The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-09-1989 Council Packetf ..“—..................................I AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1989, 7:00 P.M.I (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1.OATH OP OFFICE - Mayor Grabek and CounciImembers Peterson, Callahan and Nettles 2.PUBLIC HEARING - Special Assessment Hearing 200 Hollander Road (Resolution is Consent Item #30) 3.CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF HIHUTBS * 4. Regular Meeting of December 12, 1988 PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) JAN-91969 Of ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT **APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolution copies. 5. 6. #1296 Peterson/Stodola, 1895 Shadywood Road, Variance Zoning Amendment - Planned Development ENGINEER'S REPORT * 7. Woodhill Avenue Payment ♦ 8. 1988 Seal Coat Project - 2nd and Final Payment MAYOR'S REPORT *9.Orono/Long Lake Discussions 10.1989 Appointments - Resolution 11.Planning Commission Appointments (March 'ffS) CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 1223 Brown Road South - Restoration Westonka Beautification Highway 12 - Proposed Safety Improvement County Road 116 Driveway Permit - 490 Old Long Lake Road Accessory Structures - Entrance Structures Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Refund Policy 1989 Salary Resolution Internal Revenue Code Section 89 Compliance Facilities - Site Analysis Stubbs Bay Sewer 1910 Shadywood Road Highwood Storm Sewer 1989 - Insurance Renewals 1989 Fee Ordinance and Summary Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission Joint Powers Agreement Amendment - Resolution Salary Adjustmp..c - Officer Mark Tomczyk Employment - Part Time Clerical - Police Department Assessment Roll - Hazardous Building - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1989, 7:00 P.M. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued * 31. Inspection Services Contract Marina Licensing Wayzata Country Club 1989 Liquor License Police Facilities Contract Police Radar Purchase Administrator's Information Minnetrista/Hennepin County Luce Line - Leash Enforcement MCWD Operation Policy 1950 Shoreline Deborah Drive Navarre Redevelopment Shores land Policy Police Lieutenant Position Navarre Super Valu Robbery Recycling Goal Setting CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (37*) BILLS (38*) ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE ^ / PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER 1 . HL: U(^-<Z /-^/t!/L^i iTK. K" /%w/>J 3. CWhi \\My(\^Mf^C5 4 L 5.// 6 yy /y //Z d- r T^x> /y^ / ^ ^ ^ ♦' *V ^• ^*1/' 7 ;r» L4---i ... . ---- 10. fy -/ / j 11. ' y/ 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Mi otunci 7 tSJSS^otIMMi ‘MSawesy«« BniMtn w»id towtf* W<ut«n w of^ 3^ 5Hi§5fe"jH-'»“ s,‘ri5£’?.jsr^«^ !E: W^»P occup*«y. and mcomt City CtefH ,Tr»«^iMntMito th« Qowj. W. 1»t®>______ 19«nd Aftldavlt of Publication State of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound. Min nesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331 A.07. and other applicable laws, as amended. 'Ass-e ewK_____B.) The printed which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed aruJ published once each week for 7^ successive weeks; It was first published Monday. !°Ldayol___________19-^the and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday. the.zL day of.Htt -U /M# /M- Authorized Agent MAP’ITT,A A. ''T.P7VT 2 - NOT. .k c .- ry Cof' . - < f iJ r.’.r > , Subscribed and sworn to me on this gS9 (fay of £k<^ rv^/x^ iqS^?.. 19. Qy (J Notary Public Mete m#enMMM (11 Lowi o>t—ttkm iMNi Py c ewwwfc it *mm% Nw eeme«« die ■pece ir S4 per ir<n |2iMM*iwerMeeio«»edbyle»iefido<«ieBWe» l4S4per*ch |3) Rate actuehr cftargad lor iMiwe meNer M S4 per areP rwn ■itasime mixeeern Men U 03 per mu» COUNCIL MEETING 4JAN -91939 MIHUTBS OF THB REGULAR OROHO COUNCIL MBBTlNIfTY ftC HELD DECEMBER 12, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7*00 P.M. . . The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabekr CounciImembers Goetten, Nettles, Peterson and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . City Administrator Bernhardson requested that item #4 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Item #36 and #37 were removed by CounciImembers Goetten and Callahan respectively. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the 03jQ0ptj,on of those items mentioned above. Motion, Ayes“5, 19ays«.0, Motion passed. PRESENTATION TO THB FAMILY OF BRAD VAN NEST Mayor Grabek presented Mrs. Van Nest with a plaque commemorating Mr. Van Nest for his many contributions to the City of Orono. Mrs. Van Nest thanked Mayor Grabek and the Council. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES* ^ ^ w It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the November 28, 1988 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays»0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative, Maureen Bellows, was present, but had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no ccmments from the Public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT* #1330 FULLERTON PROPERTIES 880 TOWNLINE ROAD FINAL PLAT APPROVAL RBSOLOnOH #2553 Mr. Joe Franks, Vice President of Fullerton Properties, was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicant was requesting the installation of an entrance island and a monument as part of final plat approval. Bernhardson provided the Council with a depiction of the proposal. Jhe moni^nt would have a metal plate inscribed with the name of the subdlv.slon. The City of Orono currently has no standards pertaining to this MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING PILE I1330-PULLERTON PROPERTIES CONTINUED type of signage. Mr. Franks explained that it was his intention to make the monument approximately 5* high with a plaque 18" x 24". Councilmember Goetten asked whether there would be the need for variance approval. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reiterated Bernhardson's statement that Orono had no standards as to placement of the monument within the island. Zoning Administrator Mabusth expressed the need to amend Orono's Codes to address this type of accessory structure. Mr. Franks interjected that should the road become a public, rather than private road, the island would be removed. Gaffron asked Mr. Franks as to the proposed width of the monument. Mr. Franks replied that it would be approximately 6* to 8* wide. The monument must be centered within the 12* width of the Island. Gaffron suggested that Mr. Franks present a final plan showing the dimensions of the proposed island and monument. Bernhardson recommended that language be added to the final plat resolution addressing the monument and island. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the final plat for 880 Townline Road, subject to conditions being placed upon the construction and installation of an entrance island and monument. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OP ROAD NAME REQUEST City Administrator Bernhardson Informed tne Council that the applicant was seeking approval of the road name "Creekwood Trail". Councilmember Goetten questioned whether this would be the only use of the name "Creekwood Trail" within the City of Orono. She was informed that Orono had no other streets or roads named Creekwood. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to accept the name "Creekwood Trail" for the plat of Painters Woods. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1334 SIDNEY RBBBRS BIGBIIAT 12 4 BROUN ROAD NORTH SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2554 As reviewed by City Administrator Bernhardson, the Council had given conceptual approval of the preliminary subdivision at the November 28, 1988 meeting. They had requested that several items be further resolved in order to address concerns expressed by adjacent property owners. Location of the access road off of MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1334 REBERS>CONTINUED Brown Road was an issuer as was locating a road and access to be used during construction. The other issue was that of the lots and fencing along the northern boundary abutting the Platteter property. The City Engineer examined the possibility of the construction access being located off of Highway 12. He did not feel that access was feasible because of the higher elevations and trees in that area. Mr. Rebers has agreed to be financially responsible for any damage that may occur to Brown Road as a result of the construction. Mr. Rebers met with the Duncansons and Platteters to discuss a solution to their concerns. Among other things, it was determined that there would be a reduction in the number of lots along the northern boundary from 6 to 5 or 4. They have also examined the possibility of widening the barrier from 50* to 70*. Mr. Stephen Pflaum provided a summary of the discussions involving the Platteters, Duncansons, City Staff and the applicant, as follows: Principal Entrance Access; The main access was relocated to a more southerly position that woulJ have the least impact upon the Mabusths and Duncansons. The current proposal would place the access just south of the Mabusth*s driveway. An evergreen barrier would be planted, directly opposite the access to shield the Duncanson home from any visual impact. There would be approximately 20 10* evergreens planted in a staggered fashion in two rows. Due to the fact that they would be planted on the Duncansons* property, their approval would be required. Mr. Rebers has agreed that he will water the trees for one year from the date in which they are planted, provided that the Duncansons provide the water. Documentation of these agreements will come in the form of letters that will be part of the subdividers agreement at the time of final plat approval. Northern Border (Plattet^ Property): It was determined that it would not be feasible to plan*, evergreens in the woods on the Rebers side of the northern boundary due to density of existing vegetation. It would be possible to plant the evergreens on Platteters* property. The evergreens would be planted in the same manner being used for the Duncanson property. However, 40 10* evergreens would be used, rather than just 20. In order to alleviate the need to remove trees to plant trees, it would be necessary for the Platteters to provide a temporary easement, running in favor of Orono, so that the trees could be planted through access from their property. Mr. Rebers will agree to water the trees for one year conditioned upon the Platteters providing access and water. There is a private power line that provides electric service MIMUTBS OF TBB ORONO COONCIL MEBTIH6 OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZOHI1I6 FILE #1334-REBERS CONTIlfOED to the Platteter house. In order to alleviate the necessity to trim trees near the power line, Mr. Rebers is installing underground electric «»ervice and will run it to the property line where the Platteters can connect at their own expense. This method was being proposed to do away with the overhead lines. Adequate Drainage Mr. Rebers will have to obtain approval from the Watershed District of a comprehensive drainage plan. There will be a drainage pond in the southeast corner that will collect run off from the property. Mr. Rebers will work with the City Engineer with respect to any additional drainage should it be necessary. Fencing along Northern Property Line; The Planning Commission recommended that no fencing of any kind be placed between the Rebers and Platteter properties. They did not want to set a precedent for future subdivisions. However, Mr. Plattetar is concerned about the safety of his horses due to dogs that may come from the new residences in the subdivision. Mr. Rebers is still willing to construct a farm-type fence as initially proposed. It will be up to the Council to decide v;hether that issue be addressed within the resolution or simply agreed upon between the parties involved. Reduction of Lots along Northern Boundary; An amended proposal was presented which showed the subdivision with 5 lots along that property line, and the buffer area increased to 70*. They also prepared a sketch plan, at staff's request, showing 4 lots, but were not in favor of this proposal. Five lots will allow for more conformity in lot size throughout the entire subdivision. Mayor Grabek observed that many alternatives were presented to address the concerns of the Platteters. He questioned whether the Platteters had been apprised of these proposals. Mr. Platteter believed that the Comprehensive Plan had been abandoned. He expressed the importance of the buffer to divide two-acre rural residential and one-acre sewered lots. He also felt that 40 evergreen trees would be insufficient to create an adequate buffer. Drainage is still a concern, but Mr. Platteter was pleased to see that it was being addressed. Mr. Platteter stated that he had not seen the 4-lot proposal until this evening, but did not like the aspect of 4-lots allowing a larger pad size. Mr. Robert Kost concurred with Mr. Platteter that the 4-lot scheme would allow for a very large building pad. CounciImember Goetten asked for more details and dimensions involving the 4-lot plan. Mr. Kost informed her that in the plan for 6 lots, the lot size ranged from 35,000 to 38,000 sq. ft., with a 50 ft. buffer. With 5 lots and a 70 ft. buffer, the lot sizes range from 38,000 to 44,500 sq. ft. With 4 lots, the lot size would range from 43,500 to 56,000 sq. ft. Mr. Kost MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE «1334-REBERS CONTINUED mentioned the fact that 3 lots would still not create 2 acre lots. The Comprehensive Plan does not take into consideration the open buffer area that is being provided in this proposal along the northern boundary and the setback restrictions. With the 5 lots, the depth of the lots was increased, as well as the buffer area. Some of the property in the sixth lot was distributed into the center of the subdivision. The A-l'^t proposal, in keeping with the 25-lot plan, would only allow for marginal building pads on the south side of the development, which would severely limit the size house that could be built on those lots. The building pads would range in size from 190* x 110* to 95* X 120*. Mr. Tim Adams thanked the Council, Mr. Rebers and his representatives, for addressing all of the issues. He submitted a petition to protect North Brown Road. He would like to see the Amended Comprehensive Plan adhered to, which would include the 2- acre lots along the northern boundary. Planning Commission Representative Bellows asked for clarification as to how the size of the b* ffer area varied from the 4-lot proposal to the 5-lot proposax. Mr. Kost explained that allowing for a 70 ft. buffer with 5 lots would provide a more equal distribution of the property while still maintaining 25 lots in the subdivision. Bellows expressed her reservation about the 4-lot proposal due to the large building pads that would exist on each of the 4 lots. She also believed that the extra 20 feet of buffer provided by the 5-lot proposal would more adequately address the Platteters* concerns. CounciImember Goetten questioned whether restrictions could be placed on the building pad size, if there were only 4-lots, to prevent extrordinary houses from being built. Mr. Pflaum expressed reluctance in redefining building pads for any lots, but agreed that it would be necessary to avoid the possibility of "super size" homes being built on the 4 northerly lots. He suggested that the Planning Commission refine the building restrictions on only those 4 lots. CounciImember Goetten stated that only allowing 4-lots along the northerly border would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Planning Commission Representative Bellows asked how many lots could exist along the north/south boundary of the Platteter property if the minimum requirements for a 2-acre lot were observed? Mr. Kost stated that the minimum 2-acre lot width would be 250* to 300*. With 5 lots, the widths -inge from 180* to 240*. In addition, with the 5-lot proposal, there would be an additional 20* of buffer between the Rebers* property and the Platteters*. Mr. Platteter commented that 250 sq. ft. would not sake a 2 acre lot. Bellows informed Mr. Platteter that the lots MIHDTES OF THB ORONO COUHCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1334'REBERS CONTINUED would not be square, but rather oblong. Mr. Platteter did not understand why the lots could have the longer portion running east/west rather than north/south. Mr. Peter Jarvis explained that when other alternatives to the 6 northerly lots were considered, they did so taking the entire development into consideration. He said that the 4-lot proposal was considered because they were directed to do so. However, it is not the proposal they wish to use. Mr. Jarvis said that it would be impossible for the Platteters to be able to see 5 houses simultaneously, due to the 2-acre setbacks and the buffer area being proposed. He said that 5 lots versus 4 lots does not significantly change the impact on the Platteters. He said that the Comprehensive Plan does not deal specifically with site plans and subdivisions. He had seen early proposals for the Rebers development that had 6, 5 and 3 lot configurations proposed for the north. He believed that in terms of the overall site plan, that 6 lots were better than 5 lots, and 5 lots would be better than 4 lots. Mr. Platteter stated that there were several misrepresentations made. First of all the area on the north is not as heavily wooded as depicted. He then showed a section from the Comprehensive Plan that had 3, 2-acre lots along the northern boundary. CounciImember Callahan observed that if the minimum standards for 2-acre zoning were used, there would be no other limitations placed on the number of lots along the northejn boundary. