan requested that the Council go into an executive session at 11:50 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 12:00 A.M. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 11:50 p.m. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hall.i y Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr. Acting Mayor 101790.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^; DATE: October 17, 1990 SUBJECT: LMCD Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Shoreland Regulations Attachment: A. Wayzata Proposal Dated 10/12/90 B. Analysis of Issues Dated 10/15/90 ISSUE - 1. Present information to Council regarding proposals related to possible changes in the shoreland regulations. 2. Determine if Council desires to adopt any alternative position. INTRODUCTION - Subsequent to the ?'St meeting there have been 2 sessions related to the shoreland management portion of LMCD s Comprehensive Plan. CounciImember Callahan and I attended the meeting on October 10, 1990 in Wayzata, in which Wayzata, Orono and Woodland discussed some of their concerns regarding the shoreland regulations with representatives of the Department of Natural Resources and LMCD. At the time Wayzata was in the process of preparing a position paper regarding a change in thrust that they would feel desireable. That was released on October 12th and was the focus of the discussion on October 16th. Attachment B was pre^. red as a result of the first meeting showing what a general development process is and comparing what the current Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes versus the Wayzata proposal. DISCUS^I^ON - Ths change proposed by Wayzata would do the ToriowTngT Deve' p ,^n inventory of existing land use patterns within 1,U00 feet around the lake. Specify a development policy for reviewing any Comprehensive Plan changes that communities may submit to change from existing land use. Have LMCD be involved in the front end by reviewing and commenting regarding Comprehensive Plan changes rather than on the back end involving variances. Have the cities work directly with DNR in establishing the shoreland regulations based on the LMCD's Comprehensive Plan objectives. This proposal would address in the shoreland several concerns S COUWCIt MEHTiHG OC-'22 1990 CITY OF OROHO Orono has had regarding this including: Increased staff to review variances Having to work through LMCD in part on the shoreland regulations and with DNR on the balance Additionally during the discussion it was pointed out that LMQD should specifically state (although they indicate that it is incorporated in the plan) what their interests in land use are. During that discussion the intere^^.t in land use were as follows: Traffic on the lake generated by land use Environmental degradation to water quaility Aesthetics/User experience in viewing land use around th' lake It was additionally suggested that they should be fairly restrictive in spelling out their interest in land use otherwise they will become involved in a number of items within 1,000 feet of the lake which do no specifically address their primary concern?. In addition to giving LMCD and therefore the cities around the lake more input on changing land use around the lake through this process and not on the many small variance items which will in total not be consequential, it may be a way for the City of Orono to achieve its objective relating to boat density because the land use has a direct input on the boating densities as is previously outlined. Public Access - 1 boat per 1 to 2 spaces Marinas - 1 boat per 5 spaces Residential - 1 boat per 10 spaces The central question of this approach is what authority or credance by Metro Council LMCD is given in their review of the cities' comprehensive plan amendments. If it is just review and comment, "moral suasion" will depend on how receptive the individual communities are to comment on their plans. If these review and comments are given the "authority" of a Metro Council System Statement then their comments can effectively force the city to conform to LMCD's wishes. The decision for the cities at this point is how much authority are they willing to each give up in exchange for LMCD as a body to be able to affect the proposed land use changes of a particular community around the Lake. In attendance at the meeting on Octobe* 16th were a couple of the LMCD Board members who have been supporters of the plan who did indicate that perhaps they may be willing to table the discussion to take a different approach on the project. They however made no commitments. At both meetings it was indicated that Orono still had objections in other areas and at these meetings was only specifically addressing objections in the shoreland. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Endorse the Wayzata approach. 2. Endorse a separate approach. 3. Take no action. 4. Table for further discussion. 5. Encourage a further tabling of the item. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council encourage LMCD to table further action on the plan to give adequate time to further explore this new direction and see if it is better than the current proposal. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council direct staff regarding its position on this new proposal to be presented in letter form to LMCD for their October 24, 1990 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. JoEllen Hurr, 930 Partenwood Road, 55356 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, 55356 •yy CIl WK) RIC n ! r•/r'-^ /'/'i TO: Mayors, Lake Minnetonka Communities RE: LMCD Plan DATE: October 12, 1990 The City of Wayzata is sponsoring a community official's meeting at 5:00 P.M. on October 16. 1990 at the Wayzata ^ity Council Chambers to discuss the LMCD Management Plan and specifically matters dealing with shoreland management and regulations. Based upon comments which have been received from the 13 Lake communities, as well as our own City's concerns, we have drafted a revision to the shoreland protection section of the LMCD document. We believe that this will serve as a starting point for discussions which will achieve required modifications to the present LMCD material. In the draft statement which is attached, we have first summarized concerns and subsequently discussed shoreland management goals which are now contained in the LMCD document. This is followed by a re-statement and revision of the ‘ rogram" for shoreland management and how it is to be realized. We believe these changes accomplish: 1. The LMCD assuming a generalized lakewide planning and coordination role. 2. The detailed shoreland planning plus regulatory responsibilities being retained by the 14 local u ts of government. (The present Appendix C is to be del_'ted.) 3. A clarification of the work necessary to complete the shoreland planning and zoning efforts required by the DNR. Mayors, LMCD Communities Page 2 October 12, 1990 4. The minimizing of time and expenses related to plan and ordinance formulation and adoption plus administration and implementation. 5. The elimination of additional or duplicate responsibilities. We respectfully request your review of this draft statement and invite you to the community meeting next Tuesday evening for a discussion of the matter. Respectfully yours. CITY OF WAYZATA Allan Orsen City Manager cc: Eugene Strommen - LMCD John L. Stine - DNR, Metro Region 10/12/90 LMCD LONG TERM !-IAllAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LAKE MIHMETONK.A SHORELINE PROTECTION INTRODUCTION The September 1990 LMCD’s Long Term Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Protection Chapter cails for and is intended to oe a "program" from which "rules and regulations" governing and "controlling" the area within 1,000 feet of the shoreline will be pursued and implemented. Overlooked in this stated purpose as well as directly referenced in the "management objectives" is the definition of a shoreland plan and how such a plan will be structured, achieved, and implemented. The present "program" jumps over a plan and a planning process and into regulations and implied standards and concerns, without any knowledgeable or factual basis from which to make present or future evaluations. This, is a key factor in the objection to the LMCD Plan, and as a result, attention will be directed to the stated objective of the document and the definition of a "program" whereby a Shoreland Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka can be achieved. From the regional perspective to be supplied by the LMCD, the purpose of the Shoreland .Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka Shoreland District (herein referred to as the "Shoreland Plan") is the establishment of a development framework and guidelines that carry out the intent of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources State-Wide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas". This must, however, be accomplished on the basis and within the context of recognizing and accommodating the unique existing urban development character of the individual lakeshore communities plus providing opportunity for continued development and renewal within an acceptable fr.mework. The regional Shoreland Plan is therefore a basic management tool from which an overall perspective of Lake Minnetonka can be achieved and from which local City based plans and regulations can be formulated. Within this context, the present draft of the LMCD Shoreland Management "Program" has raised constituent community concerns, specifically in regard to the following items: 1. LMCD expanding its authority to review shoreland regulations and development variances within the shoreland management area. This "watch dog" function is seen as an unnecessary duplication of time and expense of governmental agency functions already being performed and furthermore, if an appropriate "plan" is prepared and established there will be little if any need for extra processi It is also contended that the LMCD should not focus upon such a narrow perspective of "minor" zoning variances. Rather the LMCD should look to the broad issue of general land use and related compatibilities which are at the comprehensive planning level. In this regard, the LMCD alreadv nas a formally established role as the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires land use plan changes to be noticed to any affected unit of government. 2. The proposed development controls of the LMCD Plan (Appendix C), as presently drafted, are inconsistent, do not cover all necessary considerations, and do not give suffic’ent attention to the existing development patterns or the future land use objectives of the individual lakeshore communities. Any standards put forth need to be based upon a factual knowledge of the shoreland areas plus agreed upon, realistic parameters (plan) specifically applicable to Lake Minnetonka and the communities which border it. Moreover, the dissenting communities have maintained their concern over Appendix C because the LMCD Plan has not provided any criteria or standards for evaluating a "flexible" Shoreland Ordinance. Given this situation, the cities have been reluctant to support the LMCD Shoreland Management Plan without development standards which are tailored to address urban land use intensities with rules for flexibility and detailed in terms of standards and criteria. On the basis of what needs to be accomplished plus the concerns which have been raised, the following material addresses a planning process for tne accomplishment of a Shoreland Management Plan for Lake .M- -t.-ietonka at both the regional and community level. It also iefines roles and responsibilities of the involved parties and participants. SHORELAUD I^IAGHMEHT GOALS The present draft of the LMCD’s Shoreland Protection Chapter puts forth generalized goal statements which serve as foundation for a Shoreland Management Plan. These goals are to protect; 1. The lake from pollution. There is a strong consensus among the lakeshore communities that Lake Minnetonka is a valuable natural amenity that should be preserved. The cities have expressed a willingness to participate in achieving this goal. 2. The natural environment of lake and communities. In achieving this goal, there must be some recognition that a number of lakeshore cc.nmunities have urban development within the Lake Minnetonka shoreland areas. This urban development includes small lot single family development, medium and high density residential development, commercial uses and industrial uses. These land use patterns represent historic development trends, property ownership rights and local tax base that cannot be ignored. In this light, the Shoreland Management Plan must give attention to these existing conditions and establish development policies that correct lake pollution problems, site aesthetics and storm water concerns without resulting in these urban uses becoming prohibited or non-conforming. 3. The local tax base. The existing community land development represents the local tax base of the community, as well as a source of revenue supporting the LMCD. The individual communities are reliant on this tax base for revenues to provide required services and finance bonded indebtedness. The Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Management Plan must be sensitive to the economic impact that shoreland regulations will have on a community, as well as the environmental impact on the lake. 4. Aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake surface. A lake abutting an historic urban or suburban community can expect to have some urban vistas. It is not realistic that a virgi.n lakeshore view can be re-established in the urban setting. In this regard, the plan should have policies for establishment of realistic development standards that address the various land use situations of dif f-Tyr-vrit communities. 5&6. Public health and safety. The protection of public health and safety is another goal on which the lakeshore communities have a consensus agreen.ent. It should be that this goal is already being pursued through established Comprehensive Plans ar.d the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance::, of the individual lakeshore communities. The diverse development patterns and land use regulations illustrate the various means of implementing this shoreland management goal. What must be clarified is the acceptable role and jurisdiction of the various participants in this process. There is strong concern that no new levels of government and unnecessary duplication of responsibility be created. I^AGEHENT OBJECTIVES In accordance with the Mandatory Land Planning Act, each of the 14 lakeshore communities has adopted comprehensive plans and zoning regulations which guide local community development. The LMCD should use these local planning resources as an initial bases from which to develop a coordxuated Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Management Plan which will serve to guide future development and redevelopment which is sensitive to existing use patterns and will achieve the shoreland management goals. The shoreland management guidelines must respect the existing development patterns of the individual conurunities because from a lakewide perspective, the indiv dual communities perform different regional functions, representing differing life styles and provide the tax base that finance local operations and debt. In this regard, the shoreland management goals must be balanced with existing land use conditions. In preparing the Shoreland Management Plan, the following management tasks must be pursued. 1. Determine the "Development Capacity" of the Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Area A starting point for the Lake Minnetonka Shoreland .Management Plan is a determination of the ultimate development capacity of the Lake Minnetonka shoreland area. Using DNR development criteria, the development capacity of the lake's shoreland areas should be calculated and broken down into preliminary iand use allocations (i.e., low density residential, high density residential, commercial, water-oriented commercial, industrial). Thes-r developnient capacities will serve "s the model for evaluating existing development intensities around the lake At this point, the projected development capacities are nc development limitations. Rather they will serve only as a parameter for evaluating existing developf^'^nt patterns, and the degree to which current .'^<-ate-wide s d«. rds are being met. 2. Establish a Lhoreland Development Data Base that Identifies Existing Land Use Patterns and Community Development Objectives The local communities' compreh ive plans end zoning regulations provide readily availaule land use information for the lakewide shoreland area This data \»ase can be assembled and serve to outline existing and proposed land use patterns and intensities around the lake. From this data base, the LMCD and lakeshore communities can establish compatible lake side land use patterns, and development parameters that are sensitive to the individual cities, and identify development issues that must !.«• addressed to fulfill the goals of the Shcreland Management Plan. The following work program may be followed to develop this work base: a. Obtain and review the comprehensive plans of the 14 lakeshore communities. This will serve to identify the land use objectives and proposed land use patterns of each community. b. Obtain and review the zoning ordinance and maps of each of che lakeshore communities. This will serve t>.. identify the land types and intensities that are a''lowed within the city. c. Focus the information obtained in the first two stops to only the area ithin the shoreland boundaries. Evaluate the existing development intensities and zoning patterns against the lake area development capacities and DNR performanc<^* standards. d. Chart the land use characteristics on a lakewide map for evaluating land use function and environmental concerns. 3, Identify the lake use and land use issues shoreland development and lake quality. ti.it influence Once the data base is assei. ; led, the development character of Lake Minnetonka's shoreland area can be viewed as a whole. Like any conimunity, there will be areas or „ow density single family neighborhoods, high density residential areas, commercial centers, and even industrial areas with each land use perform -g a different function and accommodating a different life?: le. The large lot single family homes accommodate high value housing and serve to maintain a more natural image for the lake. The urL.in land use and densities, while more disruptive tc the lake's natural setting, also serve valuable social and economic functions in the lake area. The smaller lot single family areas provide more moderately priced owner c jpied housing opportunities when compared to the large lot areas. High density housing also serves to provide some moderately priced housing opportunities for households wanting to enjoy the ?ake without owning a ‘■ingle family home. The provision of a variety of :Ousing opportunities that are affordable to a variety Ol income levels and which serve a variety of lifesty’.<‘s is a regional objective that is supported and required by t/.e Me’.jpolitan Council. The prespiit LMCD Shoreland Protection Guideliret, while being responsive to the smaller single family lo*‘, do not adequately address existing and future irultip e family residential development or redevelopment. The .nflexible imposition of the DNR (and apparently L.MCD supported) multiple family density s anJards could result ii existing high density residential development becomiiig non-conforming and serve to make future high density development and redevelopment impossible. ^’his position and situation fails to recoanize existing urban development chcracter and is an unrealistic, unworkable boiler plate approach. The lake area also has a number of commercial cenr.ers within the Shoreland District. These commercial areas provide retail goods and service both to the lake area aid regional population. The historic development of these commercial areas is not consistent with the shoreland development guidelines of the DNR and LHCD. The develoi^ment issues surrounding these established commercial areas must therefore be specifically identified to allo’- for their continued vitality, growth, and redevelopment, while simultaneously protecting the water and user qu ility of the lake. Finally, the Lake .Minnetonka shoreland boundaries include areas of industrial development. The L.MCD Plan (Appendix C) prohibits this type of land use on riparian poperties and limits manufacturing uses in shoreland are ;s to only existing industrial distri«-ts already deve oped. The direction of this philosoph/ requires some flexibility and attention being given to specific sites and the possible redevelopment of these properties. In total, redevelopment evaiuat will require some defined flexibility and attention to identifying acceptable replacement use, as well as incentives tha\t will make redevelopment attractive and financially feasible. Moreover, the land use issues must be balanced against the environmental goals or Lake Minnetonka. Develoo policies and guidelines that outline the generalized crit«r.. i “ which local com.'iu?Aities can use to devaicp local plans development controls tnat are in character with local planning objectives while wc'-king toward the rtgiona.* shoreland management goals. The intent of th<^ Policy Plan portion of ccnprehensi. shore? '• management . rogram is to o**' ..ine in w *itten form what c. lake communities seek tv- produce or accomplish relati.Vv. cj the physit ax ••pvi rorment. Secondly, the Policy Plan is intended to set forth gui'^elines as to how these desires are to achieved.These elements comprise a review and decision-making process and the basis upon which land use plans, programs, and local shoreland ordinances can be formulated and initiated. The lake area policies and guidelines are intended to provide development parameters that are reflective of and responsive to the individual city development patterns and community objectives, while identifying means for accomplishing the regional lake area environmental goals. The policy statements and guidelines will establish evaluation criteria for the development and change which subsequently occurs. Specific policy areas that should be addressed: A.Residential uses 1. Large lot single family areas 2. Small lot single family areas 3. Medium density residential areas a. Density b. Building massing/height c. Lot coverage d. Land use/lake view compatibility e. Storm water management 4. High density residential uses a. Density b. Setbacks c. Building massing/height d. Lot cove age e. Land use/lake view compatibility f. Lake area locations g. Storm water management B. Commercial Uses 1. Lake area commercial locations Development criteria a. Lot coverage b. Setbacks c. Building appearance d. Building height/massing e. Accessory uses f. Storm water management g. Land use/lake view compatibility Water oriented commercial uses 4. Riparian ccminercial locations 5. Percentage of shoreland allocated land uses for commercial Industrial Uses 1. Lake area locations 2. Development criteria a. Lot coverage b. Setbacks c. Site appearance/accessory uses d. Building appearance/building height e. Land use/lake view compatibility 3. Redevelopment criteria a. Desired land use alternatives b. Redevelopment incentives c. Development appearance 4. Storm water management Environmental Policies 1. Pollution Control a. Problem areas b. Pollution sources c. Corrective measures storm water management Storm water management a. Local comprehensive plan Cooperative review with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Erosion control and sediment retention measures/standards Municipal storm water system improvements Wetland protection/management b. c. d. e. 3. 4. Management of aquatic weeds Dredging The generalized regional policy statement will establish the foundation and criteria upon which local shoreland plans and ordinances may pursue flexibility to address existing local situations and needs. 5. 6* Develop a regional lakewide development framework to generally guide the geographic location of land use types and intensity within the Lake Minnetonka shoreland area. Based on the estimated development capacity for the shoreland area, the lake communities' data base and shoreland policy statements, a Shoreland Development Framework can be assembled. The Development Framework will serve as a model for lake area land use distribution based on land use type and development intensities. By using the Comprehensive Plans of the individual 14 lakeshore communities, the Development Framework can be sensitive to the planning objectives of the individual cities v;hile providing a balanced development pattern throughout the lake shoreland area, which in total strives to meet State standards and accomplishes the overall goal for development adjacent to the lake. It must be understood, however, that the Development Framework is a generalized plan. More detailed land use plans and development ordinances are the responsibility and will be prepared by the individual cities to further tailor the lake area shoreland goals to their community's e.xisting development and specific needs. Develop an implementation program for the development of the Shoreland Management Plan and its future administration. I. Plan Formulation A- Shoreland Development Capacity. The LMCD consultant, in conjunction with DNR staff, calculate the development capacity of the shoreland area surrounding Lake Minnetonka. The development capacity should be broken down by land use type and should include an estimate of "available" capacity. B. Data Base Assembly. 1. Lakeshore communities provide the following information: a. b. c. d. Comprehensive Plan Zoning Ordinance and Map Description of existing shoreland land use patterns and development Estimate of vacant land in shoreland 2. Metropolitan Council provides description of regional lake facilities and objectives. 3. LMCD Consultant charts development patterns on lakewide map. Identification of land use types, development densities, and areas not conforming to DNR standards. Issue Identification. 1. LMCD Consultant identification of lakewide development issues. local2. 3. Individual issues. City identification of Meeting of LMCD, cities and DNR to discuss local issues for inclusion in plan. 4. Formulate issues summary. Policy Plan Formulation. 1.Discussion of iss 2.LMCD Consultan'’ shoreland mane .‘mu la t ion policies. of regional 3.Local communities formulate local lake protection and policies. shorelana development 4.Meeting of LMCD, and compare policy cities and statements. DNR to discuss 5.Formulate policy summary. Development Framework. 1. L.MCD Consultant develops lakewide Development Framework based on existing development patterns and comprehensive plans of various communities. Informational meeting for lakeshore communities. presentation Development Framework revisions. Public hearing and plan adoption. Lakeshore communities update local comprehensive plans to reflect agreed upon regional lake area Shoreland Management Plan. Ordinance. Local communities draft shoreland ordinance consistent with local Comprehensive Plans and Shoreland Management Plan policies and guidelines and are sensitive to existing land use development patterns. Public hearing for ordinance, DNR for review. transmittal to 3. Local adoption of shoreland ordinance. Administration and Enforcement. 1. Local shoreland development and specific zoning matters shall be the responsibility of the individual cities and the DNR. 2. Storm water management shall be the responsibility of the individual cities and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Lake access, lake use, and shoreland recrec ;ion shall be the responsibility of the LMCD/Metropolitan Council. 4. Community land use changes which require Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be referred to the LMCD for review and comment. 5. In dealing with shoreland jurisdictional matters, it shall be the City’s responsibility to coordinate with the LMCD. Direct developer contact and negotiation with the LMCD is not to take place. (NOTE: The preceding statement assumes the current Appendix C of the Long Term Management Plan will be deleted and eventually the Policies portion of the Plan outlined above, will replace any such Ordinance material.) ANALYSIS OP PROPOSALS U1CD COKPRBHKNSIVK PLAN General Planning Process Authority/Rule-Requirements (for clties-462/473) Comprehensive Plan Development (sample city process) Goals/Objectives Inventory of existing land uses Issue identification/policy formulation Development framework Methods to Implement plan Preliminary approval Submission for review and approval Receipt of approval from Metro Council Comprehensive plan adoption/locally uoning/subdivision Ordinance Amendments (changes maybe made to these independent of any Comprehensive Plan changes) Conflicts between Comprehensive Plan/ Ordinance-Actions LHCD City Planning Process (Hot clarified (Specifically set in document as forth 473) to specific process) General goals setforth (Metro Council's specific role not def1ned ) Serve as coordinating agency to develop shoreland zonino ordinances for cities (Not defined) Specific Application Review Meets all requirements (no policy bd action required) Zoning Changes (rezones, etc.) Subdivisions Variances WATSATA PROPOSAL City Planning LMCD Process Cities update Comprehensive Plans to reflect shoreland plans Goals set in plan Do Inventory from Cities' Comp plans within 1000' Develop issues/polices Establish criteria for local develpment LMCD review and comment on amendments Comp Plans - submitted to Metro Council effecting defined Lake Mtka shoreland (1000'). Cities develop shoreland regulations with DNR consistent with LMCD plan (Involved if Comp. Plan amendment required) PQ V- I 4 LMCD to review and comment rr''pared by City of Orono C<TY COUNCIL Robert D. Citvold ■Mayor Roben P. Ambro« Richard C. Harmon F. Peter Merfartn CrcKOry 0 Rye Allan Or>«ft City Manafc-er October 17, 1990 CITY OF mrZAIA kO rice street. WAYZATA, MINN. 5.'?‘>I PHONE 473 0:3- Mr. Eugene Stromnien Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 E. Lake Street Wayzata, MIT 55391 RE: Wayzata - LMCD Plan Dear Gene: We are herewith formally transmitting a paper which the City of Wayzata has prepared in an attempt to convey the directions and philosophies which we believe the Shorcland Protection Chapter of the LMCD's Long Tern Management Program (September 1990) needs to reflect. This is accompanied by a table style summary, prepared by Mark Bernhardson, the Orono city Manager, which briefly outlines the message which we are trying to communicate. At the outset, we wish to stress that this information is offered in a positive context. We share the LMCD's concern to move this matter along and to gain a consensus of Lake Minnetonka communities on the plan. In this regard, we are greatly appreciative of the tabling of the Shoreland Protection Chapter and the opportunity offered for a cities based resolution of the issue. In the attached material, we have not addressed the introductory text of the shoreland protection chapter. While we believe this material may need to be modified to reflect the concepts and approach we are suggesting, time limits have limited our ability to address such details. We have, however, cited thz lmcd's shoreland protection goals and indicated a general level of satisfaction with these statements. Our primary focus has, therefore, been the Gene stroinmen Page 2 October 17, 1990 Management Objectives and their direction. In summary, and as supported by the material from the City of Orono, the revised Management Objectives address a "program” for a "plan". This includes content as well as jurisdictional responsibilities,. Specifically, this material is intended to replace the current draft Shoreland Protection Chapter Management Objectives 1, 2, and 3, as contained on page 46. Moreover, our material and position is to delete, at least for the present time. Appendix C. From the community meeting sponsored by the City of Wayzata on 16 October, we understand that of the cities represented, Orono, Deephaven, Minnetonka, and Spring Park agree in general principal with the Wayzata position. At this point, we are uncertain as to the positions of other Lake communities. In this same vein, we are appreciative of the fact that many cities have cited other concerns with the LI.CD Management Program. It would appear, however, that there is reasonable supoort for the Wayzata approach. It is our opinion that the LMCD should give due consideration to this material as an initial basis for consensus building, is our hope that this will eventually lead to support for the Management Program and its approval. Again, thank you for your time and consideration and continued cooperation. Sincerely yours. CITY OF WAYZATA Allan Orsen City Manager cc:Mayor and City Council Tom Martinson John L. Stine ‘ i RESPONSE TO ORONO'S SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 LETTER The first main points in their letter of September 19, 1990 is: ft OCT I 9B90 1 The plan concentrates LMCD's focus away from environmental protection and preservation. Sub-points; a. It is not a plan for LMCD, but for some other agency to implement b. Some plan goals are contrary to environmental and aesthetic interests, e.g., it accentuates land use development on the lake for recreation without considering its effect on the lake. RESPONSE: Throughout its more than 20-year history, the LMCD has not been first and foremost an agency concerned with environmental protection and preservation. These goals are among the most important, but the LMCD has spent as much or more of its efforts on Recreation use of the lake (Chapter II of the plan; User experience, satisfaction, and public safety (Chapter III of the plan; and overall management issues (Chapter VI of the plan). Environmental protection and preservation are the subject of Chapters IV and V of the plan. We should not forget that the fundamental environmental protections for Lake Minnetonka in the future are contained especially in the Shoreland Management Chapter (IV). Without those protections, the quality of Lake Minnetonka cannot be maintained at anything close to what it is today. Orono states that this is not a plan for implement. That simply is not true. Examine plan proposes 1 . the LMCD, but someone else to the alternatives against what 2. In order to fully implement the plan, the following organ i zations must work together: 14 lakeshore convnunities LMCD Watershed District Suburban Hennepin Regional Parks H<»*^nepin County Meiropvttian Council Metropolitan Access Conunittee Pollution Control Agency Department of Natural Resources Department of Trade and Economic Development If only one agency were to implement this plan alone, whether the LMCD or any other agency, it would have to usurp at least i:*ine of the powers of each of these same organ i zations. That is not desirable, practical or reasonable. Not or the LMCD or anyone else. Orono further states that the plan accentuates land use chatiqes for recreation use without considering the consequences. The plan maintains that the future threats to the lake are from development ami redevelopment of the lake for residential and commercial purposes. The plan supports additional parks on the lake and more access ramps. And it is impoi taut to note that parks 1 and access ramps have not been the source of the growth in boating over the last 15 years. Municipal docks now put 81 percent more boats on the lake than they did 15 years ago. Marinas have grown by 22 percent and Homeowner associations by 96 percent. Add yacht clubs and apartments on the lake, and there are now nearly 1100 more boats stored at these facilities than there were 15 years ago. (See Table 4 in the plan). During that time, public access boat ramps have not changed significantly. The threat to increasing the number of boats on the lake is cleat ly not public access points, but the other forms of access. Our emphasis on public recreational lands on the lake has the potential of increasing the number of boats by approximately 3^ at a maximum. The problem is not with public access, it is all of the individual multiple dock licenfvs that the LMCD reviews each month. This plan proposes unprecedented controls on access to the lake; controls that do not now exist. The level of discipline required by the LMCD Board in the future far exceeds that presently required. 2. The Plan still does not specifically incorporate: a. a definition of Metropolitan Council's role in plan review. the process for changes in the plan that may require review by others in the future. How actual or alleged differences between the plan on the one hand and LMCD actions and ordinances on the other are to be resolved legally. b. c. RESPONSE: Page 7, third paragraph after "ALITHORITY" states; "Section 473 grants the Metropolitan Council specific authority to review management plans prepared by local or regional (metropolitan area) agencies...and precludes implementation during the review period." As for point b, above, we know of no statutory provision that requires review by any organization, if the LMTO Board determined changes were needed. Perhaps the LMCD attorney should review this point. What happens when the LMCD Board decides to diverge from the plan is not handled in any statute that we are aware of. Certainly, lake ma^'^gement agencies are not now subjected to the same sort of consistenc> review that cities are with their comprehensive plans. Cities are go\.^*-ned by the Land Planning Act, the LMCD is not. The legislature would have to decide that lake management agencies need that kind of consistency review. If Orono wants consistency review by the Metropolitan Council for this Management Program, we suppose the LMCD could seek an interagency agreement to establish such a review process. If Orono has some other form or review in mind, the LMCD Board could most probably establish the apptopria»e interagency agreement. No such proposal was made during the planning process, and w^ know of no specific proposal now. 3. The approach of increasinq restrictions while allowing continued acces? is not likely to prove successful. RESPONSE: The persons and organizations who participated in developing the concept of progressively more restrictive regulation as boat density increases believed that that approach was the best for this lake. That group spent ?ix months reviewing a wide range of alternatives (see Access and Lake Use Preliminary Plans, Working Papers, and all of the monthly hand-cjts). We cannot respond to this unsupported statement, except to observe that the recreation professionals, local government elected and appointed officials, and private citizens that studied this for six months believes that this is the best approach available. Orono needs to provide specific reasons that can be addressed. 4. Other lakes in the state have concentrations of boats fixed at 1:10 (for lakes removed from population centers). If others found a way of setting such a density standard for those lakes, surely we can set one for Lake Minnetonka. RESPONSE: Again, we repeat that these is no boat density standard established b/ the DNR or any other organization in the State of Minnesota. The DNR, and in the metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Access Committee does have these standards for parking spaces at public access points on lakes in the state: 1. for metropolitan lakes - 1 parking space for every 10 acres of water. 2. for lakes in the rest of the state - 1 parking space for every 20 acres of water. These are not boat density standards. They are standards for determining the number of car/trailer parking spaces at each lake with public access. There are no boat density standards set for any lake in Minnesota by the DNR or any other organization that we are aware of. 5. The plan does not assure that the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County or others will agree to the LMCD and constituent communities response to increased boater concentrations. RESPONSE : This really is not true. First, Hennepin County management programs are almost exclusively limited to buoy placement and other operations and maintenance activities and lo law enforcement. If Hennepin County wished to establish a program managing boat density on Lake Minnetonka, we are unable to find a statute that gives them that power since the LMCD already exists by act of the legislature. Given their budqet problems and their relation with the LMCD, we cannot imagine HTe County seeking authority to regulate boat density. At the same time, the Sheriff's Water Patrol provides law enforcement for ^he lake. But it has no mecfianism for establishinq ordinances, •'n 1 y enforcing local and state rules, regulations and laws. Nor does the Metropolitan Council have a program that gives them authority over boat densities on this lake, or any other lake in the metropolitan area. It, too, would have to seek new authority with one exception. The Metropolitan Council staff sit on the Metropolitan Access Committee. That committee could change its present rule of one car/trailer parking space for every 20 acres of water. But when this management plan is implemented, all agencies that want an additional access point on the lake will have to receive LMCD approval (under its existing code). Because of the limits set in t 6 management plan, the LMCD can refuse any parking lot expansion associated with an access point over the 700 agreed to in this program. That is a protection that does not now exist. 6. The plan seeks to change the emphasis and the structure of the LMCD that has been stable for ZZ years. Sub-points: a. Instead of the legislatively sanctioned system of checks and balances, derived from shared powers among agencies, the proposed plan calls for legislative action. b. There is a risk that the legislature will alter the LMCD structure and authority. RESPONSE: No part of this plan seeks to change the emphasis of the LMCD in its major areas. The Program does offer new management tectiniques, and clarifies goals and objectives. But there is no change in emphasis. The structure of the LMCD is being changed to add four new members once regional funding is provided. If regional funding is not fortlicoming, there will be no change in the LMCD Board. That is one regional vote for every three local votes. We do not see a substantive change in the legislatively sanctioned checks and balances. Orono feels that there is a risk that the legislature will alter the LMCD structure and authority. We agree that there is this risk. A united front, with 14 cities, the Watershed District, Regional Park District, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council and the DNR supporting the proposal will minimize this risk. This, coupled with knowledgeable lobbying should make the risk acceptable. 7. The power to review and comment on land use decisions will have two consequences: a. pressure for redevelopment will cause momentum toward the least restrictive standard of communities within the plan. b. this will add additional time to variance review, or additional and unnecessary staff and expense for the LMCP. RESPONSE: It is not in the interest of the LMCD or the intent of the Management Program for Orono's restrictive land use controls to be weakened. Management Objectives //2 and on page 46 could be deleted and replaced with the following: "In order to minimize the adv --le effects of development and redevelopment, the LMCD, the Watershed Dis -t, and the DNR shall develop one or more interagency agreements to assure shoreland management protections are developed, and enforced, that are consistent with restrictive local ordinances." This could include advise and counsel to the DNR in their regulatory programs on the lake. 8. Orono is opposed to changing the governing body of the LMCD by adding additional agency members. Sub-point: a. The impact of the four agencies will be disproportionate to their numbers. RESPONSE: If there is to be • .»gional funding for lake programs, the Board must be changed in some way. ic ipants who spent six months discussing this and related issues felt that this was the minimum that we could expect to be accepted and still obtain the level of support to obtain legislative approval. The management plan stipulates that the representatives of these four new agencies must be non-professional staff, not a board member, but instead, an appointed interested citizen. The revised LMCD Board would have three city votes for every agency vote. As long as the cities are conscientious of who they appoint, this problem should be minimal or nonexistent. 9. The LMCD is either trying to become or is unconsciously becoming an instrument of the DNR. RESPONSE- The Board has not changed. The major emphasis, goals and programs have not changed. We find no support for this allegation. The only areas that the DNR and some other organizations disagreed on during the development of this management program were: 1. Shoreland management - but that program exists and will be enforced whether or not the LMCD is involved. Each city will have the same problems with the DNR whether or not this management program is adopted. 2. 700 car/trailer parking spaces at access ramps. The DNR, Metropolitan Access Committee ar . the Metropolitan Council have the independent authority to assure that that number are built and available whether or not this management plan is implemented. There will be 700 car/trailer parking spaces on this lake in the future -- with or without city approval. We find no merit to this unsupported allegation. 10.Orono does not favor increased taxes for Uie LMCD for the purpose of carrying out the proposed plan [Orono's emphasis.] Sub-point: a. Unless the funds are to be spent for an agreed-upon purpose which existing agencies have not and cannot carry out, the funds should not be sought. RESPONSE The 2. These are carry out funds raised for the increased taxes are to be spent for: 1. Increased water patrol when there are no alternative funding sources. Enforcement of LMCD existing regulatory programs that cannot be enforced with existing staff and funds. Enforcement of DNR and Watershed District regulatory permit programs that are not being enforced now. Enforcement of wetland, shoreland and other environmental protections that do not now exist. agreed upon purposes which existing agencies have not and cannot 3. 4. 11.In summary, the LMCD has identified the issues, but it does not have satisfactory or definitive solutions. The consequences of the proposed solutions are unknown, and appear inimical to the future of the lake and LMCD itself. RESPONSE: We have no answer for this except that numerous individuals and organizations spent more than two years developing this program. We cannot agree that the work of all of these individuals were so consistently wrong. Orono had little participation in the development of the management plan and therefore lacks the benefit of the hundreds of hours of discussion that took place. We respectfully disagree with the City. RECEIVED SEP 27 1990 LMLCA. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT October EEi mO K-■■ J to: FROn: SUBJECT: ‘OCT 2 2 1990 City Administrator1 Mayor and Council Members Chair Dave Cochran Response to City of Uayzata's Shoreland Protection Outline of October IE-. mO Mi October edition of the Management Plan Respecting the amount of time and exchanges which have taken place among several cities relating to the Shoreland Protection chapter of the Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka-, the attached response is forwarded for your consideration* Reference is made in the second paragraph examples to subcommittee meetings-. Working Paper and Preliminary Plan* Li1CD has the Working Papers as part of the subcommittee review process* The Preliminary Plan is the being covered document distributed in November-, na^-. for the December E public review of this-, among the eight other chapters presented at that time- You will notice that much of the commentary relates to the appropriateness of LMCD conducting certain portions of data base development-, as contrasted to the cities taking these steps* Maintaining the distinction between LMCD jurisdictions and those of the cities is a sensitivity which LMCD truly does respect* • V . In order to provide the most current information-, taking into account a number of minor clerical adjustments-, as well as additions to the Management Plan since the August editioni we are enclosing the copy just received* Additions-, most particularly in the Shoreland Protection Chapter IV, and Appendix C, have been noted by BOLD PRINT* Other changes of consequence-, some in the Implementation Chapter VII, have also been so entered* We regret it has not been possible to show the deletions, but there were very feu except to bring the material closer to the correct interpretation* Given the above new material, your LMCD Board will be reconsidering the .chapters VI, VII, and VII and Appendicies A through C at its regular October EM, mU meeting* This will be considered at the beginning of the meeting shortly aft 7:30 pm at Tonka Bay City Hall* Thank you for your continued interest and recognition of LMCD's position on this most important matter* .‘•j- /// REVIEW OF WAYZATA'S SHORELAND PROTECTION OUTLINE A review of the October 12, 1990 Wayzata Shoreline Protection Material reveals very serious flaws in the approach. The study outline that they propose is inappropriate for the LMCD in part and redundant in the remainder. Mr. Licht has stated that this outline was developed to assist cities in developing their, shoreland ordinance. It would serve that purpose, it does not serve the LMCD. The redundant portions relate to the study outlines steps for defining goals and policies. Examples are listed below: Page 4, step 1. "Determine the 'Development Capacity'...." In preparation for the subcommittee meetings held from December, 1988 to February, 1989 we did major portions of this and presented the material to the attendees (14 communities, DNR, Metropolitan Council, and the Watershed District). Much of the material is presented in the Working Paper and the Preliminary Plan. Page 4, step 2. "Establish a Shoreland Development Data Base". We did that part which was appropriate for the LMCD in the fall of 1988 and used it throughout the four months of the Shoreland Management Sv.l)commlttee proceedings. The remaining parts are a«ipropri;<te only for the individual cities. Page , step 3. "Identify the lake use and land use issues...." We also did that in the fall of 1988 and the work appears in the "Shoreland Management Working Paper" and "Shoreland Management Preliminary Plan". Page 6, step 4 "Develop policies and guidelines...." We have developed specific policies, and this was accomplished by the 14 cities, the DNR. Metropolitan Council. Watershed District and the LMCD in meetings held from December 1988 to February, 1989. All cities were represented, including Wayzata. The participants from Wayzata are no longer in that city's employ We also performed parts of steps 5 and 6 to the extent that it was appropriate for a lake protection agency without significant jurisdiction over upland areas. Most of the work suggested is beyond the scope of LMCD authority and interest. It is our conclusion that the City of Wayzata wants us to go back through the process that we have already completed because they now disagree with the decisions that were made with all 14 cities, the Watershed District, Metropolitan Council and the DNR participating. The parts that are Inappropriate would involve the LMCD in land use de ^slons and policy that would do grave harm to the District's constituency. Ti : is, the outline calls for the LMCD to determine, city by city, what land uses are appropriate. We believe that is clearly beyond the authority of the LMCD and solely the purview of the individual cities and the Metropolitan Council. Examples from the outline are: Page 4, step 1. "Determine the development capacity...." This involves "preliminary land use allocations (l.e., low density residential, high density residential, commercial, water-oriented commercial, industrial)". The LMCD should not do that, the individual cities need to make these determinations. If the LMCD attempted this step, it would likely alienate the cities that now support us in our current efforts. 1 Page 5, step 2, parts c and d. "Establish t Shoreland Development data base...." These steps are best completed by the cities as part of the development of their individual shore.’and ordinance. Page 7, step 4. "Specific policy areas...." Some policy areas that are listed could not be addressed by the LMCL without intruding on the individual city's traditional jurisdictions. The LMCD should not put itself in the position of telling the 14 cities what land uses and zoning classes are appropriate within their municipal boundaries. The LMCD should continue to focus its attention on what impact those uses and zoning classes will have on the lake. The LMCD's objective is to protect the lake, not establish land uses around the lake. Page 9, step 5. "Develop a Regional Lakewide Development Framework...." This is to develop a generalized plan for the type of development that should be allowed within each city. We did some of that during the subcommittee work -- insofar as it was needed and appropriate. Beyond that, we feel this intrudes too much into the individual city's traditiv^nal jurisdiction. Our goal of protecting the lake from pollution can be accomplished without this step. Further, the LMCD performing this step is sure to alienate most of the cities on the lake. It simply is unnecessary for the LMCD given its lack of jurisdiction in this area. Page 9, step 6. "Develop an Implementation Program...." The Shoreland Subcommittee determined, as the DNR did, that the program should be implemented by the individual cities that have the sole and exclusive authority in this area. Specific details on how this program is implemented within each city need not involve the LMCD. Once an ordinance is developed that indeed protects the lake, the LMCD need be concerned only that the ordinance is enforced. The Sh'^reland Management Chapter and Appendix C has come under sharp attack in the past months. A vocal minority of the cities oppose the Chapter, primarily because they perceive that adoption of this chapter and appendix will limit their future options to redevelop their communities. But those argunents are counter to policy set by the State Legislature, rules as implemented by the DNR, and demonstrably detrimental to the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. The Shoreland Management Chapter and Appendix C need to be adopted with only minor change for three reasons: 1. Without it, there are no effective environmental controls for the lake; water quality will seriously degrade over the coming years. 