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked for the actual dimensions of the northerly lot line. Mr. Rest determined it to be 1200* to 1300*, which would allow for 6 200* lots. Callahan further pointed out that if this subdivision were developed in a conventional manner, the buffer and trail system would disappear. Mr. Heinz Butter, 770 North Brown Road, said that most of the persons attending the meeting bought property in Orono because of the 2-acre lots. He believed that it was the duty of the City Council to consider all of the concerns expressed by the citizens. Counci Imember Goetten did not understand why 4 lots along the northerly boundary should be so objectionable when there would still be 25 lots within the subdivision. She felt that the City Staff and Council had bent over backwards to work with Mr. Rebers. Mr. Pflaum clarified that the developer did not represent that 4 lots would not work, but rather that he preferred the 5 lot proposal because of how it affected the overall site plan and design. Mrs. Sisi Butter asked how small the smallest lot in the subdivision would be if the 4-lot proposal were used. Mr. lost MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE 11334-REBERS CONTINUED replied that it would be approximately 33,000 s.f., or 3/4*s of an acre. With 5 lots it would be approximately the same, and would provide for the same number of lots. Planning Commission Bellows calculated that with using a 4- lot configuration, and the 80% buildability, it would provide the builder with 44,800 s.f. of pad. Mr. Kost said that the average building pad, using 6 lots or 4 lots would be 8,000 to 10,000 s.f. per lot. However, with the 5 lot proposal, the building pad would be 7,500 s.f., because of additional acreage that would be designated to the trail area. Mayor Grabek believed that the concerns of the adjacent property owners had been addressed. He stated that it would be his preference to have one more smaller house, as opposed to 4 very large homes, as well as the extra 20* buffer. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to accept the preliminary subdivision of Sid Rebers, conditioned upon the developer and City working to control the construction traffic, that the main access road be placed where mutually acceptable to the adjacent homeowners on the east side, and that the northern boundary line have 5 lots with the additional 20* of buffer from the adjacent neighbor. Further, the preliminary subdivision, should reference the individual agreements pertaining to the evergreen buffering, fence and electric connection, as well as adequate drainage being approved by the Watershed District and Mr. Rebers being financially responsible for construction damage to North Brown Road. Callahan concurred that it may be necessary to plant more than 40 evergreens along the Platteter property to achieve the desired screening. Mayor Grabek amended his motion to include language that whatever needs to be done to adequately shield the Platteters* house be done. CounciImember Nettles asked the Platteters as to their preference between the 4 and 5 lot proposal. Mr. Platteter replied that the farther the proposal strayed from the Comprehensive Plan, the more screening would be required. He said his concern involved privacy, and that he preferred 4 lots. Motion, Ayes*2, Mettles, Goetten and Peterson Nay. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImesiber Nettles, to approve 25 lots, with 4 lots along the northern boundary with evergreen buffering and a fence, the details of which would be agreed upon between the Platteters and developer, and attached to the resolution, and the language referring to the existence of said agreement be included in the resolution. Further that drainage in the lower southeast corner be addressed. With regard to Brown Road being used for construction access, that the proposed access be used and that appropriate signage be posted, and the City monitor activities. The outlet for the commercial property frontage road be MIMUTBS OP THB ORONO COUNCIL NBBTIN6 OP DBCBMBBR 12, 1988 ZONING PILB «1334-RBBBRS CONTINOBT Specifically designated "propoiad road outlet". Further, that the building pads for the 4 northerly lots be adjusted so that they would not be dramatically out of proportion with the ether lots in the subdivision. It was suggested by City Administrator Bernhardson that the original resolution be adopted with the amendments being recommended. Including the 4 lots on the northern boundary, but that the building pad requirementr of those lots be a separate item determined by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Peterson stated for the record that she would vote for 4 lots so that the subdivision would be approved, even though she had previously voted for 3 lots. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1337 ROBBRT PAIGR 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2555 Mr. Paige was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson briefly reviewed this application. Mr. Paige was requesting variances to a side yard setback and minimum street setback to construct a detached garage. Mr. Paige revised his proposal and will now build the garage where an existing garage was located. Mr. Paige asked for clarification as to the 30* requirement of the street setback. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that there must be 30* from the west lot line to the wall of the garage. It was moved by Councilmember Nett.les, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2555, granting the variances requested by Mr. Robert Paige. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays*0, Motion passed. «134€ EINAR BAGBBRG 740 NORTE ARM DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION «255€ Nr. Bagberg was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Bagberg was requesting a hardcover variance as well as a 5* setback frcMi a sewer variance. The existing hardcover is 181 in the 0-75* sone, which will decrease to 17% when the recommended removals occur. Within the 75-250* tone, hardcover will decrease from 31.5% to 26.5%i and within the 250-500* hardcover will increase from 30.0% to 33.2%. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reminded the Council that they had previously reviewed this application and referred it back to the Planning Commission due to a lack of mm MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1346-HAGBERG CONTINUED hardship. Mr. Hagberg informed the Planning Commission that his hardships involved topographical and setback requirements if he were to add on to his existing garage. Further he provided a list of items requiring storage, for which he had none. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2556, granting the hardcover variance and 5* setback from a sewer variance, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1349 LOREN ft JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #2550 Mr. and Mrs. Born were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Borns were seeking approval for a lot line rearrangement. The Born property would increase from 2/lOths to 3/lOths of an acre. The Helper property would be reduced to just under 1.9 acres. The Born property is sewered, the Helper property is not. Mr. Born provided a shaded survey better depicting their proposal. CounciImember Goetten expressed her only concern to be the fact that the Halpers had not connected to sewer and that their parcel was being reduced below the 2-acre mirimum. Bernhardson stated that problems resulting from the new lot line were not expected in the future as the land attached to the Born property was not useable by Helpers for septic purposes. The fact that the houses already exist on both properties involved, should allevif -e the possibility of setting a precedent. Mr. Helper was present and stated that he understood all of the ramifications involved with the lot line rearrangement. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2550, approving the lot line rearrangement. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1349 LOREN ft JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE VACATION OF EASEMENT RESOLUTION #2551 The Borns were present for this meeting. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2551, approving the vacation of easement. Motion, Ayes«*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 #1350 LOREN ft JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES RESOLUTION #2552 Mr. and Mrs. Born were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved hardcover and lakeshore setback variances. Due to the curvature of the shoreline, the Borns* proposed addition would be only 17* from the shoreline. It was the Planning Commission*s recommendation that the shoreline variance be granted rather than encroaching toward the road due to uncertainty of future development of the road. Hardcover is being reduced in the 0-75* from. 27% to 21% and in the 75-250* zone from 24% to 18%. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2552, granting the hardcover and lakeshore setback variances. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1351 ALFRED HARRISON 1410 SHORELINE DRIVE RESOLUTION #2557 The Harrisons were not present for this matter As described by City Administrator Bernhardson, the Harrison*s were vacating a portion of a Conservation and Flowage Easement that is no longer needed. Bernhardson observed that the easement should have been vacated earlier when the conditional use permit was granted to re-build the pond. The Harrisons have built a tennis court which is located less than the required 26* from the edge of the historic easement but iS more than 26* from the pond. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2557, granting the vacation of a portion of the Conservation and Flowage Easement. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1352 CHARLES SCHOEN 2430/2460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #2558 Mr. Charles Schoen and his representative Mr. Hartfield, were present for this matter. Robert City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Schoen was seeking approval for a lot line rearrangement. If approved, Mr. Jacobs would purchase 1.39 of Schoen*s property, which would increase his dry buildable to 14.5 acres. Counci Imember Goetten inquired as to the purpose of the lot ■I', • V MIMUTBS OP THE OROHO CODHCIL MEETIIIG OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 ZOHIHG FILE 81352-SCHOEH COHTHIUED line rearrangement, Mr. Hartfield explained that between the wetlands on the Schoen property and Mr. Jacobs property line is a one acre parcel of dry buildable land owned by Mr, Schoen. The property is contiguous with the Jacobs property and will be useful to any persons buying and building on the Jacobs property. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to rdopt Resolution #2558, approving the lot line rearrangement for Charles Schoen and Sheldon Jacobs. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1354 MERKON/CHARLTOH 2340/2380 ABIIIGDOE WAT LOT LIMB REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #2559 The applicants were not present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this lot line rearrangement would leave both affected properties with the same amount of land. The lot line is being reconfigured to allow expansion of the Merkow front yard and their driveway to be located further west. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2559, approving the lot line rearrangement for Mr. Merkow and Mr. Charlton. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1355 KENNETH WBSSBLS 1245 WOODHILL AVENUE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION #2560 Mr. Wessels was not present for this matter. A brief explanation of this application was given by City Administrator Bernhardson. Mr. Wessels was requesting approval to install an independant antenna structure approximately 60* high. The antenna will have a retracting feature and will be lowered to a height of 35* when not in use. Due to concerns stemming from problems that occurred with a similar situation, the Planning Commission recommended that the conditional use permit be reviewed in 6 months. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2560, approving the conditional use permit for Mr. Kennth Wessels, for an antenna structure. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. NIHUTBS OF THE OROMO COUNCIL MBBTIN6 OP DBCBHBBR 12, 1988 #1358 PB16/J0HHS0N 627/629 NORTH FBRMDRLB ROAD RESOLUTION #2561 The applicants were not present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved renewal of a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement that had not been previously filed. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2561, approving the renewal of subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Mr. Feig and Mr. Johnson. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: ORONO/LON6 LAKE DISCUSSIONS Mayor Grabek reported that he met with Long Lake and it was agreed that a public statement should be made pertaining to the options available regarding the sewer plant property. One option would be to leave the property for the Long Lake sewer plant within the City of Orono. Reimbursement for any monetary gains or losses from taxes would possibly occur through contractual means. The second option would involve giving the sewer plant property to the City of Long Lake, and use the same method of reimbursement as proposed in Option one. Mayor Grabek stated that in his opinion. Long Lake would have to be financially responsible for any costs in the event property is given to Long Lake. He expressed his preference by stating that it wouls!. make more sense to keep the property in Orono. CounciImember Goetten asked when a public hearing pertaining to this issue was to be scheduled. Mayor Grabek replied that there would not be a public hearing, but rather an opportunity during a Council meeting would be provided for citizens to express their concerns and opinions. CounciImember Nettles inquired as to how adjacent property owners would be notified? Mayor Grabek responded that information would be provided in the Mayors Letter in addition to individual letters being sent to adjacent property owners. Goetten asked that the boundary for sending individual letters be extended beyond the standard 300*. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: COUNTY ROAD 51 City Administrator Bernhardson gave a brief summary of this application. Mr. David Singer had requ sted that the safety issue of County Road 51 be examined.^ Bernhardson had been in contact with Hennepin County personnel and they suggested 3 alternatives for improving safety. HIHUTBS of the OROHO council NBBTING of DBCBMBER 12 r 1988 COUNTY ROAD 51 CONTINUED 1. Totally eliminate parking along County Road 51 and find alternate parking elsewhere, 2. Widen the shoulder along County Road 51 to a width of 10 feet. Curbing would be provided to encourage motorists to park as far away from the travelled portion of the road as possible. 3. Eliminate 6 parking slots in the areas where safety is of the most concern. The slots could either be relocated on the north aider or simply removed and not replaced. In addition to these altervatives, reduction in speed limit was also suggested. However, a speed survey cannot be performed until the construction along County Road 51 is complete approximately one year from now. Another possibility would be to install an access dock to alleviate trespassing. Bernhardson said that he was hoping to elicit comments from the Council and was tentatively proposing to schedule the public meeting for the January 23, 1989. Mr. Singer was present and stated that he would not be available to attend the meeting should it be scheduled for January 23, 1989. Bernhardson stated that the meeting would be scheduled so that Mr. Singer could attend. Mr. Singer requested that any safety professionals that have been involved in this matt.er be present at the public meeting. Mayor Grabek concurred. CounciImember Goetten expressed her concern about the DNR*s parking slot requirements. She said that Orono has far more parking slots than required by the DNR. She wondered, however, whether there would be a problem if Orono. began eliminating parking slots. Mayor Grabek agreed that consideration would be given in that regard when options were being examined. Mr. Singer said that he would like to be informed as to the DNR representative with whom the City had been in contact. He said that he had been unable to achieve any results with the DNR. Mr. Singer said that he was planning an addition to his home, but was reluctant to do so until he knew what the DNR*s Intentions were. He had received a letter from the DNR that indicated that safety was not their concern. Mr. Singer suggested that the issue of safety be left to the local entities. He felt that the issue of safety was compromised for the quantity of parking slots. CounciImember Goetten and Mayor Grabek concurred with Mr. Singer. Mr. Singer further noted that he had received a letter from the LMCD indicating that they would be in favor of speed reduction and a flashing yellow light. The LMCD did not feel that parking reduction was possible. MIHUTBS OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 COUNTY ROAD 51 CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to schedule this matter for discussion at a Council meeting that was agreeable for Mr. Singer, and that the appropriate persons, perhaps from the DNR, be present at that meeting. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. DRIVBHRT PERMIT - 490 OLD LONG LAKE R02U> This item was tabled per the request of the applicant. 1910 SHADYlfOOD ROAD > ACCESS/SIGNAGE Mr. David Bie was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Bie was experiencing problems with parking on Shadywood Road. When the Coffee Bridge was installed the County retained a right-of-way. However, the residents were left responsible for maintaining the road. Because of a problem with non-resident parking on the road, "No Parking" signs were posted by the County. Mr. Bie subsequently has had numerous problems with parking tickets being issued to family members and visitors to his home. Mr. Bie would like a solution to this ongoing problem. City Administrator Bernhardson said the City has reviewed the problem and suggests 2 possible solutions. The first solution involves making this portion of Shadywood into a private access, with a public easement being given to Hennepin County. Another solution may be to post various signage. Mr. Bie provided more details pertaining to the various parking tickets that were issued by the Orono Police. He said that he would like the "No Parking" signs removed. He also wanted the County right-of-way deeded back to the residents so they could maintain the road and parking problems on their own. Mayor Grabek asked Bernhardson about the County's reaction to the City's suggested solutions. Bernhardson replied that he had informed the County of this matter and was requesting input from the Council before reapproaching the County. Mayor Grabek informed Mr. Bie that the City would try to convince th«2 County that the best solution would be to vacate their right-of-way. CounciImember Goetten asked if anything could be done to alleviate tickets being issued until this matter was resolved wi* -he County? Bernhardson said that he would talk with Chief : to see what would be possible. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, that City Staff be directed to monitor this situation and initiate action with Hennepin County to have this matter resolved in January, 1989. Motion, Ayes®5, Nays*0, Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 BEADHBTERS CONTROL STRUCTURE POLICT-GRATS BAY DAM City Administrator Bernhardson reported that the City had received the Operating Policy from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District which addresses headwaters control at Grays Bay. Mr. Arthur Finkelstein had done a study and suggested a higher winter storage level than the MCWD recommended. He also suggested that the LMCD would be the appropriate body to monitor the lake level. The recommendation is that these suggestions be transmitted by letter to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. CounciImember Callahan said that a suggestion was made to him that the purpose of the current policy, which was initiated three years ago, was to help flowage downstream, and that could have negative effects on the Lake. Due to the low Lake levels, now may be an appropriate time to re-examine the current policy. Callahan suggested that the City recommend such a course of action rather than allowing the MCWD to proceed as they have done in the past. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to direct staff to outline in a letter to MCWD its comments on the Headwaters Control Structure Operatons Policy: a.) If greater winter storage is feasible; b.) public education element to better apprise the public of the policy and lake level fluctuation and that they request the LMCD to serve as an ongoing monitor agent of the policy operations. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays=*0, Motion passed. LIQUOR LICEMSB-ON-SALB City Administrator Bernhardson briefly reviewed this item. The Council had previously approved renewal of the off-sale liquor license. However, due to two incidents that occurred at the on-sale establishment, the Council wished to further review the license application. Since that time,‘Mr. Holtz provided documentation proving that the person in question was not an employee of his at the time a citation was issued. He also addressed the citation issued for drinks on the table 5 minutes beyond the limit. Mr. Holtz does not feel that a letter is necessary because he is aware of the continued monitoring by the Police Department. Mr. Jimmy Holtz, owner of Jimmie's Lounge, was present. He provided the Council with details of each incident. He reiterated his opinion that a letter was not necessary. He felt that he had adequately addressed each issue. CounciImember Goetten asked whether there had been any written communication to Mr. Holtz from the City regarding these citations. Bernhardson replied in the negative. Goetten believed it may be best to have written documentation of these incidences for reference should other violations occur in the future. MINUTES OF THE OROMO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEflRL CONTINUED Mr. Holtz felt that he was now fully aware of the ordinances affecting his business. He informed the Council that he fired the individual to whom a citation was issued, and added that there had been no incidences of any kind since that time. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the staff recommendation regarding a letter to the owner. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. RECYCLING PROGRAM-AMRRD OF CONTRACT As City Administrator Bernhardson explained, the City took bids from various companies for curbside recycling pick~up for 1989. It is the City's recommendation to award Polka Dot Recycling with the curbside recycling contract. The City is recommending that a $9.00 annual charge be billed to the residents of Orono In their water/septic fees. Bernhardson asked permission from the Council to allow the City to obtain the recycling bins from the County. CounciImember Goetten asked when the recycling program would be implemented? Public Works Director Gerhardson said the progr2un could begin anytime after January 1, 1989. Bernhardson suggested February 1, 1989 as a start-up date. Councilmember Callahan suggested pick up at the refuse site, as opposed to curbside. He believed there would be more participants if they did not have to bring the recyclables to the curb. Councilmember Nettles questioned whether Polka Dot required label removal. Gerhardson replied that labels did have to be removed from tin cans, but not glass. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to award the recycling contract to Polka Dot to pick up at the refuse site, and allow the City to obtain one bin per household. Peterson asked if there was a limit as to how many bins could be used. Public Works Director Gerhardson informed her that additional bins could be purchased. Mayor Grabek did not believe that the additional cost of pick up at the refuse site was econimical. Motion, Ayes*2, Goetten, Grabek and Nettles, Nay. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to award the recycling contract to Polka Dot for curbside pick up, and to allow the City to obtain one bin per household. Motion, Ayes*3, Callahan and Peterson, Nay, Motion passed. 198 9 FEB ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION City Administrator Bernhardson clarified that the memo reflected what the changes in the fee schedule will be and MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 1989 FEE ORDINANCE CONTINUED depicts the 1988 rates in addition to the proposed 1989 rates. A list comparing building fee schedules of other cities was also provided. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to table this matter until the January 9, 1989, Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes*=5, Nays»0, Motion passed. 1989 SALARY RESOLUTION City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this item was request for the 1989 Compensation Resolution. The City is adopting increases at 3%, as scheduled, for January 1, 1989, in line with the budget increase. There are exceptions occurring with the Public Works personnel. These persons wouxd receive the 3% increase, but it would be split between an increase in base pay and a lump sum payment. In cases where an employee would get a 1% base increase, and a 2% lump sum payment, any increase they would receive in 1990 would be based upon the 1% increase over their 1988 base pay. This will bring those positions back in line with the compensation plan. Bernhardson noted that the C.S.O. position is not on the compensation program and the part- time patrol officer is being included in the program due to his hours exceeding 20. CounciImember Peterson asked to table this matter. Bernhardson explained that tabling this item would involve the extra calculation of retroactive pay. He suggested that perhaps the portions of concern be tabled, but the remainder be voted upon. Mayor Grabek concurred. Peterson asked to have additional time to review this item. Mayor Grabek stated that the requests were in line with the budget and that he saw no problems. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconde'd by Counci Imember Nettles, to adopt the 1989 Compensation Resolution. Motion, Ayes»2, Peterson, Goetten and Callahan Nay. It was moved by CounciImember Peterson, seconded by CouncilmembvL Nettles, to table this item. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12-PROPOSED SAFETY IMPROVEMENT City Administrator Bernhardson presented a sketch depicting the proposed safety improvement to Highway 12. The version he was presenting showed relocation of a portion of North Brown Road. Other options being considered were limiting accesses and channelling traffic. CounciImember Goetten suggested that the Planning Commission be involved in the review process. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to accept the information presented. Motion, Ayes*5, MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1988 HIGHNRT 12-PROPOSBD SAFETY COMTIMUBD Nays«0, Motion passed. IHSURAHCB REHEMALS 1989 It was moved by CounclImember Peterson, seconded by Councllmember Goetten, to award the City of Orono 1989 insurances to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, United Fire & Casualty and Western National, effective January 1, 1989, as proposed. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. 1989 HOH-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the license renewal for a 1989 Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Navarre Auto Port, Inc. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays*»0, Motion passed. POLICE FACILITIES LEASE AGREEMENT* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this item until January pending the outcome of discussion between the Chief and the City of Long Lake on this matter. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. DARE PROGRAM* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information regarding the proposed DARE program in the Orono Schools. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays»0, Motion passed. 1989 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt the 1989 Legislative Program. Motion, Ayes*t, Nayp*0, Motion passed. INVESTMENT/DBPOSITORY PROGRAM* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt the City of Orono Investment Policy as revised December 12, 1988 and to adopt Resolution #2563, authorizing the City Treasurer to Designate Depositories of the City Funds. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. ANIMAL CONTROL - BARKING DOGS/HOURS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information on the City's barking dog ordinance. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=0, Motion passed. SALARY REVIBW-JEANNB A. MABUSTH SALARY RBVIEW-DOROTHY HALLIN* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the compensation adjustment for Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator to $18,176 per hour effective 9/15/88 and Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk to $13.39 per hour effective 9/14/88. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays»0, Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP DECEMBER 12, 1988 REQUEST STOP SIGN AT 15 AND 19 RESOLUTION #2562* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounclImember* Peterson, to approve Resolution #2562 requesting Hennepin County to install a stop sign at the southbound right turn lane at the intersection of County Roads 19 and 15* Ayes«5, Mays»0, Motion passed. END OP TEAR TRANSPERS AND LOAN PAYMENTS* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, that the interfund operating transfers, loan payments and special assessments payments on City property be approved as proposed, effective December 31, 1988. Motion, Ayes«5, NayseO, Motion passed. 1988 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve as presented the adjustments to the 1988 General Fund department budgets for comparable worth, other salary and retirement benefits, for special consulting projects, and for the initial payment transfer for the County Road 15 project. Such adjustments are funded by monies budgeted in 1988 in the General Fund and from use of fund balance and result in an increase in the total 1988 budget of $30,000.00, bringing the total to $2,491,070.00. Further to approve adjustments for the Park Fund, Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund and the Building Outlay Fund as presented with the increases to be financed by use of available revenues or fund balances as required. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. CITY OP OROHO-HOOKUP DEFERRAL CounciImember Goetten inquired as to when the Council would be reviewing the City Facilities proposal. City Administrator Bernhardson replied that would be on the January 9, 1989 Council Agenda. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to defer the coniiection of the three City buildings to the sanitary sewer until the facility study is coniplete and to continue paying the quarterly sewer service charge. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays*0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION ^ CounciImember Callahan was concerned about County Road 116. He commented that there were many residents of Medina that were opposed to County Road 116 continuing from Highway 55 down through Medina. He suggested that the opposition be presented to Hennepin County. Mayor Grabek concurred and said that he had discussed this item with City Administrator Bernhardson. He believed that the increased traffic would have a significant impact on the surroundinc area. There were several residents from Medina present who were NIHUTBS OF THE ORONO COUNCIL NBBTING OF DBCBMBBR 12, 1988 ADHINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION CONTINUED also opposed to the proposal for County Road 116. One of the residents spoke and expressed her concern. She said that a petition had been circulated and nearly 400 signatures of persons opposing the plan. She offered to support any action that Orono may take. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Westonka Beautification; 1989 Budget Fublication; 1989 calendar; Police Department Personnel-Part Time; County Road 116; Highwood Storm Sewer; and Administrator's Goal Setting. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNBY'S REPORT: There was no report from the City Attorney, however. City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. LICENSES* There were no license applications to be approved. BILLS* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes^S, Nays«0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 10:05 P.M. City Attorney Barrett requested that the Council go into an executive session at 10:05 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 10:23 P.M. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 10:23 p.m. Motion, Ayes«5, Mays^O, Motion pajssed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jktez Subject: COUNCIL MEETI JAN -910:5 CITY Of Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator January 4, 1989 #1296 Merritt J. Peterson/Rick Stodola, 1895 Shadywood Road After-the-Fact Variance - Fourth Review by Council List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applicant's Letter of 1/3/89 Exhibit B - Sections of LMCD Code Exhibit C - Sections of Municipal Code Exhibit D - Staff Memo Dated 10/23/88 Exhibit E - Map of Area Exhibit F - Staff Survey Sheet Exhibit G - Section Maps Exhibit H - Original Draft of Denial Resolution of Variance Application #1296 Review of Present Request - Per Exhibit A, the applicants have asked staff to re-schedule variance application #1296 before the Council. It was the applicants' understanding that prior to filing a lot line rearrangement subdivision, Council would first address the feasibility or acceptance of their proposal that would seek credit of the principal residence on the Tillotson property for a shared dock not to exceed four slips. The shared dock would be located on the Tillotson homestead lot, requiring in this case a lot line rearrangement as the existing Tillotson dock is located within the applicants' property. Tract F (review Exhibit E). The applicants would only proceed with the lot line rearrangement ,if Council concurred with applicants' findings that the LMCD and municipal ordinances do not specifically prohibit property owners from a shared dock use where a dock is located on a residence lot and the participating adjacent property does not contain a principal residence. The applicants ask the Council to consider an additional use for substandard, unbuildable lakeshore lots by allowing a joint use dock or multiple dock (depending upon the number of owners involved in the ownership of the two properties) that would seek the credit of the principal residence on an adjacent property. At an informal meeting with Bob Brown, the former executive director of the LMCD, Frank Mixa, former administrator of the LMCD, and Gene Strommen, current administrator of the LMCD, they concurred that there was nothing in their ordinances that would require a residence structure on the Peterson/Stodola property under a shared dock arrangement with the Tillotson property. Both properties would be limited to 2 slips. Per LMCD code Section 2.02, Subdivision 4, (review Exhibit B) at a dock where 3 or 4 restricted watercraft are stored, such watercraft must be owned and registered to the residents of the site. The LMCD would have to be advised of the shared dock use and of the registration of all boats maintained at this dock. It should be noted^ that if the dock was to contain just 2 slips, there would be no need to register the licenses or advise the LMCD of a shared dock condition. Zoning File #1296 January 4, 1989 • . Page 2 of 4 The municipal ordinances do not specifically prohibit the credit of the adjacent principal residence for a shared dock located solely on the lot containing a residence. The code does not distinguish between single vs. shared use of an accessory structure. Refer to Exhibit C, specifically Section 5.42, Subdivision 1 (F) - Definition of Joint Use. Note the Section refers to more than 2 persons and makes no reference to residence owners . Staff has prepared an inventory of unbuildable, substandard lakeshore lots of record (review Exhibits F & G). Of the total 13 substandard, undeveloped lakeshore lots, 4 would not qualify. Parcel B, Page 1 of the section maps was a lot created in the early 1980s and although substandard in area and limited by severe building setbacks, would more than likely be approved as a buildable site. It is interesting to note that per LMCD Section 2.02, Subdivision 3 (review Exhibit B), would also disqualify this lot as a potential candidate because it was created after August 30, 1978 and would in effect require a residence before a dock could be constructed on the property. Parcel D, located on Page 3, is limited by a special lot combination that was required of the owner in a recent variance application (substandard lot with detached structure was combined with homestead lot separated by a platted parcel). Parcels L & M would more than likely be approved as buildable sites as they contain 80% of area but do not meet 80% of the lot width at 62.5'. There are 9 potential candidates that could be used for expanded dock use areas. In reviewing the lakeshore of Orono, staff located other small riparian tracts that would not qualify under this procedure because although identified with individual PIN numbers, they were not adjacent to resident lots. Council may question this interpretation of the municipal ordinances finding that this would never satisfy the real intent of the accessory structure code. C'^uncil may also question, does this open the door to other property owners seeking credit for a principal residence on an adjacent parcel for residential accessory uses currently not allowed under the present interpretation of the accessory structure code. Staff would ask that you review the code sections presented for your review in Exhibits B & C and the enclosed inventory of undeveloped lakeshore record lots. If you have any questions regarding any interpretation of the LMCD or munici-pal ordinances, please contact my office prior to the meeting. In addition, if you seek additional information for the consideraticn of this current request of the applicants, please advise staff prior to the meeting. Options of Action Available to Council - 1. To deny variance application #1296 as amended by the applicants in their recent proposal based on the following findings; A) Proposed Interpretation of the accessory structure code is in complete conflict with the intent of the code. Zoning File #1296 January 4, 1989 Page 3 of 4 B) The credit of the principal residence for an accessory use/structure serving an adjacent property will establish a negativ*^ precedent for the City when dealing with similar requests /or accessory uses and structures on unbulldabler substandard lots. And to direct staff to amend the original denial resolution of Application #1296 to address the current proposal of the applicants and to present the amended resolution for Council action at their January 23, 1989 meeting. And to further direct staff to advise Mr. Tillotson in writing that his present dock is in violation of the LMCD and municipal codes and that the dock must be brought into conformance by opening of boat season of 1989. This can be accomplished by relocating dock or by a lot line rearrangement with the property owner of Tract P. To further direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment of Section 5.42, Subdivision 1 (F) (Joint Use Definition), that would allow 2 or more property owners to join in the sharing of combined shorelines for dock use purposes only if there is a principal structure on each of the individual properties. The definition will continue to allow the sharing of a riparian outlot/tract owned by a homeowners* association/multiplfi property owners for shared dock use purposes to be consistant with current land use practices within City. As this is not a zoning ordinance, this can be done by action of the Council without a public hearing. 2. To concur with the interpretation of the code as presented by applicants and to adopt resolution that would deny Tracts F & G as a buildable lot. Applicants are to proceed with the appropriate lot line rearrangement subdivision application with the Tillotson property. Conditions of approval of that subdivision will require: a) The residentia** dock be totally located on the newly re aligned Tillotson property and contain only 4 slips (2 credited to the Peterson/Stodola property; 2 to the Tillotson property). b) All boats must be licensed to Tillotson/Peterson/Stodola and copies of the registration must be on file with the City with appropriate notification to the LMCD. c) Tracts B, C, D, F & G of RLS #1216 and Parcel 0003 to be legally combined. d) All future use of the undeveloped Peterson/Stodola property is subject to the review and approval of the City of Orono. Zoning File #1296 January 4, 1989 Page 4 of 4 And to direct staff to prepare a policy memo that would establish the standards and criteria for undeveloped lakeshore lots that qualify for the shared dock use within adjacent homestead/lakeshore lots. In addition, staff will make a recommendation if an amendment of the code is appropriate (i.e. conditional use under a LR District). Qualifying Criteria; 1. Lot must be deemed unbuildable by City 2. Lot must be Immediately adjacent to a homestead/lakeshore lot not divided by public right-of-way 3. Shared dock must be located solely on adjacent residence lot and undeveloped lot would be limited to no more than 2 slip use 4. No more than 2 properties can participate. i g©lD^g r?j\ JN-4l9e9 January 3, 1988 Ns. Jeanne A. Nabu&th Post Office Box 66 Orono City Offices Crystal Bay, MN 553M5 Dear Jeanne: Re: City Council Direction Regarding Shared Dock Request We feel that there was a misunderstanding by the Orono City Council when they directed us to take our shared dock proposal back to the Planning Commission to pursue lot line realignment. It was/is our Intent that lot line realignment and the placing of the aforementioned land parcels into a single deeded property is contingent on the Council's approval of a shared dock use permit, as described in our proposal. It is our belief that we have . 'esssed all of the concerns raised by the council on this issue and that c ^s revised plan is mutually beneficial to all Interested parties. We are requesting that this proposal be placed on the January 9 Council Meeting Agenda for the Council's action. Respectfully, ]Me r r it^J .Peter son ^722 *^est Fair Hills Road Minnetonka, MN 553^5 Richard Stodola 5709 Bluebird Lane Minnetonka, MN 553^5 TO; Jeanne A Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono FROM: Merritt J Peterson and Rick Stodola DATE: December 19, 1988 Regarding: REQUEST TO SHARE A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTif AT 1875 SHADWOOD ROAD. Concerns expressed by zoning administxator and City Council Security pr<±>l«ns with unattended toats. Access conjestion caused by an additional driveway access onto Co. Road 19 Hard cover addition to acccmodate vehicles on property Multiple pieces of unbuildable property now owned by Ewald Gustafson that may create additional issues of dock and boat accesses in the future. Precedent of allowing a secondary structure to be built on property that does not have an existing primary st^rture Placement of dock by Glenn Tillotson on property owned by Peterson & Stodola Proposal by Peterson, Stodola and Tillotson to satisfy Ororo City Concerns: 1, Share driveway access to property with Glenn Tillotson 2. Create no additional hard cover on property 3! Combine all property presently owned by Ewald Gustafson with property owned by Peterson and Stodola into a single deeded unit. ^ j 4. Deed property defined as item # A on registered land survey to Glenn Tillotson to provide him legal access to the lake. . ^ ^ j5. Pursuant to the approval of the city of Orono and ^f^ed land owners, build a single common dock to be shared Tillotson, Peterson and Stodola, while adhering to IMCD i-ules A. With the shared dock security problems will te minimized as the resident Glenn Tillotson will have a vested interest in policing of the dock area The above proposal is contingent upon the full approval of the City of Orono and interested property owners, Peterson, Stodola and Tillotson. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Subd. 3. "Authorized dock use area’ means that area in the Lake which may be used for docks, moorings, boat storage, swim ming floats, ski jump storage, or diving towers, or which may be enclosed on three sides for any of these purposes. Subd. 28. "Multiple dock or mooring area" means any dock or mooring area constructed or maintained for the storage of five or more restricted watercraft, other than commercial docks. i.O f subd. 3. Common Use of Adjacent Dock Use Areas. Two or more adjoining site owners may by mutual agreement adjust these side setback requirements or may use their combined authorized dock use areas for a single common dock or mooring area for their respective non-commercial private uses, but in any event, must observe these side setback requirements at the outer site lines of the combined sites involved in such a joint use. A dock or mooring area located, constructed, installed or maintained under this provision, ^i.^ll not be considered a "multiple dock or mooring area" un..es3 such dock or mooring area is constructed or maintained for the storage of five or more restricted watercraft. Section 2.02.Shoreline Requirements .-sfi existence on May 3, 1978, unless authorized to do so by special density license pursuant to Section 2.05. For sites with contin- uoSrsLreline |reater than 100 feet, when measurements deter mining the number of restricted watercraft allowed result in the provision of a fractional restricted watercra’ft, W and including one-half (1/2) shall ,^^®«5arded, and frac tions over one-half (1/2) shall be counted as on^ additional restricted watercraft. subd. 2. Special Rule for Sites in Existence on August 30 1978. Unless a greater number is authorized By the provi- -iions^ subg. 1 nn tn two restricted »atercralt may be Von*. anv dock or mnnrTna racliicy which is located on a . in Section l.Q2)j?hich was in existence on August J.978T subd. 3. Special Rule for Sites Establiu’ orovi- 30, 1978. Unless a greater number is authori be e-fnriQ Subd 1 above# up to two restricted ^rafu may kept at any dock or mooring area facility which is located on a site fas defined in Sectio’n 1.02) established after Au^gs^^^ IITn. ^ on tne sice and - - - docking rights are owned solely by che residents of n • Subd. 4. Additional Watercraft Allowance for Watercraft Owned by Residents. JThree or 2,lTpp|. a*, /^nnv^ Qf mooriugs ges^-*"''^auLdiyisions ^ if all restricted watercratt: are own^ by and registered t tji res±de"nts of the site." (9v^. <9.>r d ^ - • _ Joint Ds©" ni63ns inor6 thnn two o#>rsnno fishina using lakeshore property fo"r 'swiSraing^^bathing!fishing, docking or mooring boats, or for any other purpose. ^ /o. 1, "Accessory Use or Structure" - A use or structure subordinate to and serving the, principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto^ 72. "Use-Accessory" - A use subordinate to Wie nge on a lot and exclusively used for purposeTTncidental to those of the principal use. 74. "Use-Permitted" - A use «»hich may be lawfully established in a particular district or districts, provided it conforms with all requirements, regulations, and performance standards (if any) of such districts. t 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. ------n mm Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. ____ Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted* accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA" District any 'private docks* subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 23, 1988 Subject: #1296 Merritt J. Peterson 6 Rick Stodola, 1895 Shadywood Rd After-the-Fact Variances - Third Review by Council Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Site Plan Defining Building Envelope Exhibit B - Appplicants* Proposal Exhibit C - L.M.C.D. Code Section 2.01, Subdivision 3 Section 2.02, Subdivisions 2 & 3 Council Minutes of 8/22/88 Sketch of Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement Staff Memo of 6/17/88 Staff Memo of 8/17/88 Status of Application - At the Council meeting of August 22, 1988, the applicants requested a tabling of all action on the variance application. The applicants requested additional time to discuss all available options of use of the property with the adjacent owner and the current owner of the remaining parcels within Registered Land Survey 1216, Mr. Gustafson. Since that time the applicants have staked the building envelope that now includes Parcel 0003, refer to Exhibit A. The lot could never be developed without the need for the approval of multiple variances. The magnitude of the variances needed for new construction would establish a negative precedent in dealing with other similar requests. Staff concurred upon inspection of the site and review of the actual land area, that it would not be feasible to develope Parcel 0003 with Tracts G & F as a buildable lot. Review of Applicants' Amended Proposal - (Refer to Exhibit B) The subject of the memo would suggest that the applicants propose maintaining a boat dock at the property located at 1895 Shadywood Road. In reality, the applicants- upon completion of a lot line rearrangement with Mr. Tillotson, propose the installation of a shared dock on the property at 1875 Shadywood Road now owned by Glen Tillotson. The dock would be limited to four slips, two slips for Mr. Tillotson's use and two slips for applicants' sole use. The applicants will purchase all remaining tracts of RLS 1216 and Parcel 0003 from Gustafson and legally combine as one unit. They propose no other improvement of the undeveloped land but will use Tillotson's existing drive and parking area. Zoning Pile #1296 November 23, 1988 Page 2 of 4 In the first part of the applicants* memo, they review the concerns expressed by the City during the variance review: 1. Security problem for dock without principal structure. 2. Need for a new curb cut to serve proposed dock area on a stretch of road that is heavily trafficked and with limited sight distance. 3. The need to install new hardcover within the lakeshore protected area. 4. The unknown or planned use for the remaining tracts of RLS #1216. 5. Negative precedent by allowing a secondary accessory structure to be built on property that does not have an existing primary structure. 6. Placement of dock by Glen Tillotson on property owned by Peterson and Stodola. Applicants' Response to the Concerns - Response to Item 1 - they note that the shared dock security problems will be minimized as the resident, Glen Tillotson, will have a vested interest in policing of the dock area. Response to Item 2 - the applicants propose no new curb cuts, but will share the driveway access via Mr. Tillotson's existing drive and no expansion is proposed. Response to Item J - no additional expansion of the existing driveway is proposed, therefore no additional hardcover is anticipated with the shared use. Response to Item 4 ~ the applicants propose purchasing all of the remaining tracts currently owned by Mr. Gustofson within RLS 12? including Parcel 0003 and legally combining them as one unit. Response to Item 5 - a secondary or accessory structure - the residential dock will now be placed on a property that can now receive credit of Mr. Tillotson's principal structure. Zoning File #1296 November 23, 1988 Page 3 of 4 Staff has enclosed sections of the L.M.C.D. code, review Exhibit C (Section 2.02, Subdivisions 2 & 3). As applicants noted in the earlier review, the L.M.C.D. would have permitted an accessory structure on this property since it was created prior to 1978. If the tracts were created after 1978, a principal residence would have been required. In Section 2.01, Subdivision 3, Common Use of Adjacent Dock Use Areas of the L.M.C.D. code, suggests that a principal residence is not required, merely a legal dock use area to be shared by both owners. The applicants also noted to staff that the likelihood of a lakeshore homestead owner agreeing to share a single dock with an adjacent, undeveloped, riparian tract would be very rare, especially if chat owner agreed to limit his dock use to two slips. Response to Item 6 - the applicants note that the lot line rearrangement will eleviate the violation of the setbacks of Mr. Tillotson's dock as the proposed shared dock will be located solely on Mr. Tillotson's property. Staff's Comments on Current Proposal > Clearly the L.M.C.D. code does not require a principal residence for accessory dock structures for lots created prior to 1978. The shared dock now located solely on Mr. Tillotson's property would technically receive credit of the principal structure from the Tillotson residence. The Orono code does not distinguish between an accessory dock used as a single or shared dock. Staff would also add that this may not meet the true intent of the ordinance. If the Council concurs with the current proposal of the applicants, the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement will provide the City with the necessary authority to place restrictive controls on the future uses of the shared dock and the unbuildable properties to be combined as one unit. Staff would also agree with the applicants that the likelihood of a homestead, lakeshore lot owner giving up slips in a shared dock situation with an undeveloped, adjacent parcel would be most unusual. Council may wish to seek the opinion of the City Attorney regarding credit of the Tillotson principal structure for the accessory shared dock in consideration of the pertinent sections of the Orono Zoning Code. Zoning File #1296 November 23$ 1988 Page 4 of 4 It should also be repeated for the record that based on Ben Whitney's memo of July 19, 1988 that the granting of a building permit for an accessory structure on a lot that does not sustain a principal residence would not be in violation of Minnesota Statutes 462.357 ("use" variance). Please review Exhibits F & G the staff memos that provide the details and background on the present applicant. Review specifically the sections in the staff memo. Exhibit F, that deals with the background on riparian tracts created by the City in recent times. Options of Action Available to Council - A) To deny the current request of the applicants and to direct staff to amend the original denial resolution presented for Council action to include the removal of the existing dock on Tracts F & G, and to further deny the proposal that would allow the applicants to achieve credit for the principal residence on Tillotson's property that would provide them riparian access to Lake Minnetonka. B) To approve the current proposal of the applicants based on the findings noted above and to direct the applicants to file the appropriate lot line rearrangement with Mr. Tillotson, and to further advise the applicants that the City will adopt the following restrictive conditions in conjunction with the approval of pending subdivision. 