2. Without it, the cities will be subject to the same regulations because the DNR will enforce its program; we have made only minor changes in the DNR program. 3. Without it, the LMCD will suffer serious loss of credibility with other cities supporting the plan, and the other managing agencies. If the shoreland management chapter is not adopted, we will have to completely rework the Environmental Quality Chapter, seeking other means of protecting the lakeshore. Environmental protection of the lake is totally dependent upon restrictions on redevelopment within 1,000 feet of the shoreline. Wayzata has taken the lead arguing that our rules are too inflexible. But in fact, our suggest standards and criteria to be used as a guide for developing local shoreland ordinances offer more flexibility than the DNR existing rules and regulations. The DNR has indicated in meetings that they will accept the less restrictive elements of our program as contained in Appendix C. The October 12 outline distributed by Wayzata repetitively argues that our chapter (and the DNR's rules) "do not give sufficient attention to the existing development patterns, cr the future land use objectives of the individual lakeshore communities." (This same point is reiterated on pages 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). But the LMCD Board should give serious consideration to rejecting that argument. If the State Legislature and the DNR believed that existing development patterns or future land use objectives posed no threats to state lakes, there would be no legislatively mandated Shoreland Management Program. It simply would not be needed. But the State Legislature has mandated that lakeside cities cannot continue development without regard to the adverse effects to the lakes. Under our Shoreland Management Chapter and Appendix. Wayzata and Spring Park can continue to redevelop their downtown areas, maintain their present character, and continue traditional uses within the shorelands. Outside of the shorelands, Wayrata can redevelop and expand without these restrictions. But within 1,000 feet of the lake, Wayzata will be precluded from redevelopment inconsistent with the DNR regulations, whether or not the LMCD Board adopts this chapter. Various cities, especially Spring Park, have suggested various changes in wording and Intent. We have accommodated most of those to assure reasonable flexibility, without allowing unrestrained development that will unquestionably degrade the water quality of the lake. The Cliapter before the Board on Wednesday is significantly Improved, less restrictive and more flexible than the Public Review Draft issued in April. But it still achieves the reasonable environmental protection goals. RECEIVtU OCT 22 1990 L.M.C.D. David J. Arndorfer LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 24, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 9-26-90 Regular Meeting 4. Installation of Officers 3. Public Comments - from persons in attendance iioL on agenda 6. Chair Report, Cochran A. Standing committee chair and vice chair appointments: * Water Structures and Environment * Lake Use * Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force * Advisory * Save the Lake Fund Campaign 7. Reports A. Standing Committees 1) ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Rascop a) Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka, consideration of Shoreland Protection Chapter IV, Appendices A, Authority; B, Definitions; and C, Shoreland Standards and Criteria; and Sections I, Introduction; VII, Implementation; and VIII Partial List of References Reviewed A. 2) WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Lhair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 10-13-90. b) Amenity Study recommending approval to amend Code §2.05, Subd. 4. c) Deicing license applications, recommending approval of 18 applica tions submitted through 10-12-90, stipulating temporary low water dock extensions beyond 200' should not be deiced. d) Windward Marine new building construction, recommending a letter be sent to City of Orono requesting information about the building and any variances granted. e) Additional business. 7. A. 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 10-15-90. b) Code amendment, §2.12, Sut)d. 7, Buoy Removal; and §2.08, Subd. 3, Impoundment. (over) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda October 24, 1990 c) MN DNR proposed bill to establish a state * aw providing additional regulation of the use and operation of personal watercraft, recom mending support for the bill. d) LMCD ordinance §2.041 regulating Personal Watercraft, recommending amendment to Subd. 2, personal Flotation Devices, to identify Type I, II, III or V as the Coast Guard-approved personal flotation devices. e) Special event deposit refunds, recommending approval for Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and Viking Bassmasters. f) Save the Lake annual recognition dinner recommending Thursday, February 14, and Lord Fletchers of the Lake. g) Water Patrol report. h) Additional business. 7. A. 4) EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese a) Progress on 1991 operations planning. b) Additional business. 7. A. 5) FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Boswinkel a) Statement of cash transactions, month ending 9-30-90 b) Quarterly report for the three months ending 9-30-90 c) Audit of vouchers for payment 7. A. 6) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Strommen a) Finalization of office lease for enlarged space at Norwest Bank, Wayzatn. b) MN Lake Management Federation annual conference highlights. 8. Unfinished Business 9. New Business A. Consideration of auditor and financial service for quarterly reports for 1991. B. Save the Lake Fund Analysis recommending adoption of the Mission Statement, Objectives, Funding Considerations, Budget Procedure and Amendments as presented. C. Designation of depository for LMCD checking, saving and/or securities, recommending Norwest Bank. D. Resolution designating the treasurer to sell, assign and transfer general obligations of the United States and the State of Minnesota maturing in less than three years. E. Resolution designating the treasurer and one other officer or the executive director, two signatures required, to pay, transfer or withdraw funds on deposit with Norwest Bank. F. Additional new business. 10. Adjournment 10-19-90 Actiou Report; Meeting: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Water Structures and Environment Committee Saturday, October 13, 1990, 7:30 a.m. Shorewood City Hail Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Vice Chair, Spring Park: Jan Boswinkei, Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Greenwood; JoElien Hurr, Orono; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Babcock at 7:30 a.m, 1. Chapman Place Commercial Marina Agreement Review The committee received Charles LeFevere’s review of a revised license agreement between Chapman Place Association, Inc. and Scenic Lawn and Landscape, Inc. LeFevere questioned whether Chapman Place is operating a bona fide commercial marina operated by an independent licensee under an arms length commercial transaction, or whether the proposed relationship is merely a subterfuge in which the licensee is simply an operating agent for an outlet association facility. LeFevere noted there have been changes in the license agreement. His review of the agreement led him to state that he is not comfortable in recommending that the proposed license agreement to be in order. Robert T. Cuthill, President, Chapman Place Association, responded to LeFevere with a letter to the Executive Director in which he responded to the five changes detailed in LeFevere’s letter. Cuthill further provided a statement of income and operating expenses for 199U. The Committee received a memorandum, dated ih ’J-Dn. fr<:'m the Executive Director containing the results ol his meeting with Cuthill and discussion with LeFevere. Cuthill presented photos of the dock area to show improvements to the dock and .shoreline area, making •^•vory effort to conform to LMCD requirements. He insisted he has no intent of dealing in subterfuge or deception, has always operated openly and attempted to build a trust with LMCD. Cuthill went on to explain that the original marina operator, Waterfront Specialties, Inc., refused a contract renewal at the end of the first year. Chapman Place was thus forced to buy the docks. as specified in the operator agreement, to be assured of being in operation for 1990. It was their decision tc purchase the docks. They also were put in a position of preparing an operator agreement which would include some assurance of operating solvency. Chapman Place does not believe there ever has been a reference that the applicant could not own the docks. Originally they did own the docks the former operator left on the premise.s. Cuthill also noted that the docks are t.axed separately a.s a commercial marina at $5,000/slip. He could n'.»t see wlieie there was any difficulty. - continued Water Structures and Environment Committee October 13, 1990 Reese noted that as a commercial marina, Chapman Place does not have adequate parking, and does not provide public amenities. (It is grandfathered for 27 slips rather than licensed for special density requiring amenities) Cochran stated that in looking at what the District is trying to accomplish, this arrangement provides a benefit to the general public, as well as the owners of the condominiums. He can foresee the need for some adjustment to the ordinances, noting a similar situation exists at the Excelsior Bay Gables. Slocum said he was satisfied with Cuthill’s responses to the LeFevere letter, his opinion being that Chapman Place has done what the LMCD required in its order. Slocum moved, Pillsbury seconded, to dismiss this discussion and to consider an ordinance change to allow ownership of docks with an arms length operating agreement. Reese moved, Hurr seconded, to table the discu.ssion unti) the matter of the Chapman Place docks and the Excelsior Pay Gables docks can be discussed in the same context. Motion carried, Slocum voting nay. Cuthili advised the committee that Chapman Place was prepared to sign an operators agreement for 1991 at an early date. The committee offered no objection to their doing so. 2- Communication with Lakeside Marina Regarding Non-Compliance The Executive Director reported that Jim Dunn, Lakeside Marina owner, has not complied with the temporary low water variance granted in April. He was allowed to replace permanent docks with floating docks in the same configuration, extended to 600’. The change is only half completed. Slip sices do not conform to the original configuration. The Executive Director recommends putting Dunn on notice that the District expects Lakeside Marina to have docks in place-' in the exact configuration, supported by an as-built survey. The docks are otherwise not to be used until a license is issued. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend acceptance of the Executive D-rector’s recommendation and to autJiorise him to communicate the plan he has outlined to the licensee. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Review of Amenity Study The committee received an update of the Amenity Value Study dated October 5, 1990. Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of Uie amendment to Code 2.05, Subd. 4 as submitted with the following changes: Group A - Title Change: Public Access: Handicr^pped Access Meeting State Standards for Docks and Boats, and Adequate General Public Parking are Mandatory Requirements for one or more of the following: Group C - Item n): Slip and/or boat use for ^m<^rgen::ies and governm^ntJiJL axe.ncLy us^ ~ continu»;d Water Structures and Environment Committee The alternate point scale is recommended, unanimously. October 13, 1990 Motion carried 4. Excelsior Bay Yacb- Club: EAW status and response by new marina operator. The Executive Director reported the management of the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club (EE/C) restaurant facility and the dock license application have been taken over by a new operator. Phil Weber, Excelsior Park Tavern. EBYC will continue to coriducb^^ a membership program separate from the restaurant operation. The EAW, prepared by the District, is pending. The greatest concern of the City of Excelsior is whether there is enougli parking. The Executive Director is preparing a detailed resp..-»nse to the city. The new operator has indicated its iritent to continue with the new dock license as applied for by EBYC, pending the EAW outcome. No action was required. 5. 1990-1991 Deicing License Applications. Rascop moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of the eighteen de-icing permit applications received as of lU-i::!- 90, with the understanding that temporary low water dock extensions beyond 200’ sliouid not be de-iced. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Gayle's Marina The Executive Director reported a complaint ha.s been filed against Gayle’s Marina regarding tliree barges docked on the west shore of their property. This is a violation of Code 2.03, Subd. 86. storing boats in an unlicensed area. Hurr asked that contact be ma».le with Cry.stai I’.ay Services regarding a commercial barge stored regularly at its transient docks. 7. Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association - Management Plan. Response to The committee received a list of proposals from the^ LMLUA offering amendments to the Management Flan. Chair Cochran responded with a memorandum to the committee recr*mmending a response to the LMLOA. Following discus.sion. the committee instructed the Executive Director to prepare a response to the LMLUA as follows: o The requirement to provide 700 car/trailer parking spaces is not negotiable. o The District has no control over Eminent t»omain as that is a State Executive privilege. - continued Water Structures and Environment Committee Octobe* 13. 1S90 o 11,800 acres of usable lake area excludes the are» within 150’ of shore cone, which is the area where most Eurasian water Milfoil is found. 8. Management Plan Response - City of Wayzata The Executive Director reported receipt of an eleven page response to the Management Plan from the City of Waysat;.. It is being reviewed. Ail lake communities have been invi ,ed to a review meeting set for 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 16 Wayzata City Council Chambers. 9. Fee Schedule. Hurr requested a future discussion of the fees being charged for licenses, particularly developing a method of recuperating District legal and administrative charges. inrJvrling EAW preparation. It was noted Chair Grathwol has a fee s*. liedule on his priority list as part of the moratorium study. 10. Windward Marina - Shoreline Building Reese mentioned a variance granted by the City of Orono which permits construction of a very large buildiig at the Windward Marina shoreline. Reese moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend a letter be sent to the City of Orono requesting information about the building and any variances granted. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Adjournment Reese moved. Boswinkel seconded adjourned. Motion carried unanimously 9:10 a.m. at the me-3ting be ’■ieeting adjV'urned at FOR THE COMMITTEE; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director James Grathwol, O lair LAKE MINNETONKA CONGEUVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Meeting: Lake Use Committee Monday, October 15, 1990. 4-'30 p.m Shorewood City Hail Members Present: Robert Piilsbury. Chair, Minnetonka; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Marvin Bjoriin, Tonka Bay. David Cochran, Greenwood, Robert Rascop, Shorewood and Eugene Strommen. Executive Director, arrived after the vote on item 1. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician and Ken Schilling, Sheriff’s Water Patrol. 1. Code Amendment to 2.12, Subd. 7, Regarding Buoy Removal. The committee received a proposed amendment to LMCD Code 2.12, Subd. 7 calling for removal or submergence of buoys no later than December 15 of each year, providing for a later date if authorized by the sheriff after receipt of an application from the owner prior to December 15. Minor changes were also made to Code 2.08.Subd. 3 Impoundment, changing "towing’ to "removal" and deleting "without charge" from the last sentence. Bjorlin moved, Babcock seconde', to recommend an amendment to Code 2.12, Subd. 7 and Code 2.08. Subd. 3 per the draft dated 10-10-90. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Proposed MN Department of Natural Resource Bill for an Act Regulating Personal Watercraft. Thibault reviewed the DNR Bill regulating personal watercraft, noting the following differences with the LMCD Ordinance: o DNR defines a PW as a motorboat using an inboard motor powering a jet pump . . . LMCty specifies watercraft under 14’ in length using a motor powering a jet pump .... o DNR specifies each person on board wearing personal flotation devices, which are Coast Guard approved. Type 1. II. Ill or V. LMCD specifies Coast Guard approved personal flotation devices but does not specify types. o The DNR Bill includes sections on the age of operator and permit requirement. The LMCD Ordinance adopts the Age of Operator definition by reference to MN Statute 361.Ubb. o The DNR does not include the sections of the LMCD ordinance referring to operation within 3U0 ’ of shore. carele.ss operation and prolonged operation, which were adopted specifically for Lake Minnetonka. o The DNR Bill has sections on prohibiting towing persons without an observer, chasing wildlife and operating through vegetation, not mentioned in the LMCD Code. Rascop suggested distribution to the pwc review Committee for comment. Deputy Ken Schilling .said the Water Patrol would like to see the age minimum for LMCD’s ordinance be the same as the State, which it will by the State Statute reference. - continufMl Lake Use Committee October 15, 1990 Cochran moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend the Board support the DNR Bill and the LMCD ordinance be amended to specify the four types of personal flotation devices. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Deposit Refunds. Babcock moved. B.iorlin seconded, to recommend approval of the following deposit refunds: a) Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club for 1990 race schedule b) Viking Bassmasters of Minnesota for 10-14-90 tournament. Motion carried unanimously. 4. 1991 Gave the Lake Recognition Dinner The committee was unanimous in its recommendation that the 1991 Save the Lake Recognition Dinner be held on Thursday, February 14, 1991. at Lord Fletcher’s. The Water Patrol will make recommendation of a deputy to be r*=»cognized. Water Patrol Report. Schilling reported the- have been two watercraft personal in.jury accidents, one in Jennings Bay and one in Priests Bay. Buoy removal will begin 10-16 by Hennepin County. It will take about two weeks to complete. The summer work load is winding down and the water patrol is preparing for the winter season. Rascop requested a report on the prosecution of the DWI citations issued by the DtlR on Lake Minnetonka. He is interested in who is doing the prosecution and the results. 6. Management Plan Response - City of Wayr.ata The Executive Director distributed copies of the Uity ot Wayzata response to the Shoreland Protection section of the management plan. All lake communitie.s have been invited to a review meeting set for 5:00 p.m., Tuesday. October 16. Wayzata City Council Chambers. Cochran urged careful reading of the Wayzata response. A copy of the Wayzata response has been sent to David Arndorfer. Cochran suggested a review of the document by a professional planner who would offer third party ob.jective comments and who does not have a conflict with work being done for the Lake cities. Several names were mentioned. The committee consensus was to have the Executive Director investigate acquiring the short term services of a land planner. 7. Adjournment ^ ^ There being no further business to bring before the committee. the meeting was adjourned at 5:U5 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen. Executive Director I^obert Fillr.burv. Chair To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council MembersCity Administrator BernhardsonFrom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administra Date: October 19, 1990 Subject: #1334 Rebers Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Memo 9/20/90 Exhibit B - Kost*s Letter 10/3/90 Exhibit C - Illustration Provided by BRW Exhibit D - Council Action Notice At your October 8, 1990 meeting, the applicant requested tabling as the full Council was not present. Staff has included the cover memo prepared with the October 8th packet. If members have misplaced copies of the packet, please advise staff prior to the meeting. In Exhibits B and C, the applicant's consultant questions certain technical aspects of the templates prepared by the City Engineer and included as part of the resolution under consideration. Glenn will comment on Mr. Kost's concerns at your meeting. The options of action available to Council are set forth in the enclosed staff memo (Exhibit A). tJOUNCIL MEETING OCT 22 !990 CITY OF ORONO To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council MembersCity Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: September 20, 1990 Subject: #1334 Rebers' Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo to Planning Commission 9/12/90 Exhibit B - Original Packet Submitted for Council's Review 9/10/90 Meeting As directed, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff resolution that set forth a procedure for review of all building permits where houses were placed at front/street setbacks and front street yard improvements consisted of more than the allowed 20' wide access drive. The resolution ,-lso provided for an abbreviated review procedure, as .^et forth on Page 3 of that same resolution. The abbreviated review would require staff approvals only if building contractor was willing to accept either one of the limited improvement proposals as illustrated on Pages 5, 6 and 7 of that same resolution. The Planning Commission, in a 6-1 vote, once again recommended that each individual request to alter from the allowed 20' wide driveway within a front/street setback yard be reviewed by both Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission felt that to transfer the responsibility or authority to staff in the review of these matters may negate the true intent of the original PRD approval. The majority opinion strongly recommends that you review each request individually. The minority opinion felt that the illustrations obviously reflect minimal impact based on a three car garage backout needs. It was suggested that the abbreviated procedure could be considered or employed a carrot or reward and thereby reduce potential for expanded "Vs, "T*'s or loops with special requests. Options of Action - 1. To amend the staff resolution presented for Council action by removing the section that allowed for an abbreviated review procedure and to require that all requests be reviewed under the procedure set forth on Pages 1 and 2 of the staff resolution. In response to the developer's concern for delay in the building permit review process. Council may consider an additional amendment of that resolution that would allow such requests to be dealt with solely by the Planning Commission, with right of appeal to the Council if a contractor disagreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation; or & Zoning File #1334 September 20, 1990 Page 2 of 2 2. To adopt the resolution as originally drafted by Orono staff. Additional Comiients ~ On September 15, 1990, staff met with both the Planning Commission Chair and Co-chair, the developer and Bob Kost to review specific allegations of violations of the original PRD approval. We met out at the site and reviewed the two building sites and one site proposed for new construction. The representatives of the Planning Commission were convinced that the developer was proceeding under the guidelines set forth by the Council. At the meeting. Bellows and KeJJj|y:reported to the full body of the Planning Commission and cofipje^ti hted Mr. Rebers in his attempt to preserve the treesthroughout road construction, utility installations and building construction. Staff has no further comment on this matter. B i iJ PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN BRW INC i-HRESHER SQUARE 700 third street south MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA S5415 October 3, 1990 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Sugarwoods PRD Amendment, Driveways Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the Draft Copy Design Memorandum dated August 9, 1990, and have the following comments: 1. The technical data for Group IV - Large Cars is acceptable. 2. The width of the single garage door used by Rebers Construction is nine feet. The templates show an eight-foot-wide door. We suggest a nine-foot door be used. 3. The width of the typical three-car garage at Sugarwoods is thirty-four feet. The templates show a thirty-three-foot-wide garage. We suggest a thirty-four-foot-wide garage be adopted for all templates. 4. The driveway apron shown in Figure 4 is improperly located and of insuf ficient width to allow the driver at the left-hand garage door to exit the vehicle onto the pavement. This condition will be especially troublesome during the winter months. We suggest that a typical apron width of thirty- four feet be adopted for all templates. We hope you will incorporate these comments into the final tempi'.tes. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, BRW, Inc. Bob Kost, ASIA BK/blp cc: Sid Rebers Stephen Pflaum Glen Cook ______Ule^__6ar891^ ANAfKilAltuf I.^B£NNtlI .MXyUD INC liHIXA' OAViDJBtMNt^’ u -ONA lD W Hl'IUHUU: RXHAHO P MX5FUD pc,rot>W". IHTjMAST CAWXL CRA.r. A AM. DONA iUI mu NI MAR kO SWENSON XIMNO »A;NAMA(JA RiCh AROD Pli.CiRIM r>Lt N Ut CKMAMN ~f NNi'i J SiJ't Jf.r'nET I BENSON MAti'vr BloM 3AWiU l tiHAHAM ...Am J EHCkSCN MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX I TUCSON ST PETERSBURG SAN DIEGO REVISIONS A Figure 2. Per Oty Engineers Memo. Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Commission's interpretation of Approval. K ’« IniCfpraUUon Of Eliding Approval) Figure 2. Per City ' Engineers Menn). Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Commission's Interpretation of Approval (O«v*iop«r'* lnl«rpr«tallon or e lilting Approval I "■JV , ff SHEET NO. - la REVISIONS A Figure 2.Pr ' .'v ^•Engineer* Keenio. (D«v«lop«r't lnl«rpr«<Rllon or EilMlng Approval) Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Commlsak>n'a Interpretation of ApprovaL REVISIONS A Figure 2. Per City Engineers Memo. bil*fpr*l illon OI Eilaling ApfNOVtII Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Commission's tnlerpretatlon of Approval. REVISIONS buhmno rad A Figure 2. Per City Erigineers Memo. tOBVBlopBr's IntiirprBlatlon Of CiMIrtg Approval > Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Commlssion'e Interpretation of Approval. REVISIONS A Figure 2. Per City Engineers Memo. ID«v*lop«r't Intar prat* I Ion Of Cilatlng Approvall Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Commission's Interpretation of Approval REVISIONS b BUH.0)MO MO ARE* A Figure 2. Per City Engineers Memo. (0«vtlop«r'B lnl#rpf*t«lloo Of EilMIng Approvill Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Comrfilselon's Interpretation of Approval REVISIONS A Figure 2. Per city Engineers Memo. * IO*v«lop«r'R InItfpraliilloR Of Eilallng Approval! Sugarwoods Drive D Planning Commission's anterpretstlon ol Approval. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 -S■UAPPLICATION NO. 1334 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 10/15/90 TO: Sid Rebers 3525 Webster Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 COPIES: Bob Kost BRW 700 South 3rd St. Minneapolis, MN 55415 Stephen PflauF. Leonard, Street & Dienard 150 South 5th St., #2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Amendment of original conditional use permit for PRD DATE OF MEETING: October 8 1990 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To table further review of your application until the October 22, 1990 meeting at which the full Council will be present to consider your special request. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if the October 22, 1990 Council meeting poses a conflict with your schedules. From: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson COUNCIL MEEJiffO OCT 22 1990 CITY OF ORONO Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:October 18» 1990 Subject: #1497 Toberman Management, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Request to Table Staff has drafted the denial resolution as directed by the Council. The resolution is currently being reviewed by the City Attorney. In a telephone conversation with the applicant, Mr. Toberman, he advised that his attorney Mr. Gilbert would be out of town on October 22, 1990 and specifically requested that the denial resolution be rescheduled before the Council at their November 13, 1990 meeting. Proposed Motion: Moved by seconded by to table review and action by the Council on Application #1497, Toberman Management for property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive. Ayes ___, nays ___. VTo: Prom: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator COUNCIL MEETINGOctober 11, 1990 OCT 22 1990#1592 Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc. (Gerald E. Toberman), 1955 Shoreline Drive - Renewal Variances & Commercial Site Plan ReviewTfTy fir flDniin Public Hearing UnUWU Resoi'tion #2190 approved the original variances and commercial site plan applications for Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club, expiring on June 8, 1988. Resolution #2648, the renewal application, expired June 12, 1990. There is no change from the renewal application of 1989. The club house footprint of 30'x40' remains. The single story club house is proposed at a maximum 16' height to peak of the clerestory (review Exhibit K). Pertinent Ordinance - The major upgrading of the marina property requires a review of pertinent standards of the B~2 zone. Although improvements result in less intense use of this ' verely limited property, all new improvements require variance approval. Zoning District - Total area = .7 acres Required = 2 acres Variance = 1.3 acres or 65% A) Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (A) - Lakeshore setback. Principal structure: Required = 75' Existing = 9' Proposed = 50' Variance = 25' or 33.3% (existing = 66 or 88%) Deck structure connecting to existing dock: Required = 75' Existing = O' Proposed = 0' at 929.4 elevation Variance =75' or 100% B) ''ection 10.41, Subdivision 10 (B) - Side setback to residential used property. Principal structure: Required = 50' Existing = 14' Proposed = 40' Variance = 10' or 20% (existing = 36' or 72%) Zoning File #1592 October 11, 199C Page 2 of 4 C) Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (C) - Street setback. Principal structure; Required = 50' Existing = 70' Proposed = 50' No Variance Required D) Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (D) - Hardcover. Total area = 31,117 s.f. or .7 acres 0-75' setback area = 25,017 s.f. Allowed = 0% Existing = 18,428 s.f. or 73.6% Proposed = 15,862 s.f. or 63.4% (10% improvement in hardcover) 75-250' setback area = 5,100 s.f. Allowed = 1,275 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,100 s.f. Proposed = 5,100 s.f. (no change) E) Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 - Lot ar^a. Required = 2 acres or 87,120 s.f. Existing = .71 acres or 31,117 s.f. Variance = 1.3 acres or 56,628 s.f. or 65% F) Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 - Setback for parking from street lot line. Required = 30' Existing = O' Proposed = 10' Variance =20' or 66.6% (existing 0 or 100%) G) Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) - Parking requirements - 6 stalls per 10 slips. 79 slips = 48 parking stalls Require = 48 stalls Proposed = 42 stalls Variance = 6 stalls H) Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Setback variance from lakeshore for accessory structure (fence along Shoreline Drive). Review Exhibit I. Require = 75' Proposed = 43' Variance = 32.43% Zoning File #1592 October 11, 1990 Page 3 of 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Resolution #2194 Original Variance Aporoved 6/8/87 Exhibit D - Resolution #2640 Renewal Variance 6/12/89 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Minutes 5/15/89 Exhibit F - Survey/Site Plan Revised Date 1/20/89 Exhibit G - MCWD Permit Expired 12/14/88 Exhibit Hl-2 ~ Parking Schedule on Key Exhibit I - Detailed Plan Showing Details of Variance Areas Exhibit J - Floor Plan Exhibit K - Elevations Exhibit L - Hardcover Fact Sheets Exhibit M - Run-off/Drainage Calculations Exhibit N - Existing Hardcover Exhibit 0 - Proposed Hardcover Reflecting Increase in Green Areas Status of Application - The applicant has completed dock construction and seawall installation as proposed in the original comprehensive application of the 1987 review. The applicant now proposes the construction of the club house and site improvements as originally proposed in the 1987 review. As noted above, the new club house will be 16' high measured t .r the peak of the clerestory. The 40'x30' footprint has been maintained requiring the same setback approvals as in the original variance review of last year. Review Exhibit H and 0, these two exhibits will be included with the approval resolution and developer's agreement as both depict the planting (green space) and parking plan required as a result of the new construction. Please review Exhibit F, the updated site plan locating the seawall along the shoreline in addition to the walkway. An underground gasoline storage tank is shown on plan. Four parking spots will be located above at grade level. The sale of gas will be subject to review by the LMCD and the City of Orono per the pertinent fire code standards. Staff can confirm that the applicant proposes to conta iue to sell gasoline at the site. The tanks were inspected by State Inspectors. Applicant will submit copies of the inspection report for th-e C ty files. Zoning File #1592 October 11, 1990 Page 4 of 4 As in the 1989 review, staff would no longer condition approval of the parking stall variance on the use of the overflow parking in the municipal parking lot area. The Planning Commission noted in the earlier review that the standard for the industry is 30% maximum usage at any one time. Based on that standard, only 24 slips out of the 79 would ever be used at any one time. 42 parking stalls would satisfy 24 slip users. It should also be noted that in the earlier license reviews for this marina, the overflow parking at the municipal parking lot was imperative because of the boat sales operation and fishing rental units that existed under the previous ownerships with Sailors World and Paul's Landing. The present marina use involves only the rental of slips. Staff would suggest that the conditions and findings noted in Resolution #2648 are still applicable and would recommend approval of the renewal variance and commercial site plan for Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club. Zoning File #1592 October 17, 1990 Page 5 Planning Commission Recomendations Planning Commission approved (3 approvals, 1 abstention) the variance application for Smith Bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc. subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the resolutions previously approved by Council on both June 8, 1987 and June 12, 1989. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 (A), (B), (C), (D), SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 9 SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 APPROVES THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH'S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC., FILE #1592 WHEREAS, Gerald Toberman of Smith's Bay Marina, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Exhibit A, attached WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a principal structure and major restoration of the marina property and has applied to the City for variances to Municipl Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit fencing 43' from the lakeshore instead of the required 75'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit parking stalls for 42 vehicles instead of the required 48 stalls; Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 to permit parking iC from the street lot line instead of the required 30'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (A) to permit the principal structure to be built 50' from the shoreline instead of the the required 75'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (5) to permit the principal structure to be built 40' from the site lot line adjacent to a residential zone instead of the required 50'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (D) to permit 15,862 square feet or 63.4% of hardcover (actual reduction of 10% over existing hardcover at 73.6%) within 75' of the lake where no hardcover is allowed and to permit hardcover to remain at 5,100 square feet or 300% over the allowed amount of hardcover at 1,275 square feet or 25%; and per Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of a commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the marina property. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 6 FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1592. 2. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site plan f »* the complete restoration of the subject property on October 15, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. b) The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. c) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. ' The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in ^rall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm r run-off prior to entering the lake. The majority of the improvements provide for a major c*ion in hardcover immediately adjacent to the sj :eline. f) Access to site and parking areas have greatly been improved with the proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by Cit^' staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the propo:- 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 Page 2 of 6 would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants the variances as set forth above and approves the commercial site plan dated November 1, 1988, revised January 20, 1989 by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company for Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. Owner to execute a Developer's Agreement and post a Letter of Credit with the City to ensure the following improvements are installed: A) City engineer to approve drainage/surface water treatment plan per final plans by Sathre Bergquist. B) Paving of parking area, lighting, signage, and installation of grassed area per plans by E.O.S. Corporation of Excelsior, Minnesota dated January 10, 1989. 2. The executed Developer's Agreement and Letter of Credit (amount to be 150% of the cost of required imp’- '^ements) must be submitted to the City prior to application for building permit for new principal structures. The City Enginv,er shall review total improvement costs prior to submittal of Letter of Credit. 3. Erosion control shall be employed at all times on the site during the time of construction of the principal structures. 4. Demolition permits are required for all buildings to be removed. Such permits must be obtained by applicant at the time a permit is issued for new construction. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued for the new structure until all buildings designated for removal have been razed. Applicant may Page 3 of 6 continue to use existing structure up to the time the Certificate of Occupancy is to be issued. 5. Owner/app i i cant is hereby advised that at the time an application for building permit is submitted to the City, the Orono staff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and uses of the property per standards adopted by the Metropol ‘tan Waste Control Commission in the determination of the Service Availability Charges to be collected with the issuance of a building permit for the new constr 'c-*- 6. Authorities granted by this v - 2 run with the property not with the applicant, but are t -.ssive only and must be exercised by afLiicatro' for a building permit within one year of the da^e o' Counci ’ approval, or this vari^mce will expire on that (Octobtf 22, 1991). 7. Violation of or non- ompliance with any of the terms and condic^sns ol this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning erode, shall automatically ^o'-'ninate any authority granted herein, and shal' be punishable a - .aisdemeanor. 8 The undersin::eH applicant has read, understood and hereby to ttiii s of this resolution and on behalf of himself, • 'ess -s and assigns, hereby agrees to rhe recording _ion in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of October, 1990. ATTEST: Dorouhy 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 22nd day of October, 1990 by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota m-'nicipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My C^.r^mi -sion Expires Page 5 of 6 CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 JfJ (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address_ _ _ _1955 Shoreline Drive Wavzata. Mr_ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) -1 ^ d CITY OF OFCHO FIFA^CE OFFICE H502000CO k iil9vl20 COOl 710:11 09/13M Attach lagal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Name SMITH BAY MARINA & YACHT CLUB, 1 ...Fhone (work) 542-1189_ _ _ Address; 1955 Shoreline Dr._ _ _ _ City; Wayzata Mn 2ip» 553.9J- -- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)^_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Name Gerald E. Toberman_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (work) 542-1189_ _ _ Address; 11708 Rl;/d. City; Mtka Mn- - - -Zip; 553.4J—1 Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ _12/31/88_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _^/'C / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP Estimated Construction Cost $ 65,000.00 Describe request in detail; _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( X X _ Side Other _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 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 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. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above infermation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 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 —_ P<N^->^^...4rrDate Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 38 10-117-23 31 coolGEORGE F ROVEGNO 2010 ShCRELINE ORI VE WAYZAT^ MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 CC89 DANIEL CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE WAYZATf MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 C005 A G 'SCHENBECK JR 193w SHORELINE DRIVE hAYZATA MN 55391 38 lC-117-23 42 0015 H TOURANGEAU 2060 SPATES AVE* WAYZATA MN 55391 38 lC-117-23 42 0022 CRAIG OLSON 1960 SHORaiNE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 58 lG- 117-23 3i 0C02 JCHN T SPENCE 2040 ^0 SHCRF DR WAYZATA MN 55391 if 38 10-117-23 31 0C90 RICHARD V STINSON 2040 SPATES AV E WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-11 7-23 42 0007 ALAN NETTLES £ ANNE NETTLE 1940 SHORELINE DR QRONO MN 553 91 38 10-117-23 42 0016 RONALC J PRINEAS L980 heritage DR WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL LABELS BATCH 003 00 38 10-117-23 31 0CC8 MARIETTA h ANDERSON 2055 SPATES AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 33 10-117-23 31 OOot STATE LAND DEPT 38 10-117-23 31 0095 TERRY D MORSE 2C80 SPATES AVE CPONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 009o HARRIET SPATES TCR mNG cAU 2060 SPATES AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 • C. L L (. GERALD D. TOBERMAN INTERCHAGE TOWER SUITE 1460 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426 28 10-117-23 42 0017 LYLE VICKERMAN INTERLACHEN LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 23 10-117-23 42 0014 SAILORS WORLD BCX 176 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 4-2 0021 DANIEL CREAR 1980 SPATES AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 CITY Of= ORONO cCity of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 (A)(B)(D), SUBDIVISION ,9, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 APPROVES THE COMMERICAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH'S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC. v • FILE #1142 WHEREAS Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes Last i o.us t point of beginning thence South 57 ^^tes East^ therce North 37 degrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to th «^ nf North line of Grand Avenue extended Easterly dearees 45 minutes West 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 9 park" minutes West 131.05 feet to beginning including jter '^the ON LAKE MINNETONKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (he property")! and unRRPAS the applicant proposes the construction of a principal structure and major restoration of the marina property and^^has ^ap^ the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Se reauired 75f^o permit fencing 10 feet fro" the laK-hore in^ ^rv.^icles i:s%^eai“;^^;hrregu7rV{'48;s‘t\^;,^^l^^^^^ irctio^n iS.^rr’^Su^Tvl'non P<A, .to Pe-it the^principa^l^ stru to^be Subd “ i's“ion"lS (B^to principal eet from the side lot line e.dgacent to a residential required 50 feet. Subdivision 10 ( v-ict-ina hardcover at 73.6%) within of Orono, Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council Page 1 of 5 Cl tv City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 ___________ FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1142. 2. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the subject property on May 18, 1987, and recommended a-^proval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. B) The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. C) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. D) The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in overall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm water runoff prior to entering lake. E) The majority of improvements provide for a major reduction in hardcover immediately adjacent to shoreline. F) Access to site and parking areas have been greatly improved with a proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Council has considered this appli’cation including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances cn the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances wou.ld not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 Cltv OF ortoNt^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194_ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER ANl CONDITIONS *3Tsed upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants the variances as set forth above and approves the commercial site plan dated April 20, 1987 by R.L. Wuornos and Associates for Smith's Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. Owner to execute a Developer's Agreement and post a letter of credit with the City to insure the following improvements are installed by August 31, 1988. a) Drainage/surface water treatment improvements per final plans approved by the M.C.W.D. and City of Orono - the City would ask that an underground drainage tile system be located and its use reviewed as part of that improvement. b) Paving of parking area, lighting, signage, and installation of grassed area per :>lans by R.L. Wuornos and Associates dated 4/20/67. c) Reconstruction of dock adjacent to shoreline in conjunction with shoreline restoration - areas of dock located above the 929.4 r'*'=»vation not to exceed a G feet widtn. d) To uenstr et a six feet high privacy fence along the west side lot line adjacent to the public access. 2. The executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit (amount to be 150% of the cost of requirement improvements) must be submitted to the City prior to application for a building permit for new principal structure. City Engineer shall review total estimate of improvement costs prior to submittal of letter of credit. 3. Erosion control shall be employed at all times on the site during the time of the construction of the principal structure and the shoreline restoration. 4. Owner/applicant shall apply for a building permit with penalty fee for commt.'cial dock constructed prior to his ownership of the property. 5. Demolition permits are required for all buildings to be removed. Such permits must be obtained by applicant at the time a permit is issued for new construction. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued for the new structure until all buildings designated for removal have been razed. 6. Owner/app1icant is hereby advised that at the time an application for building permit is submitted to the City, the Orono staff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and uses of the property per standards adopted by Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in the determination of Service Availability Charges to be collected with the issuance of a building permit. Page 3 of 5 citv ORONb it; city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194_ _ _ _ _ _ 7. Owner shall reimburse the City of Orono for the cost of the installation of a striped crosswalk within the right-of-way of County Road 15. 8. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of th date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date (June 8, 1988). 9. 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. 10. The unr^‘*rsigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the termff f 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 8t^ day of June, 1987. I ATTIIS^; or^thy ^yC /Hallin, City C.crk Property Owner(s) Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. LAoJi cC L * Jamds R. GrabeR, Mayor Pace 4 of 5 CitY “: IRONO City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648_ _ _ _ _ P A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 (A),(B),(C),(D), SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 9 SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 APPRC VES THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH'S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC., ^ ^ t ^ , file #1408 WHEREAS,^Smith's Bay Mar na, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation (hereinafter "the appliq^nt") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinaft» r "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a principal structure and major restoration of the marina property and has apolied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit fencing 43’ from the lakeshore instead of the required 75'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit parking stalls for 42 vehicles instead of the required 48 stalls; Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 to permit parking 10' from the ov v lot line instead of the required 30'; Section 10.41, Subdivisi;. 10 (A) to permit the principal structure to be built 30' from the shoreline instead of the required 75’; Section 10 41, Subdivision 10 (B) to permit the principal structure to be built 40' from the site lot line adjacent to a residential zone instead of the required 50'; Section 10.41, Subdivision 1C. (D) to permit 15,862 square feet or 63.4% of hardcover (actual reduction of 10% over existing hard cover at 73.6%) within 75' o.*^ the lake where no hardcover is allowed and to permit hardcover to remain at 5,100 square feet or 300% over the allowed amount of hardcover at 1,275 square feet or 25%; and per Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of a commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the marina property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^ Page 1 of 5 CITY OF ORONO^ City of ORO.NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648________ 2. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore EusinesL Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Ccnunission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site plan for the comp lete restoration of the subject property on May 1 5-7 —i-9-6^ and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. B) The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. C) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. D) The propoL.ed imu wements provide a reduction of 10% ir overall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm water run-off prior to entering the lake. E) The majority of the improvements prv .ide for a major reduction in hardcover immediately adjacent to the shoreline. F) Access to site and parking areas have greatly been improved with the proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Counc.i.1 has considered this application inducing the findings, and recormr.endations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, conunents by the applicant and the effect of the propos'd varianctiS c- the health, jafety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 1^‘io J) City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648________ r city Council finds that the conditions existing on t jperty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to r property in this zoning district; that granting the van. -ces 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; an-J would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Crono City Council hereby g-ants the variances as set forth above and approves the commercial site plan dated Ncvember 1, 1988, revised January 20, 1989 by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company for Smith's bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc., subject to the following ccr.iitions: 1. Owner to execute a Developer's Agreement and post a Letter cS Credit with the City to ensure the following improve., jnts are installet : A) City Engineer to approve drainage/surface water treatment plan per final plans by Sathre Bergquist. B) Paving of parking a.vea, lighting, signage, and ii:.stal lation of grassed area per plans by E.O.S. Corporation of Excelsior, Minnesot". dated January 10, 1989. 2. The executed Developer's .Agreement and Letter of Credit (amount to be 150% of the cost of required improvements) must be submitted to the City prior to application for a building permit for new principal stru'*' ire. The dity Engineer shall review trtal improveme,. osts prior to submittal of Letter of Credit. 