1. Shared dock to be limited to four slips, two slips to be assigned to Mr. Tillotson and two slips assigned to the applicants. 2. Tracts B, C, D, F, and G, of RLS 1216 and Parcel 0003 are to be combined. 3. All future improvements of the combined properties of the applicants must be reviewed subject and Approved by the City of Orono. The City Attorney should advise whether a resolution denying the buildabilty of combined Tracts B through G of RLS 1216 and Parcel 0003 is also required. z Q K O U H PE u n u p Xi o 0 <H ^ •H ^ O o >• o iH *0 >l4> 4J Q> G §■§•3ss.- 0) r-l •H *0 « ^ C*^^ *H 4JS cfssIsa (0 0) o 0) • •H C Xi o *0 -P >1 rH Id »H »0 -H O «M 0) 0*H c *0 ja »H 0-H cr > Id *H p »o oxi^ aa Id 0 0) •> a > 0 <N o « >1 M -H r-l a Wl u P o 0 •H 0) n u a 0 0 > 0 X V ua p P -H •H *0 > jH •—I P iH 0 p 0-H O O EC U rH 0) ua •o iH 0 P O 0 O -H o P -n 5h a-H p p £ 0 n 0) H P 0) O 0 a > • OHO) o n 0 P 0 0 1 *0 ^ g <H c; 0 0 0 u n *o ha u u a (C o a a rH 0 •H P 0 P 0 0 .Q P 0 0 U 0 H 0 0 0 0 g M P 0 0 X •a 0 0 £ p x: p •O OP — 0 0 0 >o > P > O P 0 o P P 0 H 0 P *0 O P *0 p O p 0 >0 0 p »0 O P 0 o p crp 0 0 0* PPO000 a0 P M 0 P >1 a 0 p p a o >iia 0 0 p E 0 p o _ 00uox:cr>io U 0 0 P o CP p 0 o P 0 0 • O • P 0 p p 0 p p 0 0 >iH0H 00*00 P0EPP0000 M > P 0 O 0 0 ^ op p *o ap a0O9OPP00 o PH0a0»op H0ppaao0O ap0 0 0 0 OP*i~i J 0 0 0 0 0 a p O H<a a in in tn Q 0 a 0 O p CM p H 0 o o O o Q P o o O o Z P 1 1 1 1 D O o o ozH 0> p 0 o O P *o 0 0 H P H O 0 •o *o p x; 0 P 0 M 0 *0 0 O 0 H P o o 0 o p p 0 *0 0 *0 0 0 p 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 x: ^ 0 p xa X) p 0 • 0 o P 0 0 *0 0 0 Id p p p 0 x: p p »o 0 *o 0 pxa 0 I o O 0 M g o ►a 0 o P *D tn p V£> CN O 0 m m CM 1 P p 1^ o o p o u 0 § 0 0 0 P 0X< o o o 0 o r-l p 0 <0ap*o X 0 P OP 0 o 0 O T1 0 O 0 m 4J 01-1 0 H*0 •OH 0 0 0 *0 a ap 0 O 0 0 P P 0 O 0 OP *0 0 0 M o p > H 0 0 *0 *o P 0 0 O g D 0 PP 0 H 0 P o 0 u p 0 up VO o o 0 1 fH P P CM I P p 00 o O'a O' a O' a CT' a O' a O' a 1 H M O < K H O4 P6 M a Q) iH 0) o «a 0) a CO« u 10 m CN n c I o u fH 0) u V4 fia 0) 0) a CO 0) o 10 C iH o *a M « Id 0) >1 a « 0) 4) m •« w 4J ^ O ;3 Ml O 0 M 4J 4> 4J ^ 41 4J C ^ « O -H ^ •H O •O *n 10 iH A) rH 9 O M 4) o c o o x: 6 U 4144 M 4J O *0 « .C i4 *H a 4) 4) n (0 CO Id C 4) 4) 4J 9 » ^ > c Id o o Id u ^ 44 4) O 4) >1 O 4> Id > c V4 4> *H 4-> 4) 4) >H fO O Ua*o 4>x c Id O 41 E O C T-» l4 ^ E O Id *0 a u *H <0 D Id (0 4) u o Id m CM 4> •H 44 ua OU3 to -p 9 «S W n M O •g 04i ^ 4) .. > o JJ *H rH C 4)4) O 4) • 10 4) c P c n 4) 4) M a*0 »D 4) 4» ^ *H tJ> •o 9 n 4) c o 4) a H O •o T} Id •H « 9 iu3 a 4i M •O *H 44 4) 4) U O 0> M 4) « >i4J a«H i ‘H w O »04) 4) 4) 4j *0 iH M in ja u Id >1 Id 4) fH »0 4) P *H > O 4) <H «H 4-> E 9 4) P .Q O 4> O C 4) Oa 9 iH rH a 4) u u Id 4> OB iH o « rM *0 iH •O-H U 9 n 4J o <H £ O *0 ID >4 4) « S O C •H 0 4)idiai3a 44C4> n >0 O » OP 4) C n fH C*009 a *o 4) 4) c a 4) c *0 44 p 4) fHp>0 HO»OP 4) n 0*H 4) *H 0 X p 4) js 4) n 44 •H •> a Id 4J • > 4) iH4Jap -P4)P4) C « 4) 44 a *H *0 C4) •OOQJC'O-H* id'04>*H 4)Oidifi4) JSCUaiQC «4) a 4J4) CP4) 4JP9a*D o 4) x: *o a 4) 4) 4)r-l U4J4JrH 4)£X< P*09 4> 9fi4J0 oeocidooo-HO ac-H o<H a4J ox; 4)'o 09 4) pu Id 004)Pu Id O2 HH u Z Mo a N H CO H Q uiH H* »H O OI iHnIrocs fH fH 00o 0 rH 1s \o rH O 0 I rHro Im CM 1r- rH fHI GO O u 0 0 U UfHrHiHrHiH1111aaaai9•9 P) fH in CM CM m ■M*CM CM iH fH0000000000 1 1 1 1 1 rH fHromroCMCM11J1iromr^;m CM CM CM CM CMI1111r>*r* fH fH fH fH fH»H fH fH iH iH111100GO0000 0 0 0 CM CM P)au H a a o>a a tna O'a O'a Ova o*a o iH fH rH CM rH ro iH A RBSOLUTIOH DENYIII6 VARIAHCBS TO MDHICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 1296 IfHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted a Community Management Plan and Zoning Regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Merritt J. Peterson and Rick Stodola (hereinafter "the applicants") have an interest in the property located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") legally described as Tracts F and G, Registered Land Survey #1216, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) seeking an area variance to allow construction of a principal residence within an approximate building envelope of 5,500 s.f. and an average dry buildable land depth of 95 to 105 feet where the zoning district would require a minimum of 21,700 s.f. or 1/2 acre in area, requiring approval of an area variance of 16,280 s.f. or 75%. Absent a site plan for the development of this site, ard in consideration of the minimum standards of the LR-IC zoning distric*:., the applicants would probably have to seek additional hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2, and variances to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 that would prohibit structures and excavations within 75* of the lakeshore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has revifewed the application; the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission; and the comments of the applicants and applicants' attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested variance for the property described above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: 1. Registered Land Survey #1216 was filed on May 8, 1967. The property at that time was zoned R-lD, requiring 1/2 acre in area and the subdivision regulations of the City would have required City approval. The public records of the City do not provide any evidence that the record owner at that time, ^iiriam D. Coffee, now Mrs. Ewald Gustafson, had filed an application for subdivision approval, as the majority of tracts within RLS #1216 are wetlands area, it is not clear as to the original purpose of the division. Page 1 of 7 2. The property is currently zoned LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential zoning district, requiring a minimum of a 1/2 acre in area and 100 feet minimum width. Based on the performance standards of the zoning district, the proposed use of the property as a residential or buildable lot would require the following variances; Lot Area: Required Existing Variance 0.5 acres or 21,780 s.f. 0.126 acres or 5,500 s.f. 0.38 acres or 16,280 s.f. or 75% b) The following variances would be required if the lot was developed as a buildable lot because of the limited depth of the lot at an average depth of 95 to 105'. Street Setbacks Required = 30' Lakeshore Setback: Required = 75' Hardcover Within the 0-75' Setback Area Must be Maintained at 0 s.f. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance 3. The present owners (originally only Mrs. Gustafson) owned the property prior to 1967. Ewald and Miriam Gustafson owned a residence on the east side of the County road, opposite the subject properties. The Gustafsons have maintained single separate ownership of RLS Tracts B, C, D, E, F & G. In addition, Gustafsons own approximately a 1/4 acre lot to the north and adjacent to Tract G of RLS #1216, (hereinafter referred to as "Exception"). 4. The property, currently owned by the applicants, consists of Tracts P & G, RLS #1216. Tracts F & G are divided by a lagoon area. The majority of Tract F consists of wetlands. The narrow land strip of Tract G is restricted by a County road right-of-way and by the encroaching wetland and lagoon. 5. Per the Flood Insurance Rate Maps of the City of Orono, Community Pannel No. 2701780005 C, the majority of Tracts F & G are located within the flood plains of Lake Minnetonka. The flood plain elevation of Lake Minnetonka is determined to be at the 931.5 elevation. 6. On November 24, 1967, Miriam D. Coffee received $100 from the County Highway Department for the sale of an easement for the adjacent County Road 19 involving Tract G of RLS #1216. The relincjuishing of this additional dry land area created more of an impact on the buildable envelope of this tract. Page 2 of 7 7. Tracts F & G of RLS #1216 have never been assessed for sewer or water. 8. The following table reviews the assessed market valuations for Tracts P & G; Tract P Tract G $100 $300 100 300 100 300 100 300 100 300 110 270 100 250 60 140 40 100 30 80 50 70 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 The market valuations suggests that the properties have never been assessed as building sites, although the assigned valuation of this property might change as a result a new clarification in allowed uses of this property. 9. The LR-IC, single family lakeshore residential zoning district contains 631 developed residential units. Of these 631 units; 209 of 631 (or 33%) exceed the 0.50 acre lot area requiiement 517 of 631 (or 82%) are in excess of 0.20 acres 611 of 631 (or 97%) are in excess of 0.15 acres The Council finds that this lot with an area of 0.12 8 acjes is not consistent with the existing developed lot sizes in the LR-IC zoning district. 10. The property falls so short of the zoning stan : of the district, that the aroa variance and the variances required to burld on the property are so excessive that they cannot justify the granting of the variance. 11. On May 6, 1988 the Building & Zoning staff discovered a dock constructed on the property and posted the dock advising the owners of the violation on the property. In addition, a letter was sent on May 12. 1988 advising the record owners of the iolation. Page 3 of 7 12. The following code sections were violated with the construction of the dock: , Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) - Time of construction. No accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Section 10.25, Subdivision 5 (A) - Accessory uses. Any accessory uses regulated in the R-lA zoning d. strict, any private docks subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. 13. On May 20, 1988, staff met with Al Michaels, the attorney representing persons with an interest in the property, regarding the violation and advised of the necessary administrative steps to be taken in order for the City to determine that a dock can be legally installed on the property, as a dock is considered an accessory structure, staff recommended that a lot area variance application be filed with the City in order to determine if the lot was a buildable lot. If the lot was deemed unbuildable, then it was appropriate for the current owners to ask what other reasonable uses can be made of the property. 14. Tracts F &.R of LRS #1216 were purchased by the applicants in 1987. The tax records refer to the fee owners as Coffee Landings. 15. At a preliminary application conference with the applicants, they advised staff that they had met with the Chairman of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District prior to constructing tne dock in order to determine if there was legal authority to construct a dock on the property. Applicants failed to contact the City of Orono even to question the need for a building permit for suci construction. • 16. On May 26, 1988, the applicants filed a lot area variance application with a specific request to maintain a dock on the property without a principal structure. 17. The applicants were allowed to retain the dock until the buildability of the property was re/jolved by the Council. The applicants were asked to not use the dock until the Council had made a final decision concerning the future use of the property. 18. On June 20, 1988, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the lot area phase of the variance application and recommended denial of the requested variance based on the following findings: A) There is only approximately 5,500 s.f. of area within the defined building envelope, with an approximate depth of 100'. Page 4 of 7 B) There is not adequate area to build a house and meet the 75' lakeshore setback requiremexitr the street and side yard setback, and hardcover regulations. C) The property has never been assessed for sewer or water. D) The property was valued for tax purposes in the past at a "educed amount to reflect the fact that these are substandard xots and not appropriate for residential construction. E) The lot is subject to flooding and is in the natural drainageway to the lake for the surrounding watershed. Any construction would be subject to periodic flooding. F) The property is substandard in size in relationship to other lots in the area upon which development has already been completed. G) The granting of a lot area variance for this property would result in additional: traffic congestion, surface water drainage problems, surface water pollution problems for Lake Minnetonka, congestion in the area, diminishing value to the surrouding properties, and par'll’" j problems in the area. H) The applicants ha7e failed to demonstrate any hardship to warrant the granting of the variance, as the granting of the variance would be hazardous to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Orono. I) The granting of the requested variances would be adverse to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code of the City. • 19. The Planning Commission moved on the second phase of the application voting to recommend against the use of the residential dock based on the following findings: A) The lack of the principal structure means that there is no individual responsible for protecting the dock nor the boats maintained at that dock. B) An adjacent neighbor already has a dock located on Tract F. C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate parking that would meet the required setback of 75* from the channel area nor the required 30 feet setback from the strf»et lot line. The County Highway Department also does not allow j ‘’■king along this section of the County road. Page 5 of 7 D) Approval of the use of an accessory structure such as a dock, without a principal structure would establish a negative precedent in dealing with a similar request for lots of similar size. 20. The neighbor to the immediate east of Tract F, the riparian portion of the property, already has a residential dock established on the property. 21. Approximately 2 to 3 years ago, staff met with Mr. Gustafson, the former owner of the property, to discuss the potential use of RLS #1216 and the lot referred to as Exception. Mr. Gustafson was advised that if all lots were combined that there was a potential for a buildable lot as it appeared tha- the lot referred to as Exception had appropriate lot width but that a survey was necessary to make such a determination, in addition to the filing of the appropriate variance application. 22. It was unknown at that time by the reviewing staff, that the neighbor to the eaf.t not only encroached upon the Gustafson property with a dock, but had constructed a portion of a garage and constructed an access drive totally within the Gustafson's property. 23. The City Council reviewed this application at their July 11, 1988 meeting and directed staff to draft a resolution of denial of the lot area variance and further directed the City Attorney to review whether the City h-^d the legal right to deal with the approval of the use of the property for an accessory dock. Council further directed staff that upon resolve of the legal issue they would further deal with the matter of a reasonable use of the property that would now be deemed unbuildable. • 24. The property can be put to a reasonable allowed uss as the tracts can be combined with the adjacent properties that remain under the common ownership of the Gustafsons. 25. The applicants have failed to demonstrate by submitting additional information to support their request, outside of the original application, that would address the following concerns of the City: A) How will they achieve land access to the property and where will they park their cars? B) How will they protect the docks and the boats and equipment stored at the docks? Page 6 of 7 C) As the current land owners, how are they planning to deal with the neighbor who maintains a dock also on the property? And how do they plan to amend their application to include three separate land owners maintaining a dock slip on one tract of land? 26, The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 10.03, Subdivision 3 (A) of the zpning code with which the applicants must first comply before the requested variances can be granted: A) In revie<^ of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will be altered if a building permit is issued for this property. B) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow severely substandard lots to be developed in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and to be determental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader environmental principals a. d goals setforth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public health, safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns of surrounding property owners, but the City must also provide its citizens with a des^-gnated and approved optimum level of density, open space and quixlity of life. 27. Approval of an application that requires a 75% variance to lot area would establish a negative precedent in the future development of the LR-IC zoning district. The standards and intent of both the City Zoning Code and Community Management Plan would no longer ha'-e any effect if the City establishes a precedent of approving variances of this degree. August, ATTEST: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 22nd day of 1988. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 7 of 7 121388.4 TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato DATS: December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment - Planned Development COUNCIL mim JAM -o'.ssa CITY OF Attachment: A. Comprehensive Plan Zoning Amendment Dated November 22, 1988 B. Planned Development/Traditionally Zoned Subdivision Comparison ISSUE 1. Presentation of issues and alternatives based on the November 28th discussion. 2. Request for Council policy direction in the areas discussed. INTRODUCTION - At the Council*?. November 28, 1988 meeting a review of Attachment A was made with the Council tabling the matter to a future meeting. Subsequent to that meeting Attachment B was prepared to further illustrate the difference between a standard rezoning/subdivision and the planned development approach. DISCUSSION - As noted in the comparison the planned development approach on the Reber's property gave an increased control with standards for the subdivision substantially in excess of those of a traditionally zoned subdivision. The movement from a planned development as a conditional use permit to .a rezoning not only requires a 4/5*s majority vote to make effective but is a legislative act to which the Courts give the City broader discretion than a CUP when the applicant meets the "standards**. Standards can be included in the planned development ordinance in the ways outlined in Attachment A. Any flexibility in these standards is based on an improved "solution" requiring a 4/5th*s vote to allow. Enforcement of a CUP/planned development is by the terms of the developers/subdividers agreement. Enforcement of a planned development as a rezoning can be by both a violation of the zoning code and through the developer*s agreement. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Discuss and give staff direction on each of the points outlined on Attachment A. 2. Discuss and table for further discussion. 3-. Refer to Planning Commission. 4. Direct staff to amend the draft ordinance in line with the Council*s suggestions on the issues to be tabled for adoption at a future meeting. llblii ai^hway 12 for rhich this zoning vehicle would be most appropriate. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by y seconded oy having directed staff rec-rdlng revision of the draft tables the matter until February 1989 for review draft which could be jointly discussed with the “inning Commission at the February 6th Joint meeting. Ayes —, Nays —. 101388.3 / A to: Mayor and City Council from: Mark Bernhardson. City Adnlalatrator Q4TE1 Movenber 22t 1988 SUBJECT: comprehensive Plan Zoning Amendment ^ ft Attachments • : Sf -it* ^ - tj A. Comprehensive Plan Zoning Amendment'-Memo Dated 10/6/88 B. P.R.D./P.I.D./P-U-D- Comparison C. Excerpts from Highway 12 Corridor Study D. Ex^rpts^^ono Zoning Code PHD. PID - M6 .. — ^ ^ AA ^ m ^Planned Multiple Family “ * v*-. ISSUE - X. presentation of issues and alternatives based on the October 10th discussion. 2. Request for Council policy direction in each of the areas identified. IHTRODUCTI^ - The Council t“discLsirry 5!Sa^rhaTi “-nt^eTi»res7nra^ - council to consider regarding the amendment. 1-hsi Staff will then be able to account. , . S.U A. 4.V1- Planning Commission had considered “e’rnVmeVtrrheirAugust IT. 1988 meeting and that the vote for approval was 5 to 0. At the request of ^^^VmlVr issue of PUD'S with former B„,iopments actions in the research indicated passage of the ;,ir!,;\\i;"^a7i^^"pra:•ned^S:velopemnt District in 8/lWTS. Xn addition the Council did consider a platting code revision in 1977 but no further action was apparent. (A review of the draft from that time period did not reference Planned Developments). In a phone conversation with Mr. Paurus on November 21. 1988. he thought it was done in conjunction with the development of the comprehensive plan prior to April 1980. His recollection was that they had discussed it but chose not to adopt it. He indicated he would see if he had anything in his files on it. Jeanne Mabusth was a member of the staff at the time and does not recall any PUD discussion during the comprehensive plan. .DISCUSSIOW/ALTERNATIVES - The following represents - an issue by issue breakdown of issues raised by Council at the October 10th meeting together with alternatives to address those issues. ^ SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHWAY 12 - The sole issue raised at the October 10tj^m..tiag^g.rd^ing,t^ a|.oiaW^,y.lre..n^ 'section^for highway 12 ^was the" inclusion of a PUD/PRD (if continued) under the list of zoning types that could be used in the area. Alternatives 1. Include one or both 2. Mot Include HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE -_B6 The principal issue addressed here was the limited listing of uses with the idea that other uses could be brought forward under the amendment to expand the use of Planned Districts from PRD and PID to a PUD. To the extent that the broadened is either not used or limited to circumstances that would not entail the B6. this issue should be reviewed. Alternatives 1. 2. 3. Leave as is. Definitive laundry list of uses. Reference of available uses from other zoning classifications. C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1. Planned Development Concept - The principal concept underlying a Planned Development ordinance is to allow a City Council increased control on the type of development allowed in an area. Additionally it allows more flexibility as to direction it can undertake in land use. Any such development would need to be in line with the City ’s Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. The ity's current zoning code incorporates a Planned Residential Development (PRD), a Planned Industrial Development (PID) and an M6 Multiple Family Planned Residential (MFPRD), all of which are forms of planned development with reference to specific uses. For Orono, ^ the bulk of uses are covered by those with commercial and mixed use the only exception. The present PRD and PID's however do not afford the amount of control that a more universal Planned Development zoning would allow. The concept avoids the cookie cutter approach of traditional zoning and a 11 ows pro po sal a ,to, take-in to account the needs of the community and the opportunities and limitations on a property. 2. PUD/PRD/PID Comparisons - The Council requested, as part of the discussion of this matter, a comparison of the present PRD's and the proposed PUD approach. Pertinent to the comparison is the Planned Industrial District (PID) ordinance the City has in its zoning code. As noted above the presen^t PRD and PID are "subsets" of a PUD. The differe'nce between these present types of PUD’s and the proposal is outlined in Attachment 2. The present PRD is not a rezoning, but only a CUP which requires "Council Approval" which could be as minimal as 2 to 1 on a night with three Counci 1 per sons are in attendance. The PID is similiar to the PRD. Both of these are to allow more flexibility within each of the underlining zones but no more control of development, any proposal that would have a use or a density different than existing zoning would require a rezoning in the same manner that you would have rezoning to a Planned Development as proposed. The proposed amendment not only generalizes the uses of the "Planned" approach, it requires an actual rezoning and would require a 4/5*a vote in order for it to be implemented similar to the current M-6 MFPRD. The advantage to this approach is not only that it requires an extraordinary majority of the Council to approve, but also it is a legislative act which the Courts allow more discretion as to the decision by the Council than they would in a ministerial or administrative act that might be found in a "CUP". In order to condition any development as part of a CUP it must reasonably relate to the specific conditions listed under the CUP. This is not a limitation for a rezoning. Issues related to this are addressed below. The degree of flexibility allowed is subject to type of benefits gained by the rezoning. The burden of proof for a development is on the applicant for a rezoning does not adversely effect the community but is a benefit to the City. Alternatives 1. Adopt a broader Planned Development repealing PRD, PID and MFPRD sections. 2. Adopt a broader Planned Development leaving PRD, PID and MFPRD in place. 3. Leave PRD, PID and MFPRD as they are. 4. Combination thereof. 3. PROJECT DENSITY/AREAS FOR APPLICATION - As presented at the October 10, 1988 Council meeting the draft density was subject to the most closely associated district. For PRD*s and PID's as presently incorporated in the Ordinance they were tied as an overlay district into the underlining zoning. A Planned Development ordinance can be adopted in a various ways to address the density issues. Alternatives 1. Planned Development Ordinance with no density requirements. 2. Planned Development Ordinance subject to most closely associated district. 3. PUD only in selected areas. a) sewered b) delinated areas c) prior districts limitation 4« DEVELOPtfEWT CRITERIA - The proposed ordinance as currently drafted references the most closely associated district for standards. Depending on the direction of the Council as to where and how density is applied the other standards will be made applicable in a similar manner. In additio^to the base requirements of the zoning code, throughreview process additional controls the-ee would be included in a "project specific" design manual that becomes an additional requirement to be met by the development. (The City could have a generic framework developed to indicate issues and level of detail to be addressed in project specific manual.) ALTERNATIVES 1. Criteria from other zoning standards. 2. Standards based on prior zoning/or aost closely related use. 3. "Project specific" design manual development as part of developer’s agreement based on a City developed generic framework for a Planned development specifying issues and level of detail. 5. MINIMUM ACREAGE - The minimum acreage to be brought in for development under a PUD was Initially drafted at 5 acres. This parallels the 5 acre minimum found in the PID and MFPRD ordinance. This means that parcels of larger size can be brought in for development, but that smaller parcels under 5 acres cannot be used under the PUD ordinance. The density within this 5 acre minimum would be subject to Council decision as to how to approach density and use. ALTERNATIVES A. Leave at 5 acres. B. Decrease. C. Increase. SPOT ZONIMG - Related to the issue of minimum acreage is the issue of spot zoning. While to some degree this is in the eye of the beholder, the City has approved zoning areas as small as 1 acre. (Casco Run office property on Shoreline Drive.) 6. PROCESS AMD REVIEW - While process for PUD involves the staff in a more sign* j'%t role than the current PRD or current PID does, the process also allows early Council Involvement into significant design issues that would would not be under the purview of the Council in a standard rezoning or under the current PRD/PID setup in the ordinances. ALTERNATIVES 1. Further delinate the process, 2. Revise the process to meet Council goals. 7. FUTURE COUNCILS - This issue was raised by both Planning Commission and Council. To the extent that the zoning and the zoning amendment require a 4/5's vote as does a Comprehensive Plan Amendment there is nothing that precludes a future Council (or for that matter this Council) from altering the direction and utilization of these ordinances or similar types of ordinances or ordinances of greater concern based on following the appropriate process. The Council's implementation of a Planned Development will need to be within the scope of the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment goals and objectives. Should this Council not adopt a broader Planned Development ordinance, future Council’s could, rezone a property by the same vote that is required to adopt a Planned Development ordinance or rezone a piece of property to a Planned Development zoning. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Do not adopt a broader Planned Development ordinance. 2. Adopt a Planned Development that reflects O C„..u ■ .. . . . . . . . . .. - ».>■— The foUo«i“8 re=''“"-ATIOW - The roj. , „ of a broader ionee ,. ,i,h •»•'■* those llated bo be ordinance. C. P. tHMED 0mh22BSl ~rri . p.nPMEHT - conceptual review an tWMED DEVELOIM^ approval.of broader Planned , PRD/PUD/Ua - ‘“"'’itrrepeal of the PRD'/“ o;vef^;^:^--^"*"roa''ter dealEh I,*; 3„d HFPH» '’r^“dU Tac\ that it is a le«islati "*th'an a ministered act.rather than aer than a ^ 3. r;v.- r..r;..vr 3U3;, - 3:::..’--- :;rr.rr3.“:a benefit . Standards to - aP^-- based on a City d ana levels lining issues to b.lining issues minimuni acreageolniBum acreage ,arifi«<i « ., 32CSSS - 3«; »• .""".“r”* into"^^"'^ this matter. •. ^ :.J,. ■ ' : It is furfch6r i*6comnend hvi-sv _ discussions directs staff to furth based on these evening, direction given this n.vldg ^"d Cdunell ..... ........ “-7;.r.r tzt::.:: cc:John Shardlow Jeanne Mabusth Michael Gaffron ■> o «u ’.. ..; V COHPABISOH OF PRD/PID/PUD ATTACHMENT B PRD PID PUD Type of Land Use Lialted to Residential Limited to Industrial Allows xibility for all .3 of land use as outlined by Council in the Ordinance including mixed use Density Same density bi.t allows actual lot size flexibility Same as PRD Depends on standards set. Currently the most closely associated zoning district. Implementation Conditional Use Permit Condlwional Use Permit Rezoning Platting Related to subdivision Can be independent of subdivision Relatec subdivision Goals «?pen space Brat ,*i I -1 Best design to fit the City objectives and land topography Design ^^ntrol Limtied to land configuration Limited to land configuration Allows standard f^^^ desi^^ manual plus negotiated design controls 10688.5 TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrato DATS: October 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Zoning Amendment C:T 10|930 17 OF emv Attachments:A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Highway 12 Dated 6/22/88 B. Draft Ordinance - Revised ISSUE - Presentation of introductory remarks reprding the zoning amendment to implement the Comprehensive Plan Study. The original draft was presented to the Council as f' and was initially heard by the Planning Commission at theii meeting on July 18, 1988 and on a 3 to 2 vote adopted by the Commission at their September 19, 1983 meeting. DISCUSSION - The new draft of the zoning amendment's presented for y^f consideration at this time, John Shardlow will b^ able^to be present to indicate concerns the Planning Coimission had and how they have been addressed together with being available for any questions you, as a Council, may have regarding the introduction. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the ordinance s presented5 2. Amend and ? 3. Table for fu* . ir discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - As the document is ^irly sianificant p^icy item the staff recommends that this be taoiea for a minimum of two weeks in order to allow the fully study the matter, to discuss any further conceps or issues they have with it and that it then b« taken for p®^“i®,' the^October 24 or November 14th meei, -i. (At present *^*J® ® plan, while following the aideline" ontained **® is actually proceeding under the cu. ct set of ordinances.) PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by .^hat toe table the matter until at least October 24, Tl88. Ayes _, Nays cc: John Shardlow O 53. f. /lrTiujj^€ru-r" l\ TO: FItOM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardsonr City Administrator June 22t 1988 sr^'r^: zonia. Ordinance .n.end»ent - Hi.hwa. 12 Corridor U ^ A zoning Ordlnance^^dment Drafts Prepared by r.u\% =^r..;tir?oV ^ step would be their review,planning Commission tor cne V^l™?3sion rec^enVation. Planning Commissio ^^ridor are interested presently certain property wners in mitial teview. Any or at least the portion ^ ^y these individuals, property «iH be .losely .„„brelia- section Th-. structure is such I'ff orson'ing. a"d ^rw^frwa%%S"N-Var-Stfn d applicable to this corridor. , drafts to the PlanningATiTERNATIVES, itec^, the f)' Conunission for their review and recommendation. 2. Amend and refer. .3* Table for further Council discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMETOATION - It is recommended that these be referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to conduct a work session with John Shardlow on July 6, 1938 to review background on performance zoning and the Corridor Study. it is then anticipated that the Planning Commission will consider further work on this and that a public hearing in relationship to these be held perhaps at the August 1, 1988 meeting if appropriate progress has been made. It is additionally recommended that the Council direct the Planning Commission that their review of this matter is to entail a recommendation on the zoning amendments needed to the Corridor Study. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council refer tne drafts prepared by John Shardlow to the Planning Commission for their consideration and recommendation and that they be directed to undertake the review of the ordinances as to to implement the Comprehensive Plan following approoriate ®®sting(s) wi^;h John Shardlow. Ayes f Nays . cc: Planning Commission Members John Shardlow O 'V SEC. 10 .SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN THE HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA. A.Minimum Area To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum of five acres. The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study. B.Access and Circulation Plan The plans submitted along with the application must propose access to the proposed development which is consistent with the Transportation Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. All public easements and road right of way that is needed to allow the construction of service roads and/or the expansion of Trunk Highway 12 past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City. C. Sanitary Sewer Availability The availedjle sanitary sewer capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very limited. Therefore, any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur utilizing current sewer allocations or they must include improvements to increase the capacity of the systems serving this area. If sanitary sewer system improvements are proposed as cart of the application, then the feasibility of providing this service will also be scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to insure that the costs associated with providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development. D. Storm Water Management Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure consistency with the storm water management objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Plans will be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed storm water ponding areas contain sufficient storage capacity and whatever additional measures are necessary to guarantee that the quality of runoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards. E. Available Zoning Districts Due to the unique set of constraints and opport\initias that effect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development approach, outlined in Sec.