3. Erosion control shall be employed at all timi?s on the site during the time of construction of the principal structure. Page 3 cf 5 ftmt t • crnr':? Lorqno City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648 ________ 4. Demolition permits are required for all buildings to be removed. Such permits must be obtained by applicant at the time a permit is issued for new construction. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued for the new structure until all buildings designated for removal have been razed. Applicant may continue to use existing structure up to the time the Certificate of Occ’^pancy is to be issued. 5. Owner/applicant is hereby advised that at the time an application for building permit is submitted to the City# the Orono staff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and uses of the property per standards adopted by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in the detenr.ination of the Service Availability Charges to be collected with the issuance of a building piarmit for the new construction. 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 12, 1990). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicant on behalf of the Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc. has read, understood and hereby agrees o the terms of this resolution and on its heirs, succef jrs and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of June, 1989. Hallin, City Clerk James'Mayor Applicant(s) Page 4 of 5 t . CITY OF ORONa D City of OFIOINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648 ________ STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) j ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of June, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument vras executed on behalf of the City. Notary Publdjc^-ii.:-LAUWE n SCHEFFLER nota A m'uc - MiNNCSorA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commiision «jipir«i6'8*93 My Conunission Expires STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ) ss. day of . , 1983 and^for said county,personally known to me to be ____ peraTon(s) described in ana who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTA^ PUBLl: C y// Efaine S. NOTAIV PUIIIC — MINNIJOFA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commijiion «Apir«t Jun« 14, 1991 MY COr-LMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2648__________ EXHIBIT A Commencing at the intersection of the North line of Central Avenue extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120.5 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 degrees 45 minutes East 29.04 feet thence North 37 degrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to the intersection of North line of Grand Avenue extended Easterly thence North 59 degrees 45 minutes West 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 degrees 15 minutes West 131.5 feet to beginning including accretions,• "ORA PARK" ON LAKE MINNETONKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1989 ZONING PILE #1404-MIKLETHUN/HADG CONTINUED Chairman Kelley questioned whether the lot area was consistent for the neighborhood. Gaffrcn repliedthat it was. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the lot area vairiance, per staff recommendation. The hardship in this application is that the sewer was previously assessed and a house previously existed on this property, and that the lot area is consistent with neighboring properties. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1408 SMITH BAY MARINA 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE RENEWAL VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:25 P-M. TO 9:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of M' g were duly noted. Mr. Toberman was present for this public hearing. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed all of the variances required even though the applicant's proposal involved a less intense use of the property. The lakeshore setback fur the existing principal structure is currently 9' and the applicant is proposing 50'. The lakeshore setback for a deck structure connecting to an existing dock is proposed at O' and the current dock is O'. A side setback to the residential used property is currently 14' and the proposed structure is at 40'. The street setback for the principal structure will not require a variance. There will be a decrease in hardcover in the 0-75 setback area from 73.6% to 63.4%. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will not change. A 1.3 acre lot area variance will be required, as will a 20' setback variance for parking from street lot line. The parking requirement is 6 stalls per 10 slips. The applicant's proposal for 79 slips requires 48 parking stalls, the request is for 42. Chairman Kelley asked whether the LMCD had approved the request for 79 slips. Mabusth replied that Smith Bay Marina had been approved for 79 slips last year and that number had not changed with this year's application. Kelley noted that if the applicant was required to have 48 parking stalls, the hardcover percentages would increase. Mabusth commented that this Marina was allowed to use the Municipal parking lot for overflow parking. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that the applicant was also seeking approval of a 32' setback variance from lakeshore for an accessory structure. This variance would apply to the proposed fence along Shoreline Drive. Chairman Kelley asked about the applicant’s proposal for MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1989 ZONING FILE #1408-SMITH BAY MARINA CONTINUED signage and landscaping. Mabusth replied that the proposal was included in the Planning Commission packets. She added that there would be no plantings in the 10 ’ buffer area due to sight distance problems it may create. She suggested that the applicant provide an updated plan showing the exact location of the seawall and the proposed landscaping. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the curb cuts off of County Road 15. Mabusth said that only two would remain and added that the entire parking area would be blacktopped. Planning Commissioner Bellows expressed her desire to see an updated site plan. The applicant replied that they would work with the City to achieve satisfactory landscaping results. Ke further stated that he would prefer to keep any plantings from the edge of Shoreline Drive. Chairman Kelley questioned whether allowing parking in the municipal lot would not create a pedestrian safety problem. Mr. Toberman replied that there should not b*- any overflow from the main parking lot. Council Representati e Callahan, suggested that the aspect of municipal parking should not in any way be tied into this application. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Bellows indicated that she was in favor of the improvements proposed for this property. She was concerned about the status of site plan. Mabusth replied that a planting schedule would be tied into the landscaping plan. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval as follows: 1. Approval of the lakeshore setback variance of 25'; 2. appr*^val of the deck structure connection to existing dock variance of 75'; 3. approval of the principal structure side setback to a residential use variance of 10'; 4. approval of the hardcover reduction within 0-75' setback area to 63.4% and no change in the 75-250' setback area; 5. approval of a lot area variance of 1.3 acres; 6. approval of side setback variance for parking from street lot line of 20'; 7. approval of a parking stall variance of 6 stalls; and 8. approval of setback variance from lakeshore for MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 15, 1989 ZONING FILE #1408-SMITH BAY MARINA CONTINUED accessory structure of 32'. Approval is conditioned upon a planting schedule with specific planting identification being presented to the City Council. Mabusth asked the applicant about the existence of an underground gas tank and asked the applicant to provide the City with such information. Kelley added that provision to his motion. Bellows seconded. Kelley added that the City should be very strict when dealing with gas tanks being placed near the lakeshore. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Cohen abstained. Motion passed. #1409 JANN & RENEE OLSTEN 3090 FARVIEW LANE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing, as was the applicant's contractor, Mr. Brian Butterfield. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the land alteration conditional use permit was required because the work is being done after the issuance of the building permit. Mabusth asked the contractor whether the excavated dirt would be distributed and seeded? Mr. Butterfield replied that there would be approximately 200 yards that would be distributed on site and seeded. Mabusth asked how many yards of fill would be required to achieve the 4” to 6" indicated on the landscaping plan? Mr. Butterfield said approximately 200 cubic yards would be used to grade on the north side of the driveway and around the septic i.ystem. Mabusth reminded Mr. Butterfield to use special care w'ix.H filling in drainfield area. Gaffron noted that he had advised owners to fill around the drainfield. Mr. Butterfield said that he had tracks on his bob cat. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1410 JULIE PRINEAS 1980 HERITAGE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:47 P.M. TO 10:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Prineas were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron m if 7-^•1 (T*r '’»WfD w'- MIIUIMEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT’ P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 B3AR0 OF MANACERS: David H. Codiran. Fres. • Alben L Lenman • John E Thomas Camille 0. Andre • James a Spenstey • ftchard a Miller • Michael a Carroll i o£C 1 T Permit Application No: 87-78 December 14, 1987 Owner: Smiths Bay Yacht Club/Toberman Mgmt. 1460 Interchange Tower Minneapolis MN 55426 Location: City of Orono, Sec lOOBC, Smiths Bay, Lake Minnetonka Purpose: Dredge to remove 4,020 cubic yards of soil for navigational access in a conwercial marina and 280 lineal feet of steel sheet pile seawal1. Dear Sirs: Receipt is acknowledged for the following which you have submitted as part of the above permit application: 1. Structural analysis of the proposed seawall by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 2. Review and approval by the DNR, rece^'ved October 6, 1987. This plan and letter are in accordance with the action taken by the Board of Managers on June 18, 1987 in reference to the above permit. This letter is your permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Permit approval is based upon the following exhibits: 1. Permit Application 87-78, received April 15, 1987. 2. DNR Permit application. 3. Typical cross section and plans showing the dredging limits, prepared by C. Reep, dated April 7, 1987. 4. Typical cross sections of the proposed seawall, dated May 13, 1987, prepared by C. Reep. j ^ u n loa?5. Revised site plan and cross sections, prepared by C. Reep, dated May 13, 6. Structural analysis of the proposed seawall by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 7. Review and approval by the DNR, received October 6, 1987. Permit Application No.: Page Two 87-78 (5- This permit is valid for one year. If construction is not complete within one (1) year, an extension must be requested. Please contact the District at 473-4224 when the project is about to commence so an inspector may view the work in progress. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District ^lichael A. Pa^nzer, P.E. / cc: Board L. Smith Cliff Reep J. Boudreau, DNR City of Orono Date of Issue ” o < Planting Schedule For Smiths Bay Marina & Yacht Club 1. Ij" - 2" Summit Ash 2. IJ" - 2" Summit Ash 3. li" - 2” Summit Ash A. Ij" - 2" Summit Ash 5. 18" diameter Hughes Juniper and Anthony Water Spirea (pot size) 6. 18" diameter Hughes Juniper and Anthony Water Spirea (pot size) 7. Gold Drop Potentilla 8. 18" diameter Hughes Juniper and Anthony Water Spirea (pot size) all along the walkway. 9. Mock Orange 10. Mock Orange 11. Maney Juniper(pot size) and purple leaf sand cherry (pot size). All plantings will be done in the fall of 1989 after the building construction and blacktopping are completed. Vern Larsen Property Manager ^ S#GAT l’^,@i@ @i® 'rnft® 1 @i® -T®M-^si^l-^ @ @\®\ ..^ i. . ■- ' •■• ' ^ '■' ’* ........ .:, /r^ ^ -if I'iT4*-r^;-r -i r .i ^ ■. " '*-I •'"i ' -^t'- ■■' *••• * •• , ' ■"*T- «. •■ ".'K#- * -i * •• •• • • * ' f* ■“* :V-; - i. 'cMamma ■Jt (.*■• K-’v'/Vw- —.* . • r-'*-. i.’-7..4 iPiip Niii! m\ V:-;* A ■ Mm iHtiHo* r «.i«'«icr>( IIBBlaS«i«ii 8« «{iijsiiiss;;«X :Re? psrrr3 ':.*■mmm ';: A •* '.' !<••*■''•. .'i •••.Kh.‘TW- / ,•• •'*’ ?•* I ;...■.. s, *'^'- . • .'•• .'■■■■ -77^... f %* • .».V..- U»:-7iAlsp.:'fcc;kvAri^N •.?■*■. ■ Vi. r ;'i^* -■ • V '.;7.7 0V:7r*^ .■'*■.■.• • •• •r' *-■ ■• ■« * ■• ' •. A- • •• • -•' :■ ■^ w- ;-v - •••..■• • --V'li ~rr.v; •'•■•■ ■-': ■ -,S577 ‘1®-S«?7<• ,.' '•*■.'.••• T’ s*' ^ ‘ . c-.' .. ■ -4 i ,. iv.^:: ' • - ^-v >'*--. >-w<> »•• - . ^ :**•;•. “i? ^ ‘^ 2 •: *r ^" :j^;. V '•*;■•-■■’■-;-r. • - • *.-..r-^‘<VM.V? •^•■-^'^ '"^1 * - • • * ' . _••* •. V*^* • :(AOO Ad2T^I»N^>; 4 “ , ■ ’.' 6UE^f* FINlfrHt........ llM5^<r;7NEX/^pt>.Auw ‘.vwtre.) ■ ': ■•..4,-4.-. - ^-r-i. ..: v^i'■• ; ■ '\^r ... . 74* MX V•*'• '• •,■• .' **“ *• V ' ■ ■• ' '■ ’• V ‘ 4v' *r;>4v;.>.’‘>. *‘4. r . •. 4. .V. '.I* -■!•••* ■. ’ j' tKT. i - ■::: ■*• V, :'4.■ .1 nr!fra r— L. K- v:-.".. |li E.xi-Tivj^ comO - \H / A‘-r'.•>-' .V.' y\(p-n.-Sq HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-50C 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone n 4-fT A.House X s 10 \ length width X a X X = X s B.Garage X C.Driveway X 3 n 2> X s D.Sidewalk X X at X at lia E.Jatio/Deck X at .( F.Landscape X m ( AREAS underlain BY X s J PLASTIC SHEETING X < X . . s 6. Other X s S S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. on S.F.B on X 100 03.3 % SETplIoPOS^O ^oivi D I ■ / - :irf\x-r\-\ cLa,'< ^^0.\nJA HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET setback zone:(circle one) i0I!> 75-250'250-500'500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A.House .X S.F. length width X *S.F. X *s.f. X S.F. X S.F. B.Garage _X S.F. C.Driveway X «S.F. X =S.F. D.Sidewalk X =iS^b S.F. CiO S.F. X =S.F. E.?atio/Deck X *^lo S.F. F.Landscape X »S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X »S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X *»S.F. X S.F. G. Other X *S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone - »r bi i s.f. Total Property Area in Zone - on s.f. 71 ^s-Qt7 X 100 =* 62. I B L' S'2 7 4 ?o LX. t-r c/Xi - V:^A.'\ M/vi^-> v» 6.m2.-S“» HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET {LeC^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (T5-25^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH WIDTH S.F. S.F. L S.F. S.F. B. Garage . c. Driveway D. S idewalk 0 E. Patio / Deck F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other , X X X X X X X X X . Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone -1 Bl Gioo S.F. S.F. ■S‘73— S.F. . S.F. . S.F. , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -^"7r5 S.F. G I 0 O S.F. X 100 3 % p(LoPosiiQ COM o . T-IOM. V G -VY Ais>-' 8n HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH WIDTH S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage . c. Driveway S.F. S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk S.F. S.F. S.F. e. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone ^ g ±La t- CaJOO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.B (fl^oo X 100 % 94ITK BAY i2-Juri-c9 fi/l'- Qrono, Minnesota CRI6IML SITE Total Area (Ae):a. 71 Acres Brass Area :0.71 Acres Hardsurface Area :0 Acres Coefficient of Hunc'ff iCe);0.20 :rc;-:'Szd bite Tc<tai Area (Ao):0.71 Ares crass Area ;0.28 Atres -arcsurfacB Area ;0. «5 Ares Ccefficiert r-f Ru'Cff (Cc):■0.54 "nticai Tiae Ccr-cer-^rai'-zn :10 ’’irutes B^kinfall Ir(teri5it:es :1 ''rill)5 ’'5! 15*10 V5<110)100 v^di^ai 3.2 In/r 4.3 Iri/T 5.8 3.2 Iri/rr ■axssasaaa^-SCTmr-rryssgs-smassasssssss:; Lusting Runoff(ue) » CealxAe 0.45 C t5 0.56 CT3 :.-z “3 .. .S w'0 AroDOseo Runoffvuo) = C ox Ixhd 1.48 'CrB 2.19 C=5 2.58 C-5 5.75 5“5 runoff ir^creaseiu) = So - ue 1.0i C.-5 1.51 5.” 5 1.75 CF3 2.53 5-5 iec'jirec Btcrage » SixiLliruti 72S Cr 1063 “1273 CF 1850 "F ;;*.B -c-^s ctcrace tecv*:rec :1550 Sllc'iiaDie Rurcff 'pi'i rite ;1.16 CFB Ircluoes Arc Cutlet Cirect Rurcf* AREA «rr DSAIJiLMS 7D PuSD Total Area (Apa);0.09 Acres Brass Area :0.06 Acres Harosurface Area ;0.03 Acres Coefficient of Runoff (Cp):0.43 Critical Tiee of Corcentralion :10 Minutes Rainfall Intensities :1 YRCl)5 YRfISl 10 YR(I10)100 YR(I100) 3.2 in/ltr 4.6 In/mr S.o I ft/Hr 8.2 Ift/Hr Prooosed Runoff(Opa) » CpxIxApa 0.12 CF3 0.13 CF3 0.22 CFS 0.32 CFS Allonaoie Pond Outlet » Qe - Goa 0.33 lF3 0.43 CF3 0.53 CFS 0.84 CFS MaxiBum Pond Outlet During 190 YR Store = 0.84 CF3 Size Pond Accordingly Q7 From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administra0Q(jfjgjJ_ October 18, 1990 #1555 E.W. Blanch, Jr., 2501 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution OCT 22 1990 CITy OF ORONO List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Council Action Notice Exhibit B - Revised Preliminary Subdivision Resolution The Council tabled action on the 6 lot subdivision application of E.W. Blanch subject to staff resolving with applicant the extent of the upgrade of Old Beach Road ad the need to define developer's share in the cost of the specified upgrades. Staff has recommended to applicant's representative that applicant be responsible for installing concrete curb and gutter in addition to expanding existing paved road 3 “4' (16' from center line of existing road) for a total future road width of 32'. The east side of Old Beach Road will be upgraded with curb and gutter at a future date. The City in turn will level and install a 1^" bituminous covering upon completion of applicant's required improvements. The applicant shall pay for the curb/gutter installation and for expanded roadbed with bituminous covering. The Engineer has estimated the cost for the curb/gutter at $10.00/foot and the expanded roadbed at $20.00/foot. Glenn Cook has also advised staff that he is the consultant engineer for Minnetonka Beach in the review of this application, and it is his understanding that Minnetonka Beach will coordinate all road improvements with whatever the City of Orono requires of the applicant. The enclosed approval resolution has been amended to reflect the changes noted above. APPLICATION NO. 1555 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 10/15/90 TO: E.W. Blanch Jr. 3500 West 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55431 COPIES: Dennis E. Sandin Landstar Inc. 6100 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley, MN 55422 James McKinnon Johnson, Wood, Phleger & Bigelow 730 East Lake St Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Preliminary Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 10/8/90 VOTE: 4 Tor 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To table further review of your application p^^nding resolve of the following: 1. Extent of upgrade of Old Beach Road to be coordinated with the City of Minnetonka Beach. 2. To define developer's share in the cost of the upgrade. The original resolution sent to you for the October 8th meeting will be amended to include the additional information. City staff and consultants will meet on Tuesday, October 16th to discuss this matter. Mr. Kinnon, you will be contacted by phone as soon as I have clear direction on this matter. Please also be advised that the original assessor's appraisal of park dedication fees will be reviewed by the City's new contractor assessor. Please disregard the original appraisal sent to you prior to the meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting will be before the Council at the October 22, 1990 meeting. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OP A PLAT AT 2501 OLD BEACH ROAD PILE NO. 1555 WHEREAS, E.W. Blanch, Jr. on June 15, 1990 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for a approval of a 6 lot subdivision (5 residential, 1 commercial) of property legally described on Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on July 16, 1990 and September 17, 1990 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on October 8, 1990 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of E.W. Blanch, Jr. noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 1 acre of land within each newly created lot. 2. Per Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A), property served with sewer may receive credit for wetlands area, but in no case can dry buildable envelope be less than 1/2 acre of dry contiguous land. All 5 residential lots have over 1 acre of dry contiguous land. The total property consists of approximately 31.26 acres. 3. There is adequate sewer and water capacity within the existing lines to serve the new development. 4. All lots shall achieve access via an approved public roadway. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orcno hereby approves the preliminary plat application of E.W. Blanch, Jr. for the property located at 2501 Old Beach Road per the survey dated May 25, 1990, revised October 2, 1990 by William R. Engelhart, subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 4 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction, the applicant shall be responsible extending sewer and water lines and for specific upgrading improvements of Old Beach Road within the City of Orono. These road improvements shall include the installation of curb and gutter and the expansion of the paved road to meet curb section. City Engineer shall determine placement of curbing and extent of road expansion. If these improvements are not completed prior to final plat approval, applicant shall execute a developer's agreement and post appropriate security in the form of a Letter of Credit to assure that these improvements are completed. 2. Outlet A has been created for the purpose of creating special protection for the sensitive wetland areas within the City of Orono. The City of Orono to acquire special open space and flowage easements over the outlet. Applicant has agreed to execute specific covenants for the protection of the area and shall provide copies of these covenants for the City's review. 3. Lot 8 has been created for the future use of the Fresh Water Foundation to be developed by either the Foundation or to be transferred to the University of Minnesota. All future uses of Lot 8 shall be consistent with current B-4 zoning. Access to this site must be approved by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. 4. All residential accesses to Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director of the City of Orono. 5. All Engineering plans for the extension of municipal services and the upgrading of Old Beach Poad must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any work. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by William R. Engelhart dated 5/25/90, revised 10/2/90. Page 2 of 4 b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. c) Designate all drainageways on the plat as drainage easements at a minimum 15' width. d) All utilities located within portions of residential lots shall be defined with a minimum 10' easement. All utilities proposed along road right-of- way and not included within right-of-way shall be defined as utility easements also. e) The final plat should designate existing utility easements over Lift Station #7. f) Define all wetlands area below 932 elevation. g) Designate all existing utility easements throughout the plat. h) Naming of plat. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed drainage easement over all drainage easements within the plat. d) Signed and executed Flowage & Conservation Easement/open space easement over Outlot A. C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $300.00* a) Final plat fee = $150.00 b) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00 c) * Park dedication fee to be determined by P> rk Commission. Park dedication fees must be paid upon filing of final subdivision application. Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of October, 1990. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Acting Mayor ATTEST: Theresa L. Naab, Deputy Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of October 1990, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Theresa L. Naab, Acting Mayor & Deputy Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Puolic Page 4 of 4 From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrg0y^g|j^ MEETIHG October 11, 1990 #1593 Philip F. Kaley, 1395 Brovm Road South - Variances - Public Hearing OCT 2 2 i990 CITY OF ORONO Zoning District - RR-lB Total area = 18,182 s.f. Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage. In al zoning districts for all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combine! footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Total lot area = 18,182 s.f. or .4 acres Allowed lot coverage = 2,727.3 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,605.6 s.f. or 8.8%*’ Proposed additional structure = 46.1 s.f. Adjusted lot coverage = 2,066.6 s.f. or 11.3% * Accessory structure * 386.6 s.f. Principal structure = 1,219 s.f. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) - Street setback variance required for proposed north side addition. County Road 146 (Brown Road South): Required setback = 5 '* Existing = 20' Proposed = 20' Variance = 30' or 60% Arbor Street: Required setback = 50' Existing = 43' Proposed = 43' Variance = 7' or 14% Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar open structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings, or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than 6' above gr?de level, then the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage). Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - . . . terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops, or similar structures which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2' from any lot line. Zoning File #1593 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Please review Exhibit D, applicant's survey suggests a proposed deck to the west side of the existing structure. Note plans submitted with building permit application do not reflect open deck addition. The above referenced sections of the code would allow the deck as long as the 10' separation is maintained from the detached garage structure and is no closer than 2' to any lot line. Staff would recommend no closer than 5' fcr safety purposes. Applicant's survey suggests a 25'+ setback. If the total deck structure including railing extends 6' above grade, applicant is obliged to meet the lot coverage standards and such deck could not exceed 667 s.f. or 3.63% of additional structural coverage. Note with the proposed north side addition, lot coverage is already at 2,066.6 s.f. or 11.3%. List of Exhibits bit L.. Lbit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Property Owners Lirt Plat Map Survey Submitted by Applicant Survey of Property Before 1985 Addition Floor Plan Elevations Minutes of Original 1985 Review Review of Application - The applicant proposes a 10' addition to north side of house requiring street setback variance from both Arbor Street and County Road 146 lot lines. The applicant's survey also proposes a future deck not currently proposed. Please refer to setbacks noted above that govern deck construction on this property. The applicant received approval of a street setback variance on October 28, 1985 for the family room addition shown on Exhibit D. Please review Exhibit H for background on original application. deck. Applicant should provide clarification concerning proposed Options of Action - 1. Denial, please refer to the necessary findings in Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A)l. 2. Approval, the Planning Commission may consider the following findings and hardships: Zoning File #1593 October 11, 1990 Page 3 of 3 A) The house was placed on the property prior to the current 2 acre zoning standard. B) The property is surrounded by streets on three sides. C) The property is .4 acres in area and subject to 2 acre zoning standards. D) The improvement would be consistent with similar improvement projects on adjacent properties consistent in size. E) The property is served with sewer. The only condition staff would add to an approval recommendation would be to place applicant on notice regarding a possible future deck to west side of structure, noting the limitations of lot coverage if deck structure is to be above 6' in total height above grade and of required separation setback from the detached garage. Staff would also add the following advise to applicant reminding applicant of Section 12.05, Subdivision 2, exterior work. All exterior construction, including siding, roofing, doors, windows and finish shall be completed and present a finished appearance within 12 months from the start of construction. Zoning File #1593 October 17, 1990 Page 4 Additional Comments and Planning Comaiission Recommendation The applicant advised that he does propose a deck to the west side of the existing residence. The deck will be a grade level deck no higher than 15” off existing grade. No railing is proposed. The applicant has been made aware of the need for a building permit, in addition to providing appropriate plans for deck construction. The setbacks of the proposed deck will be 25+ feet from the Arbor Street lot line and in excess of the required 10' separation setback from the detached accessory structure. The decK will have no impact on lot coverage standards as total height of deck will not exceed 6' above existing grade. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the variance application based on the findings and hardships and conditions set forth in the staff recommendation. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) PILE #1593 ffHEREAS, Philip F. Kaley (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1395 Brown Road South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 5, Block 1, Markville, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a 10' addition to the north side of the exisitng residence requiring a street setback variance to South Brown Road at a 20' setback instead of the required 50' and a street setback variance to Arbor Street proposed at 43' instead cf the required 50'. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1593. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The subject property consists of 18,182 s.f. or .4 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based based upon the following findings; a. The house was placed on the property prior to the current 2 acre zoning standards. b. The property is surrounded by streets on three sides. c. The property is .4 acres in area and subject to 2 acre zoning standards. Page 1 of 4 d. The improvement would be consistent with similar improvement projects of adjacent properties consistent in size. e. The property is served with sewer. 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 one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of an addition to the north side of the house requiring street setback variances to both South Brown Road (County Road 146) and Arbor Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is advised that a building permit will be required for grade level deck. Applicant shall provide a survey locating deck on property and building plans for deck construction. 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 (October 22, 1991). Page 2 of 4 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. 6. 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 22nd day of October, 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 22nd day of October, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION #15 ( 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 Ps d uO Y\ / K O / Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /^ ~^ 3- -iZ— i 7wivnA.'\.’W) » 01 cEV i7^ OvAttach legal description to application if not included on i75'.tt? required survey. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ APPLICANT Phone (home) V7?-^77r' 7/?t^ Name _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone (work) 5'^^" Address; I C~ Arg _ _ _ City; 2ip: .,£j2_3 Pli^ if> (1^11 g.y. 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 £/ii6 Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /^j Q Describe request in detail; kous^. Joy —S fV.:S=- - - ir_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-jn VARIAR; tS REQUIRED \y^'Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ __ Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side _ _ _ Rear) hardship Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: AauytJ 3 3 t $ hy LbT a ' r\ ._ _ _ _ ^ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with ^Zoning Code Requirements : L o'T i ^ u a t>^ / ^ ^ W 5 ^ Uv Qg ^ f . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <p h REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the aibove information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. iTi'tialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date f 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 Jl Date 7 ^ 7^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 09/11/90 BATCH 001 PROP ADDR CHTJER NAME TAXPAYER t4AHE/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR CA4T4ER NAME TAXPAYER r4AME/AD0R PROP ADCR 014NER NAME TAXPAYER r4At1E/A0DR HENNEPIN C0UT4TY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 10-117-23 31 00<*7 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CITY OF ORONO ' CITY OF ORONO - P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN B5323 38 10-117-23 3* 0050 01395 DROWN RD S P F S L KALEY PHILIP KALEY 1395 BROt4f4 ROAD SO WAYZATA IlN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0055 01305 ARBOR ST ENRIQUE A LIBATIQUE ETAL ENRIGUE LIBATIQUE BOX 139 CRYSTAL BAY 55323 TOTAL BATCH 001 00009 # 15 9 S 38 10-117-23 31 00<*8 0J375 BR0»4N RO S KEITH ALAN WESTBROOK * KEITH A ROXANNE WESTBROOK 233 16TH AVE N HOPKINS fm 553^*3 38 10-117-23 31 0053 01380 BRIAR ST MABEL M BEIT MABEL M BELT BOX 162 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0056 0Z\^0 NORTH SHORE DR DORIS I EISENKRAMER DORIS I EISENKRAMER 21-.0 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 I'M- - -REPORTING. PIA35A01 PAGE 1 38 10-117-23 31 0099 OJ 380 ARBOR ST DOUGLAS DE MALIGI40N DOUGLAS DE MAI.IGNON BOX 97 LOrJG LAKE MN 55356 38 10-117-23 31 0054 01365 ARBOR ST J E SUTHERLAND i J GUNION J E SUTHERLAND 4865 MAIN ST E MAPLE PLAIN MT4 55359 ■ L-' ^^ • . y C i ' i .. 38 10-117-23 33 0002 02265 NORTH SHORE OR KINGSLEY H MURPHY JR KINGSLEY H MURPHY JR 2265 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 1 CERTIFY THAT THE TACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INTORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE OT4 THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OTPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY MJOWLEDGE ALJD BELIEF.I _ / \ \ n/\ DATE cn-.' 1 S t; ^ ■ •. ;•* ■ ■ !•;. •■•... ^ i'v ■' '' •i'r. •|^' ! mT:a ‘! il.: I Ct'ili/tcjicoi Survcij forf'hilip F. Kaley or Lot 5. Block 1, HARKVILLE Hennepin County, Minnesota -V vr. /#1593 L 1/ r hereby certify t>5- ,'»is is a true and correct representation of a survey of all existing buiJo^nys on Lot 5, Block 1, MARKVILLE in relation to the north and west lines of said Lot 5. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN A CRONBERC, INC. Date : JO-i-85 Cronberg Reg. N&. 12755 Scale'' J " - 30 ‘ Cordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 o : Iron marker Engineers A Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota Certificate of Survey far Philip F. Kaley of Lot 5, Black 1, MAP.KVILLS Hennepin County, Hinnesata ' ' / C Cv. / ' i ^ w C C - ' \ 0. / / ► L yy I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of all existing buildings on Lot 5, Block 1. MARKVILLE in reiacion to the north and west lines of said Lot 5. It does not purport to show other ifnprovements or encroachrr.ents. COFFIS & CRONBERG, ISC. "^.ark S. Gronberg Reg. S(f'. 12 755 Gordon R. Coffin Reg. So. 6064 Engineers S Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota Date : 10-1-85 Scale: J” - 30' c : Iron marker ■ ’-M ;‘'V fio6F '2.^0^ jHf>i»L.e.J IS^FSLt j >LC '0/ S 2j(^ ^Af^ms 2J(p c^o, 7STS p HapF/t^Ve/y/J^ lX^(^£fLl/^ Scff)T •iX^icpflT $opfn pi/vi\xu) LouVeg^ .y' H'3B TnjuL 1/8 Bo/»«#P f^cxsoN\l£ Sihita r^z: Silrt <f^rrs Sj c^dWaLL. \p\-f^ Jr^JuiATiorJ A-Mll-l pot; h: 0 WaILj ^<8'D/?;vvi}U. Ct(% plyv/i>PD fp^trr^^l- c/»vDeR.i4/^;c^ ^’36 T/?£»rE/2>2^ 3.1 it SiU^SD>U iiJfB f)ty£m.3ol--r3 . ji i ^ li| 11! foUtfOAT^ohi Cx^T>/h<* li C. i^l' CoNC- BLK 2-X4 ^rt<C> v/^Li- I • ' - I' •• -r ^ - iT'- -i ' 27lo Jsr 10" O.C.- 4*^1^ ......... . ■ . r-'\- • :’ •• -■____L-^/ :;•;•>' : ■"rS'w . • C*T. ---------tT-/ / ;:'V . ‘ i' ~/ " f>Ty, o *> ^ , c.ri:4. 1/ *\ -'I' i) r-i'' ! T/lE ^^ijcse. 'ZC>'>/6>*' Foof{r/e»^1F ......^ an or cmomo - vjamuK3 apflicatiom lnitl.1 AppliMtion r.« »150.00 (S50.00 p«r .«ch .ddltlowl ptoj.ct) Wmm* (Doubla application fee) _ _ ______ LOOiTXOM Sita Addraaa 1 S' Rf'o co ci^k Froparty Idantlficatlon Mimbar (P.I.O.) //7* n? 1 / g.^CP. ^'^abatract tocrana?m Flaaaa chacJc ona — la tha proparty ' Plaaaa attach lagal daacrlption to application if not includad on ra<iulrad aurvay. :••• AFFLZCAMT Fana / ).> /> P <a /Phono H"! \_______ ^ ^ omx MM f ^ Ix'ctlty Phono //7 7. V 77 O .'“15(2; »Ullin9 Addt... 11‘iC faulU . h^AVR^lKi'IUtUL tlin rmpirTT »-T-‘—* iTff*^ihdr~ (MPth/y —r) '' '-^i| I (do) (do roM alao own tho adjacent parcola of land. mifsvr ufB Of pbofoty Fraaont Zoning Oiatrict Fraaant Uoo of Proporty other (apocify) ‘iku Kpl Daaoriba roquoat;.in detail ti^^ T fiTiiftjfc .i KVfr.-‘ < rMOAKU MQOlwn) ■ ' - Lot Area • • _ ^4;.^ Variancaa ( tamms or ns bbsoias oboso coosczl neetisg bsu> octobbb 2b« 19SS. pass JSILZP KALBT *T99nS0WS BQSO 80Un VASZMCB WEBoumom •laso Phil X«l«y was presanc for this aattsr. City Adainistrator Dsrnharison sxplainsd ths rsqusst for s sstback varlancs for a family room addition. Mr. Xalsy statsd rssolution. hs had no problsms with ths proposod It was movsd by Councilnsabsr Praha, sscondsd by Councilasabsr Hanunsrsl, to adopt Rssolution 11880 approvinq ths variancs. Motion, Ayss 4, Nays 0. •9SB OBOSOB BOVBOBO 2010 BBOBBUBB OBZVB VABZABCB Csorgs and Susan Rovsgno wars prsssnt for this aattsr. City Administrator Bsrnhardaon sxplainsd ths rsqusst for an aftsr-ths-fact varlancs for construction of a 5 foot fsncs within ths 0-75* whsrsas (bassd on interprstation) only a 3- 1/2 foot fsncs is allowsd. Csorgs Rovsgno notsd ths asrious problsas hs has r»ad which plACSfflsnt of this fsncs has solvsd. Ha subaittsd a asaorandua containing a ssrisa of facts psrtaining to ths issuss for Council to rsvisw. Mr. Rovsgno statsd hs is willing to do ons of ths following to soivs this nattsrt Dlsavs ths fsnca at its sxisting location and cut it down to 44" sxcspt for tlis first 30 fast by ths public accsss which aust bs only 30* in.£ hsight, or; 2) movs ths fanes back to ths laths aark.and kssr' it at its sxisting 5 foot hsight sxcspt for ths first 30'fsst{ by ths public accsss which aust bs only 30* In hsight. «i. Bs*, notsd that hs bslisvss Cods Ssetion 10.03 15(C) could only.i havs bssn written about intsrsscting atrsst lots. Us also indicatsd his frustrstion with ths City in dealing with ths j ^' problsas hs has sneountarsd which forcsd hia to srsct.^ths;j *!’fsncs. . . i,.-, . Kj> Mayor Butler stated that ths fsncs poses a safety hasard.. *.^.i Councilasabsr Praha indicated that applicant's problsas were valid and fait ths City should address ths problsa of ^‘Jv Hs a Iso statsd hs was agrssabls to atrsspassing and litter. 3-1/2 foot high fanes in its prsssnt location. Mayor Butler statsd it would allowing this fsncs. A a| be setting a precedent by ' ^ City Adainistrator Bsrnhardaon notsd that applicant needs a variancs Cor ths 3-1/2 foot accessory structure on a lot that cannot sustain a principal structure. tm ilsi ^ -*■» --*■ ^*'-1 V- ----*-. ^ ______j « I From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning October 17, 1990 #1594 Duane Luke - 2465 North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution (I ’emacmijim OCT 22 1990 CITY OF ORONO Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, sewered Application - Request for side setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to existing residence List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/17/90 Exhibit B - Resolution Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 10/8/90 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of October 8, 1990. Briefly, the applicant is proposing two additions to the existing house. The proposed 52 s.f. entryway at the side of the house will be 25' from the side lot line rather than the required 30'. This addition and the proposed 22' x 22' porch/room addition, add about 90 s.f. of hardcover or 0.5% in the 75-250' zone. Planning Commission Recommendation At their October 15 meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 0, finding that the orientation of the neighboring house to the east is such that it will not be affected by the entryway addition, and recommending approval of a hardcover variance for both additions, conditioned that an equivalent amount of hardcover in the 75-250' zone will be removed, resulting in no increase above the existing 37.8% hardcover. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. Applicant has advised that the hardcover removals would occur in the areas of rock and plastic adjacent to the house which would appear to provide the necessary removal square footage. CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1594 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 10/17/90 TO:Duane Luke COPIES TO: 2465 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: October 15, 1990 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Comnission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Remove equivalent cimount of 75-250' hardcover to result in no increase above the existing 37.8%. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, October 22, 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. A RESOLUTION GRANTING V/iRIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE #1594 WHEREAS, Duane Luke (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2465 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of room additions to the existing residence, such additions constituting hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow construction of an entryway addition located 25' 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 #1594. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; a) The orientation of the neighboring residence to the east is such that the proposed 25' side setback for the entry will not tend to increase the visual density of the neighborhood nor will it have significant effect on the neighboring property. b) Although hardcover on the property already exceeds the 25% limitation, applicants have demonstrated that they can easily remove equivalent amounts of hardcover in the 75-250' Page 1 of 4 zone to yield no net increase in hardcover above the existing 37.8% in that zone. Also, Planning Commission noted for the record that the hardcover caused by the existing detached barn and driveway, directs run-off to the north and generally away from the lake. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of an entryway addition located 25' from the side lot line where a 30' setback is normally required, and grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover of 37.8% in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones may not exceed the amounts and percentages as shown on the survey and table attached as Exhibit B. Any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property in those zones will not be allowed, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, yielding no net hardcover increase. 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 (October 22, 1991). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with ny of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitu a 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 City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of October, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of October, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota muni'* al corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Ci^ Notary Public Page 3 of 4 To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson r From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 8, 1990 Subject: #1594 Duane Luke - 2465 North Shore Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-1^, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, sewered Application - Request for side setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to existing residence List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applicat jn Exhibit B - Letter r Support from the Marfield's Exhibit C - Plat Ma{ Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - Survey Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Construction Plans Exhibit H - Average JTutback Determiniation Pertinent Facts - 1. 2. Existing Proposed Allowed/ Required Side Setback 33.5'25'30' Hardcover,75-250'37.8% (7979 s.f.) 38.3% (8069 s.f.) 25% (5272 s. Hardcover,0-75'10.2%(No change proposed) 0% Hardcover,250-500'7.6%(No change proposed) 30% Hardcover 18.9%19.1%-- (as a percent of overall lot area) A review of City air photos and surveys indicates that the proposed additions will not encroach past the average lakeshore setback line. Zoning File #1594 October 8, 1990 Page 2 3. The proposed improvement ^ are located approximate'ly 84' from the 929.4 contour. 4. The net hardcover increase on the property without removals would be 90 s.f. or one-half of one percent in the 75-250' zone. There are significant ?reas of rock bedt. which cou>.u be reduced to result in no increase or even a net decrease in 75-250' hardcover. Additional haidcover areas in the 0- 75' zor^ might also be considered for potential hardcover removals. 5. Note that this property shares - driveway with the Wilson property at 2485 North Shore Drive. Discussion applicants are proposing remodeling and additions at the sov st corner of the existing house. A proposed 8' x 10' mu- and entryway on the east side of the house will encroach 5' the 30' side setback requirement of this 2 acre zone. The i^nboring residence to the east is approximately 7i* from this addition at it's closest point, and this entryway addition should have no effec -: ■> n changing the characte'^ the neighborhood nor reducing light, air or open spat'?" ihese nei'' .^ors (the Marfield's) have submitted a jtter in support of the request foi varianc s to construct these additions. Regarding hardcover, the pro‘. "sed additions result in a minor hardcover increase. Applicants .lote that the drainage from the garage and driveway area i:- directed away from the lake. There is no question ^hat landscape areas could be m^de r ^n- hardcover to result ;n a decrease in overall har'^c'^^er on the property in both the C-75' and 75-250' zones. Staff Recommanuatxon Staff .r/'jcJv! lecommend approval of the side setback variance for the entryway addition, finding that it wia.1 not increase t visual density of the neighborhood, and would recorjnend approva.*. of the additional structural hardcover associated with 22' x 22' room additor subject to removal of other hardcover areas, the extent and location to be determined by Planning Commission. Gj ::::o -ITY of ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 - - ($50.00 p«:r each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (r»o change from original application) --'the-Fact Fees (Double application PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Identification K..mber (P.I.D.) _ _ _ -3 a ± CITY OF 0R[^ FIs;!iCE OFFICE ^ 13502000^0 # 01 SS 175.00 Tl 175.00 RECnPT-iH^ YOU Y190600 cool POl 109:01 09/18/90 attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 0>PLICANT Name Address: h". City Phone fhone) 4'T.'^ _ _ Phone (work) Zip: 5^' )WNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Phv;ue (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip : _ Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land •RESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ 6 Present Use of Property ^—>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) Residential IBSCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ lOQ|(rDQ — Describe request in detail: *— 'ARIANCBS REQUIRED Lot Area _ _ _ ^ot Width X Hardcover Setback Variar. "iS ( _ _ Front X_, Side _ _ _ Rear) Other ?o'-^n r o HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: y^ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______C OiLKu M /r; n TaIa U ----Lii------ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Co “V N'OT 1. Completed Application Form ^ • U4_ :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. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if_the— information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Tritialed bv Clerical Staff: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_— - - - - - - - - - APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required cr 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 < ' this applicati^, and certifies that the information supplied is true an corre^ to the^^^ h^s/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature " Date ^j ( ^ J ^f OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ ^ ^ rThe owner heraby 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 this repiiest. Owner's Signature ^ Date —J 7 / Applicant must have a: 1 submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on tne third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. JEANNE MABUSTH CITY OF ORONO 1335 SOUTH BROm ROAD CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 10/01/90 RE; DUANE LUKE ADDITION/VARIANCE DEAR JEANNE: WE SUPPORT DUANE'S APPLICATION FOR A VARIENCE OF THE HARD COVER GUIDELINES TO BUILD AN ADDITION TO HIS HOME. WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL GRANT HIM THE VARIENCE NEEDED. THE ADDITION SHOULD BE A ASSET TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SAM MARFIELD J0YCe !vWiFIELD 2455 SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA, MN 55391 473-3344 CC; LUIS'S RUN DATE 09/13/90 . ^ , , ,BATCH 003 38 09-117-23 91 0009 PROP AODR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OHNER NAHE CHARLES A 8IR6ITTA SCHOEN TAXPAYER CHARLES A 8IRGITTA SCHOEN NAME/AOOR 293C NORTH SHORE DR .. • WAY2ATA MN 5S391 .' * ♦ * HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INF0RHATI0?4 SYSTEM PROPERTY 0W4ERS LIST 38 09-117-23 99 0001 02985 NORTH SMOKE DR H V BURNETT ETAL C STEVEN WILSON 2985 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE / 38 09-117-23 99 0002 02965 NORTH SHORE OR DUANE A LUKE ETAL DUANE A LUKE 2965 L40RTH SHORE DR WAYZATA N44 55391 38 09-117-23 99 0009 PROP ADDR 02955 SCOTCH PINE LA OHNER NAHE SAMUEL S HARFIELD A WIFE TAXPAYER SAMUEL S HARFIELD NAME/ADDR 2955 SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 99 0007 02925 SCOTCH PINE LA H A C HILL H DOUGLAS A CHERYL HILL 2925 SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA m 55391 TOTAL BATCH 003 00005 i */./. i K O ^ 1 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION Of INfORMAPION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEfAfEPIN tOUNlY UE^'ARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KffOWLEDGE AND BELIEF X\DATE ^i;L\SYING IENGINEE^^^ jjaytYroi^, DUANE LUKE '; lURVEMO A*|<ni U. I'MI ’ '• ' QBiinEG. A«f«« it. I'liii LEG g nPtr■lrr;o^: .—n, ,.v ^r.T« c«wkk„, «, -...«Ao. .tj,. ^ ‘^*“ ■‘^‘ *' ” >»mc .flw.t 'Vik» m.,.*,,.. I., ik-,!, t»oiionn --------»^"~.^‘.'^»::::s;': •t*i XT,'* ■■• -V«.«! s.k.N,„ “* < Ku (K.ACC wn*«»i«rttcm .hi j :j*fr«i«i m <epfeiX .........tJOImw* rrz'ir'- - «“*.« -,k. .,«rc ZkT;‘i;.;^^r7* —"•« -*.'«<<«. •or. or, s.,„ ^ ■* '•'«»• <*.r.%A..,o^,rfku, .kkfcc « . MO>i «rk, J Vwlkl«h^rt'!T"'* ""*' ** Lev >IK<.r >, , „ , ioSi,cl\ ^ -X *"»-o (J:> UUlfAT?^\t • ... k»«.« m .<*4 h t «raw* •« t«t ». MT« *« .^ ht« tr.AVG <»»rM>r<not t .t rriv\ rsTtnvr aaiifJCAiwa!. I rtnrfr <ik» ik. .M«n .w rrpfrrt >i. «, n. mm m. 4mtn h rtufcM..kijMir.«,»fc,,k,u..k.. ,k, »■■- ........., ‘.A. • • -> M rwtrt f ^ A r I /ijj ------------------------------- I SCALC O.NE; i.Nci rLQu!T^j7^r'^ Shor«lin« August 72,iaio XsJle ,^^nnett»n^a Cr^stiC ^ay HARCCOVES CALCJUTION WORKSHEET Existino Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House x f i V'- • s.p, lsnsth•• X width 3 S.P. X ■S.pV , _ X „a S.F. X S.P. A. S^aiG^X ■ C, Driveway .. X ■_ S.F. X s S.P. D. Sidewalk ...................X ss S.P. _ S.fi. X .S.F. E. Jatio / ^ X s S.F. F. Landscape X • AREAS UNOERUIN o ^lY X 4 ■20 4 a.F. PLASTIC SHEETINO X 7^tS4^_ g.p. •X ■SpF. fi. Othbb - X • S.F. Total Harcc •« in Zone Total Propshty Area in Zone j]. ^^3 323^ s.F. Ul - ^0^7 .... U T) <^037 X100 = lO.X % HAR13C0VES CALCULATION WORKSHEET__ S6T3ACK ZONE! (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'(75-250* 250-500' 500-1000 At ’ House Z7 X TjO - • 540 ••LENGTH 3fe>X WIDTH - •<?54,s.p.® 'Z'Z.X Z2.- ASA ■ ■ 6.^Y 6 > 52._ s.P,(g) P^OMs^ X L. /s S.P. B Sarass An X •2.7 - \X4^s.p.® 1* D p! VPWAY S6s X SS . iqao S.P.CE)Wi yr%*Ycn^r M X D. Sidewalk )5A X 4 IIX •Wc/ S.P. X ■- ^,-3E. Jatio / D eck \i> AO / X )A3 « . 1 o bo ‘c./ - -~«»e=4 F.Landscape 42 X S'- • ■:;:©% AASAS UNOBRUU.'; BY t 11 X IS PLASTIC SHCETINS 40 X 5 Zoa a.p.^C^ 60 X 5 m "BfOO StP. fl. flTWffi • X • S.F. » , Total Kardcoveh IN 1JONE a.F. ^ Tom Property A rea in Zone 7,1 09Py 5.P, [7 ] So4>^ -[E! ^ 10° “ 30;^% fyt'iT'wC) IS Boca ~ (f’'C> _ I o - &o - HARDCOVER CALCUUTIQN WORKSHEET SET3ACK ZONE! (CTRCLE ONEJ 0-75' 75-250' (250-50^ 500-1000' ExISTINO HAWjOveS IN_ZoflE A i ■ House «•X ■t S.F. length WIDTH X a . • 1 S.F. X a S.P. X a S.F. X S3 _ S.P. B. (:ARAG2 X m _ S.P. Ci DRlVE>fAY \-2_m -2-\ 60 s.F. X S3 D» SiDEWALX X _S.P. X m ________ S.P. X .. S.P. E. Jatio/ D ecx X ..S.F. F. Landscape X a _ S.F. AREAS UNOCRLAIN BY X a S.F. PLASTIC • SHEETINS X a • X a S.P. s. Other • X a S.P. \. Total Kardcoyer IN Zone ” *2.140 i.F, r W o \ ( a 'i cj % Total PaopEaTv A rea in Zcne - 5.Pi a” *2^) feO ^ T] 2-8 3 p1? X 100 = ^ ^ 11/2^ . • c?(=^ . a-1. ' —r..... . . -3i'' '— S—T. .1.. rl -in .nj ___ ---------—^:-n ■■‘^r—-------- tip -■ /■\Jsi ~n ■^i- •<--, ‘ j -n': - —U-- • i ;-'i!<;.r'-;:: ■ ■ t '■;> ■'"!■■* ’•■ ■!■ • ; ' • ({;ii;M!-i' ’ -li ■■•.'-I'-r .fi;::!:i;ir V • j^E^j?-_ELEV^Ti.^■y______ “-CAue . t SAWHORSETTsC•' ROOM ADD(TIO\S*« I From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adminis0Qy|l|0|[^ MEETING October 11, 1990 #1596 Daryle L. Uphoff, 2699 Kelly Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing OCT 22 1990 CITY OF ORONO Zoning District - LR-IB Total area = 25,696.3 s.f. or .6 acres List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Hardcover Fact Sheets Exhibit E ~ Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form Exhibit F - Survey Exhibit G - Lakeshore Improvements Exhibit H - Floor Plan/Elevations Exhibit I “ Hardcover Improvements Exhibit J - Staff Sketch Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Approximate 4-5' encroachment of average lakeshore setback line by proposed east side addition. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance. 0-75' total area = 6,250 s.f. Allowed = 0% Existing = 296.75 s.f. Proposed = 289.5 s.f. Reduction of 7.2 s.f. (new retaining walls to be constructed out of 75' setback area) Hardcover 75-250': Area = 19,446.3 s.f. Allowed - 4,862 s.f. or 25% Existing = 7,402 s.f. or 38% Proposed = 7,537.2 s.f. (135 s.f. of additional hardcover per applicant's findings)*^ or 38.7% Proposed = 7,593.1 s.f. (190.9 s. f. per staff's findings)*^ or 39% Applicant proposes equal removal of existing non-structural hardcover of landscape areas underlain with plastic for purpose of maintaining hardcover at 38%. Zoning File #1596 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Non-structural hardcover on property increased 389.5 s.f. or 2% (77.5 s.f. of courtyard area as is included). Existing courtyard considered structural hardcover because of wall with footings in excess of 6' plus 312 s.f. for master bedroom expansion. Refer to Exhibits G and I, hardcover improvements within lakeshore yard involve approximately 55.9 s.f. of additional hardcover over existing hardcover at 311.9 s.f. Applicant's proposed lakeshore yard improvements show an increase of 55.9 s.f. of additional hardcover. Review of Application - The house was designed by the owner of the home and built in 1973 prior to current lakeshore regulations. The house meets the required 75' setback. The current application involves a master bedroom expansion of approximately 10'x31.2' along the east wall of the residence and the addition of a bedroom within the defined courtyard area. This addition is 16'xl5'6". In addition, the applicant proposes the replacement of deteriorating timber walls and stairways within the lakeshore yard resulting in 55.9 s.f. additional hardcover over existing at 311.9 s.f. The applicant proposes removal of equal eunounts of non-structural hardcover consisting of landscape areas underlain with plastic, in an attempt to maintain hardcover at the existing 38% level. Please review Exhibit J, the master bedroom expansion results in an encroachment of approximately 4-5' of an average setback line involving house to the immediate east. If members are able to visit the site, please review the landscaping planted between the two yards and the higher elevations of the yard to the east. In addition, the location of the main lake in relation to the view windows of the house to the east results in no impact of views of the lake. The applicant notes the following hardships: 1. The needs of his ycung family require a bedroom on the same level with the parents' bedroom. 2. The architectural design of the house does not permit an expansion upward. In addition, although not pertinent to the ordinances, the applicant notes that an upward addition will block the views of the neighbors' homes across Kelly Avenue. Zoning File #1596 October 11, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff has received no comments from the Garritys, the neighbors to the immediate east who receive the most impact from the proposed expansion. Please note, no side setback variances are necessary. Options of Action - 1. Denial. Please refer to Secr.ion 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) for necessary findings; or 2. Approval. A) As proposed by applicant maintaining hardcover at 38%; or B) Requiring non-structural hardcover removals equal to structural expansions totalling 389.5 s.f. or 2%. Total hardcover would be at 7,203.6 s.f. or 37%. C) Additional removals recommended by Planning Commission, please refer to Exhibit I. Zoning File #1596 October 17, 1990 Page 4 Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation The Plcinning Commission advised the applicant than since structural hardcover was being increased on the property by 389.5 s.f. that it would be consistent to ask applicant to remove at least an equal amount of nonstructural hardcovei: on the property. Applicant had originally proposed maintaining hardcover at the existing 38% level requiring removal of 190.9 s.f. The applicant will remove 445.4 s.f. of existing hardcover to offset 389.5 s.f. of new structural hardcover and 55.9 s.f. of new nonst ructural hardcover. Total hardcover on the properrty would be at 6956.6 s.f. or 35.7%. Applicant has been asked to designate areas of landscape sections to be removed. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's findings and recommendation. A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 S 2 PILE #1596 WHEREAS, Daryle L. Uphoff (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2699 Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 2, Walters Port, (hereinafter "the property"); and Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Mu.icipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit a 4' to 5' encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line for a proposed 10' wide addition and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 for proposed improvements located within the 75-250' setback area where excessive amounts of hardcover exist at 7402 s.f. or 38%. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1596. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variwucei, based upo’' the following findings: a) The City has received no negative comments from the neighbor most impacted by the improvement. b) The existing elevations of the neighboring proper* ^ the east and the plantings along th<^ east lot line of tnv property negate a visual impact by the improvement. c) The house was built in 1973 prior to current standards for lakeshore development. Page 1 of 5 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council nereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of additions to the east side of the existing residence requiring an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances within the 75-250' setback area, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall remove 445.4 s.f. of existing hardcover to offset 389.5 s.f. of new structural hardcover and 55.9 s.f. of new nonstructural hardcover for proposed lakeshore improvements. Total hardcover shall be maintained at 6956.6 s.f. or 35.7%. Hardcover removals are shown on Page 5 of this resolution. 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 (October 22, 1991). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 5 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 22nd day of October, 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 22nd day of October, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corp jraticn and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ knov/n to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed tne same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to ine to be the person(s) described Tn and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 5 PrCITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 _ / / ' ($50.00 per each additional variance) _ / / 3 ’ I j Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 '//"* H O J r) rj .V j (no change from original application) " • After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^ (o ^ /t^/A /?wK,tv^c_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Z3 ( rTTV “(C "DriA* Wa f Ul WMUIIW ri,Vn,Cf OFFICE i 72VV~/*'," W JL w*w»Vt,V\.'WV n Attach legal description to application if not included on 01 required survey. fi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T^PLICANT Phone (home ) V7/~^ ^ y -■'‘^0 C^Ol ROl sOi ’^:, .. 09/20/% Name L . (a M-________________ Phone (work) ______ Address; ^ fh-<-_________ City; ^ Zip:_£I12Z_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Name _____^ |ilr ________________________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_ _ _ _^ ^ \ Q_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ (>0,o(n- Describe request in detail: A/ guhxiLt ^-AJL. »_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width X Hardcover Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front _ _ _ Side _ _ _ Rear) Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _—_ _ HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: w>«f DESCRIPTION OP ONUSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with^Zoning Code Requirements:^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS W> 1. Completed Application Form \r* A.i.l'w 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). ‘J+e.-ru.-w 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. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 2. 3. 4. 5. 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 aibove information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_______________________________ Date___________________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature _J_Date l/idlij 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 ^ (ta/_ _ _ _ __ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting.. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. >■ . • itt ow t .t f* Xy € ■ -5 Slionff AYS ^ SrmY9 f- fll '■■ -S U ‘'Vfii Mi 1i y'cw'iii■mII.1 IVIQAl? '1'^ ? ! •V ;0C ~fV6 h o ipfe R'JN DATE 09/04/90 BATCH 001 PROP ADDR OHriER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OttlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHT4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHT4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWT4ERS LIST 38 20-117-23 19 0009 02655 LYDIARD AVE .i S J BERG JAMES BERG 2655 LYDIARD AVE EXCELSIOR FV4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0033 02700 KELLY AVE R B RICE ADO RICE RICHARD B A DEBORAH 0 RICE 2700 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0090 02701 KELLY AVE C E GARRITY A A GARRITY CHARLES E GARRITY 2701 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MT4 55551 38 21-117-23 23 0093 02705 WALTERS PORT LA DONALD W NELSON ETAL DONALD H NELSON RT 2 EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0048 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED E44VIROI4MENTAL PLA44N1NG ir4C ENVIR044MENTAL PLA44NING INC 4530 IDS CENTER MPLS 4t4 55902 38 20-117-23 19 0007 02695 KELLY AVE S A H KAPLAN GARY BIRteALAI 2695 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR Ft4 55331 38 21-117-25 23 0039 02710 KELLY AVE LEE R MUT4KELWITZ LEE R MUtJKELWITZ 2710 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-25 23 0091 02699 KELLY AVE DAL UPHOFF DARYL L A LUCY S UPHOFF 2699 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55551 38 21-117-23 23 0096 02710 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PEF4CE LANE EXCELSIOR MT4 55331 TOTAL BATCH 001 00013 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 1 38 20-117-23 19 0008 02695 KELLY AVE G BIRFIBAUH ADS BIRNBAUH GARY BIRFCAUH 2695 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55531 58 21-117-23 23 0039 02702 WALTERS PORT LA A J MCDERMOTT III ET AL ANDREW J MCDERMOTT III AND JEROME L SKIFTER 2702 WALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0092 02703 WALfPRS PORT LA WILLIAM H REESE JR A WIFE WILLIAM H REESE JR 2703 WALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55351 38 21-117-23 23 0097 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A J MCDERMOTT III ET AL ANDREW J MCDERMOTT III AND JEROME L SKIFTER 2702 WALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR Ft4 55531 1 € C t «; J: RUN DATE 09/0‘*/90 3ATCH 001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHT4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PIAS5401 PAGE 2 !L t #1596 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTAT10F4 OF INF0RMATI044 AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENTiEPIN COUT4TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERJfY TAXATION* TO TJ^E BEST OF MY M40i4LEDGE AND BELIEF. DATI i A0 7- 2L, a: ^ . ^ 2 C 7 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500' 500-1QQ0' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House X =r • S.F. LENGTH WIDTH X s •S.F. X ss S.F. . ' X S.F. • X ss • S.F. 3. Garage X =3 S.F. c. Driveway X S.F. X S S.F. D. Sidewalk * 2'X 3 r s S.F. X ss . S.F. X s S.F. £. P atio / Deck X -- S.F. p.Undscape X s S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X ss S.F. r-i^ K • ■*>X ss S.F. z^z clzB, . s G. Other X 3 Y S.F. Total Hardcover IN Zone ^ ^/e-. 70 S.F. b-i Total P roperty Area in Zone C Tix vn _ S.F X 100 •/. ■'/ A ' L2J \ % A<fs!o c \' a »'2 i' 1 r~a T f J —I ' c. ^ >«'V ! w » pr • • /•; Tvp . ; !:>AuL'T'-Cr M^t-orp- ^j,t - . ?L. ic 2,4-'•-*7*. rr..~ HARDCOVER CALCULATION K0R;<SHEET__ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE OME) 0-75' (75-250'250-500' SCO-•ICGO' E xisting Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House ^ x 31. Z =:'^45.3 S.F. LENGTH WIDTH : ^ ^ f _..x s ■n"^.*5 S.F. Z0.4.s S.F, 4.r ,ft.3 =S.F, '■'^ X ft-2 s 1*7.0 S.F. 3. Garage x c=S.F. c. Driveway x •s ’V .' V. .:S.F. X ss S.F. D. Sidewalk C a ; ^ x rs X S.F. ^OUtT -7 »VEP ^ /d.^-!bl . q ■ .. X =S.F. s 0 S.F. E. Patio /. - - Deck X IW^=. 37-3 S.F. P.lANnsrAPE yTr*-^ tj/P/^^t/L^=. -r S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN RV ■ . ^OULr^r-.-L AP-/4X s z. .S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING E^e X ss '^7 -p S.F. £♦•^1 P-ANTi-t X s S.F. G. Other C^2- cue .'& x s V'2’.S.F. Total Hardcover in Total Property A rea in Zone 140Z.'L S.F. 1 Zone S.F. b- V - ■ li 9. 41 B X 100 % L^iTr:>Ni f\v>i>^ 11,‘7.0’^f b Co ;. r^u-s ^ ^ WC*^ V-..v^D <'ov .€'UL 1 ‘=.'2,7.10 . rt-'tXL'U r/v..l'0F M. C^vC- txrrf*^ HA2.P C0v/6 ‘<^ I o •>r /.pj.>h I I'u /^i'^ “^bS/. ■ T^errio Adjacent Property OwnerS* Acknowledgement Form I (we) i^ho.j /v;/ ^9} ^ '2-Jc;) / [print neune(s) \j [print addressJA have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. /5^(g. 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 th^’ ^ity Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that c proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ^//S'/9c Property Owner Date o 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. #1596 terUficjtecf Surw. f l-v Ddr y U> L . U|itU)f t of lot 2. Block 2. Waller Port Hennepin County, Minnonij O M Avc.. Date Scale 0 9-I9-90 1“ . 30* Iron marker I.*. 2/lh fva|aieo #1.'’1P>6 le 0 a I Oe sc r i pt I Cii lot ?. III.Ilk 2. Walter:. Puri I fUMi-Py cfitily ilijt this sur was prifpai cU by re or uiul:*r my lir<*(i Super V I s Ion .iii<l that I am a .loly i e ■! I s I ore<l laii.l sur • vey.it .jfiil.'i : lie ‘ i.-s of the 'll ale i.i III II III-Sul a I i-n n I i.kOHUlHIi, / ^ V V. ^ Maik S. f.rt.iilH>r9 lie. HO''12755 1 iiij I Met I , I .Mill Sur »eyor 1 t iiii.| late. Hi one so i a A COUKOIL MEETING 3 OCT 22 1990 CITY OF ORONO Prom: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 16, 1990 Subject: #1597 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Rd - Variance - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/16/90 Exhibit B - Proposed Resolution Exhibit C -- Memo & Exhibits of 10/11/90 Please review the memo and exhibits of October 11, 1990. Briefly, the applicant wishes to replace in kind a 12'x21' grade- level deck located in the 0-75' protected zone. The deck constitutes 0-75' hardcover and encroaches past the average lake- shore setback line. A miscommunication between the Project Manager, Mike Peters, and one of the subcontractors, resulted in this deck being removed. A Building Inspector advised applicant of the need for a variance before reconstruction could commence. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone will not increase above the pre-existing 33.7% if this deck is replaced. Planning Commission Recommendation - At their October 15th meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval of replacement in kind of the deck. Planning Commission also recommended approval of applicant's request to have a railing around the deck. Staff ReccHmnendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation, per the attached resolution. CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NO. 1597 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/16/90 TO:Ralph D. Burgess COPIES TO: Mike Peters 2765 Niagara Lane 2765 Niagara Lane Minneapolis, MN 55447 Minneapolis, MN 55447 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: 10/15/90 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended approval for replacement of the pre existing deck "in kind" and indicated that because the deck will be only about 1' above grade. Planning Commission will recommend that a railing be allowed if applicant desires. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 22, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 PILE #1597 WHEREAS, Ralph D. Burgess (hereinafter "the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 2610 West Lafayette Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: All of Lot 11, Shorehills, Hennepin County, Minnesota except the southeasterly 15', front and rear, (hereinafter "the property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a 12'x21' deck located 55' from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka where a 75' setback is normally required, and constituting hardcover in the 0-75' zone where hardcover is normally not allowed, and encroaching past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1597. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15, 19 j, ar.d recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) A 12'x21' deck existed in the proposed deck location until September 1990. During the remodeling of the residence, a miscommunication between the applicant's project manager and a subcontractor resulted in removal of the 12'x21* deck. Replacement of the deck in kind requires variance approval. Page 1 of 4 B) While the deck constitutes hardcover and strv.ctural encroachment in the 0-75' zone, the replacement of that deck results in no increase in hardcover or encroachment from the deck which was previously existing at that location. C) Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 33.7%. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is 7.9%. Planning Commission finds that replacement in kind of the pre-existing deck at its original 12'x 21' footprint size, does not constitute an increase in hardcover on the property and therefore no concurrent hardcover removals are required. D) The Planning Commission further recommended approval of a standard 36" railing around the approximately 1' high deck. The Planning Commission finds that such a railing will not result in an intensification of the average setback encr .achment created by the pre-existing deck, nor will re; lacement 0-. the deck or addition of a railing have a significant effect on lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. 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. Page 2 of 4 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a 12'x21' deck with railing to replace a pre existing deck at the same location within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones may not exceed the amounts and percentages as shown on the survey and table attached as Exhibit A. Any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property in those zones will not be allowed, but might be apr. .oved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existxng hardcover, yielding no net hardcover increase. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 22, 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 City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of October, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson nFrom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 11, 1990 Subject: #1597 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Rd - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshor residential, 1 acre Application - Hardcover variance to replace deck in 0-75' zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Letter of Request & Neighbor Acknowledgement Exhibit E - Survey Exhibit F - Resolution #2837 Including Hardcover Calculations/Site Plan Exhibit G - Construction Plans Pertinent Pacts - 1, Please review applicant's letter of request. Mike Peters is project manager for Mr. Burgess on the remodeling of the residence. Planning Commission may recall Mr. Burgess had originally requested to totally replace this house with a walkout style residence, which required excavation in the 0- 75' zone. That request was rejected by the Planning Commission and the Council, and ultimately Mr. Burgess decided tc remodel the existing house to sell it. He revised his original application to merely a replacement in kind of the existing garage, which Council approved with no changes in pre-existing hardcover. 2. As noted in Mr. Peter's letter of request, a miscommunication with one of his workmen resulted in the pre-existing 12'x21' deck being totally removed rather than repaired. As it is the City's policy to consider removed structures as no longer existing, the placement of that deck in the 0-75' zone requires a variance. /H -O Zoning File #1597 October 11, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - Ag can be noted on the site plan, this deck is 55' from the shoreline, and is entirely located in the 0-75' zone. 0-75' hardcover includes stairs and retaining walls, a portion of the house, patio, and the deck for a total of 7.9%. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover is 33.7%. In the 0-75' zone, 1% is approximately 179 s.f. The 12'x21' deck constitutes 1.4% in the 0-75' zone. Staff Recomendation - The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether or not the pre-existing 12'x21' deck can be replaced in kind. If so, does Planning Commission wish to recommend reduction of other hardcover on the property or accept the pre-existing hardcover percentages? ? ^ f**ti,'* i i i '6 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 (^^10 W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. rTTV nc nz-nanidl I t i/i unujiu FIHAXE OFFICE lEOOEOOOdO # 01 CDi 175,00 CHEK P. 175.00 RECEIPT-rm’ YOU :fl9i000 cool ICll T0S:12•>o/oi mV//^A/7v APPLICANT Phone (home) Name Phone (work) SS^ - Address; c9>"? r^_rL?ng_City; P^pl^b_ _ _ _ Zip; 7_ 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 $ Describe request in detail_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front X' Hardcover Side _ _ Rear) ! i I ( • t • Zoning File #1597 October Hr 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion ~ As can be noted on the site plan, this deck is 55' from the shoreline, and is entirely located in the 0-75' zone. 0-75' hardcover includes stairs and retaining walls, a portion of the house, patio, and the deck for a total of 7,9%. In the 75 — 250 zone, hardcover is 33.7%. In the 0-75' zone, 1% is approximately 179 s.f. The 12'x21' deck constitutes 1.4% in the 0-75' zone. Staff Recommendation - The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether or not the pre-existing 12'x21' deck can be replaced in kind. If so, does Planning Commission wish to recommend reduction of other hardcover on the property or accept the pre-existing hardcover percentages? :u)SHip Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: r ^ i. r^w>=>ved._____________________ * ^ •CRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY COIJDITIONS ~ “ --------- Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :UIRED 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 (provide one (1) copy 8J5"xll" for reproduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8i5"xll"). As an addendum uo 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. a Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please member that your variance application is not complete if the above formation has not been included. PLICANT'S SIGNATURE e applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or niested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff me not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses curred in review of this application, and certifies that the information -pplied is true and ccErect tofbhej(^est of his/her knowledge. pplicant's Signature WNERS SIGNATURE ie owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further thorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, /ents, Commission numbers, and Council members for purposes of investiga- on and verification _of t^s r^uest. ner's Signature Date plicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the anning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the • ird 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 “horized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning fice of this change prior to the meeting. iOr?-a *.. . ; ;.f;-:\ : RUN DATE 06/23/89 .HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1 38 21-117-23 21 0001 PROP. ADDR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME E M & J L RODGERS JR TAXPAYER ELEANOR & JOHN L RODGERS JR NAME/ADDR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0002 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE RD D M & D K GILMAN DAVID & DONNA GILMAN 2600 LAFAYETTE ROAD W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0003 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD S S & V L HAMILTON S S & V L HAMILTON 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0007 PROP ADDR 2605 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME BRADFORD L BLANKENSHIP TAXPAYER MOLITOR & ASSOCIATES INC NAME/ADDR 4530 W 77TH ST SUITE 219 EDINA MN 55435 38 21-117-23 24 0044 PROP ADDR 2630 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME THOMAS P LOWE ETAL TAXPAYER THOMAS P LOWE NAME/ADDR 2630 W LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0048 PROP ADDR 2635 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME H MAC GREGOR LYMAN TAXPAYER LYMAN LUMBER NAME/ADDR 300 MORSE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0010 2607 WEST LAFAYETTE RD MARY HANNAH MRS JOHN D HANNAH 2607 W LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0045 DONALD A LAYMAN ETAL LYMAN LUMBER CO 337 WALKER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0049 DONALD A LYMAN LYMAN LUMBER 337 WALKER SI EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0043 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE RD RALPH D BURGESS JR RALPH D BURGESS JR 205 INLAND LA PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 21-117-23 24 0047 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD DREW D WHITESIDE DREW D WHITESIDE 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0050 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA D J CLARKIN & K J CLARKIN D J CLARKIN & K J CLARKIN 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 % 1“ \ lO 00 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. OAIE iiiim -orr^ September 20, 1990 Orono Planning Commission Members Orono City Council Members c/o City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 #1 •r-"- 0 ♦“ ' /f' RE: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD Ladies & Gentlemen: Due to a misunderstanding on my part, it is necessary that I again come before you with a variance request for 2610 West Lafayette Road. I apologize for taking more of your time with this project. I was in attendance representing Mr. Ralph Burgess, Jr. at the July 23, 1990 City Council Meeting, to finalize a vari ance request for 2610 West Lafayette Road. The Council at that time approved the replacement "in kind” of a detached garage on the site. A percentage of hardcover was also approved encompassing all of the hardcover on the site. On a recent Monday building inspection, I was dismayed to hear that I had made an error by attempting to upgrade the deck floor boards which were severely weathered due to neglect. I was under the impression that this was allowable, as the Council had earlier approved the percent age of hardcover for the site, and the deck was included in that percentage. After conversations with Lyle Oman and Mike Gaffron I now understand I was mistaken. To further complicate the problem, a workman made an error when I was unavailable and dismantled the entire deck. I have tried to work closely with Lyle on this project and have asked for his input on a number of questions which have arisen. He acknowledges that this was an honest mistake. I would like to assure you that my intent has always been to work within your guidelines as I hope to work well with you on projects in the future. FEC CONSTRUCTION DIVISION 2765 NIAGARA LANE • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55441 USA . PHONE: (612) 559-5200 September 20, 1990 Page Two I am asking you to approve the request to replace the deck to its' pre-existing plan. The deck is an integral part of the overall house plan as it pre-existed. The deck is an important design aspect to the overall appeal and utiliza tion of the house. Thank you again for your time. Please feel free to call me if I can answer any further questions you may have. Resi ;full^ Mike Peters Construction Superintendent 884-9315 (home) 868-0903 (daytime) MP/cj Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. President FEC Construction Division 2765 Niagara Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Adjacent Property Owners* Ac)uiowledgement Form I (we)p (_0 (print name(s)][print address] CO. L/X sed improvement or proposed use of the also referred to as Land Use have reviewed the plans for the iici property located at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Application No. _ _ _• I (we) understand that in executing this ac)cnowledgement , I (we) am (are) not as)ced to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council tha'' I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans .nd that the proposed : ■••hbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date m, **-kit-k-k*ic ************************* I (we) [print name(s)j [print address] 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 - project or requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use .-.pp 1 ication, please submit your comments to the fluildxng Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. City of ORONO OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2837 __________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this / 3 _ _ _ _ _ before me a ^tary Public within and for said county, personal y the perso./V) /esc/ib'X^ f 199_^ tne personvs; uea^-ju -*-** “*♦— ----- ^ j ^ instrument, and acknowledged that he ithey) executed t. his (their) free act and deed. egoing ame as _ IRMA J. 8CHMTO HENN^COtJNT?^ My commission wpifM 11/fl^ >J-;V NOTARY ?U^C nlrl ^ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MiNNZSOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this rNotiry Public withxn^^dlor said person(s) described in and who execilFed the «h"fs and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. 199 , before me notary public my commission expires Page 4 of 4 m City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2837__________OF ORONO 2. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property in the 0-75* and 75-250* zones may not exceed the amounts and p0rcentages as shown on the survey and table attached as Exhibit A. Any future proposals to increase hardcover on the property in those zones will not be allowed, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, yielding no net hardcover increase. 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 (July 23, 3991). 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 m.isdemeanor. 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. 199^ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of July, n um W-UJI Jamds R. GrabekT—f^yor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behal^of] the Notary Public^ Page 3 of 4 JsSSi'Si. city of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2831__________ 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono City Council reviewed this application on July 23, 1990 and finds that replacement of the existing deteriorating detached garage in kind and in the existing conforming location, will provide a benefit to the property and to the neighborhood while not changing the existing percentage of hardcover on the property. 4. The Council further finds that the revised proposal is of such a minor magnitude as to require no further review by the Orono Planning Commission. 5. The City Council has 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 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the replacement of the existing detached 26' x 22' garage, allowing continuation of the existing 33.7% hardcover in the 75-250' zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit suitable construction plans for City staff review and approval, verifying that the proposed garage will not exceed the current footprint dimensions and meet all other City requirements. Page 2 of 4 OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2837__________ A RBSOLDTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1428 WHEREAS, Ralph D. Burgess (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 2610 West Lafayette Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: All of Lot 11, Shore Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota except the southeasterly 15', front and rear, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant on June 23, 1989 applied to the City of Orono for variances and a conditional use permit seeking approval of land alterations within the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone where no land alterations are normally allowed, and requested a variance to allow hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989 the Orono Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variances and conditional use permit. The City Council reviewed the application on August 28, 1989 and directed City staff t ■> draft a resolution for denial of the requested variances. On September 11, 1989, the City Council tabled final action on a denial resolution at the applicant's request, pending submittal of a revised plan by the applicant; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 1990 the applicant submitted a revised proposal for interior and cosmetic improvements to the existing residence, with no proposed work outside the existing walls or roof line, and with no land alteration proposed. Additionally, the revised proposal included replacement in kind of the existing 22' x 26' detached garage, to be replaced in the existing garage location, requiring a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow continued hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 33.7% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1428. Page 1 of 4 To: Prom: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson COUNCIL MEETiNO^yOCT 2 2 1990 CiTV OF ORONO Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 12, 1990 #1598 Jensen Homes, Inc., 1700 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lA Total Area = 31+ acres Dry Buildable = 22 acres Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.03, Definitions: 1) Accessory use or structure. A use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidential thereto. 28) Guest house. An accessory separate dwelli g constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests, of the primary dwelling. ^1. regular lot requirements shal 1 be met by the quest house. 73) Use conditional. Those occupations, vocations, skills, arts, businesses, professions, or uses specifically designated in each zoning use district, which for their respective conduct, excersize, performance and such designated use districts may require reasonable but special, perculiar, unusual or extrodinary limitations, facilities, regulations in such use district for the promotion of or preservation of the general public welfare, health or safety therein, and in this City and therefore may be permitted in such use district only by a conditional use permit, which is designed to meet the problem that arises where certain uses, although generally compatible with the basic use classication of a particular zone, should not be permitted to be located as a matter of right in every area included within the zone because of hazards inherent in the use itself or special prob1ems which its proposed location may represent. 75) Use principal. The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses. A principal use may be either permitted or conditional. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 2 of 7 Section 10.27, Subdivision 3 - Conditional use required for guest house. Guest houses, a separate d-filing on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) - Accessory buildings. Height restrictions. No accessory building in the R District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30' in height. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) - Area restrictions. In all R Districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 s.f. of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 s.f. will be allowed under the following conditions ; A) Not more than _1 oversized accessory structure shal l be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 s.f. . . . B) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: Total Area of Lot Area 2-3 acres 9 acres or more Maximum Allowed Size Footprint Area 1,200 3,000 Accessory Structures on a Property 2,400 (pertinent to 1075 Millston) 6,000 C) An oversized accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions . . .: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversized accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the building. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 3 of 7 List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit I - L - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Hardcover Fact Sheets Site Plan Detail Section First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Front Elevation Side Elevation Side/Rear Elevation Septic Plan Exhibits for 1075 Millston - Exhibit M - Spec Sheet Exhibit N - Plan/Section Exhibit 0 - Survey of 1075 Millston Review of Current Proposal - The applicant proposes the removal of an existing guest house/pool house structure with a total footprint of 731 s.f. for a new guest house structure totaling 1,749 s.f. The property already sustains another non-rental accessory residential structure. The existing pool house is located less than 10' from the pool. The prop #>ed guest house will be approximately 20'. Per Section 10.28, Subdivision 3, all lot standards must be met by the proposed guest house. The 22 dry acres within this property will easily satisfy the area requirement, not only for the proposed guest house, but for the caretaker house and principal structure. Review Exhibit L, the guest house will be located 80' from the west side lot line and approximately 105' from the principal structure. Septic testing has been submitted confirming that a standard trench system can be constructed to the south and east of the pool house. All pertinent standards of the conditional use permit section have been met for guest house use. The major concern has been the application of the new ac 2Ssory structure ordinance to this property for existing and proposed accessory structures. In reviewing the pertinent definition s--• ons above, the guest house is accessory to the principal ukvc, . ence it is classified as an accessory structure and must be included in an inventory of accessory structures for f-hia ont-rtr’Vf f rt r OrOOertV iS aS new principal ukvc , and must be included in an inventory ot accessory strucrures the property. The inventory for the applicant's property is follows: Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 4 of 7 Accessory buildings: Shed (31.4x20.3) = 637 s.f. Kennel (12x18) = 216 s.f. Detached Garage (30.8x19.2)(20x24.5) = 1,081 s.f. Caretaker House (22.5::37 ) + (14.6x30 ) + ( 25.5x22.5) = 1,844 s.f. Proposed Guest House (30.8x56.8) = 1,749 s.f. TOTAL 5,527 s.f. Allowed = 6,000 s.f. of accessory buildings The accessory code allows only one oversized accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f. There are currently two and the proposed guest house would be a third. At times, the accessory structure code and the guest house conditional use permit sections appear ambiguous. The guest house is at one point both accessory and yet the review standards are to assure that if a subdivision takes place, that the guest house structure must meet all principal structure setbacks and area requirements. The guest house under present ownership is considered an oversized accessory structure. At the time of a future subdivision the structure may become a principal residence. Although the guest house well exceeds the street setback from Shoreline Drive, technically the code requires the guest house, as an accessory structure, be placed in front of the principal structure and as proposed would require variance approval. Although if the private access road, in excess of 1,000 is considered legal access the guest house structure would be behind the principal structure. The property consists of a total of 31 acres, 22 of which are dry buildable. The oversized accessory structure area standards stop at th 9 acre level. The iccessory structure ordinance would appear to not address the needs of an estate use at this size and needs level. To add to owner's dilemna, at the time the applicant (contractor) was filing the conditional use permit application for the guest house, the caretaker was filing a building permit application for a 31x84' greenhouse totaling 2,604 s.f. to be installed on a 2.7 acre lot within the Millston subdivision (refer to Exhibits C & 0). This property is owned by Mr. Jacobs, but under a separate PTD. Based on the area allowances for accessory structures for a 2.7 acre lot, the maximum allowed oversized accessory structure would be 1,200 s.f. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 5 of 7 There already exists a 1,414 s.f. detached garage and with the proposed greenhouse at 2,604 s.f., the total accessory structures would be at '’,013 s.f. A 2.7 acre lot would only be allowed a total of 2,400 s.f. of accessory structures. Both the caretaker, contractor and finally Mr. Jacobs were advised of the dilemna. If the two parcels were combined (total 34 acres, 25 dry), the total accessory structures would be as follows: 5,527 (existing and proposed for a 22 acre parcel) 4,018 (existing and proposed for 2.7 acre parcel) 1,332 (principal structure at 1075 Millston now becomes a caretaker accessory structure) 10,877 Total Area of Accessory Structures Allowed = 6,000 s.f. The owner's contractor will file for a separate variance application to review the greenhouse at the November Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jacobs has been advised of the zoning complexities created with both requests. Staff has been advised by Mr. Jacobs of the need to proceed with the guest house construction before the winter months. Mr. Jacobs has also been advised that the introduction of the greenhouse issue may result in the guest house portion of the application being tabled until all is resolved. Staff advised Mr. Jacobs that it would be up to the Planning Commission to decide if they were comfortable in acting on the first phase of the application as long as all issues were addressed in this first phase review and conceptual direction provided to the applicant for the second phase, the variance application for the greenhouse structure. Issues for Consideration - 1. Are there any benefits to requiring the legal combination of the 2.7 acre parcel with the 22+ acre parcel. The following variances would be required if both the conditional use permit for the guest house and variances for the greenhouse were approved: A) Total of accessory structures at 10,877 s.f. requiring a 4,877 s.f. area variance. Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 6 of 7 B) Approval of the following oversized accessory structures on the total combined property: Proposed guest house 1,749 s.f. Detached garage 1,083 s.f. (on original 22 acre parcel) Caretaker house 1,844 s.f. (on original 22 acre parcel) Former house at 1075 Millston 1,332 s.f. Detached garage 1,414 s.f. (on 2.7 acre parcel) Proposed Greenhouse 2,604 s.f. 2. Would you approve a 2,600 s.f. greenhouse structure on a 2.7 acre parcel? Would you approve a 2,600 s.f. greenhouse structure on a 34 acre parcel that would also require the granting of a variance of 4,877 s.f. of total accessory structure area where 6,000 is allowed? 3. Does the fact the owner controls 34 acres have any bearing on your considerations? 4. Does your accessory structure code for oversized accessory structures address the needs of an estate use? 5. Is it practical. . .realistic to limit large acred lots to only one oversized accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f.? Do members have concerns with granting variances for six oversized accessory structures on a single property? 6. Is this type of property unique to Orono? Can you find unique findings or hardships to approve variance sought by applicant? 7. Do members feel as staff that the application has been contrived to test our new accessory structure ordinance? Options of Action - A) To table application until the greenhouse variance application is presented for Planning Commiss jn's formal review, finding both applications require a single comprehensive review and action; or B) To approve a conditional use permit for construction of a new guest house to replace an existing guest house structure on the property located at 1700 Shoreline Drive. This application will require the granting of a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C)l as proposed guest house/accessory structure is in excess of 1,000 s.f. and the property already contains two other oversized accessory structures . Zoning File #1598 October 12, 1990 Page 7 of 7 Approval of this conditional use permit and variance are based on the following findings and hardships: 1. The new guest house structure will replace an existing guest house structure. 2. The property contains 22+ acres of dry buildable land and can easily satisfy the area needs of the guest house and existing principal structure and caretaker residence on the property (6-22 = 16 acres fcr credit of accessory structures). 3. Septic testing has confirmed suitable and adequate soils for a conventional trench system. 4. All appropriate lot standards for the LR-IA zoning district have been satisfied with conditional use permit proposal for guest house. Are the customary conditions associated with an oversijed accessory structure applicable for a guest house use? If a future division takes place, the guest house would become the principal structure. Jhe conditional use permit confirms the guest house satisfies all lot standards of the given zoning district. What is the Planning Commission's position? The Planning Commission may wish to provide conceptual direction to applicant in the filing of the variance application for the greenhouse (i.e. size of structure - legal combination [to do or not to do]). Zoning File #1598 October 18, 1990 Page 8Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - Additional Exhibits - Exhibit P - Large Scale Survey of Property The Planning Commission had little difficulty in reviewing and finally to make a recommendation to the Council on the conditional use permit and variance application for the guest house use. In fact, the Planning Commission questioned staff's premature introduction of the greenhouse issue and found no connection between the two applications because they involve separate properties. The oversized accessory structure ordinance establishes standards for properties at 9 acres or more, the subject property consisted of 31 acres, 22 of which are dry. The ordinance does not provide additional standards for lots well in excess of 9 acres. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the conditional use permit and variance for a third oversized accessory structure on the property (1,749 s.f.) where two over sized accessory structures already exist. The Planning Commission adopted the findings and hardsnips set forth in staff's approval option noted above. As with other oversized accessory structure variances, the Planning Commission did not recommend that a covenant be filed with this variance application as the structure would be an independant residential unit upon subdivision atisfying principal structure setbacks and area standards. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's approval recommendatior.. A ’<KSOLDTION GRANTING A VA^RIANCE TO MONTCIP.-VL ZONING CODE SECTION i0.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C)(1) AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.27r SUBDIVISION 3 PILE #1598 WHEREAS, Irwin L. Jacobs (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at '? Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafte' **.y") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A autauhed, (hereinai. ^er "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to permit construction of a guest house at 1,749 square feet per Section iO.27, Subdivision 3 and a variance to Section 10.03, SubQi ision 9(C)(1) as the guest house, considered an oversized accessory ^.cr\:cture exceed* l,000 square feet in area, would be the t:i J oversized acc.ssory structure on the property where only one ic allowed. ^OW, TF^R’-PORP, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono • - FINDINGS i V .ipp3ication was review^^d as Zoning File #1598 he property is loc^tt>d in the LR-lA Single Family L,.., .Iicc3 Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. 3. The property is approximately 31 acres in area, 22 of which re considered dry buildable. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15, 1990 and recommended approval cf the proposed variances and conditional use permit., based on the following findings and hardships; A) The new guest house sv cture will replace an .listing guest house structure. Page 1 of 4 .....— B) The property contains 22 plus acres of dry buildable land and can easily satisify the area needs of the guest house, existing principal structure and existing caretaker residence (2 acres per each residence equals 6 acres; 6 - 22 = 16 acres for credit of accessory structures). C) Septic testing has confirmed suitable and adequate soils for a conventional system. D) All appropriate lot standards for the LR-IA zoning district have been satisified with conditional use permit proposal for guest house. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply gener-lly to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning '“ode and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council finds that gran-ing a nditional use permit to the guest house 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, ncr will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keepirg with the intent ana objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant's representative and the effect of the proposed on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03r SUBDIVISION 9(C)(1) AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 3 PILE #1598 WHEREAS, Irwin L. Jacobs (hereinafter "the applicant") ifr the owner of the property located at 1700 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follcws: Refer to Exhibit A attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to permit construction of a guest house at 1,749 square feet per Section 10.27, Subdivision 3 and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(C)(1) as the guest house, considered an oversized accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet in area, would be the third oversized accessory structure on the property where only one is allowed. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1598 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. 3. The f-rope> is approximately 31 acres in area, 22 of which are consi_t.red dry buildable. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit, based on the following findings and hardships: A) The new guest house structure will replace an existing guest house structure. Page 1 of 4 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 9(C)(1) and a conditional use permit per Section 10.27 Subdivision 3 that would allow a guest house, considered an oversized accessory structure, on a property that already contains two oversized accessory structures where only one is allowed. This approval is subject to the following conditions; 1. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit for the guest house within one year of the date of Council acproval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (October 22, 1991). 2. 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. 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. Adopted by tha Orono City Council on this 22nd day of October, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cleric James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 J; { I STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of October, 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of _ _, 199_ personallybefore me a Notary Public within and for said county, 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, persona?.ly 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 Page 4 of 4 PRESENT L3B OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify)_ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail:Wp rpniipgt rnndi tinnal h<^p permit, for construction of quest house accorriinq tQ Plan prQVld£d. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS List of owners within 350- (you can obtain thlflist S/en'nepin county Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271). 4 Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). -i s! T^pograrhic survey (existing and, proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Sonstruct?on plan, if applicable (see staff of 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate any other persons you wish notified of t.is application. not been included. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Certlficatlorbrciericn'DepIrt^^ that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The^^a^lican^t^er^ agrees to provide all requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional f®®® time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in reviL “rthis applilation, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to best^f his,^er know-tedge. Applicant's signature y ^ ^ - - °®te 9-^0-2 ^- - - - ?^Ltr°^'^y acknowledges and a^ees to this ®PPli=®tion andjur^^^^^^^ authorized reasonable entry onto_t^pr°perty of agents, commission mem^jexs^ aiia/Council members for p p investigation and verlficaH^of^tl^s. request. owner's _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AppiIcan7mus”hI7e’riT'subm^tW into the City °“i'r®®“ day3 before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on tne third Monday of each month. Applicants must be P>^?®e"P.®^,®“ review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant 1 unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make -oning authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building s Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. M h cj i CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE AP PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address i?nn <;hnroTina p>^iwQ n o * /> Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 10-117-23 CITY uF ORCM) ^ ^ ^ FIR^CE CrFICEPlease attach legal description to application if not included^v,,,^,,^^ on required survey. " ^ oj 150.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------rr----- Phone (home) 475-Q986r.‘TTor_ ^n ii 91020 cm .iOl J0S:k _____________^Phone (work) 475-0548 ________01/21/90 APPLICANT Name Jensen Homes, Inc. Address 601 Lakeshore Parkway #1225 City Minnetonka Zip 5S343 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Irwin Jacobs ___________ Phone (home) Phone 337-1901 Address 1700 Shoreline Drive Date Property Acquired City Orono Zip 55391 1974 (month/year) I (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.) X $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ _ _ _ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _ _ _ _ $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _ _ _ _ $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _ _ _ _ $250.00 Vacation _ _ _ _ $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _____ Other - see fee schedule HUt% uAVE. ^9/l*t/90BATCH 002 38 10-117-23 14 0009 PROP ADOR 01000 HILLSTON RO OHNER NAHE ROONEY P BURNELL TAXPAYER ROONEY P BURNELL NAHE/ADOR 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE HPLS MN 5S431 201 HENNEPIN COuNlY PROPEHIY lN^ORMAIiUt^ bYSIEN PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 10-117-23 14 0010 01100 HILLSTON RD RODNEY P BURNELL RODNEY P BURNELL 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE 201 MPLS MN 55451 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3 38 10-117-23 14 0011 01100 HILLSTON RO RODNEY P BURNELL RODNEY P BURNELL 7901 XERXES AVE S MPLS MN 55431 38 10-117-23 14 0012 PROP ADOR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ONNER NAHE RODNEY P BURNELL TAXPAYER RODNEY P BURNELL NAHE/ADDR 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE 201 HPLS MN 55431 38 10-117-23 14 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED IRNIN L JACOBS ETAL IRNIN L JACOBS 100 S 5TH ST STE 2500 NPLS MT4 55402 38 10-117-23 41 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID H NINTON DAVID M NINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MN 55402 38 10-117-23 41 0002 PROP ADOR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0»MER NAHE FOXHILL ASSN TAXPAYER FOXHILL ASSN NAHE/ADOR 1160 HERITAGE LA NAYZATA m 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0001 01190 HERITAGE LA ONEN A PARR A NIFE OHEN A PARR 1190 HERRITAGE LANE NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 002 00026 #1 - V Oi I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENFEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HETHEPIN COUTTTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEFV / DAT4 RUN DATE 09/1A/90BATCH 002 PROP ADDR 0»tCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 10-117-23 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUAD H AZHARI SUAO H AZHARI 17A5 FOX ST HAYZATA MN S5391 HErtCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 10-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MCLEOD CNTY REG RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC C/0 THOMAS LOVETT 1400 FIRST DANK PLACE N MPLS MN 55402 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 238 10-117-23 12 0003 00930 BROHN RO S GARY D FRETHEIM ETAL CARY 0 FRETHEIM 930 BRONN ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OltCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 10-117-23 12 0004 00940 BROHN RO S CAROL SEr«4 CAROL SENN 940 SO BR0M4 RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 12 0005 01005 HERITAGE LA 0 a A BEAL DAVID J BEAL 1005 HERITAGE LANE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0007 01080 HERITAGE LA DAVID M HINTON DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MN 55402 PROP ADDR 0»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR 0»MER NAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR 0»#4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 10-117-23 13 OK08 01025 HERITAGE *» M J JOHNSON A H L JOHF60N HARK R JOHNSON 1025 HERITAGE LN HAYZATA m 55391 39 10-117-23 13 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HELEN S MCKNIGHT DAVID H HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST HPLS m 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID H HINTON DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST HPLS HN 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0006 01125 MILLSTON RO ROONEY P BURHELL ROONEY P BURHELL 7901 XERXES AVE S MPLS m 55431 38 10-117-23 13 0017 00038 ADDRESS UTMSSIGNED DAVID H HINT0T4 DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS m 55402 38 10-117-23 13 0020 DAVID M HINTON DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MN 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0003 01780 SHORELINE OR DAVID M HINTON DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MN 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0007 01075 MILLSTON RO IRHIN L JACOBS IRHIN L JACOBS 100 SO 5TH ST STE 2500 MPLS MN 55402 38 10-117-23 13 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO DAVID H HINTON DAVID M HINTON 4422 IDS CENTER 80 S 8TH ST MPLS MN 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0001 01700 SHORELINE DR IRHIN L JACOBS A HIFE IRHIN L JACOBS 1700 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0005 OlOGO HERITAGE LA N GUSTAFSON t L GUSTAFSON NAYNE t LINDA GUSTAFSON 1000 HERITAGE LANE HAYZATA W 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0008 01050 MILLSTON RD RODNEY P Bl»"WELL RODNEY P BU.,.«LL 7901 XERXES AVE S SUITE 201 HPLS MN 55431 10 tH t HARDCOVb?. CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE oNc) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1300^^ Existing Harcccver in Zone A. ■ House •r< *>c. S.F. LENGTH WIDTH • X =S.F. X S.F. . ■ X =s S.F. X S.F. 3. Garage .............X S.F. c. Driveway 'X ^. s.?. X •3 S.F. r. S idewalk ‘ :X ss S.F. _ :X a S.F. )<s S.F. E. Patio / Deck X S.F. f.Undscape >c .. .=S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . >:a S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING Xf a S.F. X a S.F. G. Other x _S.F. TnTAi HAPni*nvpR IN Zone 340 s. = . Total Property Area A 34-0 ^ IN Zone / S.F. B /2^7.0aO X inn « 27 ! B P 2T TAcaSS HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ome) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Harccover in Zone 1X1<S S.F. LENGTH WIDTH X S3 S.F. X 3 S.F, X 3 S.F. X • S.F. B. Garage x =S.F. c. Driveway x /<*C?S.F. X ss /Zoo S.F. D. Sin ’-WALK X as S.F. X 3 S.F. X 3 S.F. E. P atio / Deck X S.F. AMn«?rAPP X S S.F. AREA' UNDL;.UIH RY . X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • s S.F. X ’S.F. fi. Other ‘ X ..s.r. Total Hardcqv '^‘> in ] Total P roperty A rea in 2!one J/U>S.F. Zone 7, ooo s.. A 3l(,0 4 B V inn - l-Oif % X. sJ^C06S HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' E xisting Hardcover in Zone A.HnijRF •X _■6 39 S'S.F. length width ^^a.ssor\4 X /S£7.S.F. X S.F. .• X == * S.F. _ X ss S.F. B.frARA^E X S.F. C.Driveway X =7Z/C S.F. X / 9 Zoo S.F, D..:S idewalk ’X •S.F. X =s S.F. X S.F. E. < ^atio / Deck X = .S.F. F.Landscape X S5 S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X =s S.F."fey 1 no ok.X s &0 S.F. c Other X a S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total P roperty Area in Zone ■gg. €8^ s.F. s.F. 1_B_ o] 3&.SB4- -r [T| ^■U).7e>o x IQO = -----% ^ -r-r- Z^ri€^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75*250' 250-500' 500-1000' E xisting Hardcover in Zone MAfr/ A. ■ House . “Poof ^5<S, LENGTH WIDTH X _^12_ ^Ai^eo B. CBnv*.oc •c. Driveway /A- ~P<£rr^CCS ^ D.. Sidewalk 2. VtAUU /7^" X X X X X X X X Arau/iJ-^rraecs, ' Aoosc, y E. P atio / ! ’ . Deck 5/*«6 ________• X• • • - % . Sihotu* FrL AMD SCAPE 9^ X ■AR&>»rfr ^ A c T j r SIIC-ETI-NG . ,_I4jiiS--------_X G. Other 5;r Z4^3 /L i3r<7 /. r 2.r /.sr 6.^ Total Hardcover in Zone Total P roperty Area in Zone ■ 7ZOO 77€)a S3Z 4o,<r 2. O 733- •/55^ 64^ 22365 S.F. S.F. S.F.- . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F, . S.F. . S.F. , S.F. , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^7z, OOG S.F.B rrepe:>‘$^tjl MS<. /0<ho / 'P^apo^^C poH-t^oZU t F] 4^7200^ X 100 = 39 ?o S .3S^ 71,000 [ 71 ' mmm^rn^ iWilulWM *»«U < cg>-* ••' •» t w acnMiTT e M>Aoc\m& CniTECTA tLMA! 7 w aMovrsaipB rta PA. H ^ i M1 t liisi r t p?*i;, ♦ J- . Ml- ! ■•f .if.’-i!' -'■■ f .u- -JELt,- E-i tj'Mft., IKt- ^ •■*.'' f i »% bi '»■•: ► Vk l» ' • ' 1 ' ■*1 i V»l ‘ '•■—«» <^UI^ H^^J&E. f%it.- '^R, 4 MF-^. IFRWIK jA^ofc>e (Wa.l*-•^M♦^•Y *>Uk V i1%> tmsfvUK^ ‘smrr x <Tk» Jg|^£M l^i- ^ 'SL r I vice. I hty^^ b L t>vATrr[ c^ijper fiSft: II^YVIN JAc/^fo' ftMT«4iM-r ■••T T ttl» J|iMH..lW£-_“,.i'b. ^e«.x^ « > A- . t - -■s Ei^vATI<?hl| • L ^MK 4 M R.WIN JA^oe. l«Mwii»Wt «ito » »fT X 1^ vJ & kI HIkL^. - -jraft , jsci:. CERTIFICATf Of SURVEY fOR Ma & MRS. IRWIN JACOBS C/O JENSEN CONSTIHICYIOII OF WOT ^ BLOCK «,MBJ.rrON HENNEPIN COUNT MINNESOTA iUEJB. I. MW* t. , wrwt W»»l»» iwt w»w# »W WMWW W W „ ,ww W WWW ■■wwittw. «w tw» I w • «W» WWMWW MMI *W tw. tawww ww»w» lw> W U* WW. W WWMW*. twfsa * MWMM. IW COFfWB TheVail Till! Mjujrtf iicci Jubiiij; ill ai! lru»» aiij puiliii cuiiipunanis ulili/cj liij.'i Mrctt|;tli ijalvuniMtJ ticvl. he rigid frame Vail fea tures main structural members made of square galvanized high strength steel tubing, the strongest on the market. Safety column caps and gutter saddles are made of high strength TENS-ALLOY, and are designed to allow for fu ture e.xpansion in either direc tion. Trusses are factory welded to offer consistency in dimensions, maximum strength, and ease in erection. Wide span trusses can be manufactured in two piece sections to minimize shipping costs. Tlw safety column cap and gutter iaddlcs are a Nt-XUS tr.idemark m.ule of super strong TENS*ALLOY. Tl'.ey also allow lur future c.<pjr^MO!i. The Vail is designed to be covered with metal decking, fiberglass, or the newest in polycarbonate and acrylic structural sheets. All necessary aluminum and galvanized steel fiaslting is in cluded. Partition walls .arc available to create separate climate zones. Tlic option.il all aluminum vent .systems can be single or J'lublc, and can be installed on t!te gable ciuls, sidcw:ills or roof. The versatility of the Vail makes it ideal for garden cctucis, retail outlets, and - iljKCluJ widihsi arc av.nlal»!w upon rc({uc\i. metal buildings as well as for growing. .And the Vail can be designed and built with live load capability engineered to meet your building codes. mmmIIICM STnCNCTit STnuCTunALTuoc or allico n!xus^109S3 LERO'^ DRIVE. NORTllGLE.NN. COLORADO 5i023.^. 303/-t57.y i‘;9 322 CROSS STRi-"T. DARLINGTO.N. SOUTH CAROLl.N’A 39532. ^03/395-1 509 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: October 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Lafayette Ridge 101790.3 j ^ COUNCIL MEETING OCT 2?. i990 GiTY OF ORONO Attachment: A. Lafayette Ridge Memo Dated 10/1/90 B. Analysis of Private Roads ISSUE - Determine whether Council desires to make Lafayette Ridge a public road. INTRODUCTION - At the Coun.il's October 8, 1990 council meeting Council gave general direction that they may be interested in converting the street, Lafayette Ridge Court, but tabled further discussion until this meeting. DISUCSSION - General concerns Counci l/uember s have had in this regard is what exposure they have longterm by any precedent of taking this over together with the anticipated cost of such exposure. Precedent Exposure - Attachment B outlines the urban streets that meet standards for which the City may have requests. The Comprehensive Plan, as noted in Attachment A, states that all local streets in the urban area shall be public and in addition spates that all urban properties are to be served by public streets. While the first statement does not make any exceptions the second statement does indicate the possibility that PRD's could remain private. As the original drafters of that are no longer available, staff is unsure if this was permissive language regarding PRD's or was language indicating that all PRD's roads were to remain private. Financial Impact of Exposure - It is anticipated that given the current exposure in the urban area that no additional man power would be needed, but that over the years there may be a minor amount for street maintenance but again approximately 3/4 of a mile of exposure in relationship to the city's 59 miles of streets would be fairly minor. The second area of exposure is that of the rural streets over 10 lots. This would again be fairly limited as most of the streets (40 or 50) are at the 9 lots or below level as they currently exist. Connection in the future, however, may bring some of these over 10 and would qualify them for public streets. Longterm it is anticipated that perhaps an additional person may be required to be added plus the cost of capital equipment. If all private streets were added they would be approximately 9 miles. A review of the facilities projection in the next 5 yea^s ^oes include the addition of a person and financial impact if it were undertaken. It should additionally be mentioned that the re-organization in the Public Works department may in fact make the addition of another person for specifically this item not required as there is mere flexibility in this area. ALTERNATIVES 1. Choose to make this a public street. 2. Indicate that other private streets in the urban section are available for conversion once they meet standards as being within the Comprehensive Plan dictates. 3. Indicate willingness to accept private roads that are up to standards over 10 as being within the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Indicate a willingness to take over all private streets that are brought up to standards. 5. Table for further discussion. 6. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Lafayette Court together with all other streets in the urban area that are brought up to standards by the residents be available for acceptance as public streets in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for those that desire that they become public streets. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council directs staff regarding the conversion of Lafayette Court as a possible public street. Ayes _, Nays _. John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer JoEllen Hurr, 930 Partenwood Road, 55356 TO: FROM: DATE: 10190. Mayor and City Council ^ ^ Mark E. Dernhardsou, City Administrate^^ October 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Lafayette Ridge - Request for Public Street Attachment:A. City of Minnetonka Beach Request Dated 8/21/90 B. Lafayette Ridge Plat Resolution #891 Dated 3/30/78 C. Orono Council Minutes Excerpt Dated 9/12/77 D. Orono Comprehensive Plan Excerpt E. Private Street Listing (Urban/Rural) ISSUE - 1. Present to Council a request by residents of Lafayette Ridge that their cul-de-sac be made a public street. 2. Determine Council action regarding this matter. a. ) Public street b. ) Credit for hardcover using commons area INTRODUCTION - As noted in the request the Homeowners Association are requesting both Minnetonka Beach and Orono portions be made public streets. These streets for this subdivision which straddle the boundaries has a cul-de-sac in each of the two communities and the Homeowners Association of the entire subdivision is maintaining the two cul-de-sacs. In action earlier this year the City of Minnetonka Beach indicated their willingness to take over the public street and the request is brought forward to determine if the City of Orono would consent to the same. DISCUSSION - PubjL^c - P£i.va_te Road^/Ur^ban A_reas - This issue has been discussed on a general basis by the Council several times. It should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan specifically indicates that all properties in the urban areas should be public streets. These properties are served by both sewer and water. This has not necessarily been what has been acted upon, but may be a good guide in allowing certain roads to go from private to public provided they meet City standards. Lafayette Ridge - In this specific case the streets were built in approximately 1978 to the current City standards. The portion in Orono serves five homes. A related problem is if, in fact, Minnetonka Beach accepts their portion the way the Homeowners Association currently is constructed the homeowners in Minnetonka Beach would be responsible for paying on the Orono portion. Hardcover Credit - In addition to the road, the association has asked that they can receive credit in their lot calculations for hard cover, 1/5 credit to their lot of the commons area. In the Orono portion which is generally in the 500-100C (35%) range for the lots with the bulk of the outlot outside the 1000 foot mark, they would substantially increase their hardcover available. As an alternate since this is in a 1 acre zone as a PRD, the credit would be allowed for harcover up to the 1 acre as is done in other PRD's. The City's 15% lot coverage requirement however may be the governing consideration. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the request. 2. Determine if a public hearing is desired. 3. Accept the pu;;lic road. 4. Reject the public road. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council indicate any concerns or questions they may have and table this application to its October 22, 1990 meeting. Indicating to residents that may desire to be in attendance they could be available for that discussion. seconded byPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _. . _ action on this item until the Council's October 22, meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. Council table 1990 Council cc; Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association, C/0 Steve Simpson 2163 Lafayette Ridge Road, Wayzata JoEllen Hurr, City of Minnetonka Beach VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BMINNETONKA BEACH, MINNESOTA 55 August 21, 1990 To: Orono Mayor Orono City Council members Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator John Gerhardson, Public Works Director From: JoEllen *-. Hurr , . . ^City of Minnetonka Beach Planning and Zoning Administrator The residents of The Lafayette Ridge Development (PUD) in tiie cities of Orono and Minnetonka Beach have requested that the ^ respective cities take over ownership of the private roads wi::hin the cities. Please review the attached petition signed by all pro perty owners in both cities. They also request consideration of hard cover calculations on each lot. See attached letter dated July 9, 1990. The City of Minnetonka Beach has voted to accept Lafayette Ridge Road. They are also in agreement with the "credit" for common property. I will look forward to discussing this with you at your meeting on August 27, 1990 Sincerely, '^oEllen Hurr City of Minnetonka Beach Planning and Zoning Administrator PAGE 1 OF 2 LAFAYETTE RID G E HOMED Jv A’ E U S A S S O C I . A T I 0 S The umiersii^ned lot ownt-rs of the LAFAYETTE RIDGE IIOMEJWXERG ASSOCIATION (LRHA) hereby arant permission to the Board of Directors of LRHA to proceed with the complete transfer of title and ownership of the two roads currently owned and maintained by LRHA - Lafayette Ridge Road and Lafayette Ridge Court - to the respective cities of Minnetonka Beach and (^rono* BLOCK 1: LOT I,. BLOCK 2: LOT 1 LOT 2 ADDRESS .71*/.7 l.AFWFrrF RIDGE COERT LOT 2____322a l.A FAYETTE RIDGE COiRr 32sr> i.aeavette ridge roi-Rf 32G5 LAFAYETTE. RIDGE COERT LOT OWNER..........DATE. . . ----- ‘ ^ #V| A <4 cv lipr\fcCAtfc. LOT 3.... 32 1 5 LAFAYETTE RIDGE COERT BLOCK 3 . lot 1 ____31 T1 LAFAYETTE RIDGE ROAD LOT 2____3167 LAFAYETTE RIDGE R0.\D * LOT 3.,.. 3163 LAFAYETTE RIDGE ROAD LOT 4.... 3159 LAFAYETTE RIDGE ROAD l-3E'^0 S7gt^ ^ -^4^^ ------------- ts. /vr/f* WfliiilaiOimv /-zt4o PAGE 2 OF 2 I. l I ) A /' / A /i f P it A. If f > V A. f» i» V A' V >■ \ S S n I’ f A I I n \ The utifier'i i U'HA i->t /in iny rrvu/ im/ tu i !i<» :ibove statemom an /■ iu*/* / ot’ this dorument : BLOCK 4: . LOT I. . ahoffss 31:15 f AFWFTTF FIUGF. HOAO LOT 2 ..........■?/.*/ l.AFWFTTf-: h'i!>GF h ‘<UP .LOT 3..........:itT lAFwrnr un>tiF fo\d I LOT 4..........///.. iAFAM IlF '.'//••/A FoM) I'. LOT :n.tp t ia*ua.7Ta; /.//mv h'd\n BLOCK 5: LOT /..........n.’f.i I AFwrrrF h iiu,F foap ^ • LOT LAFAvrrrr fipijf a*oip • LOT 3.... 3115 OLP OHWV Rt>\P 15 • LOT 4____3111 OLD COCSTV ROAD 15 •LOT 5.,.,310T OLD COUXTV ROAD 15 LOT 6 ____3101 OLD COrWY ROAD 15 LOT OhSER...........DiTE... ^ .J -*fV ;-at« ................ _ V T.. S c ats ', V vr ^ VAT rk iA-d* - r Jjr.V,,/ i.p. ^Vf) *OLt3^ /-Ji-fa ■j?np=finsr iLfay i w^<'.ty>V.cvy>' 5.1 ■74 i;*5w / •. /.. .TV* LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION^ July 9, 1990 The City of Minnetonka Beach, Minnesota The City of Orono, Minnesota \; Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association (LRHA) requests that the Cities of Minnetonka Beach anc ^jrono modify their respective interpretation of individual lot size tor purposes of hard cover hmitadon calculation based on the following approach: Each lot would receive an additional credit of common area space based on equal distribution of common area space residing m the lot’s respective city (i.e., the 15 lots residing in the City of Minnetonka Beach would each receive an additional credit equal to 1/1 5th of the amount of LRHA common area space residing in the City of Minnetonka Beach; respectively, the five lots residing in the City of Orono would receive an additional cTcdit equal to l/5th of the amount of LRHA common area space residing in the City ot Orono). We anticipate the determination of LRHA common area residing in each re.spective City will require a professional survey. Accordingly, each lot with its additional credit for common area space will define the lot size from which hard cover limitation calculations will be based. By Direction of the Board, ^_____ Steve R. Simpson President, LRHA SRS:lo Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association RESOLUTION NO. 891 HrrjldMtt'r b A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF LAFAYETTE RIDGE ■f regulations for ! ■' of land wlchln the city; end a Council has considered the kpp^SrtSPS •a subdivision plat by Crosstown Associates, th.7(^Smd‘^“^4;#::5 y.. -Execution of a dev«l«n*,-»- —_ __ • iV •••'•.- -Execution of a developer’s agreement with the Citv - -'■ ■ ‘ •' n!ii f dulnage and utility easeaenta .- v '■ ri'. Oedlcjclon of public streeta and mad. -' v'' -' J . .J --y^rr^-ot a park dedication fee of Sl.?«in^ “ ■.■ --m^: #■'••i> m-. <%Xr ■ L" a’- • J - i:. ■'< ■<' payment.of a park dedlc«“n ferof%??5fS!^* «ty oTorr^e^; County. Mlnneaota. subject to the foUowin^^^Sl^?®' * • • . ' . «ak • 1. **» Hennepin counw :Recorder s Office on or before August 30 1978 .toseth*r utlll^^*^*** «hl* ,Reaolutlon,&lra^M' 'utility easement docuaanti'^derlylnSieceatdiSeMS for ^tlot.C. .-ndi;ope^pi2W..andsfS^“-i^“~^^ ■‘ i i ■ Si.-. .2.>.yt >4. reen Crosstown As8oclaf»« An/4 »-Kaa ^____^ . i \i •nbetae«.;cro.«i;-L*;o;Srr.TS “h:‘cJ^:T^ , .„ ••»essa«nta'-liybe7^y' , ,divided between the five lots in blocks 1 and 2. . ^.,.dV' •i. ’-t- '. j '* "V” * I «d^?o?f *’• for lots 1 a^d 2. blo^-it;:.^‘XOCS 2 Anfl hi ^ M A . ^a. r.A ; ...J ir<^i\"V‘c “"pieriorf:nhrt«rwJ “«enta ^.-.;to Outlot G «ul th. a«,.r and w.tar ext«,tlona to thSe,l^ , ;-■■ .' BSSSS sk , 'I ir • MBBTinC OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 12, 1977 ^jPr«liidn«ry plat.review will require •ubaittei of " ftoglAeeriiig drawings based upon the sui.-voy indicating r lot^Xocation* setbacks, wetlands area, dry land srea« ^sewer and %»ater proposals, drainage, etc. Ibis dnforeation should be available for the public bearijeg.wUch has been scheduled for June 6, 1977 at ....... . . ' Page 2 .E'i VrO / SUBDIVISION - P *‘3201 Navarre La (Continued) 16, 1977 :.r ^^s^^3l1:ter^''Qwner*s 'ar^ • was prea>Vnt “ • -pr^sal'witbCthe Planning Conmis^tan. ^.^wasvadvised of eaterials and information required * for.,>roper .analysis of the proposal, and he indicated . - it %iould be impossible to have this to the City . • ^ ; ; rbime :to hold the June 6, 1977 public hearing which ^ *^s**, ^: therefore,been postponed. Ho did indicate r ^tha.j;lots .%fould be sold as building sites onlyy ^ ii^tliay.vould be sold fee simple with rnmmon - tion ownership of open space; roads are to ' * privets;.:wel^lands and open space are to have : . ■ ssrvatioa elements deeded to the City. Separate . : • v opiate will be filed for each city. ^taff;--August 10, 1977 ivsd'oopiss of preliminary plat survey. The asicrooncept of the project has not changtKl f>'«m ha.sarlisr submittals. Nots^the slopes indicated o;Xrf>tS. 1, '2, 3 of Block 2. The proposal for KORO^is a;FR0 with five lots on 8.3 dry a< ..CBis;;acrm sons. .tloos, should. includsccorrecti watsrJaiM ‘ ».r' o - ^ -s-j ■ V*. •. - • -f- P'H rr>r< 90!l«etjpi luhu ^7^t.»7»30;pjnp'iFf^M^wvW^U - •,^y,i■ •■ « ss^gtasEsaa m -. a<.X4«b*4.~ i»-,Vk. JPlaMiJig Cowaission Hestimg - September 6, 1977 ' /•■ ' U;- alic Heering. Discussed general layout as modified ;by. the Isteet plsn. The propose 1 Includes five Orooo lots, ssch large emough to provide adeguste •."4;setbacks within the proposed linea. The street setback should be measured from the project boundary/ street r.o.w and not from the Individual lot line. (CcwktimiaQi) i'.A.'V ■f*' >ik J. - HHOTAJ* meeting op the ORONO council, SEPTEMBER 12, 1977 . S*t5rcu “" The?^:?U 1:;;. MscMnts acroa. Outlota flowaga <>■: OB the plan are noted tn L a i «'eas Mated ii;-r.,—x,h «d .3.0 opS^watir buildabla, 3.5 |jj»^-d*y aeraa p«r unit in th« * donaity of 0.95 Mpo^a frS-^MiSiitoSkrLfeS j^Wd oot^piJito [2!Id Ma iS ^“'^*‘^i=tion and l^niBy-^warB ad^aed to^iacuM^eir*’’®'^ “unicipallty.~d Mitb Minn.tonicrL “a%’h“®^^®rL"| . ; .^^?"“cil lleoting - Sapteobar 12. 1977 g^Eoniag regulations. ^ P® meets all of Orono’s A' suBDivisios^i'PRn 3201 Navarra Lana (Continued) . •>• -7? '.rimwmi-'f diitfl ... ■ (^ ‘a- ■•tbacka cherge!" water ^^•^*' . contrst:!;* , fil'rSi'.Jw.W •.'t; 1 nr" 7K?i-j;*''‘C?2s 'i-tsi ~ •• ’-C-n ^P^^. r^^^trCTocrle .SweiiMai ^•thaS^ CoanSTJi ?1 — OroBo'a reprasani ^pJUely Wra. Doria ScJu *ad bar daaira to raaign '^v;| ‘ icy<_______' •••t Beanepia tervicM ^ • Gloria Sum IMNtvV .a. *i .^.to Mca. Doiir55r^i‘:',!^i?? ■“ (V - «ayr7S?r^' ; «T- *• - ■>( Notioap ’.'' ’ ,• '.•: '»0:v^}t ■.^ivS^r , • .■*■*•■ ■<rM>.-' I TRANSPORTATION URBAN TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 1. LOCAL STREETS IN THE URBAN AREA WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BT THE CITY. Because the land use and street use density of the urban neighborhoods is relatively high, the City will provide public street access to all urban properties. City responsibility for proper maintenance levels will ensure passable, all-weather streets available at all times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. 2. ALL URBAN PROPERTIES SHOULD BE DIRECTLY SERVED BY THE PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. Urban density development is not appropriate on narrow or poorly maintained private roads. Significant exceptions to this rule are in the case of a planned residential or commercial development having private maintenance personnel, or on sensitive lakisshore lots where two homes could be served by one common private driveway to reduce hardcover and topographical problems. 3. URBAN STREETS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS. All urban streets will be paved and of sufficient ^ width to accommodate the number of properties being served. Intersections and driveway aprons will be designed and regulated according to commonly accepted engineering safety standards. Street drainage will be designed to utilize existing natural drainage systems and to avoid direct runotf into he Lake . 4. CURB CUTS AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS WILL BE LIMITED FOP TRAFFIC SWEETY. All new curb cuts and driveway locations will be subject to performance standards relating t' sight distance, lot width and proximity to inter;:;ections or other driveways. All properties will be allowed access, but the number of access points and the location of allowable access will be limited for public traffic safety purposes. 5. ON STREET PARKING WILL BE STRICTLY LIMITED. No parking will be permitted on narrow streets or at hazardous locations. All urban development must provide adequate on-site parking facilities. CMP 7-10 TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 Thus, in one motion, thru-traffic movement will be increased in speed and safety while environmentally sensitive areas will be protected from degradation. ORONO WILL ACTIVELY PROMOTE A SCENIC PARKWAY SYSTEM TO DESIGNATE THOSE ROADS TRAVERSING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AND SCENICALLY ATTRACTIVE AREAS. The intention of the scenic parkway system is to provide a special designation connoting the typically narrow, curvy, slow-speed character of these roads. Scenic parkways provide special vistas of Orono's natural amenities and are best suited for relaxing unhurried travel. High volume traffic, commuter traffic, and commercial traffic is not appropriate on scenic parkways because these users do not benefit from the attraction and the physical nature of the road is not conducive to efficient thru-traffic movement. Because of natural topographic limitations, scenic parkways will also continue to provide local property access and limited collector road functions. ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE IMPROVED TRANSIT SYSTEMS AND INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT MODES. Orono will support innovative approac) ;s toward providing trans portation alternatives to the private auto. This includes such concepts as pedestrian and bicycle trails, para-transit, improved bus service, and investigation of light rail transit. ORONO WILL SUPPORT THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN THE CONTROL OF SEAPLANE OPERATION ON LAKE MINNETONKA. The existing level of seaplane operation is satisfactory to Orono. The City will support the LMCD in their monitoring of seaplane operation and in any reasonable changes in regulations necessary to prevent seaplane conflict with the primary boating use of the lake. r CMP 7-9 TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 SCENIC PARKWAY Scenic parkway is a designation and classification used by the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul and applied by Orono to those roads which traverse especially scenic and environmentally significant areas of the City. The scenic parkway is typically a narrow, curvy, slow speed road which provides access to recreational areas and special vistas of scenic attractions. High volume through traffic and commercial traffic is not appropriate on scenic parkways because these users do not benefit from the attraction and because the physical nature of the roadway is not conducive to efficient through traffic movement. Because of environmental sensitivity, scenic parkways cannot be rebuilt into higher capacity collectors or minor arterials without adversely affecting the natural setting, the scenic quality of the road and/or the property rights of abutting landowners. Because of the natural topography of the area, scenic parkways also provide some of the traffic and local access functions of both local and collector streets. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 50-66 FEET LOCAL STREETS Local streets are public streets that function to provide direct access to abutting properties. Local streets carry traffic within neighborhoods rather than through traffic between neighborhoods. Inter sections with collector streets are controlled by stopping the local street traffic. JURISDICTION: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH; 50-60 FEET DEAD-END: LENGTH WILL BE LIMITED BY PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS PRIVATE ROAD A private road is a privately owned and privately maintained road, located in the rural area or within a planned development, that functions as a local access street. The City will require that private roads be constructed and maintained to City standards. The City will acquire an easement for public ingress, egress and access to all properties, but the City will allow the property owners to limit normal use of the road to the benefitting landowners and their invitees. Private roads will be located on platted outlets intended for joint and several ownership by all the benefitted property owners. JURISDICTION: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH UNDERLYING EASEMENT TO CITY MAXIMUM SERVICE; APPROXIMATELY TEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH; jC- .-EET DEPENDING UPON NUMBER OF USERS DEAD-END; LENGTH WILL BE LIMITED BY PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS CJ CMP 7-16 TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL A Principal Arterial is a grade-separated, high capacity, controlled access highway designed to move vehicles through an area, not within a community. Principal arterials have no local land use access. The only principal arterial near Orono is that portion of State Highway 12 that becomes limited-?' ss east of Orono's eastern boundary with Wayzata. INTERMEDIATE ARTEkIAL An Intermediate Arterial is a controlled-access , moderately high capacity highway designed to move vehicles between cities and, in Orono's situation, between the free-standing growth centers and out-state cities west of Orono into the metropolitan area. Intersections are limited and controlled. Land use access is intended to be limited to major traffic generators without direct access to residential properties. State Highway 12 is an Intermediate Arterial through Orono although many access and intersection characteristics are typical of a minor arterial or collector. JURISDICTION: STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: MINIMUM 100 FEET FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY MINOR ARTERIAL A Minor Arterial is a controlled access, moderate apacity street or highway designed to move vehicles within planning subregions and between adjacent subregions. The Lake Minnetonka Ring Route is a minor arterial functioning to move, principally commuters and truck traffic, from the western Lake Minnetonka communities into the urbanized areas of the Twin Cities. The minor arterial route channels traffic away from Lake Minnetonka to State Highways 12 and 55, and in the near future, to a direct intersection with Interstate 494 in Plymouth. Land use access is intended to be limited to major traffic generators and local street intersections without direct access to individual residences. JURISDICTION: HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: MINIMUM 80 FEET FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY COLLECTOR A Collector street functions to collect traffic from local streets and move it to neighborhood activity centers or to intersection with minor or intermediate arterials. Local land use access is permitt. but is regulated as to location and number with direct access to be avoided whenever alternative local street access is available. Intersections with other collectors are often controlled with signals or with four-way stop signs. Traffic usage is moderate. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 60-66 FEET CMP 7-15 O CITY OP ORONO - PRIVATE ROADS o INDEX NO. ROW WIDTH LENGTH TYPE SURPACING WIDTH THICKNESS TYPE BASE WIDTH THICKNESS YEAR CONST. YEAR SORP. URBAN OR RURAL SECT o Abingdon Nay C-4 SO* 1635 2341 22*3-Cl 5 - 100% Cr. 28 8"1983 1984 Rural D Bay Ridga Rd C-7 875 2341 22*2*Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 28 6" 1970 1980 Rural o Bordar Avo X-7 1520 o Chriatina Dr 820 2341 24* Colin Driva nr 480 , 22* Countrysida Dr P-4 875 2341 24*2"Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 30 6" # % Dakota Avanua I-l 720 o Daborah Driva A-2 50* 2200 Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 26 6-1978 1978 Rural Davin Lana C-4 1350 Bdgewood Rlllt Rd J-5 1050 Pox Run P-5 1520 ’^1 Praneh Craak Dr Pranch Craak Clr V >Praneh Laka Rd C-6 50* 1620 Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 20 6-1981 1981 Rural c«Goldan Viaw Driva 1125 2341 24* c>Craentraea Road 1-6 50* 560 2341 24*2*Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 26 6"1982 1982 Urban (J >^^.BarrickfClrcla?’i* 1 ^ R-3 '| Hollandar Road L-1 50* 2550 J' 2341 24'2*Cl.5 -30 6*1979 1979 Rural RBHARRS 100» Cr. i CITY OP ORONO - private ROADS INDEX NO. RON NXDTN LENGTH TYPE SURPACING WIDTH THICKNESS TYPE BASE NIDTR THICKNESS YEAR CONST. YEAR SURP. URBAN OR RURAL SECT ?>lant Pan Road 2060 2341 24* Jaaaatown Road B-1 1680 Xaoll Naaor Road 525 24* >Landaark Orlvo 255 2341 24* 1 1 Lafayatta RidRa Ck. D^-9 . .... .i*. t 50* f| 300 .... liU.. 2341 24*2-Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 26 6*1979 1979 Longvlaw Cirela G-4 60* 1263 2341 26*2-Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 28 8-1977 1977 Urban Luca Lino Rldgo 50* 950 -•Lydiard Road L-2 2200 C1.5 - 100% Cr. 24 6*Rural ;i 1 **5 - M-"' 'i Hillatoe Road B-6 600 2341 24*2"C1.5 - 100% Cr. 26 .6-Urban ••North Pan Road R>1 60* 950 Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 20 6-1978 Rural Northgata Road L>3 560 North Btraaa Road 400 2341 24' Orono Oaka Driva 1-3 1920 2341 24'2-Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 30 6*1978 1978 Rural •Oxford Road D-S 60* 1174 2341 24'2"Cl. 5 28 8*1978 Urban Philllpa Driva «-:r 550 24* Rainy Road 800 2341 24* .1 Ridgawood Cirela E-4 50' 790 Cl.5 -20 6*1978 Rural 100% Cr. RiMnn Road f CITY OF ORONO - PRIVATE ROADS XMDEX MO. ROW HIDTB LENGTH TYPE SORPACING WIDTH THICKNESS TYPE BASE WIDTH THICKNESS YEAR CONST. YEAR SORP. URBAN OR RURAL SECT Salca Court G-1 50*650 2341 20* 2"C1.5 - 1001 Cr. 22 6"1982 Rural Shore Bllla B-10 475 2341 24* 2-Cl.5 - 1001 Cr. 26 6“Urban Silver View Drive 1855 2341 24* Tanglewood Road I-l 50*1230 Cl.5 - loot Cr. 24 6-1978 Rural Nakefield Road X-1 50'1700 C1.5 - 100% Cr. 20 6"1981 Rural Near Lane Morth 1100 2341 24* Near Lana South Meat Para Road B-I 60*1300 Cl.5 - 100% Cr. 20 6“1978 Rural Nhite Oak Circla P-5 1600 2341 24* 2“Cl.5 - loot Cr. 26 6"1976 Urban Hoodhaven Drive Hoodhill Road J-5 1600 Noodhill Ridge 650 2341 24' Wyndawre Road J-1 60 740 Cl.5 - loot Cr. 24 6‘Rural No Maae 1-2 2100 Cl.5 -20 24 Rural (H. Of Chevy Chase)100% Cr. Mo Msm L-2 (S. of Lydiard) 6S0 Mo Naae B-2 (S. of N. Pans Rd) 1600 Not on MSA Hap *** PRIVATE ROADS URBAN AREA # OF PROPERTIES SERVED MEETS STDS. DOES NOT MEET STDS. Casco Cove 9 X Church Lane 6 X Herrick Circle 6 X a) Lafayette Ridge Court 5 X a) Maple Avenue 2 X Pence Lane 3 X Walters Port 5 X Sugarwoods 25 X a)Stds at time of development RURAL AREA - Over 10 Abingdon Way 10 X French Creek 12 X Hollander Road (+ 5 French Creek 14 Circle) X a) Hunt Farm Road Lydiard 13 X X North Farm Road 10 X Orono Oaks 10 X a) West Farm 11 X White Oak Circle 11 X a) 101790.4 Mayor and City CouncilTO: FROM: DATE: October 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Corridor Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ lb COUNCIL MEETIN6 OCT 22 1990 CiTY OF ORONO Attachment: A. Highway 12 Corridor Policy Meeting Notice B. Excerpts from Long Lake Task Force Meetings The attached information if provided for Council information. TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE Wednesday, October 24, 1990 Maple Plain City Hall 5:30 p.m. /f X------- AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of September 26, 1990 Minutes IV. Selection of Policy Committee Chair V. Update on Technical, Citizen Committee Activities VI. City/State Goals, Project Issues/Concerns (Update) VII. Discussion of Alternatives (Layouts) VIII. Discussion of Scoping Document — SEE Impacts IX. Other Business X. Comments from the Audience XI. Next Meeting XII. Adjournment i4iwa,«i«.io4 13, 1330 MINU1R3 HIGHWAY 12 RELOCAnUN COMMITTEE (Initial organisational wieetir.g) Preface; A group of approximately 25 Long Lake Citizens met at St. Georges Ctiurch to organize an effort to prevent the routing of a 4-lane upgrade of Hwy 12 througl'i the city of Long Lake. At a preced ing meeting of approximately 100 covicerned Long Lake citizens at the Long Lake Fireball (on September 5, 1330), a unanimous concensus sliowed the desire of citizens to form action committees with tlie common goal of organizing an effort to opp'ose the aforeriientioned deve I opfiien t. Twenty-six people signe*;! up to participate in this ef fort. Voluntary contributions to support this action group totaled $273.13 while $50.00 catiie in during the following week, along with pledges of $225.00. The meeting was called to order by Dr. Mary Miller. A. placket of in formation was distributed; contents of the packet were... 1) A loca^ contact list (par tic ipa'nts at the Sept. 5 meeting), 2) A list of coriimittee volunteers, 3) A copy of City of Long Lake Resolution No. '3-4-90, A) TH 12 Corridor Study - TH 101 to TH 25; Schedule of Activities 5) Citizens Action Committee Interest 'Survey, O Heindout: Long Lake's Goals, Concerns and Issues Regarding Re location of Trunk Hwy 12, 7) A Call to Action 8) Handout: Concerned Citizens for Hwy 12, Vol 1, No. 1, Aug 90. 9» Coiiifui ttee Volunteers (grouped by preference of committee.*. Dr. Miller asked attendees to gather at tables designated STEERING CUMM., COMNUNICAT IONS COMM., ENVIRONMENTAL COMM., r-.'NDRAISING COMM., & POLITICAL ACTION COMM. Citizens at these tables vere then asked to elect two Co-Chairs and a 'Secretary and to brains what they per ceived tlioir goals and priorities to be. After about 30 tuinutes. Dr. Miller asked tfie several conimittees to narne their officers and to offer stated goals. beginning with Hie STEERING COMMITTEE, the table named Dr. Miller and Ed Peterson as Co-Ckiairs, Dale Behmer as Sec'y, and Alice Peterson as Treasurer. Dr. Miller asked the attendees to select a naine for Ihe group* as a wkiole; the name HIGHWAY 12 RELOCATION COMHITTEE was selected. Sul;t-cc*miii i t tees were then- aske*d t*:* name their elected officers and to list any perceive*’! *g*:*als with*;*jl order of p*reference. STEERING COMMITTEE; 1) Officers (listed at**;*ve» 2) Goals: a. Identify the nuinber of people likely to be dir ectly ifiip*acted « relocated) by an e>;panded hwy 12 corri*Jor, and ap*p*rc*ximate the loss of tax dollars Minutes: Hwy Page 2 of 2. 12 Relocation Coriirfii ttee . >5S of tax dollars l*i i j corridor, and approxiniate the i to the City of Long Lake. Estimate the effect on comrnerc ial/business activ ity as a result of Hwy construction, Estimate the effect on Police/Fire protection during the construction period, provide specific identification of responsibility within each cornmittee. Determine most highly/1ikely travel routes to the proposed new Minnetrista Park, Identification of Historic Structures (local), Reporting routes, ie, does the Steering Comm, re port to tlie City Counc i 1 , . . . par tic ipating corri dor towns, . . .olfier effect areas? Mtfeting places for the cornini t tees Frequency of lueeting Sup|-jlies needed, sucli as chalkboards, maps, etc. Ne:-:t Meeting for the Steering Cornfn i t h*-e : Sep. 17, 6:30 pm. CUMMUNICATIUNS COMMITTEE: 1) Officers. Lisa Ehlers/Suzanne Pit tel 2.» Goals: a. Get Survey Maps for the old south route for ex— . panded Hwy 12, and current fuaps for a north route (may be more ttian one). b. Contact Hennepin Co. Parks for an update on tkie new Minnestrista Park; get all available inform ation of envi ronfiiental impac t/conc erns , c. Get information on social and economic impacts, esp*. wi Ifi respect to sckiools, fire protection & and law enforceriient, d. Set up contact p«ersons for media when pertinent pub1icity is obtained. e. Consider publication cif a newsletter. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE: 1) Officers Carol Brickley/Oemadeite Collins, 2) Goals: a. Get inforniation on Environmental Impiact. POLITICAL ACTICN COMMITTEE: !.• Offittri's. Not nariied : Dick Casewell attending. 2 .» Goa 1 s : No t spec ifi ed Ihe meeling was adjourned at 3:4S pm by Steering Committee Chair Miller. Dale E. Bekitiier, Sec'y (Steering) Sept. 17. r:«jo HIGHWAY 12 RELQCATIUN CONN I I TEE Minutes <r»lled to order by Sleorijig C*_>iiifuiH e Co-Ch£i*r Mi.^ry Miller. Minutes of the previous meeting (Sept 13, 1930 initial meeliri.j) «ve)*e appro-'od Ets submitted I'T .'rih f,:.r the Sl-?ering Commiitee: . Nary hliller Pat Si.hulz E'J Peterson f-eter I i itt I hale Behmer j f'onn • i nsc- • f'tl i r tv P« lersi'fi Oick • -•■.wel < I'-'dd Ulvion Present for the CoiMtuunication ( '.'mrni M t SuzEt» me P i 11 e I «. C o~CI*ia i r .• F I oson t f • •r U le Env i ronmeri l a I Commi i. I ee : I :a tl ly E-'r i nl; 1 ey (C o-Cha i r » Liz Olson Also attending and requesting* tonsu i t ant Status.* Peg Swanson The riieeling of-ened witl*i a report from Suzani.e Pittel on con^ ac • s wit.h Mnf'Or Sur.-irme stilted that MnDOT lias a* tii^ast three rou es se lected and t hci t as many as si< are under con> j .j,oration.. . with comment by one of the M»*r)0T personnel that the i.orri<ior is "pretty well de cided." M-ir.s of the routes are to be availal le by the end of October. Jt was rie I (V) f„, no J i tird Long L hI e (ihe J.il e itself) and the PN trad s are inajoi ol'Stai. les in route selection Als**, a regulation ex vsts on tatii^g • les i gna t 0'.1 Par* Lands for highway routes •?uzanne r r ^ j H,al. the no't known NnODT rueeting would be on S p- iember I:*"tli witl-i llie location to be announce'.' Liz Olson of the CONMUII. CniiH. rep-ar I'*'J the t a meeting is scheduled for 7:30 prii at the Maple f*lain City Ha J 1 , . . . r jeii'Ma unknown. *31 ' 2 v*:!- unteered slay on tc-p of lUUT meetin'*i schr Jules and pass th»y i n~ f erma I i r<n a I orvg t o t he *3 tee r 11 ig C«:'fnrti i I i . . OCniiNS. A*33IGNNPNPE;. r.nvi rrniiiien ta 1 ("fitmillee; Will jimm p'lisible designation • t sit**s in I .r.nig Lai e that fniglit cofne undei- the adegory of "hist*." • al significance*' or that rnigtit le declared to be iri a "historicctl • i i- t.ricl*'. At the present, no I'uildmgs in L'lin-;; Like are on ttie 3' he C'f Minnf '-'-jta ttislc*ric Registry e.'cept f •» the leg cabin wt^ich c- dd be relocat,?'!. Sept. IV'. 1990.1 ago ?. of 2, within 1000' of lake shoreline Slcerinci Cot„tn i 1 1. ee : The ........... is (cnr iderinq tt.eeling with all oil.er'corri.lor con,t„itlees 'including Orrno) in order to delert,une .,h,a. citlsens or official coi.m.unity "corridcr" groups are active and vn'tiat pv'>“"nre'«3'3 i®'. { oinQ niride r<? 1 at-iv.y t»:* cor> idop routes. Did notr^.J- ♦ ha t LiirJ.field tiavf liad three co> • ido» possibilities pr< to llieiii and that selections are being c try to get a coji'y of the routes so lhal route f a wesli-.Tn point, le, Col a to-Hov.*ard Lal< e-Mon trf >se-Del ano-i lap I Dn rnattf^rq ,:;,f d i snem I.. t ing inforn.a»> tl'ie Cohifiiuni cati-'iis Cotiuuittee to considi •nsicered; Dirt Sciid hr u'e ( ould "bnci'. int.o ” ? ,'i Iffw r-Li I cl if lel d-DctSSi PI.- in~Long L:tke. n , ’ i.e'-'i'ing t tair l »i 1 ! • ding an i nf orme ti• •l a: 'A>el 1 tail ed Id t •voi III*;*? ske of I letter to Long Lake resi'Jents and busi n ; pai t of the purj- '‘ir? ^ this nowlelter -.vould be to let resi-.fenli knew that "we are and fielp is needed and .appreciated. Clmir hiller asked that '"• rec ' y lr> tl ie St.'-er iii«g CoturriiMee assembl.-f inforination that couh- also be used in a ne-s release, and t-' coordinate tfus with the Cor..iii*mi ca- t i ons Coniio i t tee CoiiirMuni cations Coiumi ttee : Suzanne Pi i tel agreed to make contact wjtf, appropriate media, for o cample UiO‘ie media who have a record of , " i nves t i'ija I i ve . epovt ing" , ' I - fearn Reports", etc. Tl'ie Communi call ons 11 Ice agreed t.. cor. tact those people signed up f'C-r v;.i ic'us o.-rmf.i t tees but kiav'en'l attended meetings, is very api .ropr • a i e tc-r commi I teo i who aro under~staf f e*J . for o?<amplo, the Fun.-", f/atsing and Political .Action Comrni ttei .-s. Dick Cas'vell ..ffered io do pi iniing f•-r informational fly -rs r<nd m.a i 1 or s k'U I sug-1. s le*d t f it* i- l! ie Hwy 1 2 Ri • 1 oc a t ioi i Comm i ttee • otm • up with a lo'jo lhal */^ou.ld prominently iden *fy the Ivelocation Committee. Co-Ckiair Mil U r announced that the no; I meeting of the Steering Committee w»Duld be on S»"pt 24, SIC.* p<m at U le City H.ill Tf'iere being n* • fui'ther business, C*-'--<hair Miller adjourned tl it- g.-oup a t S : 3t* pill tfySpec I f u ! 1 y si.iomi • i i^d, tliU i' A' ,.v. c-~ Dale E E!«:*l .mer , Steering (. • tumi I t ee '. ec 'y t- ■ HIGHWAY 12 RELOCATION COMMITTEE / COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT Minutes of- Ulednesdr^'y*, bep^IV, 199'.» In attendciiice; Suzanne Pittel--Co Cftair /Steer inq Coinmittee representative Lcsa Ehlers-Cn C.hai •*/SJecrctary ! Kate Madson-Dackup to Steering Committee representative : Delores S’/janson i Pamela Zr.net. ti i Blal:e Sohn ! James Swar t urjod^ • ' Old Business. Reviewed Steer inq Committee's Septeiriber 17 Dt./ined Goals \copi.es attached) witi soecjfic no?!® delegated. New Business. ^ef^ined 7 inmiodiatr- ' ommunicat ion Cunmiittee goals: 1- Define ir Hiion Statement 2. Design • logo 3. Coin r) slogan A. Prioritise a ions in arcv.-.rdance wiih Steer inq Committee's counsel 5. Determine s* gy 6. Identifv- media tii be contacted and select Committee people to rf?present the Relocation of Highway 12 Committee to the media 7. Have :» hriftfier Mmilar to thrit n-f l.onn Lake’s Corn Days Determined thr* following guest inns ne;:t meeting of Gefitember 2-1: to f'ul before the Steering Committee at the 1. 3. n. Why was iL oi'ig I rial 1 > coi:** i det ed a conflict of interest to hold the Relocation Committee meetings «l l.r/nu Lake Citv and now it is not? oU^cVv-2i “ Vc=.A,ovO I itA-m c<je-r When will tiro '’sLc.oring ro<mfi i i ^ p/c ' ‘M to tlio Long Late Chamber* of Commerce in order- to appraise attittidgs aitt' rlr^lermine support ejected from local bus 1 nes ses ? ^ cii I cryvJTlw — GP When will the nor:t. roi'i/i Meet 1 ng ' <TjHoniiaj, G'Cf f 1 r ‘j t rn6s 5/«ni? 11 ip I be- bold ’' Thereafter? What IS thv first m<'‘ss/«ni? tiip Relo( ration Committee should present tn the public.-.ifi fivers, newsletters, signs, otc.,, and filiat should t lir2 d » aletjy be <a blitzlrieq c f massive i rii’oi mat i on ; sIcm-i distribution)? 5. Will thfr Steerinq Committee help loci-te more PAC members and Fund-raisers? PAC members: A. Jay Graf, after January 1991 fund—ris 1 nq Coiumiht.ee: J<"ilynn r.<ci*ne, Delor'es Swanson (also Commum oat ions Committee', James Sv-^ar twod (also Communications Committee). The Communications Committee is in need of funds and a PAC member,to beqxr the polit. iral process and needs to closely with tfiese i two comifi 111ec-s to obtain funds and clout. ^ 6. An undated list of all committee members with home and work phone numbers is needed. Jther business. , -fn send an iniiial messaqe to the pub Ur by Ociober 1. Get a petition out to Lonq l.al.e resiiJerits, business, for supp'ort of the '-elocation of rnrjlimav 12 to a nlace otlu r tfi.-m 1 hat of tlio present Lnnq Lake -or ridor. -Send an updated !c'*^tor ruutinoly to Un i-ut.lic. ke».-ping them updated on info. ] e Sept. 24, 1990 HIGHWAY 12 RELOCATION COMMITTEE Minutes t Meeting called to order by Co~Chair Mary Miller (at 6l37pm). [ Minutes of the Sept. 17th meeting were read and the following cor rections were made; ^ i 1) Corrected name spel1ing... Carol Brickley... Co-Chair for | the Environmental Committee. 2) Para. 1, line 4, delete "MnDOT personnel”, insert, "committee" 3) Para. 3, line 1, delete "CUMMUN.”, insert ENVIRONMENTAL. ; ** f Present for the Steering C*:*fMr»ii ttee I Dr. Nary Miller Alice Peterson Ed Peterson Pat Sctiuls Dale Oetifiier Jerry Allen Peter Pittel Don Stinson Present for the Cofumuni cat ions Cofiimi t tee : Sue Pittel (Co-Chair) Dick Caswell (re-assigned) Present for ttie Envi r onnien tal Cofiimriii ttee .* Carol Crick ley (Co-Chair> * Co-Chair Ed Peterson opened the fneeting with a question. ”Should more people be added to the Steering Committee and should general meetings be held once a nionth? After sonie discussion, it was agreed that a general fuonthly meeting would be a good,, idea, but that the Steering Cornmittee stiould not becofne too K.rge. .probably not much larger that it is now. ACTI014S, ASSIGNMENTS. CoiiiiHun i c a t i ons Conim i t tee .Sue Pittel, Co-Chair. 1 3. 4. 5. On the past Thursday evening MnDOT meeting: much concern ex ists on route selection with a badly "splintered” attitude of "it's all right if it goes through your property but it's a rotten deal if it goes through mine.” Asking if one of tTie Steering Committee Co-Chairs could come to the COMMUNICATIONS Comm, meetings. Yes. Specific goals were delegated to meinbers (See attached min utes) . Seven litimediate Goals were defined (See ‘ attached* hi nutes) . Send a flier or newsletter to tf*ie general public by Oct !. Note*. It was decided by the Steering Cotiimittee that a flier would be (Tie best format, and that a rough draft would be ready for tTie Steering Committee at ttie next meeting. Peie Pittel, Dick Caswell, and Sue would c oordinaIe its c rea tion. i u^u jL wX' J e 7 8. 9, 0)1 ir«e qur^stion, "was i t a conflict, of interest to hold Cofnrn- j tlee iiiee tings at City Hall?" Answer 5 No. On app*raising the Charnber of Commerce for attitudes and sup port, the Steering Committee asked CofC member Dehmer to speak briefly to the Chamber at their next meeting. When will the next Town Meeting be held? On Thurs. Oct. M, at 7 pm. What time frame and intensity should an informational cam paign take? Although not decided at this time, it was felt that it should be a blitz with a steady monthly or bi-monthly flow of news/informcttion. 10. On the question of getting help to locate more committee members, esp. on tfiose committees that are understaffed, the Steering Committee reported that Liz Olson was preparing a mailing list so tfiat address labels could be produced a general mailing. An appeal could be made in early mailings for vc'lunteers to report to under—a taf f ed committees. FOR THE FULL REPORT OF THE SEPT. 19 MEETING OF THE COMHUNICA- TIOMS COMMITTEE, SEE THE ATTACHED MINUTES. Env i roniiienta 1 Coninittee. Carol Brick ley, Co—Chair. An 1 1 —p*age repco-t was pirovided for the Steering Committee (Copy attached.