* 10. of the Orono Zoning Ordinance. However, applications will be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning districts within the City, consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with all of the additional requirements estedslished in this section; HC Highway Commercial District. PRD Planned Residential Development RIA One Family Residential District RIB One Family Residential District M6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District F. Building Design and Construction In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards; 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or (b) Natural stone, or . (c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative materials or texture, or(d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the pemel materials be of any of those noted in items a, b and c Edsove, or glass. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. O 2. All subsequent add^ions^and^outbuilding^^^^^ constructed after th ,, constructed of building or those used in the originalmaterials comparable t “ ^ i„ a manner cl“oSlS°wiS ‘'t^e"original architectural desxgn and general appearance.aliu ». tuU«n, or trailer, j^“\ai„tained upon the propertyS5”as„0 tl. o»».roorro. of permanent: buildings. G. Requirement oi. - All development P®™^^®.?“te°subject^^^^^a*®°^^^°" t;«idor Study dl^il^meS? agreement shall improvements. The _Qy.a.l deemed necessa^ to all other c°^‘^^^^°^®+.2^a.uo^Snecial Minimum Requirements insure 12^Corridor Study Area, well IrtS^goa?! SI Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Development Agreement "•f i lw ^ t SEC. 10.45 B-6 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. 2. Application. All applicants far- a Commission for review. Planning Subd. 3. Permitted Uses, within any "B-S" winh,.,,,, Mil A. B. C. Offices (business and professional). Banks and financial institutions. Libraries. D. E. Motels, and hotels. Restaurants (Class I). within toe Highway 12 Corridor include commercial uses the underlyinl zoning d!I?r?°t. as Subd. 4. Conditional Use A.Within any "n-6" -Highway Business District no sttocture or land shall be used lor onfS'toe following uses except by conditional use permit; 1.fSLtiln"“^ that includes a drive-thru Within any “b-6" Highway accessory usesl^ ' following uses shall be permitted WS o A.„c».oa ... .. I” «• District. > Lot width. Setback Requirements Subd. 6. Area, following minimum and subject to additionalssssss f.s‘L"p;5o*„ro.n»i;.d ». =.«!.. _ .< this Title. A.Lot Area two acres B.Lot Width 100 ft. C.Setback - Principal Structure Front Yard Side Interior Side Street Rear Yard 30 (35)* ft. 10 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. D.Setback - Accessory Structure Front Yard Side Interior Side Street Rear Yard 30 (35)* ft. 10 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. E.Setback - Parking Front Side Interior Street Side Rear Yard 15 (20) ft. 5 (10) ft. 10 (15) ft. 10 (10) ft. setbacks in parentheses apply adjacent ' all residential districts. .30 feet or 1 1/2 tines the building height whichever is greater. - F. Drainage. No land g®ui®s*in^water runoff shall be permitted toa deposits on adjacentcau£.i^.floods, erosion or^de^^^ properties. Site ench detail as submitted by the appli those plauis shall be required by ^^eer before sxibmission to reviewed by the ^ council for approval, the Planning to oe properly channeled drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plam and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other having jurisdiction over the area affected ny the drainage. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 s liSi" percent (25%) of the land area Shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground percent(3%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. The following minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting: Overstory Deciduous Trees Ornamental Trees Coniferous Trees Major Shrub Plantings 2-1/2 inches in diameter 1-1/2 inches in diameter 6 feet tall 5 gallons J. K. hrash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally scifeened from eye-level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties, if accessory structures are proposed, they shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily served through swinging doors. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar tpe, quality and appearance as the principal structure. The^ound level view of all mechamical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal structure. L. M. External floSTtoe grl^d”levefview from completely commercial properties and ..e Ugtt irrecfed^nt^ fdilfert residential windows. '. J SEC. 10., SECTION: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10.' 1C.' .A: .B: .C: '.D: ’.E: '.F: '.G: 10. .H: Authorization Allowed Uses Required Standards Coordination With Subdivision Regulations Revisions and/or Changes Phasing and Guarantee of Performance Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development SECTION 10. .A AUTHORIZATION: Planned unit development authorization may allow: Subd. ' Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types and densities. Subd. 2. Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards associated with traditional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. Subd. 3. Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. Subd. 4. Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. Subd. 5. District Integration: The ccruoination of nse which are allowed in separate zoning districts such as: A.Mixed residential al types to be varied w vs both densities and unit ‘n the project. B.Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, r^ ’ation provides increased density on the property a PUD is utilized. c.Mixed land uses with the ir tegration of compatible land uses within the project. C SECTION 10. B ALLOWED USES Subd. 1. Used v^ithin the PUD may include only those uses generally considered associated with the general land use category shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and thos<^ uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance ot .he development plan. Any change in list of uads presented in the development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Section 10. .F of this Title. SECTION 10._.C REQUIRED STANDARDS Subd. 1. The City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodlands and wetlands, the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall cons;.der the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the '^ouncil may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. SECTION 10.COORDINATION WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Subd. 1. Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out .simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans r-quired \inder this Chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. SECTION 10._.E REVISIONS AND/OR CHANGES Subd. 1. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final :’\an was approved and filed with the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 2. Changes in uses, significant changes in the location, size, or height of structures, any rearrangement of blocks and building tracts, changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. Subd. 3. All of toe provisions of this Title applicable to toe original district within which toe Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD District except as otherwise provided in approval of the final plan. V , Subd. 4. Review; If substantial development has not * occurred within a reasonable time after approval of the PUD Zoning District, toe City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary fo‘: the City Council to find that toe rezoning was in error. .CTICN 10._.F PHASING AND GUARANTEE OF PERFORMANCE Subd. 1. The Planning Commission shall compare toe actual development accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule. Subd. 2. Upon recommendation of toe Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, toe Council may extend Ci.c limits of the development schedule. Subd. 3. The construction and provision of all of the co^on open space and public and recreational facilities which are shown on toe final development plan must proceed at toe SELVJ-. rate as toe construction of dwell^-ng units, if any. The Development Review Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for toe lUD a ad -xani.a the construction which has taken place on toe site, they find that toe rate of construction of dweJ.ling unita greater than toe rate at which common pper spaces and public and recreational facilities hav> been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to toe Council for action. Subd. 4. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be riguired to guarantee pc.fjrmance by toe eloper. The amount of this bond or 1: tier of credit, and the specific elements of toe development program that it is intended to guaramtee, will be stipulated in toe development agreement. Q SECTION 10.CONTROL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING COMPLETION Subd. 1. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. Subd. 2. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plaui except upon application as provided below: A. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be - .. y, authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. ’ o change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of any building or structure by more than ten percent (10%). B. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless and amendment to the final development plan is approved under Section 10._.F. C. Changes in the use of the common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the final development plan under Section 10._.F. D. Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10._.i^. SECTION 10. .H PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Subd. 1. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidcuice as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substauitial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. Subd. 2. General Concept Plan A. Purpose; The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plaui to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: 1. Overall maximum PUD density range. 2. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. 3. General location and extent of public and > common open space. 4. General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. 5. Staging and time schedule of development. 6. Other special criteria for development. B. Schedule: 1. Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator to discuss the proposed developments. 2. The applicant shall file the concept stage application and preliminary plat, together w.ith all supporting data. 3. Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Zoning Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing. 4. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the boundary of the property in question. C ) 5. The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or retain e::pert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. 6. The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a * four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and the acted upon in . ccordance with Section 10._.F for zoning district changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be submitted to the City: General Concept Stage: 1. Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title. 2. General Information: (a) The landowner's naune and address and his interest in the subject property. (b) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (c) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. 3.Present Status: (a) V The address auid legal description of the . ^ property. (b) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property. (c) A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within one thousand feet (1,000') thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the property. (d) A written statement general describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve ahd its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (e) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1»* - 100'). (1) Contours; minimum two foot (2”) intervals. t- (2) Location, type and extent of tree cover. (3) Slope analysis. (4) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300') of the property. (5) Significant rock outcroppings. (6) Existing drainage patterns. (7) Vistas and significant views. ^ f * ^ (8) Soil conditions as they affect development. All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. (f) Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. (g) A statement of the estimated total number nf dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: (1) Area devoted to residential uses. (;:) -- Area devoted to residential use by building type. (3) Area devoted to common open space. (4) Area devoted to public open space. (5) Approximate area devoted to streets. (i) (j) (k) (7) (8) devoted to, and °^f-street parJciAg and loading spaces and related access. Approximate area, and floor area devoted to commercial uses. ' Approximate area, and floor area devoted to industrial or office ' use. ^ constructed in bevind period of time extendingraeyond a single construction season a ^ for the development of luch submittedStating the approximate beginnino and un??'lnr?hf^" s2cS s?fgfor^ ^ proportion of the total pud uJats dwelling during each lroS"lta^ II ^IlgeT""^ When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common ooen space or service facilities a ^ provision that is to be such aaintenance ofsuch open space or service facilities. Any restrictive covenants that are to be iSfd f to proper?? utilities plans indicating =“itary and stirm excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required in thi<? stage which it finds to be^?ce??aS specific^ M? pquire the submission ofany additional information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. u 4. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to: (a) A final plat and information required by the City subdivision Title. (b) Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1”*100') (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information): (1) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the county where the subject property is situated). (2) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (3) The location, size use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, including mobile homes, and existing buildings which will - remain, if any. (4) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (5) Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (6) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicc’’.ed for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. (7) Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. (8) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on • - adjacent properties. (9) Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping. (10) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (11) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. An accurate legal description oJ the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected population. A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activj.ty (e.g. drug store, dry cleaning, supermarket). Preliminary architectural "typical” plans indicating use, floor, plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes. I i (i) (j) A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structure, including mobile homes, and uses. Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and natural site vegetation. The Plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts. Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. /(TTAC.Ur<V€OT ^ 111. implementation and change 1. INTRODUCTION This document represents the summary of the study phase giving the background, considerations, and conclusions for the alteration of land use patterns in the Highway 12 corridor. This document, submitted as part of the comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan' Council, has been reviewed at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission and by the City Council. The review of this comprehensive plan aunendment is in addition to the nine meetings that were held during the study phase. During the Metropolitan Council's review of this plan, the City will be working to develop the appropriate zoning implementation tools for this amendment. Implementation tools will break down into two groups. The first group is the standards which will have to be satisfied prior to a property being rezoned. The second set will be the actual zoning standards. Some will be new and others will be revisions of the — *• ^ __ ____ __— existing Planned Unit Development (PUD), zoning standards incorporated within current ordinances. Upon review and subsequent approval by the Metropolitan Council, the comprehensive plan amendment will be brought back for formal adoption by the City Council. At that time the zoning amendments will, be considered and adopted to allow for implementation of the comprehensive plan amendment. At the same time the allocation of existing sewer units currently assigned to Orono will be made. Upon adoption of all those items, the City will then be in a position to consider requests for rezoning for properties in the corridor. : !' 2. MINIMUM STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE ZONING In order to achieve the perfoimiance zoning classification a developer would have to meet certain performance standards which WOT.Id include the following: a) Master Plan Layout - A preliminary design to demonstrate ability to meet major issues for performance zoning. b) Minimum Developable Area - This would be a standard to establish the minimum area that a person would have to develop in order to achieve the zoning. This would generate developments of significant size to effectively use performance type zoning, avoiding development on a lot by lot basis. c) Aporooriate Development Schedule .,^ A timetable of anticipated development. d) Utility Capacities - Demonstration of ability to have utility capacity for the development, plus an improvement financing plan. e) Storm Water Management - Approximate layout to appropriately handle storm water. f) Traffic/Transp ortation - Adequacy of general circulation, capability and direction of plan. 3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT |i) Types of Planned Unit Development - All zoning changes within |:he corridor will be of the Planned Unit Development nature, rbese will be broken down as follows: - Pl2uin.ed Residential Development - Single Family - 1 Unit/2 Acre - unsewered and sewered up to 1 Unit/1 Acre - sewered - Multifaxnily - Up to 10 units per acre depending on square footage of units. *- Planned Commercial Development - Development of retail and commercial areas including consolidated retail and limited free standing sites. d) Standards Within Each Planned Unit District - Issues that ^ould be addressed by the actual performance zoning standards Include the following: A. Site Development Calculation - In an effort to attain protection of appropriate environmental assets determine the amount of the site that is developable through a resource m protection calculation. B. Compatibility of Uses - A listing of uses considered compatible within the established performance zoning. C. "Aesthetics* - Standards for development of property would include: 1. Landscaping minimum requirements. 