^ Foui* lesearcli items were noted: RnvironriiCMital Irnpact ... letters sent. Union Cemetery relocation costs/preservation... report enc. Historiccil Preservation Di str i c t... pending findings. Park Lands Preservation ... research pending. Other j terns of note: Possible Coriimiltee Slogan: "Wher e the West begins and the Freeway Pends." Public Meeting: MnDOF, Sept. 2b, 5:50 prn, Maple Plain City Hall. MnDOT Citizens Committee. Oct. IS, 4 pm. Maple Plain City Hal I. Considerable concert! was expressed over the failure of designated representatives of the City of Long Lake to attend MnDOT meetings. Steering Cofiirnittee meruber Allen vedunteered to make reminder calls. Liz Olson lias attended regularly while other members have not. . Steering Comiiiitl.ee members, Miller, Stinson, and Peterson reportea on a recent MnDUF meeting that Uiey attended. Particulars of the meeting: , * - MnDFJI appears to have eliminated consideration of a »'oute south of Long Lake, citing the Luce Line as a reason - MnDOT lias many reasons for not taking a north route around Long Lak.e. • , „ - MnDOT seems comit ted to staying on "hard surface rather ttian taking "soft" routes. The reason for this is cost,... the lack of Federal funds for property/right-of-way costs. - That all if nearly zxW communities in Hennepin County received County Ass i s t aiK. e Futids , . . . but not Long L«ke. ly Fago 3 of 3 - at-the start of the rneeting, a MnDOT rep stated, "this is last chance Long Lake has." What does this mean!I I the Special informational request: Ed Peterson,asked Envir. Comm. Co- Chair Brick ley if she would determine the historic bounds of "tepee hill" which is the mound where Union Cemetery is now located, and where Chief Shakopee often pitched his tent. It was noted that one of the children of the Long Lake Pioneers had a photo of his son sitting on the knee of Chief Shakopee. Because of this historical signifi cance, the area should be given consideration as an historic site.! TREASURERS REPORT: Treas. Alice Peterson reported that a new checking account had been opened at the State Bank of Long Loke; the opening balance was t-;?./!. 1 «=;. Mijler ctnd Peterson are signatory to the ac count Co-Chair Miller anriounced that the ne;<t meeting of the Steering Comm ittee would be on Mon. Sepl. 1, 6:30 pm at the City Hall. Ad j our I uiien L : 8:37 pm . Respectfully submitted. Dale E. Behmer, Sec*y 101790.5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: October 17, 1990 SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Meeting - Work Session COUNCIL MEETING OCT 221990 C*Ty OF ORONO This is given as a reminder of the upcoming work session to be scheduled at 6:00 p.m. for Thursday, November 8, 1990. In addition to the information previously provided regarding the budget it may be helpful to bring along the information on the finance projections that were part of the facilities packet tonight. COUNCIL MEifl^OCT 22 1990 CITY OF ORONOTO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE; October 19, 1990 SUBJECT: 1991 Meeting Schedule Attached is a proposed 1991 meeting schedule. this schedule was presented to the Planning Commission at their October 15, 1990 meeting. Planning Commission made no comments on this item. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^ Forwarded recommending approval. 1991 ORONO CITY MEETING SCHEDULE □ 7:00 P.M. Council Meeting 2nd h 4th MondayO 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission 3rd Monday(May through October 1st Monday as an alternate date)/\ Park Commission 1st Tuesday X. Official Holiday 1991 ' C uec-TxtiU SEPTEMBER S M T W T F S 1 ^’“(jrA 5 6 78 rftlO 11 12 13 14 15 06) 17 18 19 20 21221224 25 26 27 28 29 3t (NOVEMBER S M T W T F S A i 23 4 A 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17^ 19 20 21 22 23 24 122 26 27 30 DECEMBER T W T F S 2k 4 5 6 7‘ ID n 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 3 24 X 26 27 28 30 31 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Dernhardson, City Administratoi DATB: October 17, 1990 101790.6COUNCIL MEETING OCT 22 1990 CITY OF ORONOd SUBJECT: West Hennepin Human Services Resignation Attachment: A. Gary Printup Letter Dated 10/11/90 ISSUE - 1. Present to Council the resignation of Gary Printup from the West Hennepin Human Services Board. 2. Determine what, if anything. Council wants to do about filling the vacancy. INTRODUCTION - Council appointed Gary Printup to this Board on June 25, 1990. Because of scheduling conflicts Mr. Printup has not been able to adequately serve on that Board in his opinion and therefore has tendered his resignation. Staff will place a notice in the papers to determine if other persons are interested in this position. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council accept with regret the resignation of Gary Printup from the West Hennepin Human Services Board and directs staff to thank him for his willingness to serve. Ayes _, Nays _. Gary Printup 1261 Briar Street P.O. BOX 10^ Crystal Bay« HN 55323 ii. Mr- aj % Ciry e> 0£.^/Jc f^. e> ■ F <s X C-^isr»L B/9/ SSSJ^S DATE: TO: FROM: October 15, 1990 Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police COUNCIL MEETING^ OOCT 22 1990 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Step Raise - Officer Jay Dembouski Officer Dembouski was employed on April 6, 1990 and has successfully completed his field training program and has gained experience in the field on his own. He is eligible for step increase as of Oct ober 6, 1990 from starting rate of $10,899 hourly to $11,738 hourly, 1990 L.E.L.S. Contract. In September he received a letter of compliment for his performance of duty (copy attached). I request he be raised to that rate effective October 6, 1990. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recoirunending approval. ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENTCOVT agency NC.C !DENT (CAG)MESS KEY _ ^_______CONTROlNUMBE/^fOCA) ^ ________CONT AGENCY NC.C !D£NT (CAG)(tTc?n / n^O \Oa \ I / |M , N I 0 , 2 , 7 V r/1 / LN6R DATE REPORTED (RPO»TIME RPO !TRP)LOCATION GRIND N3R (LGNl J] I \ D. oiV! ^i ol / I j I s I y] /PLACE COMMITTED (PLC)\ (grxf/vVvI •■■Le* -%.Uj INBR HRO SOtiAD OR TAL-QE » rSNI TIME ASIQ (TAS) V'K ARR. j I ^___ TIMEClR rfCll rfi / rn / r ■ ctT t ,ti /1 o ■ / ■ r\ / /1 14 1 / r^i ^i / ir 1 / LNBR UOC UCSu 1 / icyn / r~ ^?!ii5'l/-b J LNBR ISN UOC UCS a}/[.1/1.1 1 , 1 / _ __ OPFENSE.J OR INITIAL COMPUTIT JC Sc ;-■n ' t / \ e/'NAUt 'LAaT. FIRST, A' X'< El / 4Z^'■ -‘Gjq--------------- OFFICER PRINCIPAL CODE ---- ^ f *1 susPEa ' ' VICTIM VIC ASST REPORT PARTY ADMIN ADM OFFENDER OFF OTHER oth , HAD Codes P-Phone R-R«So A-Alaim 1 - In Person V-Vlsci' M-MU T-OttW cco o OD ARREST:citation G warn: 00a -2 rs ^ k'. M i SEX PH :W) _________ ^ C I O THER REPORTS INaUDED CITY -^'7 L l<c. ZIP K\ri<TL,hnpoundG P^Qinutrion^ PC NAME iLASr F^RST. MIDDLE)•DOS SEX bncXied '' msert G Ao&deni Report G 1 Influence Report G PNMoi G Tegs ADDRESS PMiW Comm. Veil, fleportt^ CITY ST iZP ■<lR) PC.NAME (LAST, FIRS' MOXE)SEX PoflCa«G ADDRESS • m CITY ST 2P PM R) Radic. ca'l ; reoort of a suspicious male in the area of 254 Crp. rSill in T.nng T.akp - Pall pH in from the 'T’orntay residence. R/p g^a^pH hp caw a gnQpir- . rr..T 1P in fhp drp5^spd darkly and rhaf- whpn ’. ^•■^l*!pH onh tn fhp nan fhp male ran off through a 'TbbO.r* ^rmnH nn fhp t;^rpp^ i n ^hp ;rrp~» wag nnp pair of glsjvas and on^-o-li-ve ■■ coior^ad-u^j.r;dbr-eaker—j-ackxs t-.- - - ^o locate suspicious male._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .* * f t y t, /T f‘ .y>____t \ •* * w<. ^ L—* j____cl L«. e COP> TO [T ’’ 0 0 CO ATTNY G >rmY G COJRTC CMEEG »IP CO*-G 0T>€P DtSPOSnX)N OfFJCERS B, Arrw> RcTOi-xf^Tency /Za/ tl[l SUPERVISORS STjMATURE J3 Crest Electronics, Inc. Specialists in Replacement Parts and Accessories for the Healthcare Industry. September 12, 1990 Chief of Police City of Orono 445 Willow Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear chief, A few weeks ago, I received an emergency call from my employer at about 2 a.m. To resolve the problem, I had to go out to m^ car to get a list of employee phone numbers. When I opened the front door to my home, I saw a man standing in my front yard. He was dressed in dark clothing and ran through the bushes when I yelled at him. After seeing the man, I went inside and called 911. The dispatcher was very courteous and friendly. Your officers arrived at my home in less than two minutes. They conducted a very careful search of the area, including several trips back throughout the night. (I know because I was having trouble sleeping after all this activity.) My family, my neighbors and I sincerely appreciate the kind of service your agency provides. I think your officers went far beyond my expectations in terms of promptness and professionalism. Please extend a sincere thank you to your staff. Yours very ulyi Brian Torney 254 Greenhill Lane Long Lake, MN S(,Tion ai Third • Dassei Minnesota 55325 • 612-275-3382 101790.7 c^/ \ Wff rwG 0^7221990 c/ry OF offoivo TO: Mayor and City Council FROM; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato'' DATE: October 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information CABLE TV - Given the current uncertainty in the regulation business regarding cable TV it may be worth waiting a few months to determine what direction may be appropriate. Additio^iu^ 1 y the entire cable franchise may be interested in pursuing an a’«tarnate or additional vendor if such would be attractive. Additionally there is indication that telephone companies may become involved in the cable area within the next few years which may instill the necessary competition for the area. CITY ASSESSOR - Rolf Erickson wi I be on vacation from October 29th through November 9th. Hi office will only be taking recorded messages but if anyone has a significant problem they should contact city hall. This is generally a quiet time of the year and it should not cause an inconvenience. STUBBS BAY SEWER - Staff is setting up a meeting with the parties interested in Stubbs Bay to see what other things they may be desirous of doing. WELL #3 - Test pumping of the well has finally begun on Tuesday, October 16, 1990 as opposed to the previously anticipated pumping. The contractor did remove the full amount of r:and as provided in the revised contract. I! ; : 'i : COUNCIL MEETING LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL 0CT22l990 FOR MEETING OF October 22, 1990 --------------------- CITYOFORONO No licenses COUNCIL MEETINGOCT 22199.0CITYOFORONO ;•» ^ B* •. *• •'••^ ■ >’* : ;■■^••^ .> -v .. . - .... > • • • ^• ■- • :- . ■ ., 10/14/90 PR: CB PRREGOR • -. ;- • ■ ' " ' . [fr« .: ;/>'■.. -Vv ::■ >•■• V.v , . V 3 : v:>^ ■ «,'• V - I -I ■fir.'■ ■ > '• *:;?; ' ' ., ...... '»f <*^ ■• .•*. ' •. • ■ W- 'V •* • ■■' NAME DPT ABRAHAMSON. FREDERIC ANDERSON, BRUCE L BERNHARDSON. MARK E BOBZIEN, SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS, JOHN F BURDICK. AARON W CHESWICK, GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORNICK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI JAY C ENGLISH ’ll. IRVING ERICKSON. KURT K FISCHENICH, DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M GAFFRON, MICHAEL P GERHARDSON. JOHN R GREGORY. JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSING, CAROL J JOHNSON, BRADLEY P JC3TROM, FOREST J KARNITZ, RICKY D KILBO, MELVIN H KNUTSON, CHARLOTTE A KUEHN THOMAS M MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES NAAB. THERESA L NELSON, DAVID D OAS DANIEL 0 OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN, LYLE E PALMER. GREGORY A ; OUAST. WAYNE A : fATHBUN. BARRY J » ROSS JOHN A , SKREEN, DALE S ■ SViFFENHAGEN. RONALD I STEVENS. BETTY G I STUBBS. LILLIAN . THOMTON MARK R I TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F I TOMCZYK, MARK W : VANG. BRUCE L i VEE. LINDA S ) WALSH, KEVIN L ? WALTERS. LINDA G } WECKMAN. STEPHEN J r YEAGER. DONALD C YTD GROSS 1688.65 35058.37 48786.16 19591.54 12931.03 30153 27 567 50 31199 59 4522.20 34171.44 13627 . 13 36007 75 30590 20 30360 26 30814 22 28087 41 36943 09 28192 95 24193.38 23148 09 11190.69 32024 60 2185 03 6279 93 41214 64 19329 38 39252 16 35173 85 28584 37 36345 54 19591.52 1491.71 1729 90 21910 76 25553 67 10243.63 27945.87 22927 20 195 00 23096 98 24225.27 2362 25 10 00 29854 08 32105,37 30305 98 21382 95 9890 55 4089 29 18852 42 5586 00 1354 54 -r ■■ CURRENT GROSS j. 76.00 1543.01 2221.36 921.84 695.99 1464.32 102.50 1468 00 205.84 1912.76 942 22 1493 08 1403.48 1442.05 1396 16 1338.73 1760 80 1473 84 1153 12 1003.20 499 55 1408 48 190 00 445.68 1964,40 921 85 1870 88 1676 49 1337 28 1408 48 921.83 244.80 160 13 960 00 1271 76 962 14 1179.29 1279 52 55.00 1360 59 1154 64 13/50 10 00 1381 68 1381.68 1408 48 1095.52 857 06 102 16 888 29 640 00 65 63 53.264 09 •r J .. i • ■ ■■*/ 1 , • V-; • ■V-- I •- . , r.r-r ' - ,.-r^ -rv o 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 295033 295033 295064 295081 295081 10/17/90 10/17/90 295037 10/17/90 295039 10/17/90 295041 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR 61.80 556.20 618 00 • 39.92 39.92 * 44 79 44.73 • 39 39 39 39 * 3 36 3 36 11 08 29 55 40 63 • ATTITUDE DEVELOPMENT ATTITUDE DEVELOPMENT AUQIES MOBILE CHEF RMS ROAD MACHINERY BLITZ ONE HR FOlO BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY ITEM DESCRIPTION 295006 10/17/90 48.70 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 2950C6 10/17/90 48.70-MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 295006 10/17/90 48.70 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 295006 10/17/90 18 09 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPI lES 295006 10/17/90 34.39 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 295006 10/17/90 18.09 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 295006 10/17/90 18.10 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 295006 10/17/90 18.09 155.46 • MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 295014 10/17/90 28.53 28.53 • ALL STAR ELECTRIC REPAIR TRAFFIC 295031 10/17/90 3.87 3 87 • AT & T OMM TELEPHONE FRITZLER-CLASS FRITZLER-CLASS SANDWICHES EARL F ANDERSON ASSC SIGNS FILTERS PHOTO REFINISH PHOTO FINISH PHOTO FINISH 10-22-90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESL GE Ol-aziO-OGB-lZ 01-4210-036-12 01-4210-039-12 01-4210-059-14 01-4210-069-15 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-174-33 01-4210-249-42 01-4233-249-42 01-4320-175-34 01-4356-129-31 01-4356-129-31 74-4802-591-94 01-4233-249-42 01-4232-249-42 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-174-33 •••-CKS •••-CKS ■-CKS •••-CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS -CKS 295110 10/17/90 66 50 CHAPIN PUBLISHING SEAL COAT AD 01-4322-249-42 C^) 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT % 66.50 295114 10/17/90 72.0029511410/17/30 48.0029511410/17/90 204.00 324.00 295128 10/17/90 190.0029512810/17/90 25.00 215.00 295130 10/17/90 133.1029513010/17/90 .0229513010/17/90 18.0229513010/17/90 61.16 176.26 295141 10/17/90 35.00 35.00 295142 10/17/90 206.03 206.03 295150 10/17/90 39 . 10 295150 10/17/90 55 70 94 80 295154 10/17/90 12 50 12.50 295157 10/17/90 8,662 1 8.662 3l 295212 10/17/90 20.40 20 40 295218 10/17/90 3 75 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10-22-90 PAGE 2 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. 1 MESSAGE CITYVIEW PLMBG A HTG CITYVIEW PLMBG A HTG CITYVIEW PLMBG A HTG CONCEPT MICROFILM CONCEPT MICROFILM COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO CORCORAN PET CARE COPY DUP PR INC CULLIGAN CULLIGAN CYS UNIFORMS DAHLGREN SHARDLOW EXPRESS MESSENGER FBS CAP MARKETS GRP REPAIR FURNACE REPAIR CC FURNACE SERV HTG SYSTEM MICROFILM MICROFISHE OCT INS OCT INS OCT INS OCT INS SEPT SERV RENTAL WATER SOFTNER WATER SOFTNER REPLACE PATCHES LL ANNEXATION POSTAGE BANK CRG-3RD QTR 01-4343-099-17 01-4343-099-17 74-4343-590-93 01-4306-174-33 01-4306-174-33 01-4151-121-31 01-4151-126-31 01-4151-129-31 01-4151-129-31 01-4360-185-35 01-4210-129-31 01-4343-099-17 74-4343-590-93 01-4221-129-31 01-4306-299-72 01-4321-039-12 01-38 000-00 •••-CKS •-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •**-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS -CKS 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-22-90 PAGE 3 CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 3.75 • 295243 10/17/90 250.00 GAB BUSINESS SERVICE DEDUCTABLE REIMB 73-4344-569-92 250.00 • 295256 10/17/90 25.16 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 01-4231-099-17 295256 10/17/90 15.70 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 01-4232-129-31 40.86 * 295267 10/17/90 52 78 GOLF CAR MIDWEST CHGS 74-4331-590-93 52 78 • 295272 10/17/90 272 72 Q & K SERVICES UNIFORMS 01-4221-249-42 295272 10/17/90 120.75 G & K SERVICES RUGS 01-4343-129-31 295272 10/17/90 78.70 G A K SERVICES UNIFORMS 72-4221-549-91 295272 10/17/90 15 25 G A K SERVICES UNIFORMS 74-4221-590-93 487.42 • 295275 10/17/90 6.305 45-GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 01-4151-126-31 295275 JO/17/90 (10.45 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 01-4151-126-31 295275 10/17/90 6.3U5.45 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 01-4151-126-31 295275 10/17/90 615 08 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INC 01-4151-129-31 295275 10/17/90 21101 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 74-4151-590-93 1.456 54 • 295278 10/17/30 49 00 GOPHER STATE ONECALL SEPT SERV 72-4306-549-91 295278 10/17/90 73 50 GOPHER STATE ONECALL SEPT SERV 73-4306-569-92 122 50 • 295295 10/17/90 59 00 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED SEED 01-4233-249-42 59 00 • 295304 10/17/90 9 69 DEPT PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE 01-4321-040-13 9 69 • •••-CKS •**-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS »**-CKS •••-CKS 295308 10/17/90 8 00 8 00 • HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT BELT LOOP 01-4221-129-31 •••-CKS ©1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPlION ACCOUNT NO. INV 295330 295330 % 10/17/90 10/17/90 81 12 99.52 180.64 • ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA ADDL 10/14 ICMA-10/1-10/1, 01-4140-039-12 01-4140-039-12 295388 10/17/90 11.00 11.00 • KILBO-MELVIN MEETING 01-4356-129-31 295395 295395 10/17/90 lC/17/90 509.89 216.09 725 98 • KOEHNENS STANDARD KOEHNENS STANDARD GASOLINE AUTO REPAIR 01-4220-129-31 01-4341-129-31 295437 295437 295437 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 16.79 2.534.40 66.60 2,617.79 • CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE SEPT FLASHER PD RENT 4TH QTR SEPT LIGHT 01-4325-249-42 01-4332-129-31 73-4344-569-92 295439 295439 10/17/90 10/17/90 57 85 19 91 77.76 • LONG LK FORD TRACTOR LONG LK FORD TRACTOR PART PARTS 01-4331-290-61 74-4232-590-93 295462 295462 10/17/90 10/17/90 29 50 797.40 8".6.90 • MARTINS NAVARRE 66 MARTINS NAVARRE 66 GASOLINE AUTO REPAIR 01-4220-249-42 01-4341-129-31 295467 295467 295467 295467 295467 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 109 60 109 60 109 60 422 00 320 60 1.071 40 • MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS 0^-4151-039-12 01-4151-069-15 01-4151-129-31 01-4151-174-33 01-4151-249-42 295474 10/17/90 10.715 35 10.715.35 • METRO WASTE NOV SERV 73-1282-000-00 295485 295485 10/17/90 10/17/90 13 50 27 00 MPLS OXYGEN CO MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE DEMURRAGE 01-4232-129-31 01-4232-249-42 10-22-80 PAGE 4 •**-CKS -CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS -CKS -CKS •••-CKS -CKS 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK R STER 295490 295490 295490 295490 295490 295490 295500 295545 295545 295545 295545 AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 40.50 * 10-22-90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. 4 MESSAGE 10/17/90 28.37 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4324-099-1710/17/90 7.54-MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4324-129-1710/17/90 7.54 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4324-129-1710/17/90 7.54 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 01-4324-129-3110/17/90 3 42 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 72-4324-549-9110/17/90 241.78 281 11 • MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 73-4324-569-92 10/17/90 113 46 113.46 * MINN COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 10/17/90 22 C6 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR GASOLINF 01-4220-129-3110/17/90 22 06 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR GASOLIN' E 01-4220-129-3110/17/90 149 50 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR CAR WASH TICKTS 01-4341-129-3110/17/90 8 99 202 61 • NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR ANTI FREEZE 01-4341-129-31 295546 10/17/90 10.70-NAAB TERRI MILEAGE 01-4381-040-1229554'10/17/90 10.70 NAAB TERRI MILEAGE 01-4381-040-1229554610/17/90 10.70 10.70 * NAAB TERRI MILEAGE 01-4381-040-13 295548 10/17/90 14 52 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4210-040-1329554810/17/90 122 37 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4231-09' ’295548 10/17/90 53 05 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4231-2929554810/17/90 SO 43 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4232-12'.295548 10/17/90 > 57 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4232-24929554810/17/90 bl NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01 -4343-290-1,.295548 10/17/90 3 . "i yj NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 72-4234-549-9129554810/17/90 11 90 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 73-4234-569-9229554810/17/00 56 09 423 36 • NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 74-4232-590-93 295562 10/17/90 103 93 NSP UTILITIES C i-4324-249-42295562in/17/90 151 23 255.22 • NSP UTILITIES 73-4324-569-92 295582 10/17/90 37 50 37 50 • OMAN/LYLt MILEAGE 01-4381-174-33 ••*-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •-CKS -CKS “CKS •••-CKS o 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 295597 10/17/90 AMOUNT 3.882.26 3.882.26 * CHECK REGISTER VENDOR PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN ITEM DESCRIPTION PERA 10/1-14 10-22-90 PAGE 6 ACCOUNT NO. INV. « P.O. • MESSAGE 01-2031-000-00 •••-CKS 295613 295613 295614 295614 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 43.60 65.40 109.00 120.00 60.00 180.00 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR PERSONNEL DECISIONS PERSONNEL DECISIONS TRUCK REPAIR TRUCK REPAIR SEPTIC INSP PROFLE HEO PROFILE 72- 4341-549-91 73- 4341-569-92 01-4306-174-33 Oi-4306-249-42 •••-CKS 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295628 295C28 295628 10/17/90 1,161.85 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 7.978.75 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 1.361.50 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 157.50 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 23 95 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 366 90 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 70 00 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 1,498 80 POPHAM .lAIK £ASSOC-.0/17/90 25.50 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 467 00 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 314.49 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/1//90 314 49 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 3UF 7 8 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 r POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 4 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC10/17/90 22 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOClU/17/90 38 23 POPHAM HAIK £ASSOC14.608 71 * LEGAL RETAINER-AUG 01-4301-080-16 LEGAL PROSECTNS-AUG 01-4302-080-16 LL ANNEX-i05 01-4303-080-16 LEGAL-SPRING HILL 01-4303-080-16 NEHRING-106 01-4303-080-16 LEGAL CONST-AUG 01-4303-080-16 LEGAL CONST-AUG 01-4303-174-33 LEGAL CONST-AUG 01-4303-840-71 LEGAL-FLEX VEHEFITS 01-4306-299-72 LAND PURCH OPTION 15-4303-651-00 LEGAL CONST-AUG 24-4399-454-00 LEGAL CONST-AUG 24-4399-455-00 LEGAL CONST-AUG 24-4399-456-00 LEGAL CONST-AUG 24-4399-457-00 LEGAL CONST-AUG 24-4399-461-00 LEGAL CONST-AUG 72-4303-436-84 cEGAL CONST-AUG 73-4303-434-82 295638 293638 295638 10/17 /90 10/17.'90 10/17/90 369 80 70 75 113 35 ■ 3 90 C'RAIRIE OFFSET PRAIRIE OFFSET PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINT DOG Lie BUSINESS CARDS INSPEC NOTCE 01-4322-032-12 01-4322-059-14 21-4322-174-33 •••-CKS •••-CKS 295661 29566« 295662 in/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 19 2 21 26 26 32 60 92 00 00 SCHARBER & SONS INC SCHARBER & SONS INC REED VENDING PARTS PARTS CANDY/CIGS 01-4231-290-61 01-4232-249-42 74-4802-591-9* 295665 10/17/90 28 70 28 70 RICKS SUPERVALU SUPP: I(74-4232-590-93 •••-CKS : ■■ . i* ■■ ) 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10-22-90 PA'jE 7* ACCOUHI NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSA-iE 295675 295675 295719 295724 295740 295740 295751 295751 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 10/17/90 lC/17/90 10/17/90 10/1//90 10/17/90 2,540.00 690.33 0,230.33 • 64.78 64 78 • 1,773 29 1,773.29 • 9 00 1 00 10.00 • 407 ’O 2 82 to 690 30 • ROLLINS O^L CO ROLLINS Oil CO DIXIE PETRO-CHEM ST TREA-S7 BDG INSP STREICHERS STREICHERS SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE GASOLINE GASO-LINE FLOURIDE 3RD QTR SUrCMARGE REPAIR GUN REP.AIR GUN SEPT JANITOR SEPT JANITOR 01-1260-000-00 74-4220-590-93 72-4234-549-91 01-2222-000-00 01-4342-129-31 01-4342-129-31 01-aJ49-u39-17 01-4349-129-31 295787 10/17/90 427.20 427.20 • TURF SUPPLY CO :-NaW MOLD TREATMNT 74-4343-590-93 295815 10/17/90 48 70 US WEST DATA PROC 01-4320-129-3129581510/17/90 29 62 US WEST TELEPHONE 01-4320-249-4229581510/17/90 27 41 US WEST DATA PROCESS 01-4355-069-1529581510/17/90 54 01 US WEST TOMmUN TELEPHONE 72-4320-549-9129581510/17/30 22 42 US WEST :OMMUN DATA PROCESS 72-4355-f..*3-r*295815 ;0/17/90 33 42 215 58 • US WEST JO.MMUN DATA PROCESS 73-4355-569 7' 295835 10/17/90 45 iJO 45 vO • WARNING LITL..'IN FLASHER 01-31-249- 2 -CKS ••-CKS •••-CKS '-CKS -CKS -CKS • --CKS 295841 10/17/90 92 81 92 81 • WATER PRODUCTS CO WAl ER 72-1273-000-00 ••’•-CKS •• -CTS c 1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER Cj 10-22-90 PAGE CHECK NO DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 295845 10/17/90 5.50 WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 01^4381-174-33%5.50 * 295853 10/17/90 480 15 480.15 tk W HENNEPIN RECYCLING RECYCLING FEE 01-4306-295-65 295901 10/17/90 94 51 94.51 81 HIWAY SS RENTAL RENT LDSCP ATT 01-4331-249-42 295902 10/17/90 144 77 144.77 SMITH & WESSON REPAIR PARTS 01-4232-129-31 295903 10/17/90 30.00 30 00 8t DEPT LABOR/INDUSTRY PERMIT 01-4383-249-42 295904 10/17/90 1.782.00 1.782.00 ft METRO WASTE SEPT SAC 01-2226-000-00 295905 10/17/90 196.40 196 40 ft RIDGL lEW MED CNTR OBERAIGNER STRS TST 01-4306-249-42 295906 10/17/90 297.15 297.15 ft WESTSIDE EOUIPMNT REPAIR GAS PUMP 01-4342-099-17 295907 10/17/90 169.51 169.51 ft JP COOKE CO DOG TAGS 01-4210-039-12 295906 10/17/90 36 00 36 00 ft EMERGENCY VEHICLE REPAIR LGT BAR 01-4341-129-31 295909 10/17/90 40 00 40 00 ft MARY TORRISON REIMBURSE OVERPAY 01-3131-000-00 295910 10/17/90 .126 00 126.00 ft AELE LIABILITY REP SUBSCRIPTION 01-4240-129-31 295911 10/17/90 25 00 25.00 ft COMMACCREDIATION MANUAL 01-4240-129-31 295912 10/17/90 20 00 20 00 ft METRO COUNCr.AERIAL PHOTOS 01-4210-174-33 295913 10/17/90 407 06 407 06 ft JOHN BECKMAN 214U PROSPECT AV 24-4399-462-00 295914 10/17/90 25 00 25 00 ft lAPMO MEMBERSHIP Jl-4380-174-33 295920 10/17/90 790 00 STERLING FENCE INC FENCE 12-4511-394-00 •••-CKS •••-CKS ci)1990 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 790.00 * CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 44,459.87 FUND 01 TOTAL 790.00 FUND 12 TOTAL 467.00 FUND 15 TOTAL 1.842.82 FUND 24 TOTAL 463.59 FUND 72 TOTAL 11,647.43 FUND 73 TOTAL 1,826.89 FUND 74 TOTAL 61,497.60 TOTAL 10-22-90 PAGE 9' ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE •••-CKS GENERAL FUND PARK FUND BUILDNG CAPITAL OUTLAY F PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD USER ACCOUNTING REPORT 00 1990 CITY OF ORONO * NUMBER OF REPORTS NUMBER OF UPDATES NUMBER OF RECORDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVFL 6 LEVFw 7 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 0 TOTAL QEMUNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 84 0 1.025 0 0 0 34 0 0 627 0 2 1.690 UPDATE DESCRIPTIONS SUMMARY FILE PAYROLL BENEFIT ACCRUAL ACTIVITY REPORT CHECK REGISTER TRIAL BALANCE BALANCE SHEET REVENUE STATEMENT OPERATING STATEMENT BUDGET WORKSHEETS CLEAR-CURR-MONTH CITY FILE OPTION PROJECT DEPARTMENT CHART OF ACCOUNTS MO. CHECK RECONCILE YEAR TO DATE PERIOD BUDGET RECORDS CREATED 0 10 <3 10/17/90 PAGE FINANCIAL REPORTS SCHEDULED RUN DATE REPORT DATE 000000 000000 ACTIVITY REPORTS SCHEDULED RUN DATE REPORT DATE 101790 102290 PAYROLL POSTING DATES 000000 000000 000000 ocoooo COONC/l MeniHG 22 1990 (^ITY of orono . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE COMMITTEE AGENDA DiiMLs 4:30 p.m. , Monday, October 15, 1990 OCT 1 2 1990 Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road 1. Proposed Code amendment to §2.12, Subd. 7, recommendation for changes In connection with buoy removal by December 15 or as ice/weather conditions permit, per Board direction of 9-26-90. 2. Review of DNR's proposed Bill for an Act providing additional regulation of the use and operation of personal watercraft, plus PW Industry Communications, copies attached. 3. Deposit refunds: a) Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club for 1990 race schedule b) Viking Bassraasters of Minnesota for 10-14-90 tournament. 4. Recommendation to hold 1991 Save the Lake recognition dinner, and setting of date. 5. Water Patrol report 6. Other business. 10-10-90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONTIENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 a.in., Saturday, October 13, 1990 Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road IS80 Chapman Place commercial marina agreement review (continuation from 9-8-90 meeting), and presentation by applicant, Robert Cuthill. Communication with Lakeside Marina for non-compliance with temporary low water variance. 3. Review of the Amenity Study, re-assessing the amenity require ments for slips in excess of 1:50 density. 4. Excelsior Bay Yacht Club: EAW status anJ response by new marina operator. 5. 1990-1991 deicing license applications per initial response thru 10-1-90, list attached. 6. Other business 10-5-90 TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 TECHNICAL COMiVOTTEE MEETING NOTICE Tuesday, October 16, 1990 Delano City Hall 1:00 p.m. I f L:; ^OCT 1 ^ AGEIVDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Sc.-tember 18, 1990 Minutes IV. City/State Goals, Project Issues/Concerns (Update) V. Discussion of Alternatives (Layouts) VI. Discussion of Scoping Document - SEE Impacts VII. Other Business VIII. Comments from the Audience IX. Next Meeting X. Adjournment |4|7IVA>ndw 104 1= «■•’■«=< TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 CITIZEN’S COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE Tuesday, October 16, 1990 Maple Plain City Hall 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of September 20, 1990 Minutes IV. City/State Goals, Project Issues/Concerns (Update) V. Discussion of Alternatives (Layouts) VI. Discussion of Scoping Document -- SEE Impacts VII. Other Business VIII. Comments from the Audience IX. Next Meeting X. Adjournment |4r»A«MlM '-44 pi;r3 T* r. 'J ,0CT 1 0 1990 TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE Tuesday, October 16, 1990 Delano City Hall 1:00 p.m. HIMTB Lu,U-- -- ■ — OCT 1 0 1990 AGENDA I. Cal! to Order n. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of September 18, 1990 Minutes IV. City/State Goals, Project Issues/Concerns (Update) V. Discussion of Alternatives (Layouts) VI. Discussion of Scoping Document - SEE Impacts vTL Other Business VIII. Comments from the Audience IX. Next Meeting X. Adjournment BULLETIJMmm association of meiropolitgn municipalities October 16, 1990 AMM LEGISLATIVE POLICY ADOPTION MEETING DATE: Thursday, November 1, 1990 KICK OFF: 5:30 P.M. WHERE: Ambassador Hotel 5225 Wayzata Blvd. (Hwy's 100 and 12 (1-394)) St. Louis Park, MN. DINNER COST: $20.00 Per Person SPOUSES, SIGNIFICANT OTHERS AND GUESTS WELCOME! 5:30 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 7:30 P.M. Cash Bar/Social Hour Deluxe Buffet Dinner Business Meeting (Roast Beef, Ham, Chicken (see agenda Superb Salad Selections on back) and Dessert) DINNER RESERVATIONS TO CAROL WILLIAMS AT 227-4008 A MUST BY NOON ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 29TH. PLEASE CHA.INEL YOUR RESERVATIONS THROUGH YOUR CITY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE. THANKS! (Reservations are not needed nor is there a cost if you plan only to attend the Business Meeting at 7:30 P.M.) SPECIAL GUESTS: While the main meeting purpose is to adopt legislative policy, this event will also provide a great opportunity for a city officials to interact with and discuss concerns with the Metropolitan Agency "Biggies”! We have invited and expect virtually all of the chairs and staff directors of the Metropolitan Council, Regional Transit Board, Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to be present throughout the meeting activities. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This notice has been mailed directly to all member Mayors, CounciImembers and Managers/Administrators. SEE MAP AND AGENDA ON BACK 183 univefsily avenue east st pau* minnesota 55101 (612) 227 4008 BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to order. 2. Introduction of Guests and Announcements *3. Panel Discussion on the concept of an Appointments Review Committee to screen candidates for appointment to the Metropolitan Council and the regional agencies. 4. Consideration and adoption of legislative Policy Program (mailed previously). 5. Input on establishing AMM Legislative priorities for 1991 session. 6. Other business. 7. Adj ournment. The AMM Mission and Membership Services Task Force in its final report recommended that the AMM pursue the creation of a Metropolitan appointments review committee for the merit review of persons being considered for appointment to the Metropolitan Council and the regional agencies. We are going to ask the Chairs of the Metropolitan Council and the regional agencies to participate in a panel to briefly comment on the advisability of creating such a review committee. MAP NOT DRAWN TO SCALE association ofmetropolitanmunicipalities October 16, 1990 Dear City Official: The AMM as you may know, recently completed an examination of its mission. One of the new initiatives recommended by the Mission Task Force and adopted by the AMM board was that the AMM promote the use of dispute resolution at the local level. We are seeking volunteers to serve on a committee to implement this effort. The function of the coi^imittee will be to: Assess how the AMM ::an educate member communities regarding the wide ranging u. of dispute resolution techniques. To explore the development of a collaborative dispute resolution model for local/state policies and issue. Roger Williams, Council Member from New Brighton and Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution for the State of Minnesota and Jim Prosser, City Manager of Richfield, have agreed to cochair this committee. We are now asking members of AMM who would also be interested in serving on the committee to contact Vern Peterson in the AMM office (227-4008). It is anticipated that the committee will meet approximately two times per month for a maximum of three to four months. Further details on scheduling will await the first meeting of the committee. Please contact Vern Peterson by November 2nd. if you have an interest in serving on the committee. Sincerely, (7 Larry Bakken, AMM President Golden Valley Councilmember 183 university a • nue east, st paui minnesota 55101 (612) 227 4000 BULLfeT____________ association ofmetroDolitan municfpolities October 11, 1990 ^ S 193q TO: AMM Member City Officials FROM: Vern Peterson, Executive Director • Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs RE: LEGISLATIVE QUESTIONS, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS, POLICY ADOPTION MEETING, ETC. 1. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC): The AMM has eight suburban appointees to the TAC and the individuals who serve must be at the Department Head Level, i.e. City Engineer, Director of Planning, Director of Community Development, etc. The major function of the TAC is to ^oyide technical assistance and advice to the regional Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on all facets of regional planni^ and programs. The TAC is a very valuable for city officials to get their views beard on issues. It meets monthly in the Metropolitan Ccuncil offices and most members also serve on at least one subcommittee. The individuals appointed by the AMM Board will serve two-year terms commencing in January of 1991. THE BOARD IS SOLICITING NOMINATIONS VIA THIS BULLETIN. THE NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE IN WRITING AND FORWARDED TO THE AMM S?F^cf BY NO LAT^ THAN OCTOBER 24TH. WHILE SOME INCUMBENT MEMBERS WILL BE REAPPOINTED SEVERAL NEW MEMBERS WILL BE APPOINTED AND NOMINATIONS ARF. NEEDED FROM ALL PARTS OF THE REGION BUT ESPECIALLY FROM DAKOTA, CARVER, SCOTT AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES. 2. MEMBERSHIP POLICY ADOPTION MEETING, THURSDAY EVENING NOVEMBER 1ST.: AS noted in the last bulletin dated September 17th., the Annual Policy Adoption Meeting is set for Thursday evening, November 1 1990. We hope that you have this meeting marked in your Glenda; and that you a^e planning to attend. The policy program which will be adopted at this meeting determines -1- 183 university avenue east, st paul, mmnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 and should be available in just a days. containing all the pertinent meeting a few days but the event is tentatively scheduled held at the AmbaLador Hotel in St. Louis Park conunencing with a social hour at about 5:30 P.M. You will not want to miss this impL?ant meeting which will also provide the opportunity for exchanging information with your peers in other metro cities. 3 POSITION OP LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES ON KEY CITY ISSUES: A prime ^al of the AMM is to foster a metropolitan perspective among metropolitan legislators which includes making them aware of the iLues affecting metro cities We attempt to create this awareness through the AMM s Legislative Contact system, one-on-one ^„ officials/legislators gatherings. Another step in that mission is to try and get favorable commitments , ... candidate on AMM priority issues. The rather than sending a questionnaire directly to the legislative canSfLterUke many organizations do that we will our members city officials with a set of backgrounded issue position questions. You can use these -questions which are ^closed in public or private forums as you see fit to get candidate commitments and reaction. personalize the interaction with the candidates ^ more difficult for them to ignore the 1^^® do with written surveys. For each candidate should be asked if he/she agY®®®^wi“ position and if they disagree to explain why and what their pcsition is. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This bulletin and attachments has been mailed to Managers/Administrators and Legl®l®Y^Y®, that it be distributed to other officials as appropriate. Thank you. -2- ISSUE QUESTIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES #1 METROPOLITAN TAX BACKGROUND: A number of agencies have suggested the use of a special Metropolitan Tax for various purposes. The AMM membership has had extensive discussion on this issue and given the reality that a metro tax will continue to be discussed has identified some general critaria for consideration as well as a specific recommendation for a Transportation Tax. Any new or add on metropolitan tax should be related to a specific need that can be identified as critical but which cannot be funded from existing taxes diverted from lessor priority activities. To the extent possible, a new tax should be broadly based, not substitute for current or future state allocations, stable, related to the use, dedicated to the stated purpose, used only for metro projects,•not accounted for through the state's general fund, and not restrict future local government revenue options or impact funding for future critical activities. Specifically, the AMM does view transportation needs in the Metropolitan Area as becoming critical. This need includes LRT, expanded mass transit, and additional highway construction. POSITION; The AMM supports the concept of a Metropolitan Tax for metropolitan transportation needs, including LRT with the following consideration: (1) Taxes such as the motor fuels, motor vehicle excise tax, sales tax, and payroll tax should be investigated; and (2) The property tax and general income tax should not be considered. #2 LEVY LIMITS BACKGROUND: The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities has consistently opposed the levy limit laws in that they apply uniform statewide restrictions to cities and are too inflexible to accommodate inflation, uncertainties in state and federal financial aids, and the diverse problems and circumstances faced by cities throughout the state. Such laws are inconsistent with principles of local self-government and accountability. Neither do they recognize changing local conditions as to either expenditure needs or revenue sources, nor do they allow for people within communities to exercise choice in new or expanded local services. Levy limits may ultimately work against the interests of local taxpayers because the law creates an incentive for cities to take maximum advantage of the opportunity to make general or special levies. For example, the arbitrary decision in 1981 to create a new levy limit base effectively penalized those cities that were -3- successful in holding down their property tax levies in 1981. This was done again in 1987 and 1988. History has now provided cities with numerous lessons teaching that cities which choose to levy less than the maximum allowed in a given year risk being later tied to unrealistic or artificially low new limits for future budget years. POSITION: The AMM remains strongly opposed in principle to such limitation and recommends that the Minnesota Legislature allow levy limit laws for cities to sunset per current law for taxes payable 1993. #3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID BACKGROUND: State Aid to cities has been a much debated legislative issue for two decades. Over that time the forBula(s) have ranged from pure per capita, to need based on valu? and service, to a distribution based on location and past spending. Homestead Credit has changed to Homestead Aid and is no longer a direct taxpayer subsidy. New gimmicks such as Disparity Reduction Aid (Mill rate equalization) and Tax Base Equalization Aid, have been invented to target money to various regions when the general aid formula could not be politically justifiably rigged to work. Because of the regional fracturing or because cities and city aid has become an easier less emotionally backed target, the legislature has begun what appears to be a systematic shift from city aid to school and county assistance programs. Although, city services such as police, fire, ambulance, street repair, and snow plowing may not be 'state mandated', they are in fact necessary services to the state's residents for which they cannot do without. They are as important to all of the people as specialized school and county services are to some and therefore, the state legislature cannot afford to cause severe degradation to them by making large cuts or shifts. It is time for the cities and the legislature to return to basics and develop a single rationally based formula for redistribution of state collected wealth to continue the state commitment for the provision of necessary public health, safety, and welfare services by city government to the states citizens. POSITION: The state should continue a local aid commitment to cities to help maintain reasonadale property taxes on a fair basis for the provision of necessary public health, safety, and welfare services. A single state aid formula should be adopted that contains several elements to help stabilize the cost of basic local services. The formula should consider: “Wealth or tax capacity; -Property tax burden relative to income; “The services which are necessary and thus should be supported -4- by the state; and -An appropriate support level for the various included services #4 PROPERTY TAX AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME Table B-1 Mean Nel Payable 1988 Property Tax by locome Croup Metro aad Naa*aetro Regioas Mean Ne! Prnnf nv T«t Income Non-mt^rn S 5,000 or less . iSVi 1150S 5.001 • s 15,000 (601 2fi0 S15,001 . S 25JXX>627 AM/ 352X25.001 - S 35,000 795 456I35401 • 145,000 927 497S45,001 -S 55,000 1.116 r 613155.001 . S 65.000 t375 W Jh# 748165.001 . S 75.000 t549 913r5.001 - S 85.000 1,881 801 185,001 . S 95,000 1^8^ 4 1.051195,001 -1105,000 2,023 1.037OverSlOS^XX)3,161 1,436 For AH Cases lt016 '1429 Figure B*l Mian Nrt ^ccarty Tax after O'eoits Oy ineomt o-oep P^yaoie leit TV tner CTMtu BACKGROUND: Metropolitan Area Homeowners at all income levels pay approximately twice the amount of Property Tax as do homeowners in outstate Minnesota. The per capita aid for cities is also nearly double in outstate. These statistics as shown above are based on a Minnesota house of representatives research department study, linking Minnesota Property taxes and income, dated February 1989. POSITION: The AMM membership believes this imbalance is unjust and should be corrected through adjustment of the homestead class rates to reduce the tax burden on higher value homes as well as recognition of this issue within the aid formulas and HACA distribution. #5 HOMESTEAD CLASS RATES Homestead taxable value is determined by applying 1% to the first $68,000 market value, 2% to the market value between $68,000 and $110,000, and 3% to the market value in excess of $110,000. This triple split rate causes an artificial difference in market value compared to taxable value especially between outstate and the metro area. The vast majority of homes in outstate Minnesota are valued at less than $68,000, thus, taxed at the 1% rate while in the metro area many, especially newer homes, are in excess of $100,000 and pay taxes based on 2% and 3% of significant portions of their value. The split rate system also causes a geometrically progressive tax rather than just progressive. A $120,000 home pays 3 times the tax of a $60,000 home while a $240,000 home which is 4 times the value of a $60,000 home pays 9 times the tax. Higher valued property should pay proportionately higher taxes but not geometrically higher taxes. Although, the ideal solution from a fairness perspective would be a single rate for homestead property regardless of market value, the AMM will support a two tier system as a desireable step in the direction of establishing a fair property tax system. POSITION: The AMM suggests returning to a two tier homestead class tax rate system, tise first tier of 1% on value up to $68,000 market value and the second tier of 2\ on market value over $68,000. while the AMM prefers that the state increase HACA to offset the effects of going to a two tier system, in any event, local units of government should not be prevented from recovering the lost revenue through levy. #6 ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIOMi\L SOLID WASTE AGENCY BACKGROUND: Cities have the responsibility for solid waste collection including implementing and managing most recycling type programs. The other waste stream management responsibilities are basically split between the Metropolitan Council and the Counties. Considerable progress has been made in recent years in certain parts of the waste stream management system particularly -6- those aspects for which cities are responsible. But several significant problems beyond the control of cities are becoming evident including: the inability of the counties to site needed waste facilities (landfills, transfer stations, compost sites, etc.), fluctuating and/or lack of markets for some recyclables, uneven funding among counties to run the low tech systems, and the radical variance in disposal costs throughout the metropolitan area. Some of the current waste stream management concerns are similar to the concerns which precipitated the formation of other regional commissions. POSITION: The AMM believes consideration should be given to the formation of a regional solid waste commission. Such commission should include local elected officials. More analysis and study is needed to determine the total list of functions to be assigned to such commission but most functions now performed by the Metropolitan Council and the counties should be transferred including: -Ownership (including the assumption of debt) of the current major public disposal and processing facilities. -Responsibility for siting certain types of waste processing and disposal facilities. -Regulation of disposal charges (tipping/fee) to provide more fairness and equity. -Distribution of funds to support the local recycling programs. -Coordination of marketing efforts for recyclables. #7 PASSTHROUGH FUNDS FOR LOCAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS BACKGROUND: The current funding system for solid waste management has a number of drawbacks: It does not encourage maximum utilization of the waste disposal hierarchy; it often gives no incentive to individual residents to participate in recycling; it does not differentiate between generators of 'clean' waste and 'problem' waste; and it has given no assurances that the main sources of funding are related to the entities incurring expenses. Nor does it assure that money collected at the State or Regional level gets passed through to the cities that actually manage the recycling and abatement programs. POSITION: The AMM believes that the solid waste funding system should guarantee distribution of the monies to all entities involved in the system and recognize all costs associated with the system, this means a significant portion of the funds raised through the solid waste collection sales tax should be distributed to cities which operate recycling programs. The AMM also believes that the entire proceeds of tax on solid waste should be dedicated to solid waste activities and not used for general state operations. -7- #8 CITIES RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND: The AMM has operated under the assumption that cities have the primary responsibility for economic development within their jurisdictions. This includes redevelopment as well as new development. However, it became apparent during the discussion and debate concerning tax increment finance last session, that many legislators, state agency officials, officials representing other levels of government and many private sector representatives do not share that view. With the destruction of TIF as a viable tool for economic development, cities ' c longer have the necessary tools to be responsible for economic Jevelopment in today's economic environment. Consequently, legislc> iva action is needed to address the many issues associated wich cc jnomic development in our cities. POSITION: The Legislature should examine the (juestion of economic development and develop a state policy which delineates which level or levels of government or governmental agencies have the primary responsibility for economic development wi^in this state. Once this delineation has been determined, then appropriate 'tools' should be created to implement the state economic development policy. Until the legislature creates new tools to help cities deal with economic development including redevelopment, it should restore TIF as a vizible tool for city use. i.e. It should recind many of the crippling TIF amendments a'^opted during the 1990 session. #9 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA: BACKGROUND: The Federal EPA and State PCA are exerting pressure on the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) to clean-up the discharge effluent from the sewage treatment plants into the three main rivers (Minnesota, Mississippi, and St. Croix) which transverse the Metropolitan Area but the most immediate problem is the Minnesota River. The area is under edict to reduce pollution in the Minnesota River by 30% by 1996. It could cost the taxpayers of this region hundreds of millions of dollars to make the prescribed improvements to the MWCC treatment plants and even with this tremendous expenditure the river quality would not improve significantly oecause the main degradation problems are caused by surface water runnoff into the rivers and not by the sewage treatment plant effluent. Also much of the pollution is already in the river when it enters the 7-county area. Under current law in Minnesota, water management organizations (WMO's) have the basic responsibility for water quality management in the 7-county Metropolitan Area. Cities and/or townships are directly responsible for regulating land use and seeing that the -8- water management plans are implemented. The WMO water plans are then approved at the state level by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Some representatives of the Metropolitan Council have suggested that since the Council is held responsible by the EPA and MPCA for water quality, it should have more direct authority over Surface Water Management including replacing BSWR as the approving authority. POSITION: The AMN does not believe that the Metropolitan Council should replace BWSR as the approving authority for water management plans in the metropolitan area. Since the pollution of the Minnesota, Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers is a statewide problem, the AMM believes that a stare wide agency is more appropriate than a regional agency to address this issue. Instead, the AMM supports implementation of the amendments to the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act which were passed in 1990. Those eunendments do increase the involvement of the Met Council in the Surface Water Management Planning Process but retain BWSR as the approving agency. #10 HACA - HOMESTEAD AND AGRICULTURAL AID BACKGROUND: Homestead and Agriculture Credit Aid (HACA) replaced Homestead Credits in 1988 and in theory no community was to have lost funds. Individual homestead tax statements retain homestead credit subtraction but there is no longer a correlation between the amount of that calculation and the actual HACA distributed to local governments. In fact, if state HACA payments are reduced, the amount indicated on the individual tax statements will very likely increase and visa versa. Recently the legislature has been reducing LGA and in the absence of LGA reducing HACA in order to offset state budget and revenue shortfalls. Initially, in 1967 and 1971, the sales tax and aid systems including Homestead Credit were set up to control property taxes through revenue redistribution. The state made a commitment that at least some part of the sales and income tax would be returned. That commitment is no longer being honored. Several cities no longer receive any LGA or HACA and others will scon lose their remaining aids and HACA unless the legislature changes its direction of stripping aids from cities. POSITION: The AMM strongly believes that at least some minimum amount of HACA should continue to be distributed to each city. ill TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY BACKGROUND; One of the glaring inequities in the Minnesota tax system involves the free local services that are provided to tax exempt property owned by certain non-governmental organizations. Also, the State of Minnesota and Metropolitan Agencies own a -9- significant amount of property within the metropolitan area. It is widely acknowledged that these properties benefit directly from governmental services such as police and fire protection and street services provided by cities. However, since there is not legal basis for claiming reimbursement for the cost of such services, they are borne by the local taxpayers. Furthermore, such property is concertrated in certain cities resulting in a heavy cost burden in certain parts of the state. The State of Wisconsin established a program called "Payment for Municipal Services” in 1973. The program provides a mechanism for municipalities to be reimbursed by the state for services they provide to state-owned properties. Through a formula based on the value of state-owned buildings within a city, the Wisconsin system reimburses cities for police, fire, and solid waste services POSITION: The Association believes this problem should be corrected by enacting legislation, requiring owners of tax exempt property, except for churches, houses of worship, and property used solely for educational purposes by academies, colleges, universities and seminaries of learning, to reimburse cities and counties for the cost of municipal services. In addition, the AMM encourages the state legislature to establish a program for reimbursing municipalities for services to state and metropolitan agency facilities. The program should (1) ensure that these agencies pay assessments for services that benefit their property, and (2) Allow cities to receive compensation for services that are funded through general revenue, such as police and fire, which are valuable to the State of Minnesota and Metropolitan Agencies. -10- V-.-- Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commihsion 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612)474-5539 OCT 1 0 LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1990 5:00 P.M. Room 204 EXCELSIOR COMMUNITY CENTER 443 OAK STREET, EXCELSIOR AGENDA 1. Call to Order II. Approval of September minutes III. Reports a) Officers b) Administrator c) Triax IV. Unfinished Business 1) Late fee regulation issue 2) Update on status of cable system documentation per conditional approval 3) Update on activation of channel 0, live capabilities and/or channel management at Excelsior studio V. New Business 1) Capital fund request 2) Discussion of the formation of Access Advisory Board VI, Adjournment MINUTES LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 5:00 P.M. ROOM 204 EXCELSIOR COMMUNITY CENTER 443 OAK STREET, EXCELSIOR Due to the lack of a quorum. Chairman Anderson asked Administrator Watts to begin her report prior to the business portion of the meeting. She stated Jim Schindler was conducting a class and would not be present, but his report was included in the mooting materials. The studio classes continued to be suc cessful and coverage of local events had increased. Programs included The Lake Minnetonka Men's Garden Club Garden Show, Minnetonka Center for the Arts 1990 Fall Kickoff Celebration, Excelsior Apple Days and Noerenberg Memorial County Park. In ad dition, Jim was producing two shows on the two Soviet artists visiting local artist Kevin Adams. Anderson asked if there were a way to find out how many people watch the programming. Watts explained she could get general information, but more specific information would require a subscriber survey. Wilczek and Swartwood, who are on the Data Collection Committee, would ex plore ways to do this. Admin is tr.aXqrls__Rej>_^ Watts reported that she had purchased some of the video equipment approved with the expansion proposal, part of which would go to the Orono studio. She also reminded the Commission that one of the cameras had been damaged beyond repair by one of the access users. The camera was in need of replacement prior to damage. She was waiting for word from Triax on how to proceed. Watts will be submitting an itemized list of equipment to Triax for purchase with year 7 capital funds. Aaron Blechert, production assistant, would be leaving at the end of the month due to other commitments. Watts placed an ad in the Sailor newspapers for the position. I• CALL TO ORDER Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M., as a quorum had been reached. DJ_P ^RS PRESENT OTHERS _PRESENI Toir ?rson/Medlna Jennifer Watts/Admin. Le Hughes-Seamans/Kathe Ehlert/Adm.Asst. .ka Bay Taul Nazarow/Trlax Jim Oxds/Excelsicr Otto Wilczek/Minnetrista I i AP.PRp_V AL_QF_M I N VTES Anderson asked for a discussion of the minutes from the August meeting or a motion to approve. Motion 9.18.90.1: Olds moved to approve the August minutes, Hughes-Seamans seconded. The motion passed unanimously. LMCCC September Mxnutes Page Two III. REPORTS Tre^sure.r^ s Repojrt Commissioner Wilczek presented the Just Claims for September, (attachment 1). Anderson asked for comments or a mo tion to approve. Motion 9.18.90.2; Wilczek moved to approve the Just Claims for the* period 8/2 2790 through 9/17/90; Olds seconded. The motion passed unanimously. MmJJliatx.^J>_rJ!jL_re^or^^ Regarding space expansion. Room 204, in which the meeting was held, would be the new office apace. Phone installation had been ordered and Watts was in the process of purchasing basic office furniture, as approved in the expansion proposal. Wilczek said that cities could get discounts on office furniture from Hennepin County and suggested that Watts find out if the Commission would qualify for that discount. Watts reported that she had taken calls from two residents who wished to express their feelings about the recent rate in crease and tiering by Trlax. She explained to them the role of the Commission, the legislation at the federal level and the issue of competition. She *ecommended that she, Wilczek and Swartwood discuss the customer service/consumer protection Is sues and meet with Triax to consider initiating a subscriber survey. Excelsior, Orono and Spring Park have approved the budget to date; Tonka Bay has rejected based on the conference/school budget item.(see New Business Item 2) As requested by the Budget Planning Committee, Watts had solicited quotes on preparing the Financial Review and surveyed other commissions. To date, costs appeared to be lower at other commissions and quotes received were below LMCCC costs in the past. She would ’•equest a quote from W.F. Denny and Froehling and Anderson and bring them to the Commission at the next meeting. The House cable bill had passed. It did not favor NATOA or NCTA, nor did it give regulatory power to local entitles or ad dress concerns of cable owners facing competition from non- franchised service providers. NATOA members believe Congress will either agree on acceptable languaa^ regarding telcos or the matter will be dealt with again next year. Watts said that Regional 6 had been out on our system and asked Regional Manager Paul Nazarow if construction had been causing a problem. Nazarow replied he thought the problem was at the other end. Watts reported that Greg Moore from Northwest Community TV had sent a letter to the chair of the Regional 6 Board indicating NWCT would not renew their membership and had disconnected their live feed. LMCCC September Minutes Page three TRIAX REPORT Paul Nazarow presented the monthly Triax report: Homes Passed 11/770 Basic Subs 5863 Total Pay Units 3794 Total A/O's 3490 Total Remotes 2575 Paul explained that there had been an increase in basic subs of 21/ but a loss in remotes. He felt that this was due to price changes and people buying VCRs with remote. The October monthly report would show Expanded Basic and Basic separately. Ho also explained the fiber optic installation would bo completed by the end of the week/ tested the next week and then operational. He **minded the Commission that the fiber optic link would give jstoroers more choices; people were asking for pay per view and that next year/ with another’ link/ that would be available, as would be stereo cable. Paul also distributed the Triax studio reports. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1) Cable System Changes Revisiting the temporary approval for Triax system change given last month by the Commission, Administrator Watts recommended that the Commission require Triax to provide a let ter containing the following information: the specific location of the fiber-link/ the name of the contractors who were respon sible for the installation and assurance the this change was in accordance with the franchise agreement. She explained that the information as recommended by counsel, would be necessary in the event of future testing and for documentation purposes. Olds reminded the Commission that before the original franchise was awarded, the Commission spent time reviewing the proposed system technically, and now that there would be a change, the Commission should have documentation of that change. Wilczek asked that the letter quantify the improvement of signal strength at the low end. In February, 1990, Ric Hanson agreed to provide documentation of those changes prior to implementation. In August, 1990 the Commission approved the changes pending receipt of that notification. Nazarow indicated ho thought Hanson's letter of August 21, 1990 contained those requirements. Watts explained that the August 21 letter did not contain any of the information requested. Motion 9.16.90.3: Anderson moved that Triax present a letter containing specific technical data relating to the removal of the Excelsior headend, names and addresses of the contractors installing the fiber-link and the location of that link, and a statement supporting that all changes are in accordance with the franchise agreement. These documents are to be submitted to the Commission within 60 days. Failure to do so would result in notification of non-compliance. Wilczek seconded. The motion passed unanimously. LMCCC September minutes Page four 2) Channel Alignment Administrator Watts reminded the Comnissionrs that at the August meeting they voted unanimously to issue temporary ap proval of the realignment continaent on the activation of a second access channel. The action did not address the third access channel activation, the leased access channel activation or declare a timeframe for these contingencies to be met. She provided documentation of the need for another channel and asked if the Commission wished to amend its original motion. Nazarow asked for clarification of the chanr-»l line-up. Watts replied that channel 32 would be channel 21 >nd that channel 20 would be the only active channel. Watts requested that channel 0 be ac tivated, explaining that Ric Hanson had indicated agreement ear lier to that activation. Nazarow asked what plans Watts had for supplying programming on this channel. Watts replied that the only available channel was now full, and that School Board and City Council meetings were filling up evening slots. Watts in dicated that the Commission needed to discuss the possibility of managing one of those channels from Excelsior in order to have live capabilities. Nazarow indicated that awtlvating another channel would not be a problem, but he would need to look into what would be involved in having channel management from Excelsior. Motlon_.?.._10_..9O.j4.;, Wilczek moved that the Commission approve the channel realignment with the stipulation that channel 8, the government channel, be activated, and that adequate staff and equipment be employed by the franchisee to actively utilize this channel, with discussion of the installation of equipment to in clude the Excelsi -»r access studio as a possible channel manage ment site with live capabilities, and required activation of the government channel to occur by January 1, 1991. Olds seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 3) Late fee regulation Watts brought the Commission's attention to a subscriber complaint regarding assessment of a late fee. She explained that the franchise required information on billing and collec tion practices be provided to the subscriber at installation and annually thereafter. She also noted LMCCC counsel Tom Creighton had indicated late fee regulation was not specifically addressed in the Cable Act and was therefore a possibility for regulatory control. She noted the memo regarding this issue sent to her by Creighton and asked the commissioners for their feelings on pur suing the matter. Wilczek asked Nazarow if Triax provided in formation on billing and late fees to subscribers as they were required to do. Nazarow Indicated that ho would have to check on this issue and report back to the Commission. Motion 9.18...90_..5 :_ Wilczek moved to table the late fee regula tion issue until Nazarow provided the Commission with info'’ma- tlon as CO how Triax complies with the requirement to provide LMCCC September minutes Page five information on billing and collection practices seconded# Motion to table passed unanimously. Olds V NEW BUSINESS 1) Request to sponsor attendance at MACTA conference Administrator Watts reminded the Commission of the MACTA mini“Conference schedule^ for Friday/ October 19# at the Holiday Inn, St. Louis Park and the Local Cable Programmers of Minnesota conference on October 20. She w.-'- seeking approval to sponsor attendance for two staff members to both conferences and for any commissioners who were able to attend. She noted the budget had sufficient funds to sponsor this level of attendance because only one person had attended the national NATOA in September. Wilczek said he could go to MACTA. Olds said he could go also. Watts indicated that she would send a memo to all other commis sioners informing them of both of the conferences. Mg.tjLorL_^A.8_.J?0_. 5_ Anderson moved that the Commission sponsor attendance for two staff members and commissioners to the MACTA mini-conference on October 19/1990 and the Local Cable Programmers of Minnesota conference on October 20/ 1990. Hughes-Seamans seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 2) Tonka Bay Budget Rejection Watts reported Tonka Bay had rejected the 1991 Budget Proposal based on the conference/school item. Watts said she would do a survey of other travel budgets and suggested she/ Wilczek and Brancel attend the Sept. 25 Tonka Bay Council meet ing as requested by the Tonka Bay City Administrator/ Dave Callister/ to present rationale for the line item. Wilczek reported to the Commission that an international NFLCP conference would be held near Quebec October 24 and 25. Watts was asked to check into costs and report to the Commission after it was determined how many commissioners would attend the MACTA conference and LCPMN conference. VI Ad^lournment Anderson moved to adjourn tht» meeting. Hughos-Seamans seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7t00 P.M. Respectfully submitted/ Kathe Ehlert Administrative Assistant LMCCC JUST CLAIMS 8/22/90 TO 9/18/90 CHECK# 10242 10243 10244 10245 ^.174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 10246 10247 10248 10249 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2168 2189 2190 2129 DATE PAYABLE 8/31 Aaron Blechert 8/31 Jxm Schindler 8/31 Jennifer Watts 8/31 Kathe Ehlert 8/31 U.S. Postmaster 8/31 Norwest Banks 8/31 U.S. West 8/31 PERA 8/31 JMH Software 8/31 Alpha Video 8/31 Hyatt Regency/Dearborn 8/31 Jennifer Watts (advance) 9/14 Aaron Blechert 9/14 Jim Schindler 9/14 Jennifer Watts 9/14 Kathe Ehlert 9/17 PERA 9/17 Lake Business Supply 9/17 Aaron Blechert 9/17 Jim Schindler 9/17 Jim Schindler 9/17 Bernick & Lifson 9/17 EPA Audio/Visual 9/17 Paychex 9/17 PERA 9/17 Jennifer Watts TOTAL CLAIMS AMOUNX ACCOUNT 217.09 8/31 Payroll 570.38 8/31 Payroll 808.15 8/31 Payroll 54.95 8/31 Payroll 50.00 Postage 1,180.23 Fed W/H 66.97 Telephone 174.22 PERA bnfts 2,545.00 Office Supp 30.00 Misc. Video 355.20 Conf/School 150.00 Cont/School 194.41 9/15 Payroll 454.47 9/15 Payroll 799.15 9/15 Payroll 77.57 9/15 Payroll ■ 1 159.13 PERA bnfts 97.62 Office supp. 17.42 Mileage ^0.70 Mileage (N i31.00 Health ins. 412.50 Legal Servs. \Pn 296.51 Access Equip7 u 43.50 Sec'y Servs. 9.00 PERA life Health ins. 011,147.53 BANK EXCELSIOR Beginning Balance Claims Deposits: Jim Schindler-Conf. reimbursement Gopher Stage-overpayment MACTA postage reimbursement Check #2171 credit-merchandise returned Interest Service Charge S 42,249.28 (Sll,147.5 n 13.32 40.20 73.55 133.50 178.93 ____ao.iAOl ENDING BALANCE #31,530.65 SCCU ACCOUNTS Balance Share Acct. Balance Preferred Acct. Certificates of Deposit 02,014.90 1,273.93 (10/10) 26,000.00 (9/23) 20,000.00 (9 3_ JuO.x.0 P Q ,_0p ENDING BALANCE TOTAL FUNDS 059,288.83 It f m^^si ,. 0?:^:SirE55»®gSSh;:::'...,. . . .. ------’awKj«T«3K;CTa^^ ‘i ' ■^-•>' ■i.iaatM, • f.' ! &.:,.'c.,^'; I ■. .y^ ___ •;^-• .*m5 ..♦Jfi.. - k \ilv^^1^' v’^.:.,.. l~~S~.^.'. ■'■- ■ '■•V-rf- '-*■' ■ ■ i-SJi:'-Afe: iS''S .... ■ .•'•'•.tjr** i ^NDEP^ElSj'P^SCHObE DISTRIGT^rW^g •■ffl /’A nnuaureport ®'''th^bommunityv-f' Ir^ '/■' '■ il ”"“»SSay, ninities ot: ce, I on^ Lnk^'M^plc I’Kiin, Modina, Minn^ f I >■ - " ^r . .7 's.: Board of Education Members --------------------- The Board of Education members are elected representativ'es of the community. Their primary function is to set the policies for the operation of the School District. As representatives of the community, they bring a variety of vieu'points to their work. However, they unite in the common goal of providing an education program responsive to the needs and aspirations of the community. ^ 'v: ' I’ ^ David McKown 18 Years Jim Franklin 7 Years Don Anderson 15 Years Lucie Taylor 5 Years Kitty Crosby 12 years d John Maresh 4 years From the Superintendent... It is our privilege to operate your schools and our responsibility to periodically report to you. This Annual Report is one of the ways for us to communicate to you about your schools. We are an.xious for you to learn more about the Oronc Schools because we want you to continue to share our pride in what has long lx.*en a quality school district. Our pride is centered in both the achievements that have been realized and also in the continuing effort to correct deficiencies and to improve. To say it another way, no record of excellence is long maintained w’ithout a continuing effort. More than anything else, this report underscores your school district's continuing commitment to excellence. I trust you will enjoy reading this report. If there is other information aUnit your schools that you desire or items contained here that you need clai ified, please call me at 473-731 Sincerely, Thomas B. Mich, Superintendent Dr. Thomas B. Mich The P.E.R. Annual Report What is PER? PER is an acronym for the words "Planning, Evaluating, and Reporting." What is the PER Committee? The PER Committee is a group of twenty citizens and staff liaisons whose purpose is to review the District's annual plans for evaluation and curriculum review. This group includes parents, other community members, teachers, staff, administrators and a School Board member. The committee is approximately two- thirds community members and one-third district employees. What does the PER Committee do? As mandated by the PER law, initially passed in 1976 by the Minnesota Legislature, this community group assists in the following: all phases of the curriculum review process, reporting to the public and development of an improvement plan for the district. The PER Committee is "advisory." As a result, the group can identify, discuss, and suggest changes within the district, particularly in the area of curriculum, but decisions regarding those changes are the responsibility of the school board. The PER Committee meets at least five times a year and participates in all phases of the curriculum review cycle as described on pages 8 and 9. It is imperative that the PER committee represent a variety of interests and perspectives within the community. If you are interested in membership on the PER Committee, please contact the PER Coordinator, Connie Fladeland (479-1530). What is meant by the term "curriculum?" In this report, curriculum refers to "What" is taught or the content presented to students. Similarly, instruction refers to "How" the content is presented or the techniques teachers use to present concepts and skills to students. What is the P.E.R. Annual Report? Designed to familiarize citizens with the eiforts and accomplishments of their schools, this annual P.E.R. report is only one of the means of communication used by School District 273. In addition to the Annual Report, the District distributes a monthly nt sletter to local residents, subiniLs items of inte.''est to local newspapers and publishes newsletters from individu.. schools. PER reporting is required by Minnesota law. Printing and distribution costs for this publication are paid for by the State of Minnesota. For more information about the PER law, this report, or the educational program of the Districi, please contact Connie Fladeland (479-1530) or Thomas B. Mich (473-7313). 1989-1990 P.E.R. Committee Membership Administrative Coordinator Ms. Connie Fladeland Administrators Ms. Connie Fladeland Principal, Orono Primary Dr. Thomas B. Mich Superintendent Board of Education Ms. Lucie Taylor Community Members Mr. Bob Amis Ms. Karin Blomquist Ms. Phyllis Charlton Ms. Ann Cosgrove Mr. Douglas Crowther Mr. Bill Greenwood Ms. Sherokec Isle Ms. Connie McLaughlin Ms. Sherrill Michel Ms. Karen Miller Ms. Mary \icoll Ms Julio Palmer Ms. Vickie Kaicho Ms. tXmna Rm*hl Teachers Ms. Pal Headley High School Ms. Gloria Johnson Orono Pnmary Ms. Sue Kueppers Middle School Ms. Margaret Larsen High School Mr. Bill Rosah Schumarui Elementary Mission Statement and Instructional Goals 1989-1990 The Board of Education of School District 278 recognizes its responsibilities to the residents of the communities served and acknowledges the continuing support of its citizens. The most fundamental of these 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 educational program is designed to meet the needs of individual students through a curriculum program of studies based on the instructional goals of the District. The curriculum is implemented by each teacher ’s selection and use of sound methods of instruction. The Board of Education also recognizes the educational benefits of an effective program of cocurricular activities for students. The Board of Education promotes the availability of self-development opjX)rtunitics for all residents through a program of Community Education. The Board of Education is dedicated to the continued growth and learning for all who serve district students, including staff members, teachers, administrators and members of the Board of Education. Instructional Goals The following instructional goals are listed in priohtv order. They define more specifically the mission of School District 278 and its educational commitment. These goals are promoted within established fiscal policies, limitations and obligations of the School District. 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. Cain the skills necessary for critical thinking, creative problem solving, and systematic inquiry and evaluation of information. 4. Gain a general education providing appreciation for, and achievement in, humanities, the sciences, 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 resolve human differences. 7. Leain to meet the challenge of dealing effectively with one's own strengths and weaknesses. 8. Develop skills necessary to use and take advantage of modem technology. 9. Develop skills, attitudes, and understandings necessary for the management of money, property and resources. 10. Learn about safety and good physical/mental health practices. 11. Understand and appreciate the changes in the world and the global interdependence among people and resources. The Year In Review Assessing the 1989-1990 Improvement Goals • FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION/UTILIZATION After experiencing construction bids over one million dollars beyond the architect's estimate, the Board of Education, on advice from administration, developed a plan designed to construct the proposed facility without compromising the quality of the building. The plan included a six month delay in beginning construction allowing the District to earn interest on the construcrion funds (approximately S300,()(X)); an cxaminaHon of the proposed building plans for the pujpost? of cost reductions and the re-bidding of the project by a construction manager (savings of approximately S700,000>; and the use of District funds to complete the project ($200,(XX)). The end result is that construction is underway with an anticipated completion date of Januaiy-, 1991. The new facility will include: nine classrooms, areas for special education and community educahon and a swimming pool. The opening of the building will eliminate the current shortage of classroom and physical education space. • SCHOOL STUDIES During the course of 1989-1990 three specific smdies were undertaken: INTERMEDIATt SCHOOL STUDY In light of the facilities needs of the school district, it was determined that the specific designation ot an intermediate school was not necessarx-. The intermediate school began in 1986 as a mean- '^f solving crowding in the elementary school. Faculty successfully fcKused attention on the learning needs of intermediate school age children and the school was a success. With the promise of the new classroom addition, it was pA>ssible to return fourth grade students to the elementary school. The organization of the school district now includes: ORONO PRI.MARY SCHOOL (GRADES K&l, EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM) SCHUMANN ELEME.NTARY SCHOOL (GRADES 2^,4, UNGRADED PROGRA.M) ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL (GRADES 5,6,7,8) ORONO HIGH SCHOOL (GRADES 9,10,11,12) MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDY 1989.1990 \vas the year of the middle school. We took advantage of this event to study the program and organization of the Orono .Middle School. A hard working committee surx eyc'd parents and studied the needs of students in grades 5 - 8. The result was a set of recommendations designed to enhance the operation of the middle school. The Board of Education approved the recommendations and implenu'ntation begins with the 1990-1991 school year. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Warren Nelson (Principal) Dr. John Maresh (School Board) Kathy Henningsen (Parent) Penny Grabek (Parent) Curt Eischens (Teacher) George Johnson (Teacher) Pat Jones (Teacher) Recommendations approved by the Board of Education on junc 11, 1990: Recommendation I 1. Provide self-esteem training for the faculty. 2. Provide an environment tor N>th students and teachers with opportunities for growth in self-estc'em and mutual respect \ • i 3. Continue and expand the activities such as those* provided during Middle lA.*vel Education Week. Recommendation II 1. The sch(X)I must provide and encourage oppe^rtunities for growth for all teachers. 2. Improve the current proves?. I'l le.icher review. 3. The Orono contr.ictu.il prexcss tor teacher deficiency should K* list'd for any teacher not maintaining professional stand.irds < ont on next page Recommendations III 1. Increase ’in'e available for conferences. 2. Guidelines for c(mferences sliould bo developt’d and provided to the faculty and parents. Recommendation IV I. Fifth graders will be separated in a manner similar to 198'^-199n Recommendation V 1. An orientation meeting should be held in the spring for parents of curmnt fourth and fifth graders and of op-en enrollment students. Recommendation VI 1. A committee of concerned parents, community education and naddle school faculty ’ should b«? formed in the fall of l^^^O to explore after school activity opportunities for students and make recommendations. Recommendation VII 1. Clarify and implement the current p^alicy of mid-quarter reports rt'garding parent notification. 2. Expand the use of computerizcxi report cards, so that all parents may receive mid-quarter notification of progress. Recommendation VIII 1. Additioi'al field trips should be provided. 2. Other enrichment opportunities should K’ offered to ALL students. 3. Additional foreign languages should K' offered 4. Examine interdisciplinary and team teach.ng 5. Enccnirage more mir.i courses. Recommendation IX 1 . Inform parents that lv\C meetings are opi'n to all parents. 2. Continue and amsider the expansion of the middle school newsletter 3. Communicate die opportunities for parent involvement and encourage them to voluntivr Recommendation X 1 . Evaluale the program currently in existence. 2. Teach academic studv skills in ’a program integrated with other uimculum path otfenngs. 3. Enlist and encourage parental involvement in the teach.ng of study skills. >ear In Review cont on next page Celebrating Earth P iy at Orono I’rimary' ■; 9, - ■ I I \*v' ■ ’ I ,1 Ready to ride the bus again! ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DAY STUDY As with all schools, wc experience far mere requests for the inclusion of new programs or additional curricula than the school day or students can tolerate. Sometimes this puls us in the position of appearing unresponsive or uncooperative. It is important that we organize the school day so that our primary instructional programs have adequate lime. Then we need to prioritize the other activities and programs that can be provided.f During 1989-1990 a committee headed by Mrs. Marvel Bongart studied the elementary school day. They rev-ewed a variety of programs including: ' !•- ‘•afety, self-esteem, nursing home visits, fire prevention, 'rficer Friendly, Communitv' Resource Pool and Masterpiece Art The committee rr.adc a number of recommendations whi».h are primarily logistical and deal with the coordination of activities. The goal of the recommendations is to provide sound programs and activities for students w hile conserving instructional lime for academic pursuits. Serious reading at Schumann Library GUIDAN«^c PROGRAM STUDY During the 1989-1990 school - ear, attention was focused on the guidance/social worker program for the school district. The study attempted to examine student needs and available resources. As a result of the effort the social worker program was expanded. Previously one social worker was responsible for all of our schools K - 12. Currently one social worker is assigned to the K - S schools and a half-time S(vial worker is available to the high school population. Attention has also been given to the registrction/oricntation of incoming ninth grade students. Parent-student-counselor appointmen ■ provide the setting for registration. This kind of support assists the student in selecting courses and programs c 'arable with his/her goals and academic background. The planned •'■•suit is improvc'd opportunities for success. PUBLIC/COMMUNITY RELATIONS Many efforts have been made in this area during the p:»ast few years. They include: improved miuithly newsletter, updated annual report, packets of information for prospective students and their families and presentations to community groups. In addition, rc'sponsibility for the lay- I__Li V'V • out and production of di''trict publications has been given to .Ms. Toni Bergland, Director of Community Education. i;)unng the 199(>-19ui school year we intend to review the communications program and to assign respxmsibilities. P.E.R. COMMITTEE Just off the bus at Orono Primary The P.E.R. Committee is one of the few committees requiri'd by law. Tliis committc'e holds a’sponsibility for continually reviewing the success of the District's program of studies. Dus past year, under the leadership of Orono Primarv ’ School Principal Connie Fladeland, the P.E.R. committee reviewed and revised its functions. As a renewed committee it has great promise for being a valuable msource to the s*:hovil district. This report and the attention to the curriculum mview cvcTe, test data and improvement goals tall under the responsibilities of the P.E.R. cc mmittiv ■ Curriculum Review Cycle Orono School District uses a curriculum review cycle that is very closely related to the North Central Accreditation process. During the 1989-1990 school year, four subject areas were visited by NCA teams. These four subject areas (math, social studies, health and foreign languages) have developed improvement plans based on test data, a self-study, the NCA team report and a consumer sur\'ey. The consumer survey information for math, social studies, health and foreign languages was reported in the 1988-1989 PER Annual Report. Although this information will not be repeated in this year's report, the results were used by the curriculum committees as they prepared tlieir improvement plans. More recently, in July of 1990, a consumer survey was conducted in the areas of special education and music. This information will be considered by the curriculum committees as they develop an improvement pidn durirg the 1990-1991 school year. The results of the 1990 consumer survey will be reported in next year’s PER Annual Report, when ihe report will focus on the areas of music and special education. To summarize, the PER law requires that all districts must have a curriculum re\ iew cycle. Within the review cycle, a district must report each subject area's learner outcomes, program evaluation and improvement plan development. Upon completion of the improvement plan phase (Year 5 of Orono's review cycle), the subject is ready to be reported to the public in the Annual Report. For our district, this is a transition year for reporting. Next year, our report will be consistent in focusing on the subjects that have completed an improvement plan (i.e. music and special education). The /ive year cycle used by the Orono School District is described below: Year 1 - Program Review It is the responsibility of the Adh.'aistrator liaison, curriculum coordinators, department chairs and grade level coordinators to periodical review the curriculum during departmental meetings throughout the year. The purpose of thes^ meetings is to stimulate ideas for curricular improvements, articulation and cooperation. Year 2 - Program Assessment and Recommendations to School Board After the Year 1 review'. Year 2 lh used to determine whether the curriculum needs revisions or additions on the basis of the evaluation held ihe previous year. The recommendations may include retaining the status quo, or making n-.: i.:>r or major curriculum changes. These recommendations are forwarded to the School Board. Year 3 - NCA Validation and Proposal for Curricul -m Development During Year 3 there will be a North Central validation. The visiting NCA team report and the work completed during the previous two years will form the basis for a proposal to be presented to the School Board. This proposal will outline the work yet to be accomplished, the length of time necessary for accomplishment, the number of people to be involved and the approximate dates tor beginnning and completion. Year 4 - Curriculum Update and Rewriting Curriculum updating or rewriting based on the proposal submitted during Year 3 is accomplished during Year 4. \earS- Implementation The proposals submitted during Year 3 are implemented by the administrator liaison, curriculum coordinators, department chairs, grade level coordinators and faculty during Year 5. Curriculum Review Cycle 1988-89 1QS9.Q0 1QQ|%U]1901-02 1092-93 Near 1 Music Bus. Ed. Spec. Ed. Ind. Arts Science Art Bus. Ed, Phy Ed. Language .Arts Foreign Lang. Readme .Math Flealth Social Studies Vear 2 Math Health Social Studies .Music Spec. Ed. Ind. Arts Science Art Bus. Ed Phy. Ed. Language .Arts Foreign L*mg. Reading Vear 3 Phy. Ed. Language Arts Foreign Lang. Reading Math Health Social Studies Music Spec. Ed. Ind. Arts Science Art Bus. Ed. Vear 4 Phy. Ed. Language .Arts Foreign I.ang * Ri'.iili Ti^'* .Math Health Social StiK .‘s Music Spec Ed. Ind. .Arts Science Art Fd rears Ind. Arts Science Art Phy. Ed. Language .Arts Foreign Ling. Reading .Math Health Social Studies .Music Spec. Ed. Guidance, Media, and Home Economics are reviewed independently ot the cycle. During the entire program of studies will be evaluated by the North Central Accreditation Association. This occurs every seven years. *V'isitation, 1989-90. . oP'i (»(III ; f 9SiO%: '•j A special birthday girl I've finally made it! Identifying the Curriculum/Learner Outcomes Although curriculum and instruction are irrevocably united, the two areas can be discussed separately in an effort to assess our progress and to develop plans for improvement. Effective instruction received continued emphasis throughout the year. Key components to effective instruction were staff development and sound super\'isory techniques. In addition, curriculum content received a good deal of attention. A basis for reviewing the curriculum is found in the form of curriculum identification documents. For each course or grade level content area, an individual curriculum identification form is prepared. These forms are revised annually so that up-to-date documents are available to describe "what" is being taught. Learner outcomes are organized by course, subject matter and grade level Learner outcomes are shared with all parents at open house in the fall of each school year. In addition, copies are available for community review at each school and at the District Office. To review the process, learner outcomes define the district curriculum; the professional staff evaluates and selects materials as well as strategies to teach what has been defined; and student learning is evaluated according to the outcomes. The examples below illustrate the formula used in describing the District's curriculum. They represent the thousands of learner outcomes that exist for the K-!2 program of studies. Sample learner outcomes for the four subject areas in Year 3 of the Curriculum Review Cycle are as follows: Subject: Math Grade Level: 1 The student will understand the sequence of numbers and write the numbers 0-100 Representative methods of measurement 1. Unit tests 2. Math Their Way individual assessment 3. Daily assignments Subject: Social Studies Grade Level: The learner will be able to describe earth's position in our solar system Representative methods of measurement 1. Culminating activities in teacher s manual 2. Teacher judgment; exceptions for special needs students 3. Chapter and unit review and tests -issmtm. Grade Level: 7Subject: Health Students will increase their knowledge of wellness Representative methods of measurement 1. Tests 2. Daily work 3. Projects 4. Assignments 5. Notebooks Subject: Foreign Languages (Spanish IV) Grade Level: 12 Develop ability to initiate, sustain and close a general conversation and make oneself understood by a native speaker Representative methods of measurement 1. Giving oral presentations to the class 2. Responding appropriately in class and conversation groups Computer Lab at Orono MS a I Newly equipped Foreign Language Lab at Orono High School Tf Program Evaluation Evaluation results, including data and a summar}', are required for all subject areas reported during 1989-1990. According to our Curriculum Review Cycle, the subject areas scheduled to be reported this year arc the following: math, social studies, health, and foreign languages. However, the evaluation results for math, social studies, health and foreign languages were reported last year in the 1988- 1989 Annual Report. This was due to transition in the curriculum review cycle. Since the evaluation results, including the consumer survey and the Minnesota State Essential Learner Outcome Tests, were already reported last year, those results will not be reported in the 1990 Annual Report. Next year, the Annual Report will be consistent in reporting all information concerning the two subject areas schctluled for reporting (music and special education). These results will include both a consumer survey and test results, specifically the State Assessment Test results in the case of music. Finally, a summary statement will be provided that details the strengths and limitations which will be addressed in the improvement plans for the subject areas of music and special education. In this year's report, one set of Stanford Achievement Test results at three grade levels is included. In addition, results of testing at the high school will be described. Test results such as the ones detailed below are just one of the tools that we use in determining how successfully our students are learning. Orono Middle School Stanford Achievement Test Results GRADE 6 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 Vocabulary 7.5 8.0 9.8 Reading Comprehension 8.7 9.7 12.1 Word Study 6.9 Not Given Not Given Math Concepts 6.6 8.1 10.9 Math Computation 5.9 6.7 8.8 Math Application 7.9 8.7 10.5 Spelling 6.5 7.3 10.2 Language 7.0 8.2 10.6 Listening Comprehension 7.1 8.5 10.8 Social Science Not Given Not Given 10.4 Using Information Not Given Not Given 10.8 Science Not Given Not Given 10.4 Total Battery 6.9 8.3 10.4 Orono Middle School Students A " Studying in the Middle School Library High School Testing Orono High School reported the results of three national tests that students took: the American College Tests (ACT), taken in the fall of the senior year; the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), taken in October of the junior year; and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), taken during the senior year. The scores are reported in percentiles. The number in parentheses is the number of students in a class taking a particular test. ACT PSAT SAT Class Verbal Math Verbal Math Verbal Math 1990 57(83)59(83)57(87)48(87)63(62)66(62) 1989 39(86)43(86)52(116)49(116)53(106)47(106) 1988 52(60)47(60)56(117)57(117)83(86)82(86) 1987 54(45)48(45)62(116)63(116)76(81)85(81) 1986 55(40)54(40)62(129)53(129)65(50)59(50) The SAT scores reached a national high in 1963, with a Verbal score of 478 and a Math score of 502. The SAT scores reached a national low in 1981, with a Verbal score of 424 and a .Math score of 466. In 1989 - 1990, 40 percent of Orono seniors took this test. Listed below are average scores for Orono, Minnesota and the nation. The top 10 percent of the test takers at Orono High School received average scores of 512 in Verbal and 631 in Math. The second 10 percent received 509 in Verbal and 560 in Math. ORONO NATIONAL MINNESOTA Top 10% Verbal 512 512 547 Top 10% Math 631 585 629 Next 10% Verbal 509 449 488 Next 10% Math 560 512 562 Mean Verbal 465 424 474 Mean Math 534 476 542 Advanced Placement Examinations In 1989 - 1990, ten students took twelve advanced placement examinations in four subjects. Seventy- five percent of the scores were in the 3-5 range, making those students eligible for advanced placement and/or credit at the college level. National Merit Scholars One hundred fourteen of 156 seniors took the PSAT. Four were recognized by the National Merit Foundation - two as semifinalists and two as commended scholars. Since 1976 the number of Orono semifinalists has ranged from one to six students. Si'mifinalists represent .05 percent of those tested throughout the nation. Orono District-Wide Testing In 1989, the district-unde assessment committee made several recommendations for improvement in the testing program. These recommendations will continue to be implemented during the 1990-1991 school year. Following is a summary of the recommendations made in 1989 as well as a chart outlining the current testing program: 1. 2. 3. The District should continue to measure achievement using a nationally standardized test. A scaling down of standardized assessment over the next five years was recommended. The committee recommended three adjustments for 1989-1990: A. A change from the Stanford Achievement Tests to the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Tests. (Grade 3 to begin in 1990) B. A change of testing times from fall to spring. C. A change of groups tested. (The committee recommends that total batteries be given only to grades 3, 6, and 8.) The District shall work toward curriailum-based assessment of students through "Identified Essential Learner Outcomes". Tests to measure learner outcomes at the district level should be developed. The District should continue to administer the Cognitive Abilities Test to grades 2 and 5. The following is a summary of the current 1988-1989 school district testing program, stating the objectives of the test program, names of tests used, grade levels tested and use of test results. Objective TesKs)Grades Testec Use of Results To monitor student achievement lovk'a Test at Basic Skills 3 Parent conferences Stanford Achievement 2-4, 6-8 Curriculum planning Gates McGinitie 4-8 Accountability to Nelson Reading 9 Board State Assessment Language Arts 6, 9,11 Teacher review of instruction Computer Literacy 8.11 To place students in special Califorrua Achievement 1-3 Chapter I placement programs Stanford Achievement 1-8 Part of multi-criteria Cognitive Abilities 2,5 tor gifted program Indivndual Intelligence Preschool -Used for placement Achievement Assessage 21 into special educa ments "tion programs Diagnostic Assessments Assurance of .Mastery Behavior Assessments To serve the needs of college-SAT 11.12 Counseling students bound populabons ACT 11. 12 for college and PSAT 11. 12 college admissions To determine student aptitudes DAT 9 Help in career choice and course selection To determine student interests Strong Campbell 11, 12 Help in career choice Career Game 10 and course selection CPP 11 General schcwl Cognitive Abilities 2. 3 1 aptitude Looking Ahead...Improvement goals for 1990-1991 During the 1989-1990 school year, four subject areas were involved in Year 3 of the Curriculum Review Cycle. These subject areas (math, social studies, health and foreign languages) completed a self-study and were visited by an North Central Accrediation (NCA) team. Based on this information and with input from the PER Committee, a list of strengths and limitations as well as recommendations for improvement were formulated for each curriculum area. A comprehensive plan for improvement was developed for each of the four subject areas. The com.plete plans, including results of the NCA team visits, responses from the curriculum committees, and recommendations from the PER Committee, are available for review*. The Superintendent's office should be contacted for reviewing any of the plans described above. With input from the PER Committee, the Curriculum Committees and the Administrative Council, the following five improvement goals were approved by the School Board for the 1990-1991 School Year: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Establish a World Languages Study Committee to consider world language offerings at all lev'cls: elementary, middle school and high school. Review* the K - 12 health curriculum to consider additions and/or deletions to the present program, e.g. CPR training, AIDS curriculum, etc. Incorporate National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards into the K - 12 math curriculum; continue to purchase and provide training in the use of manipulatives. E.xplore alternative methods for teaching and assessing mathematics, e.g. Math Their Way at the elementary level. Review* and revise the K - 4 social studies curriculum. i % mm Orono Primary School "Read In" ■ 4 i* ^ Officer Friendly and students at Schumann District Goals for 1990-1991 Each year the Board of Education approves district level goals designed to improve the general operation of the schools and the school district. These goals are a complement to the improvement goals reported on page 14 and arc of a more general character. • FACILITIES CONSTRUCnON/UTILIZATION It is no surprise that the successful completion of the classroom and swimming pool facilities is a major district goal. The district administration is more involved in the construction of this building than was the case for others. This is due to the employment of a construction manager by the school district rather than a general contractor. Craming in May for High School Finals Along with the actual physical construction, plans are underway for an expanded physical education curriculum for use of the swimming pc^ol, a community program for use of the pool and a dedication ceremony to be held in the :?pring of It is planned that use of the building will begm in Januarv', 1991. • MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDY IMPLEMENTATION Another important goal for 1990-1991 is the implementation of the recommendations resulting trom the .Middle School Study. Those recommendations arc reported on page 5. Progress toward the imp ^mentation will be periodically reported to the Board of Education by means of the Middle School Principals Parent Advisory Committee. It is our goal to develop action plans so that the spirit of each recommendation can bo realized within the daily operation of the middle school. • PUBLiaCOMMUNITY RELATIONS This goal remains from 1989-1990 school year. It is intended that these objectives bo realized during the current year. Provide for a P/C Relations AdviM'ry Board comprised of community and staff. Develop P/C relations programs sp>ecifying activities, publications, etc. Fix responsibilities for each of the activities/publications, etc. ‘ If % ■ : ^ Lunch time at Schumann Elementary with friends The Orono Education Fund The Orono Education Fund was established in 19S0 by a group of local citizens. Its purpose is to provide extra funds needed to enhance the high qualitv of education in the Orono Schools. This fund allows Orono residents an excellent opportunity to support the schools that educate our future citizens. The three programs for which the donations can be used are Academic Enrichment Fund, the District 278 Scholarship Fund and the Endowment Fund. During 198Q-1990. approximately $29,000 was given, of which one-half went to the Scholarship Fund. The Academic Enrichment Fund was used for various pnyerams for students in kindergarten through 12th grade, including the purchase of supplementary reading materials for first grade and the funding of Writers, Scientists and Artists in Residence programs for students. Gifted and Talented Orono ’s program for students identified as gifted/talented is designed to serve their intellectual needs. Beginning with the primary grades, there are offerings provided for students who arc in the Academic Talent Pool and those who are in the Gifted Corps. The classes for gifted students focus on thinking about thinking", beginning logic and enrichment of the basic curriculum in the humanities areas. In addition to these challenging classes, students arc served by curriculum adjustment within the regular structure. Reading, Math and English classes are grouped on an achievement basis, while cluster grouping is practiced in the social studies and science areas. At Orono High School, there arc many course electives designed to serve the needs of academically gifted students. Included among these arc: Advanced Placement t>fferings, mentorships and the possibility of enrolling in various university classes dunng the junior and senic ’r years. Orono has three staff membc'rs working specifically in the area of gifted/talented. Kay Sause is the Facilitates for Gifted programs. Tam Bjorkedal is the Liaison Teacher fis this program. At Orono High School, a portion of joanne Woytekes counseling time is devoted specifically to serving the needs of gifted students. A -Av= M --U ■ Xw.-t-> T'.'i'- » ■••‘■A Receiving a Scholarship at the National Honor Society/Scholarship Awards Presentation Community Education Orono Community Education consists in part of a cmnpa'hensive Summer Recreation Program that is offered for all children in the district using the local parks and playgrounds. It also offers an after-school enrichment program for sti'-^»mts in grades 4 through 8. Adult evening classes are offertxl on a quarterly basis. An adxTSory council consisting of rc-jicicnts of the school district assists in the planning of the programs. Early Childhood Family Education is a program that is sponsored by Orono Community Education, and designed for parents and their children ages birth to kindergarten enrollment. ITie programs arc based on the recognition that the home is the child's first learning environment, and that the parents are the child's primary' and most influential teachers. As a result, the central goal of early childhood and family education is to enhance and support the competence of parents in providing the best possible environment for the healthy growth of their children. Daytime and evening classes are offered at Orono Primary SchcKil. Stune Saturday events are also offered. A complete program in ail area of CED/Adult Basic and Continuing Education is e“ 'd m coojx ’ration with 12 other school districts. There is a CED class being offered at Orono Primary on Tuesday nignts. Participants can work on their GED, brush up on their reading, math and other skills using the computer. These* t!a>ses are offered fa*e of charge and can be tailored to most needs. Irma Kelley Receives Award Irma J. Kelley, a kindergarten teacher at Orono Primary School, was a winner of the Minnesota Historical Society 1989 Award for Excellence in Teaching History. Mrs. Kelley submitted a project titled "Heritage Days," in which teaching history became a shared responsibility between home and school, young and old. The awards recognize the contributions of classroom instnictors whose history teaching is consistently imaginative and effective and w-hose efforts have been influential in reaching beyond the individual classroom to other teachers, school districts and the community. ■A ^ % Groundbreaking - April 18,1990 Ground Breaking for New Addition Orono Board of Education members, along w'ith representative of each building, broke ground on April 18,1990- The new addition being built will house nine classrooms. Community Education and Special Education offices and a new pool for district residents of all ages. This new addition is being built betw'een the middle school and Schumann Elementary. Completion is schedulcxl for December 1990. After completion of this project an aquatics program will be offered through the Community Education Department. There will be swimming lessons and exercise programs offered for all age's. This facility should also help with the overcrowding at both the middle school and Schumann Elementary. There will also be space available for a School .Age Child Care Program. Orono Mathletes Orono became a member of the Tri-Metro Division of the Minnesota State High School Mathematics League during the 1988-89 school year. The League began in 1980 with four schools and has since grown to 150» schools. There arc five meets held within each division during the year. The winning team and the top scoring individual from each division are invited to the State Mathematics Tournament. All-star teams are also selected to participate each spring in the American Regions Mathematics League. A young, enthusiastic team of 28 members frxnn Orono was the largest group of any of the Tri-Metro schools. Staff Development "Staff development" has been defined by the National Staff Development Council as "engaging teachers in a wide variety of opportunities for professional growth." Our staff development program at Orono provid a balanced approach for both shared experiences and individual endeavors. It integrates the needs of individuals, groups and the district as a whole. Inscrvice workshops, courses of study, convention participation and mentoring programs as well as other programs are planned on the basis of the multi-faceted classroom responsibilities of teachers. These responsibilities include the following: knowledge of child growth and development, knowledge of content, human relations, knowledge and use of materials, planning skills, classroom management skills and instructional skills. Oriuu' teachers are involved in an on-going program designed to maintain and mfine their skills in the subjc'Cts they teach. 