2. Lighting standards. 3. Signage standards. 4. Requirements for compatibility of building materials. I O A-mViAV*w.B-ur S xu.jx F. There shall be no setback exceptions permitted for any horizontal building addition or hardcover increase of any kind within 75 feet of the shoreline or within 26 feet of any wetland. . ..G. There shall be no setback exceptions permitted without a Council approved variance in cases ,^here any existing building is being replaced by a new building, or where the proposed addition, remodeling and/or renovation work constitutes 50 percent or more of the assessor's fair market value for the existing building. In these situations, the new work shall conform to all required setbacks. H. The exceptions authorized by this Subdivision apply only to setback requirements and do not authorize variance of any lot area, hardcover, building height, building area or any other zoning or building code performance standard. Subd. 19. Future Amendments. The "RS" District regulations adopted by this Section represent an innovative attempt to solve the unique problems relating to historic use previously platted substandard lots on the islands while at the same time assuring the property owners of continued reasonable use of their property. It may be found by subsequent City Councils that this Section was not restrictive enough to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and that new development potential granted to property owners by this Section may have to be modified. Therefore, no new development rights granted by this Section shall be deemed to be vested property rights but shall remain subject to future modification by the City. Source: Ordinance No. 246 Effective Date: 1-13-82 SEC. 10.32. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Subd. 1. Purpose. This plan is available to land subdividers subject to Council approval, as alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. Land owners may submit land subdivision plans for any -R" District without adherence to minimum lot size requirements for each building lot, provided that the total number of building lots, or dwelling units, shall not exceed the number of such lots or unitsminimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts in which such land is situated. ORONO CC 330 (4-1-84) S 10.32 Subd. 3. Council Discretion. The dwelling units permitted may be, at the discretion of the Council and subject to the conditions set forth by the Council, in detached, attached or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. Subd. 4. Open Space, Etc. The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application of the Planned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. Subd. 5. Dedication of Open Space. The dedication and ownership of such open spaces may be through: (1) Homeowners Association; (20 Landlord Maintenance; (3) Special Service District; (4) Municipal Ownership; or (5) any other method deemed appropriate by the Council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. Subd. 6. Site Plan. The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer (public or private) plans, and plans of open soace available for park or recreational purposes, shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and the Council. Subd. 7. Hearings. The Council may direct that a public hearing be held to review such plans. Subd. 8. Final Approval. Final approval shall not be granted until all conditions set by the Council are met; and, further the Council shall not ap* -ove any such Planned Residential Development prior to the legally binding establishment of the open space dedication, ownership and maintenance provisions, such provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means satisfactory to the Council. Subd. 9. Subdivision Requirements. All provisions of subdivision procedure established by the City Code except as modified herein above, shall govern applications under this plan. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 (Sections 10.33 through 10.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC (4-1-84)O § 10.50 I. Storage. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all raw materials, supplies, finished or semi finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more than^ three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permitted parking areas. J. Landscaping. All open areas of any site, lot, tract or parcel shall be graded to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with the planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the owners' responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained. K. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shai: be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for aporoval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into ‘a ratural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 SEC. 10.51. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish provisions for the granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an over-all design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as provided hereafter. Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. The owner or owners of any tract of land within an "I" District may submit to the Council for approval a plan for the development and use of such ° land for a Planned Industrial District for commercial or other uses permitted in the district within which the land is located by making an application for a conditional use permit authorizing ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 10.*=1 completion of the development in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein amended. Subd. 3. Size Required. The tract of land for which a development is proposed and a permit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres. Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall be served by the City water and sewer syst m when available and fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plcm approved by the Fire Chief as to type and location. Subd. 5. Drainage. A surface drainage system shall be ccInstructed according to a plan approved by the City Engineer. Subd. 6. Parking. The off-street parking spaces shall be painted on the surfaced area according to a plan which has received approval of the Planning Commission and the Council. Subd. 7. Roadways. Private roadways within the project shall have an improved surface of 24 feet or more in width and shall be so designed and constructed as to permit the City fire trucks to provide protection to each building. Parking on a 24 foot roadway is to be prohibited; parking shall be permitted on one side of a 30 foot roadway. Subd. 8. Variances, It is the intent of this Section, Industrial Unit Plan, to provide a means to allow substantial variance from the provisions of this Chapter including uses, setbacks, height, and similar regulations but not including parking requirements, off-street loading, necessary screening and the like. Variances may be granted for the industrial unit plans provided: • A. Certain regulations contained in this Chapter do not realistically apply to the proposed development due to the unique nature of the proposed development; B. The variances, if granted, would be fully consistent with the general intent and purpose of this Chapter; C. The planned community unit would produce development and an environment of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this Chapter; 0. The variances will not constitute a threat to the property values, safety, health, or general welfare of the owners or occupants of adjacent or nearby land nor be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the people of Orono; ORONO CC 358 (4-1-84)u § 10.51 E. The proposed development is of such a unique nature as to require consideration under conditions of the industrial unit plan; and, F. It shall be determined that the variances are required for reasonable and practicable physical development according to a plan and are not required solely on the basis of financial considerations. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 (Sections 10.52 through 10.54, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 10.29 Subd. 4. Height. No structure or building in a study and research center shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Subd. 5. Temporary or Permanent Residents. No study and research center shall at any time serve as a temporary or permanent residence for a number of persons in excess of that determined by multiplying by 2-1/2 the number of acres of land devoted to use as such study and research center without a special permit allowing a greater number of persons in such number and for such periods of time as the Council may deem appropriate, due consideration being given to the interests of health, safety and public welfare. Subd. 6. Use. No study and research center shall at any time permit more than 300 persons to be present by invitation upon its property, without a special permit allowing a greater number of persons in such number and for such periods of time as the Council may deem appropriate, due consideration being given to the interests of health, safety and public welfare. Subd. 7. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. (See Section 10.28, Subdivision 5.) SEC. DISTRICT. 10.30. M-6 MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Subd. 1. Purpose. The "M-6" Multiple Family Planned Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow multiple dwellings in those areas where such development fits the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, where properly related to other land uses, where there is immediate access to adequate existing arterial highways and public sanitary sewer and in no case where located within 1,000 feet of the Lake Minnetonka. Rezoning of an area to the "M-6" Multiple Family planned Rc-sidential District shall comply with Comprehensive Land Use Plan or may be allowed only after the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is amended to show the possibility of the future rezoning of that area to the "M-6" Multiple Family Planned Residential District. Design and development shall follow the spirit and intent of the land use objectives of Section III-5A of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as adopted December 2, 1974, and the Guiding Principles of Section 10.01, Subdivision 1 of this Chapter. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the "M-6" Multiple Family Planned Residential District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings as regulated in the "R-IB" District. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. ORONO CC 290 (4-1-84) mmL:" S 10.30 Sufad. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "M-6" Multiple Family Planned Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IB" District and as further regulated in the "M-6" Multiple Family Planned Residential District. (MFPR Project). B. Multiple Family Planned Residential Project Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "M-6" Multiple Family Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. in Any accessory use except for "Roadside Stands" the "R-IA" District and as further regulatedas regulated herein. B. Privately owned buildings containing recreation or social functions, garages, or storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish. Subd. 5. Area, Lot Width, Yard Requirements, Height and Hard Cover Requirements. The following minimum or maximum requirements shall apply to all buildings, including accessory buildings except that permitted, conditional and accessory uses of the "R-IB" District as allowed herein shall be regulated by the "R-IB" District requirements. Subd. 6. Minimum MFPR Project Area. An MFPR Project shall not be allowed on an area of less than flv'^ acres. Areas of less than five acres may qualify only if t*ie applicant can show that the minimum area should be waived because the proposed MFPR Project is adjacent to an existing Project yhich has been developed under the provisions of this "M-6" District and is designed to create a larger, unified, physically integrated project, and will concribute to the amenities of the neighbornood. Subd. 7. Density in MFPR Project. The minimum platted .lot area per dwelling building in an MFPR Project and the maximum number and type of dwelling buildings allowed in a project are based on the following factors: A. Minimum lot areas as set forth in Subdivision 9 of this Section. B. area of the platted lot which is dry and buildable based O". ;e Resource Component Analysis of 34.973(b), less public right v. t ay. C. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. D. The number of each type of dwelling building. E. Required setbacks. ORONO CC (4-1-84) ‘mm § 10.30 F. Credits for housing for low and moderate income individuals and families. G. Required open space. H. Hard-cover areas. Subd. 8. Maximum Percentage of Dwelling Buildings by Type in MFPR Project. Single Faimily Two Family Three Family Four Family (maximum allowed) 10 percent 40 percent 80 percent 80 percent Subd. 9. Each Dwelling Building in an MFPR Project Shall be Platted to Meeting the Following Minimum Lot Requirements. A. Lot Area B. Lot Width Project 5 ac. (dry buildable area) 300 ft. (on public street) C. Lot 300 Depth D. Front 35 feet Yard from project boundary E. Side 30 feet Yard from project boundary F. Side 35 feet Street Yard G. Rear 30 feet Single Fcunily 6,000 sq.ft. 50 ft. (on public or private street) 100 Two Three Four Family Family Family 10,000 16,000 20,000 sq.ft.sq.ft.sq.ft. 65 ft.80 ft.100 ft. (on public (on public (on pub or private or private lic or street)street)private street) 120 120 120 25 feet from public street right-of-way or private street easements. Sum of side yards to be 15 feet, one of which may be 0 feet, but minimum distance between principal structures must be 15 feet unless attached on separate lots. 15 feet from public street right-of-way or private street easements. 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet ORONO CC 292 (4-1-84) Project Single Family Two Family Three Family S 10.30 Four Family H. Building 15 feet between principal buildings and between Separa- principal building and accessory buildings on separate tion lots in project. 10 feet between principal and accessory buildings on same lot. Subd. 10. Minimum Platted Lot Area Required Per Dwelling Unit (DU) Based on Number of Bedrooms. Efficiency 1 Br. Unit 2 Br. Unit 3 Br. Unit 4 Br. Unit 4.500 sq.ft. (9.7 DU/ac. or 48/5 ac.) 6.000 sq.ft. (7.3 DU/ac. or 36/5 ac.) 7.500 sq.ft. (5.8 DU/ac. or 29/3 ac.) 9.000 sq.ft. (4.8 DU/ac. or 24/5 ac.) 10,000 sq.ft. (4.4 DU/ac. or 22/5 ac.) However, not more than 20% of the dwelling units in any one Project shall be efficiencies. Not more than 40% of the dwelling units in any one project shall be efficiencies and one bedroom units. Subd. 11. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Subd. 12. Housing for Low and Moderate Income Persons and Families. In MFPR Projects containing fifty or more dwelling units in all construction phases, one dwelling unit of every twelve of the total number of dwelling units shall be provided for eligible persons or families in the low and moderate income range. This provision may be waived by the Council if: (1) the percentage of existing low and moderate income housing in the City exceeds the percentage of such dwelling units in the -Metropolitan area; (2) funds for subsidy program are not available within one year of application; and (3) the Council determines that the MFPR Project location is inappropriate for such dwelling units because of the lack of public and private support services. A. Density Credit. For all eligible MFPR Projects providing dwelling units for low and moderate income persons and families. One additional dwelling unit will be permitted for each twelve dwelling units allowed under the standard lot area requirements of the "M-6" District. B. Procedure. In order to provide low and moderate income dwelling units, the applicant shall propose application(s) to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, (or other source of subsidy funds) uider programs for home ownership (including condominiums), rental or cooperative housing. The proposal shall ORONO CC 293 (4-1-84) SI ^ conform to the guidelines established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development with respect to cost limitations, construction and other standards for development of moderate income dwelling units under the applicable subsidy program(s). The applicant shall furnish any proposal and supporting documents in the form of exchanges of correspondence with responsible officials of the FHA (or other source of subsidy funds), together with affidavits by the proponent reporting its discussions with such officials, indicating, to the extent then possible, whether there are uncommitted funds available for projects to develop low and moderate income dwelling units of the type proposed as well as for other type of units for low and moderate income persons and families. C. Satisfaction of Requirement Without a Subsidy. An applicant may propose to satisfy all or part of th. low and moderate income dwelling unit requirement without u^lizing a government subsidy program; provided, however, that prior to Pinal Plan approval by the Council, the applicant clearly demonstrates and warrants in writing that the proposal will benefit the same nui. b»- of families at the same income levels, and