17 Special ’ncation Special educahon services in the Orono School District are considered to be exceptional services provided to students with educational handicaps. The Orono Schools provide a wide array of services to students meeting the individual needs of each student. The programs serve students with handicaps from infancy to age 21. Specialists are on staff with Orono and provide services to students with any educational handicap. Specialists arc available with certifications in the following areas; Early Childhood:Sp»edal Education Clinical Speech and Language Hearing Impair::ient and Deaf Education Vision Impairment Mild Mental Handicaps Severe/Profound Mental Handicaps Learning Disabilities Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities Physical Handicaps and Other Health Impairments Autism Special education assessments and services can be accessed through the building principal, teaching staff or counselors. Student referrals prior to school age can be made by calling the Orono Special Education office at 473-7313. Ms. Pat Jones Receives Ashland Oil Teacher Achievement Award The Golden Apple Achiever Award from Ashland Oil Teacher Achievement Awards was presented to Ms. Pat Jones, a teacher at the Orono Middle School. She was selected from more than 11,500 teachers that were nominated bv parents, students and peers in Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio and West X’irginia. .Ms. )ones was one of onlv 56 Minnesota teachers to receive this special award. In a letter to Ms. Jones, Dan Lacy, Vice Pmsident of Corporate Communications for Ashland, wrote that the judges were very impressed with the quality . ad high standards e\pres ‘^ed in the narratives. He agreed with the judges that these special teachers deserve recognition for the accomplishments, innovative teaching methods and clear concern for student achievement. Extracurricular Activities By desig students i scholastic Sj. a member of the unique Tri-.Metro Conference along with eleven other schools in the metropolitan area, •ference member schools include suburban, pnvate, and inter-city schools which blends together 'se economic, social, and racial backgrounds. In addition to the fine arts programs, twentv mter- ire offered for Orono's men and women student athletes. High School technology class Fire Safety Day at Orono Primarv' I National Merit Scholarship Program 'f-K • 9 ..-'ii. t»- <. -u- ^U^7 r. urn Nell Winston and Liz Scalf • I. .V',.••V .. .'•'r.ii' Nell Winston, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Winston, Wayzata and Liz Scab, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Scalf of Maple Plain were named National Merit Finalists in February. The National Merit Program is a nationwide academic competition and is the largest competition of its kind. By being selected as a finalist, Winston and Scalf represent "fewer than half of one percent of American high school seniors," according to the National Merit Scholarship acknowledgement letter they received. In becoming finalists, Liz and Nell were eligible for National Merit Scholarships worth 52,000 which were awarded to 1,800 of the finalists. In addition to Nell and Liz being named finalists, Jason Simon, son of Mr. and Mrs. Harold Janeckv and Amv Stretmater, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. ^tretmamr, were named^^^^^ Commended Students. The award is also given by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation. These two seniors placed in the top 50,000 of more than one million participants. Teacher of The Yea Congratulations went out in May to Doug Lrickson, Orono's 1990 Teacher of the Year. Doug has been an American History/American Literature teacher at the high school for the past ^ -ears. He was seleued by a panel of judges after being m ninated by parents of a student who attends Orono I ligh School, liis nomination credits him with being "an innovative teacher providing higher-level concepts and encouraging a joy of learning . Doug is the Student Senate Advisor and has coached a variety of sports, both boys and girls, since coming to Orono. It is through these activities Uiat he has had man opportunities to encourage and develop selt-confidence, selt- respect and self-worth with his students. V v! \ \t " Don^ Erickson Teacher of the Year i>isplaying for tlie Fine /\rts Festival in May Assurance of Mastr *' Th»' (District #278 School Board is dedicated to the assurance of student mastery in the areas of comrm:: ations and mathematics. The district supports the need for each student (excluding special ration students) to achieve minimal competency in these basic skills before high school jation and provides eacli student with the opportunity to gain the necessarv knowledge of, and ’pieciation for, communications and mathematics. Tliis policy assures that each student's progress K-ward master)' in these curriculum areas will be evaluated, using a standardized test, at least once surirg grades K-3, once Juring grades 4-5, once during grades 6-8 and once during grades I'l. If a s> 'dent is not makmg sufheient progress toward mastery in either communications or mathematics, a perent conference will be held to establish a special communications plan (SCP) ai^J/or a special math plan (SMP) for the student. The student will then be given instruction geared toward remediating the specific deficits outlined in the SCP or SMP. Definitions:MjSStery (Successful Achievement) - Learning that ensures personal understanding of process and knowledgeable use of related skills at the application level. CimmurniiationS-- For purposes of this Asisurance of 'Listery Plan, ununications refers onlv to reading, 'pd not to the comprehensive block of communicalio ’' .kills including reading, spelling, language and penmanship (u ding, thinking, listening and speaking). • ’l l ft I tm: ‘r •' r/ /■m^m if i Early Childhood Health & Developmental Screening irrsssasssmv Community Education CPR Class ■‘rm >7^ f ' M u1^ On the Orono Primary Playground Middle School Phv. I d. Class Working in the High School Business Class S3'5T --A‘ “?i s-’^v<.4 n^0 C?* ^ V , Middle School Band Students iVational Honor Society’ U.ening 'L.mm y' * iT ... ^ A special tribute to Mrs. Bongart on the last day of school A ■ m'' W Dr. R.t. Cycle at Orono Primary on I arth Day Orono High School's l ine .Art festival INNOVATIVE ►^5) MICROGRAPHICS DUE TO THE POOR CONDITION OF THE PRECEEDING DOCUMENT WE CANNOT PRODUCE AN ACCEPTABLE MICROFILM IMAGE. Your Investment in Education Revenues - All Funds Revenues - All Funds Total: $13,229,159 Local Taxes: $8,022,993 (60.6%) (Property taxes and Fiscal Disparities) State Aids: $3,335,730 (25.2%) (General Education Aid, Homestead Credits, Special Education Aid, Non-public School aid and other categorical state aids) Miscellaneous: $1,322,905 (10.0%) (Activity accounts. Scholarship trusts, donations, etc.) Foodservice: $325,073 (2.5%) (Student & Adult lunch sales) Federal Aid: $222,458 (1.7%) (Chapter 1, Child Nutrihon & Misc. Programs) 1.7% 2.5% 25.2% 98% 14.6% Expenditures - All Funds 2.5% Z2% 2.1% 1.7% B Instruction ■ Building & Equipment ■ Food 4 Transportation fq Debt Service □ Administration 4 Board ■ Other Items g Fixed Charges g Community Education 60 1% g LOCAL TAXES g STATE AIDS g miscellaneous □ FOODSERVICE □ FEDERAL AID I'--- 60.6% Expenditures - All Funds Total: $13,676,453 Instruction: $8,216,393 (60.1%) (All leaching i co-curricular activities, including counseling, health, psychological, media, computers, statf development 6c other support services) Food & Transportation: $1,343,675 (9.8%) (All costs for transportation of regular k handicapped pupils 6c. lunch program) Building & Equipment: $1,992,714 (14.6%)* (Op..ra,.on^ ™.n,en.n«oJ^buUd.n^^^^ (Bonds 6c interest costs for building debt) Administration & Board: $442,952 (3.2%) (Salanes. supplies, equipment and operating costs for all district administrative services, including Board of Education) Other Items: $345,729 (2.5%) (Census, public information, data processing, contingen^. e^.) Fixed Charges: $283,645 U.\%) (Employee benefits, insurance, unemployment compensation, etc.) Community Education: $227,799 (1.7%) (Adult education. Early Childhood Family Education, non-public school expenditures and other program costs) • Building program partial ,.a, - -i* included in expenditures with bond salerevenun, ,ued as revenue in previous yean •• Debt service inclu <es repayment of temporary borrowing. Net debt servicefor building is $193,775 or 1.4% Facts about District #278 -. « .* ^ w. ..*r •- District #278 serves all or parts of the communities of: Independence, Long Lake, Maple Plain, Medina, Minnetonka Beach, and Orono District #278 was organized in 1959 Area covered: 47 square miles District Residents ...................11300 Resident Families............................3,600 Children 0-20 years of age----3,600 I>/eUings....................................4,000 Numto of schools: .V. J, Elementary ..................... 2 ■ Middle...........................!..............1 - High................................ 1 Staff (1989-90) '' ’ Faculty Members..............................139 Administrators ..................................9 Support staff.....................................88 Total Employees ..............................236 • Class sizes vary considerably according to the specific subject or class section. • Adjusted maintenance cost per pupil unit, exclusive of debt service and capital outlay: $4,067.41 Community Involvement All citizens in the Orono School District have a vested interest in their public schools, and their support is essential. The Board of Education encourages the public to visit and participate in the affairs of the schools for the schools belong to the community. Basic understanding of school issues is the responsibility of all citizens. Making public the information concerning school objectives, activities and accomplishments is very important to the Board of Education. The public is invited to offer constructive input and suggestions for improvement. Several channels of communication are provided for the purpose of keeping avenues of exc * ge open. Letters to parents, flyers, meetings, periodic or special publications, displays and exhibits are frequently used by teachers and administrators. . .:..V VMM n* . iV -. '■" '■ ■ i*** Enrollment Projections (1990-91) K-1....V....................370„ . . 2-4......................517 ™ 5-8 . . .............707]^^^^ 9-12 . . vk'; ....................595 A—f Average Academic Class Size (1989-90) -,' ^ • K-i:.v.r;; ................23 2-4 ...............................24 5-8 ...............................25 9-12.............................27 Orono Independent School District #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Road Long Lake, MN 55356 » *■ Wr- p ; r* ^ ^ fm - i*V". ..-.••-WT'V . .*ar-’ •fr' * - . - ■*» V -1 ■■'.Tn:• •*tj (j/ if'• r, ,'r ir“:'' • r ‘V••w • ,r. V;'■.'Tir : ■ . ........... r'T tr*..- .'jrr. ■ ; ‘’ f -V^v a: . % • 0* *■ • ^ r* - ■ —' ' 'A' ^wt-9. rit-tto • W » « . .• -ti .* -\: i- -r:rTr . » W -i - . f«ik, ,ocr ,«IC ■ . . /.'V ^ ..-..A.'..,....,- .. ' . 4 « »JL*W -»r-' «»-.•. 4 ■ •• *»■ - • 4 - • ■,. •' i City nf Crono P . Q . Be-:: 6o Crystal Bay, MN 55323 i . .v' " . ^ -1896- ^sefm I s- . • , .1 »>*»*«^* ^ -re---: ?:a3' Crest Electronics, Inc. Specialists in Replacement Parts and Accessories for the Healthcare Industry. September 12, 1990 Chief of Police City of Orono 445 Willow Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear chief, A few weeks ago, I received an emergency call from my employer at about 2 a.m. To resolve the problem, I had to go out to my car to get a list of employee phone numbers. When I opened the front door to my home, I saw a man standing in my front yard. He was dressed in dark clothing and ran through the bushes when I yelled at him. After seeing the man, I went inside and called 911. The dispatcher was very courteous and friendly. Your officers arrived at my home in less than two minutes. They conducted a very careful search of the area, including several trips back throughout the night. (I know because I was having trouble sleeping after all this activity.) My family, my neighbors and I sincerely appreciate the kind of service your agency provides. I think your officers went far beyond my expectations in terms of promptness and professionalism. Please e-xtend a sincere thank you to your staff. Yours very Br an Torney 254 Greenhill Lane Long Lake, MN Stmon at TrMfd • Dassel Minnesota 55325 • 612-275-3382 ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT MESS. KEY CONTROL NUMBEP(CCA)^ CCNT AGENCY NCIC ICENT ICAG) ^’.O OO , M ' ,X' / M , N 0,2,7 UXSfl DATE REPORTED (RPO) [2I / o^ ^\o^^^ I o TIME RPD (TRP) LOCATION GRIND NBP (LGN) / i ) I H I ^ I I . .^1^1 //PLACE COMMITTED (PLQ I ^ (5 f /%. W I l\_Lj L TIME APR (TAR)TIMECLR (TaiUga HRD SQUAD OR BADGE # (SBN) TIME AStG. (TAS) m / [3 / I I I ^ C I I / I O . / I SI in / I cPi / iS- 1^ / I Ol g-l / 1^ / UOC ...UCS /I , 9, y, i,gi/-{r INBR ISNn/I .UOC UCS M I I I I 1/ OFFICER PRINCIPAL CODE SUSPECT SUS VICTIM VIC ASST report party ap AOMIN ADMuri>c>OFFENDER off OTHER OTH OFFENSED OR wnriALCOMPUUNTy ^ ^ HRC Code* P-Prton* R - Ruiio A-Alem 1 - In Person V-V3ue( M-Mel T-Other arrest;CITATION G WARNG 10o o OD ADDRESS NAME (LAST. FIRST. MIOaE) ' T~o p r Doa 5“S l asNAME (LAST FIRST. MIDDLE) ST ZIP r\'7<ni. SEK M PH IW) _ « t, I O PMifl) THER REPORTS WaUDED DOB ADDRESS OTY NAME (lAST. FIRST. UiDOLc) V'? InWjndG Prop Invertor^)?' X impued Consont G AcoPert Report □ ___ InAjence Report G Ptoios C Teg* G Comm. Vert. Report"!] 0«rw*grttG PH()V) PH (fl) Roa Cal □ ADDRESS CITY PH(W) ,=H IR) _ _ _Radio call; report of a suspicious male in the area of 254 nrppnhill T.anp in T.ona T,ak . railed in from thp 'T^ornpv rp.qidpnce p 'p Q^ai-g>d ^-ha^ hm caw a gn gp j j on g ma 1 p in f-hp drpsspd darkly and hhak whp»n h<a railed nnh f-o t-hp man t-hf> male ran off through a_ _ _ _ no i rjhhmrc T/and Pr>nnd r>n l-h<a gt-rmp»f- in hhfR arpa wa «R onp pair O'P -brown-work gloves, and one olive coIor«d-w.i.ndbreaker—j-ackeL,- - - - - Unable to locate suspicious male._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / <•F . */f*' C tf >' .v> ^ \ />i - /^ *1 Lr^ j C\ CI 1^. r IC. “ f- COPYTO [HjniE]® CO AnNY.g CnYATTNYG COURTG CMIEFG IMP CXS Q OTHER DISPOSITION: ^Wctigded Cleared By Anesl ReLOi^^^ggi^cy Olher OFFICERS c.SUPERVISOR S SIGNATURE i) Interoffice Memo Date: 9/23/90 To: All Officers From: Chief Kilbo Re:Compliment Resident of 345 Russell called this afternoon, indicating that approx. 0315 hours this morning, his son drove into the driveway of his home, turned off the lights aiid engine, and quietly was placing a package inside the door or his home. Within seconds, an officer was cVieckixig this person out, verifying tViat he did indeed belong there. Resident was very impressed and happy with tne quality of police work exhibited in this instance. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 .OCT, 1 0 1Q90 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, September 24, 1990. Present: Dave McKown Don Anderson Lucie Taylor James Franklin John Maresh Peg Swanson Thomas Mich William Fenholt UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the September 10, 1990 regular meeting; - approved the following coaches for fall sports: Steve Boylan, assistant football; Lowell Seashore, head soccer coach; Brad Carlson, assistant soccer; Tim Vaughn, assistant soccer; Manuel Jordan, assistant soccer; Jane Schleisman, assistant tennis; Daun Henning, assistant volleyball; - approved the appointment of Geraldine Dressel as computer lab clerk at Schumann Elementary School; - approved the appointment of Marcia Wilcox for a part-time position at Orono Middle School in the Assurance of Mastery program; - accepted the resignation of Marcella Frost, short hour cook at Orono Primary School, effective September 14, 1990; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 067255 through 067396 and building construction bills as covered by vouchers 1073 through 1109. Motion carried unannously. Dr. Mich reported that Orono Schools are the hosts for the 1990-91 school year for the Tri-Metro Conference which means that the Superintendent, Principal and Athletic Director host the meetings; that good progress is being r on the new construction and that the completion date remains on schedule; the wanted to express appreciation to our custodial staff for the landscaping . has been ^.ompleted in the area in front of the new building; tha*' district level goals in progress in the construction area, the middle school study report which will be on the November agenda, and that the community relations effort is being reviewed/studied and a progress report/recommendatic'i be ready for pre sentation to the Board in January; that the high school . :.oming week wat. suc cessful; that the Oktoberfest, a fundraiser for Wolfriuge, will be held on October 6; that the Elements of Effective Instruction will be held on October 8, 9, 10 and 11 for new teachers and thei»" mentors and Board members are invited to attend; that Dr. Ernest Stachowski will teach a c:ass in Classroom Management on November 12 and 13 for new teachers; that the Facilities Committee will meet on October 11 to review the final site plan; that he would be attending the annual Superintendent's Conference on October 1 and 2; that Board members should review an interpretation of the open meeting law, prepared by Paul Ratwik and his office, which he distributed; that he was distributing to the Board a copy of the FOCUS newsletter which provides the teachers with the staff development activities and opportunities for the ye^r; that the video tape of A'^qe Krisnik's presentation at opening workshop on sexual harassment will be presented to all staff, who were not present at workshop, during the month of October. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education accepted the following furniture bids which represent the lowest bid meeting specifications for each item, excluding the student stacking chairs for which the Board authorized administration to call for new quotations and render a decision on the purchase: No.Item Description Company Unit Price Extended Price 7 24 X 60” Tables Valley $70.89 $ 496.23 1 30" Round Table Valley 59.68 59.68 8 Teachers Chairs Beckley-Cardy 17.62 140.96 8 Double Pedestal Desks J.S. Latta 234.65 1877.20 200 Open Front Desks Virco 24.90 4980.0c 150 Student Stacking Chairs 15i”Reject ana .all for new quotation. 50 Student Stacking Chairs 17i"Reject and call for new quotation. 90 Chair Desks 18"x24"Virco 63.7-5737.50 Carried unanimously. TOTAL $13,291.57 Bill Fenholt reported to the Board that Jo Potter, Schoo*" Age Child Care Coordinator, had established the child care program budget which they had received in their packet and h eviewed the income and expenditures stating that they are striving for a balariced budget. This program serves approximately 70 students now but this figure could increase as the year progresses. Mr. Fenholt answered questions from the Board for clarification purposes. Connie Fladeland, Principal of Orono Primary School, reported to the Board on the activities occurring at Orono Primary Scnool this year. She stu>?d that as trains have been the theme for this year, Irma Kelley has obtained Tunds f*nm the Orono Lions and the Long ’ ake Fire Department which will enable the entire srhool to go on a train trip from Stillwater to White Bear Lake on October 16 a<.d she extended an invitation to Board mern’iers to a;so attend this outing. Ms. Fladel? d provided tne Bv r 1 with information and answered questions from the Board regarding the follow.ng areas: 1. The D'Neilian Handwriting program which is being implemented th'; year at the primary school and a comparison with the previous program that was used; 2. The Math Their Way program - the training involved for teachers as well as the process by which students n; 3. Development of Individualized Learning Plans for each child, mandated and outlined by the State, which will identify special interests, strengths and needs of each student as well as an action plan for each child with parental input at conference time - this will be done in conjunction with the report cards; 4. Chapter I and Assurance of Mastery programs - provided a comparison of the two programs in the areas of funding, purpose, identification pro cedures, subject areas, delivery system, instruction and grade levels. Bill Fenholt provided the Board with information on the School Breakfast Program survey which was mailed to parents on September 21. He stated that this survey is mandated by the State and that if 15% cr more of the families in a given building request the program, then the program is to be offered in that building beginning with t. e 1991-92 school year. Board members expressed concern regarding the effect the implementation of this program could have on transpor tation, length of school day, supervision of students not involved in the break fast program, etc. These concerns were shared by the administration. Or. Mich presented to the Board the revised Mission Statement for a first reading. He stated that the substance of the previous Mission Statement was inclusive in the revised Mission Statement and he expressed appreciation to Peg Swa^nson for her work in this area. Discussi^r ensued with suggestions for adoitional revisions noted. The Mission Stater»^^*nt and Instructional Goals, as revised, will be brought back for approval at tn. Octub' 8 meeting. Dr. Mich reported to the Board on the Fiber Optic sysiem which w.w;'d provide interactive television among all of the school systems served by Hennepin Technical College. He showed a brief tape, produced by Hennepin Technical College, which provided the Boa-^d witn an overview of the ^roposed linkage. Dr. Mich stated that such a delivery system would provide a tremendous service to our district and the cost ^ould be minimal because cf the numuer o* districts involved. Tne consensus of the Board was that they are supportive or the development of such a system. UPON MOTION by Luc.e ''‘aylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting waj adjourned. Luciufiiie J. Taylor^ierk / Approved: y Dave McKown, Chairman LAW omCES 'ETER W JOHNSON jOHN W WOOD JR ■\RYL PHLECFJ? ..•L.'UICNBiCELJW, JR C ,'COTT MASSIE j VMESM VLNTI RA ••vrajAM R KOLMC VNSr SCHL’LZ T CHRIS STEWART RJCHARDJ SCHIEFFER riRlAN H GAVIGUO Johnson & Wood 7 30 EAST LAKE STREET WAY2ATA, MINNESOTA 55J91 TELEPHONE S1C1 47',-1313 TELECOPIER <6I2) 47S-0 3I1 :j«5 commerce boile ^ard MOUND MINNESOTA S53S4 telephone |81 Ji 47 ’ losn TELECOPIER I « I J ) 4 : ; A Pij r-LRUJ NIfOEKLLELKE IXMESD MiiMNNoN .XaVL V«>LSTANT« CONNIE L GARDNER DAVID J HERZLCK JAND MILLERBEHND PEPn TO 'AASi-.TL October 17, 1990 OCT 1 9Ms. Jean Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Application No. 1555 Dear Jean: I received your Notice of Council Action dated October 15, 1990. While we are aware that the road issue is a matter which we must deal with, I would like to say for the record that the tabling of our application, to the best of my recollection, was made for a reason other than that statement in your formal notice. Very truly yours. James D. MacKinnon JDM:mb cc: Robert Broberg Dennis Sandin 101990.1 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE: October 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Election Day Activities Attachment: A. Business Records Corporation Memo Dated 10/18/90 On Wednesday, October 17, 1990 the Supervisor of Elections at Hennepin County, Marge Christianson, conducted an emergency meeting for Clerks in Hennepin County who use optical scan equipment. The purpose of this meeting was to alert the Clerks of possible difficulties in optical scan election equipment on election day. There is a well organized sticker campaign being organized throughout the State. If stickers (lick and paste or any other type of sticker) is placed on a ballot and put through the optical scan equipment it will eventually destroy the machine and the machine warranty will become void. (See Attachment A.) The State is aware of this problem and has outlined 3 options to conduct election day activities. These are: A. Status quo - Conduct the election as before and do nothing to protect the election equipment. B. Do not deliver equipment to the precincts. Ballots would need to be hand counted. In the same manner as if they were paper ballots. C. Place election equipment in precincts. On election day judges would plug in optical scan equipment and run the zero tape. They would then unplug the optical scan equipment and put it away and allow the voters to vote and drop their ballots into the ballot box. After 8:00 p.m. and all voters had the opportunity to vote the judges would remove the ballots from the ballot box, check each ballot for stickers and put each ballot through the optical scan equipment to be counted. Those with stickers would be remade and the vote where the sticker had been would be written on a tally sheet as though it was a write in vote. Option A. This is not a good choice as each optical scan unit costs approximately $4,300. In addition this could put the City at risk of not being able to get enough back up machines from Business Records Corporation to complete the counting of ballots in our 4 precincts. Option B. At the present time there are 7 judges in each precinct that are willing to work the entire day (6:00 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m.). If all the ballots were to be hand counted another group of judges would be needed in each precinct to work from the time the last vote is cast until all the votes are counted. Where do I find these judges? Option C. This is the best of the 3 options as it will allow the City to use the equipment although the counting cannot start until after the last voter has voted. As a result this will entail extra time and increase the amount in salaries paid to the judges. Even using this option there is still the possiblility of running out of ballots, depending on how many ballots have to be remade. (We are issued ballots for 100% of the registered voters at each precinct.) If this happens the unused absentee ballots assigned for that particular precinct can be used. As a last resort ballots with stickers would be hand counted and the results recorded on a supplemental tally sheet. It is of the upmost importance that no voter is encouraged or discouraged from using a sitcker or indicating that they have cast a write in vote. Above all else the ballots must remain secret when the voter casts their ballots and Option 3 will allow each voter to cast their vote in secret and each valid vote will be counted. In another matter the Secretary of State has determined that a State partisan candidate can withdraw their candidacy up to 4 days prior to an election. If this should happen the judges, on election day, would b»i' required to cross out that portion of the ballot and the voters would be given an auxiliary ballot for that particular office. This ballot would then be deposited into a separate ballot box and these ballots would be hand counted after the polls close and votes recorded on a tally sheet. If there are any significant changes prior to election day another meeting will be scheduled by Hennepin County. i ' 1 JVbusiness records CORPORATION OCT 1 IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL OPTECH III-P USERS Thursday, October 18,1990 There is a state-wide sticker campaign going on in the State of Minnesota. It appears to be running very well and organizers intend to distribute 1.5 million labels to be applied to ballots. The affected candidate has over 1,400 volunteen to work within 100 feet of each precinct and hand out these stickers. Many cities and counties worked very hard to get an emergency ruling from the state, but a ruling banning stickers was not obtained. The optical scan systems that are currently being used in Minnesota CANNOT TOLERATE STICKERS!! BRC Optech HI-P baUots MUST NOT HAVE STICKERS ON THEM! Jf any foreign object, such as a sticker or a piece of tape, is placed on an Optech HI-P ballijt, it CAN AND WILL COME OFF as the ballot is being read! This sticky material can gum up the interior v'orks of the HI-P by covering up read heads, wrap ping around roller hea^, or melting anywhere within the works of the machine! Any of these occurences WELL MAKE YOUR HI-P INOPERABLE!! BRC therefore takes the stand that ANY BALLOT RUN THROUGH THE OPTECH IH-P THAT CON TAINS FOREIGN OBJECTS (i.e., STICKERS, TAPE, etc.) WILL NULL AND VOID ANY AND ALL ra-P WARRANTIES AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS/CONTRACTS!!! AU labor, repairs, cleaning, and pans required to repair the damage these invalid ballots cause will be billed at BRCs current book price (our IH-P labor rate is currently $ 150/hour with a three hour minimum - $450/minimum - billed to the client). What can you do to avoid the potential problem of damaging your machines with these altered ballots? Here's an example of what Hennepin County is doing: #1 The morning of the General Election, before the polls open, each Hennepin County precinct will turn on their III-P’s to ensure they are operating properly. #2 They will then produce a "zero tape" from each unit #3 The m-P's will then be UN-PLUGGED and WILL NOT BE USED AGAIN UNTIL THE POLLS CLOSE! #4 After the polls close, the election judges will plug in the HI-P's and WILL CAREFULLY FEED GOOD BALLOTS INTO THE MACHINE MANUALLY. BALLOTS WITH STICKERS, TAPE, OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN OBJECTS WILL BE RE-MADE BY THE JUDGES; THE RE MADE BALLOTS WILL THEN BE MANUALLY FED INTO THE III-P. If you decide to follow this process, BE CERTAIN YOU DO NOT RUSH THESE STEPS!! The machines may heat up if ballots are fed too rapidly. And please remember...a single foreign object CAN AND WILL DAMAGE YOUR III-P!! Check your ballots carefully and feed ihe.Ti through at a normal pace. As always, remember that the III-Fs will handle WRITE-IN'S (in lieu of a sticker vote) without any special handling...but you will have to inspect each ballot before insertion to ensure that a voter did not attach a sticker. This could be considered a violation of die vuier’s privacy! If you have any questions regarding this procedure, please call BRC at once at 800-892-2383 and ask for an election support pcrson...we'll guide you through diis process as painlessly as possible! 7227 Third Street South, PO Box 1082, St Cloud MN 56302 Phone 612 253-2170 The cadidates forum held Monday, October 15, 1990 will be on Triax Cablevision channel 20. Orono and Long Lake - Friday, October 19th at 4:30 p.m. State candidates - Monday, October 22nd at 5:00 p.m. Because of scheduling conflicts these tapes will only be aired one time each. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 24, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 9-26-90 Regular Meeting 4. Installation of Officers 5. Public Comnents - from persons in attendance not on agenda 6. Chair Report, Cochran A. Standing committee chair and vice chair appointments; * Water Structures and Environment * Lake Use * Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force * Advisory * Save the Lake Fund Campaign 7. Reports A. Standing Cononlttees 1) ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Raseop a) Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka, consideration of Shoreland Protection Chapter IV, Appendices A, Authority; B, Definitions; and C, Shoreland Standards and Criteria; and Sections I, Introduction; VII, Implementation; and VIII Partial List of References Reviewed A. 2) WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 10-13-90. b) Amenity Study recommending approval to amend Code §2.05, Subd. 4. c) Deicing license applications, recommending approval of 18 applica tions submitted through 10-12-90, stipulating temporary low water dock extensions beyond 200' should not be deiced. d) Windward Marine new building construction, recommending a letter be sent to City of Orono requesting information about the building and any variances granted. e) Additional business. 7. A. 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Plllsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 10-15-90. b) Code amendment, §2.12, Subd. 7, Buoy Removal; and §2.08, Subd. 3, Impoundment. (over) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda October 24, 1990 e) f) g) h) MN DNR proposed bill to establish a state law providing additional regulation of the use and operation of personal watercraft, recom mending support for the bill. LMCD ordinance §2.041 regulating Personal Watercraft, recommending amendment to Subd. 2, personal Flotation Devices, to identify Type I, II, III or V as the Coast Guard-approved personal flotation devices. Special event deposit refunds, recommending approval for Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and Viking Bassmasters. Save the Lake annual recognition dinner recommending Thursday, February 14, and Lord Fletchers of the Lake. Water Patrol report. Additional business. 7. A. 4) EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese a) Progress on 1991 operations planning. b) Additional business. 7. A. 5) FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Boswinkel a) Statement of cash transactions, month ending 9-30-90 b) Quarterly report for the three •nonths ending 9-30-90 c) Audit of vouchers for payment 7. A. 6) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Strommen a) Finalization of office lease for enlarged space at Norwest Bank, Wayzata. b) MN Lake Management Federation annual conference highlights. 8. Unfinished Business 9. New Business A. Consideration of auditor and financial service for quarterly reports for 1991. B. Save the Lake Fund Analysis recommending adoption of the Mission Statement, Objectives, Funding Considerations, Budget Procedure and Amendments as presented. C. Designation of depository for LMCD checking, saving and/or securities, recommending Norwest Bank. D. Resolution designating the treasurer to sell, assign and transfer general obligations of the United States and the State of Minnesota maturing in less than three years. E. Resolution designating the treasurer and one other officer or the executive director, two signatures required, to pay, transfer or withdraw funds on deposit with Norwest Bank. F. Additional new business. 10. Adjournment 10-19-90 Action Report: Meeting: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Water Structures and Environment Committee Saturday! October 13, 1990, 7:30 a.m. Shorewood City Hail Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Vice Chair, Spring Park; Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Greenwood; JoElien Hurr, Orono; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Babcock at 7:30 a.m 1. Chapmar Place Commercial Marina Agreement Review The committee received Charles LeFevere’s review of a revised license agreement between Chapman Place Association, Inc. and Scenic Lawn and Landscape, Inc. LeFevere questioned whether Chapman Place is operating a bona fide commercial marina operated by an independent licensee under an arms length commercial transaction, or whether the proposed relationship is merely a subterfuge in which the licensee is simply an operating agent for an outiot association facility. LeFevere noted there have been changes in the license agreement. His review of the agreement led him to state that he is not comfortable in recommending that the proposed license agreement to be in order. Robert T. Cuthill, President, Chapman Place Association, responded to LeFevere with a letter to the Executive Director in which he responded to the five changes detailed in LeFevere s letter. Cuthill further provided a statement of income and operating expenses for 199U. The Committee received a memorandum, dated l(.»-3-yU, from the Executive Director containing the results of his meeting with Cuthill and discussion with LeFevere. Cuthill presented photos of the dock area to show improvements to the dock and shoreline area, making «-vorv effort to conform to LMCD requirements. He insisted he has no intent ot dealing in subterfuge or deception, has always operated openly and attempted to build a trust with LMCD. Cuthill went on to explain that the original marina operator. Waterfront Specialties, Inc., refused a contract renewal at the end of the first year. Chapman Place was thus forced to buy the docks. as specified in the operator agreement, to be assured of being in operation for 1990. It was their decision to purchase the docks. They also were put in a position of preparing an operator agreement which would include some assurance of operating solvency. Chapman Place does not believe there ever has been a reference that the applicant could not ow.i Uie docks. Originally they did own the docks the former operator left on the premises. Cuthill also noted that the docks are ta.xed separately a.s a commercial marina at $5,000/slip. He could not see wheie there was any difficulty. ~ continued Water Structures and Environment Committee October 13, 1990 Reese noted that as a commercial marina, Chapman Place does not have adequate parking, and does not provide public amenities. (It is grandfathered for 27 slips rather than licensed for special density requiring amenities) Cochran stated that in looking at what the District is trying to accomplish, this arrangement provides a benefit to the general public, as well as the owners of the condominiums. He can foresee the need for some adjustment to the ordinances, noting a similar situation exists at the Excelsior Bay Gables. Slocum said he was satisfied with Cuthill’s responses to the LeFevere letter, his opinion being that Chapman Place has done what the LMCD required in its order. Slocum moved, Pillsbury seconded, to dismiss thi.s discussion and to consider an ordinance change to allow ownership of docks with an arms length operating agreement. Reese moved, Hurr seconded, to table the discussion untiJ the matter of the Chapman Place docks and the Excelsior Bay Gables docks can be discussed in the same context. Motion carried, Slocum voting nay. Cuthiii advised the committee that Chapman Place was prepare. to sign an operators agreement for 1991 at an early date. The committee offered no objection to their doing so. 2. Communication with Lakeside Marina Regarding Non-Compliance The Executive Director reported that Jim Dunn, Lakeside Marina owner, has not complied with the temporary low water variance granted in ApriJ. He was allowed to replace permanent docks with floating docks in the same configuration, extended to 60U*. The change is only half completed. Slip sizes do not conform to the original configuration. The Executive Director recommends putting Durjn on notice that the District expects Lakeside Marina to have do<:ks in placf' in the exact configuration, supported by an as-built survey. The docks are otherwise not to be used until a license is i.ssued. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend acceptance of the Executi''«‘ Director’s recommendation and to authorize him to communic.ufce tne pi,!-*, he lia.s outl i’-^ed to the licensee. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Review of Amenity Study The committee received an update of the Amenity Value Study dated October 5, 1990. Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval ot the amendment to Code 2.0.5, Gubd. 4 as submitted wirdi the following changes: Group A - Title Change: Public Access: Handic.apped Access Meeting State St?ii;d'^rds fj?^r Docks and Boats, and Adequate General Public Parking are .Mandatory Requirements for one or more of the following: Group C - Item n): GJ ip and/or boat use for ^Mn^rgencies and governmental. ax^nc_y use,^. “ continued Water Structures and Environment Committee October 13, 1990 The alternate point scale is recommended, unanimously. notion carried 4. Excelsior Bay Yacht Club: marina operator. EAW status and response by new The Executive Director reported the management of the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club (EBYC) restaurant facility and the dock license application have been taken over by a new operator, Phil Weber, Excelsior Park Tavern. EBYC will continue to conduct a membership program separate from the restaurant operation. The EAW, prepared by the District, is pending. The greatest concern of the City of Excelsior is whether there is enougli parking. The Executive Director is preparing a detailed response to the city. The new operator has indicated its intent to continue with the new dock license as applied for by EBYC, pending the EAW outcome. No action was required. 5. 1990-1991 Deicing License Applications. Rascop moved, Pillsb< ry seconded, to recommend approval of the eighteen de-icing permit applications received as of 10-12- 90, with the understanding tliat temporary low water dock extensions beyond 200’ should not be de-iced. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Gayle’s Marina The Executive Director reported a complaint ha.s been filed against Gayle's Marina regarding tiiree barges docked on the west shore of their property. This is a violation of Code 2.U3, Subd. 86, storing boats in an un Licensee! area. Hurr asked tliat contact be made with Crystal L'-av t^ervices regarding a commercial barge stored regularly at its transient docks. 7. Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owne/s Association - Management Pian. liesponse The committee received a list oi proposals from the LMLUA offering amendments to the Management Plan. Chair Cocliran responded with a memorandum to the committee recommending a response to the LMLOA. Following discussion, the committee instructed the Executive Director to prepare a response to the LMLUA as follows: o The requirement to provide 700 car/trailer parking spaces is not negotiable. o The District has no control over Eminent Domain as that is State Executive privilege. - continued Water Structures and Environment Committee .‘ctober 13. 1990 o 11,800 acres of usable lake area excludes the area within 150’ of shore zone, which is the area where most Eurasian water Milfoil is found. 8. MEUiagement Plan Response - City of Wayzata The Executive Director reported receipt of an eleven page response to the Management Plan from the City of Waysata. It is being reviewed. All lake communities have been invited to a review meeting set for 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 16, Wayzata City Council Chambers. 9. Fee Schedule. Hurr requested a future discussion of the fees being charged for licenses, particularly developing a method of recuperating District legal and administrative charges, irmjnding EAW preparation. It was noted Chair Grathwol has a fee schedule on his priority list as part of the moratorium study. 10. Windward Marina - Shoreline Building Reese mentioned a variance granted by the City of Orono which permits construction of a very large building at the Windward Marina shoreline. Reese moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend a letter be sent to the City of Orono requesting information about the building and any variances granted. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Adjournment Reese moved. Boswinkel seconded. that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director James Grathwol, Chair LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Meet? ng: Lake Use Committee Monday, October 15, 1990. 4:30 p.m Shorewood City Hail Members Present: Robert Pillsbury, Chair, Minnetonka; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay. David Cochran, Greenwood, Robert Rascop, Shorewood and Eugene Strommen, Executive Director, arrived after the vote on item 1. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative TeCiw.ician and Ken Schilling, Sheriff’s Water Patrol. 1.Code Amendment to 2.12, Subd. 7, Regarding Buoy Removal. The committee received a proposed amendment to LMCD Code 2.12, Subd. 7 calling for removal or submergence of buoys no later than December 15 of each year, providing for a later date if authorized by the sheriff after receipt of an application from the owner prior to December 15. Minor changes were also made to Code 2.08.Subd. 3 Impoundment, changing "towing' to "removal" and deleting "without charge" from the last sentence. Bjorlin moved, Eabcoc’- seconded, to recommend an amendment to Code 2.12, Subd. 7 and Uode 2.08. Subd. 3 per the draft dated 10-10-90. Motion carried unan. 'ously. Act2. Proposed MN Department of Natural Resource Bill for an Regulating Personal Watercraft. Thibault reviewed the DNR Bill regulating personal watercraft. noting the following differences with the LMCD Ordinance: . ^ . 4.o DNR defines a PW as a motorboat using an inboard motor powering a jet pump . . . LMCD specifies watercraft under 14 in length using a motor powering a jet pump .... o DNR specifies each person on board wearing personal flotation devices, which ara Coast Guard approved. Type 1. II, III or V. LMCD specifies Coast Guard approved personal flotation devices but does not specify types. o The DNR Bill includes sections on the age of operator and permit requirement. The LMCD Ordinance adopts the Age of Operator definition by reference to MN Statute 361. Ubb. , o The DNR does not include the sections of the LMCD ordinance referring to operation within 3U0’ of shore. careless operation and prolonged operation, which were adopted specifically for Lake Minnetonka. o The DNR Bill has sections on prohibiting towing persons without an observer, chasing wildlife and operating through vegetation, not mentioned in the LMCD Code. ^ Rascop suggested distribution to the pwc review Committee for comment. Deputy Ken Schilling said the Water Patrol would like to see the age minimum for LMCD’s ordinance be the same as the State, which it will by the State Statute reference. - continued Lake Use Committee Cctober 15. 19'JU Cochran moved. Babcock seconded, to recommend the Board oUDocrT the LMR Bill and the LMCD ordinance be amenoea oo soecirv the four types of personal flotation devices. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Deposit Refunds. Babcock moved. B.iorlin seconded, to recommend approval oi the following deposit refunds: , . , a) Upper Lake Minnetonka lacnt Club lor 19SU race scneaule b) Viking Hassmasters of Minnesota tor 10~14-9U tournament. Motion carried unanimously. 4. 1991 Gave the Lake Recognition Dinner . .. The committee was un.animous in its recommendation that ^'he 1391 Save the Lake Recognition Dinner be held on Thursday, February 14. 1991. at Lord Fletcher’s. The Water Patrol will make recommendation of a deputy to be recognised. 5. Water Patrol Report. Schilling reported there have been tv.-o watercralt personal iniury" accidents.' one in Jennings Bay and one in t'riests Bay. Buoy removal will begin lU-16 by Hennepin County. It wi^i take about two weeks to complete. Th>.' summer work load is winding down and the water patrol is preparing for the winter season. Rascop requested a report on the prosecution ot the BWi citations issued by the DMR on Lake Minnetonka. He is interested in who is doing the prosecution and the results. 6. Management Plan Response - City of Waynab.a The Executive Director distributed copies oi the City *r Wavzata response to the Shoreland Protection .section the management oUn. .411 lake communitie.s i'.ave oeen review meeting set for 5:UU p.m.. Tuesday. October lb. Wa.v .ata City Council Chambers. Cochran urged careful readinti of the Waynata response. _ A copy of the Waycata response has been .sent to Uavj*. Arndorfer. Cochran suggested a review of the document by i« professional planner who would offer third Part>- objective comments aad who does not have a conflict with work being done ^Several 'names’were mentioned. The committee consensus was to have the Executive Director investigate acquiring the short- term services of a land planner. ^ The’re'^being'^no further business to bring before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommun, Executive Director Uobert t’i 1 l.-.hurv . Chair NX 1 -< L-m S:' m I - -. 1 r t --------r i ir ------ (Lm ^ a SMVtTU BAS MAAinJA dm loj^^Jfi ^ -nM Certificate of Survey for Daryle L. Uphoff of Lot 2, Block 2, Walters Port Hennepin County, f*innesota o U)Avc.. Date : 9-19-90 Scale: 1” = 30' 0 : Iron marker #1596 Legal Uescriptioii Lot 2. Block 2, Walters Port I hereby certify chat this sur- was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered land sur veyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. -p- TTai'K b. G nberg tic. MU. 12/bb Engineers, Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota 4 ■m ‘-9 Certificateof Survey for Daryle L. Uphoff of Lot 2. Block 2. Halters Port Hennepin County, Minnesota f| E.«r 4.3 5] Date : 9-19-90 Scale: 1" = 30' 0 : Iron marker /P. 9 7. /v 7 y 31,5 ^ 38-/ Li-1 Legal Oescripticu Lot 2. Block 2. Halters Port 1 hereUy certit) chat this sur- was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly registered land sur veyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. ;?■ frark S. Groriberg Lie. NO. 1275'5 Engineers, Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota > ^ I ^ LSGM, ocscmrrzoMi fvb>Mt to ooMnnto ■n« rottrletiono of roeortf. if any. I horaliy eortlfy to Mlpli D. auryoM* Jr. that thia la a trwa and eorract pUt of iha abova daaeclbad proparty that aald aurvay ahova tha location of to alt«*atod on aald praolaaa. allall bulldlnpa. atructaraa aad othar li applleahla aathaeh Unaa arid all aaaaaonta. rlphta-ef>«ay and any aneroaehoenta on or froo tha prooloao that ara knoMi to tha undaralpnad. that ara vlalbla on tha praolaaa or that ara of raeord. All boar Inga ahom ara aaauaod. car oaln data ahom la freo Mlnnapaaeo locator, underground talophona cable data ahoan la froa H.ir. Talaphona CO. locator. All utility data ahown la baaad on available InforMtlon. Call utility eoopanlaa for aaact field loeationa prior to any aaeavation. there ara no ooaaoanta on the praalaas ae par tha tltla opinion by rcadrUaon a byren datad 11/6/tS. tha pcoparty contalna 54.400 » a<|uara feat or 1.25 » acraa. tha araa cannot ba dataralnad aaactly bacauaa' tha property hae laka ahora uhtch la Icre^lar. #42 Area \' iteW' i<^ Z-3’ fe/i2./9C em^iTA RESOLUTION #2837 * /txitting axrmgt 0-75 ’. 75-250^250V house 2«2 6? aaraaef driveway .a f>r- 5'g7 5?- -jS(a\ C?.. S.=9= sidewalk .12^ ^ patio C? $? deck lc2 t?6? landscape. hardcover 2M 6? Total SF Vi2.<i 5?itta?-6P SF In each zone % Hardcover I“922 5? 7.9 % tr 5^.7 ^ <6e^>7 5P lake Minnetonka Z<x'R.E.EN rouse .* _.. .. A___________i“|,o 0 . 5 r.ta^—j____Q_8.oR ------------ . D«a«\»W-'v;c*vi Rvc^«-E. '^f: A oiTo ■ e ct6."n» E ast f^AtJMfiC-T9-Uj&ST V* _ « • ',, <- LT-^-2_r>Vi+ — 4.*f; • O-0M-T6. “TflgiJSi F”'-" 11^-i'- fi.£. lsesi«.>» LL= 30 pST I 5^^ W»*»D 2,0 ps-i I " v-eli 53ji ■’.«<■“: . . 1 , ' lia^T a.aft.t-T«f 3iO~Q <g 5l ‘,'^j—-■ ^ I !l-|3.S<a^‘p5^ --------5 ____ I I I ^Z,if <|> Cc»lcPl€R5 ^ l}±1 "Typical Seo - <i3 6-r (Trio <:e_« W«j«>«. 5S‘ 6)' J Auiri Rjl. ]~t~‘ J?-0 ' i~ ! _K>1 , i I (/ ^ ! j , u , /( i% SoUTH ”57tBUE, 0 -(SrKEemHOOSC B/ ALBERT J. LAUER, INC. •16700 CHIPPENDALE W. (HWY. 3) ■ ROSEMOUNT.MN 55068- >(612)423-1651 ■I ttiikf fiitity llul Uit ylla. IMlillutlM, n N).ll pttputd by ■• •> M<tr ay «>«l laptnilji. u4 lb.l I <m • d.ly Ityilltftd hlltllitul (MMMt PldM tbp. N ul'of lb< iUlt .1 • Q >v 'cji ■x 0 ^ •cvj 0 i; >4i 0 .[IK j'- ^\UqU O.too "fgy &.^V£S ^ si (j^ P<trb-^:t°>a Slot '/feMT ^fb. f-lfriJuivi. aaea.(VTAaj ep,, RflOfn. pArCituns 6Uss (J.'op 4«. svlU -•rTN S . -I ^ N I.• ‘ ii.,,i(eA(7V , / C)404« S-OJ<7-a ,3/ibTie'jisi ■2.-J 'S' <*.tPUr!<-’j ^ R\D6.£. jj- t-W'i ?-o * 30'-o“ *^‘Povrs. Pu/AM /'b O _l cC I rwiki Wa ,'t-2.ata I'^OO D'fl'/C. ,Mt^ S539> '/;o lu = hfiK'/£'- Pc-UKET |v\ CrRMU P(rLli-cY 3^ cm /o/jx/9t> CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MR. & MRS. IRWIN JACOBS C/O JENSEN HOMES, INC. IN GOV’T. LOTS 1 & 2, SEC. 10-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LEGAL DKSflLIPTIQH QP PRKMISkS SURVKYHt) Th6t pint jcf Government Lota 1 end 2 in Section lo. In Township 117 of Rawe 23 which la described ea follows, io wit: Beginning at a point! 6 chains west of the meander post lr< the southeaet cor ner of saw Lot 2 in said Section 10: the thence running north 20 chains now or teas, to the ahore of Round Lake, ao-talled; thence along and Ground the westerly and northerly shore of aaid Lake to the meandet corner in the north ahore of said Lake and between Section 10 and 11 in said Townehtp and Range: thence north on the section line between said Section 10 and 11 to the sr<utherly line of the ri^t-of-way of the Hinnetenka branch of the Great Northern Railway thence southwesterly along aaid southerly line ot said right-of-wey to the point of inte-aection of aaid southerly line of the said right-of-way with the west line of said Lot 1; thence turning and running In a straight line In a southeasterly direc tion 65-4.B feat, more or less to a point which is 236.d feet east of the west lino of said Lot 2 and at the same time 304 feet south of the north line of said lot 2. thence, south on a line p>arallel with and distant 236.3 feet east from the west line of said L>jt 1016 feet mors or less, to the north shore of Lake Minnetonka: thence easterly along the said shore of said Lake Minnetonka t'j the place cf beginning, according to the government survey thereof I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct suiervieion and that I am a duly Registered Land Mm-veyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & CBOHBHRG. INC. rirk 2. G^nberg Mn. Lic.Mlo. 12756 Engineers. Land Survsyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA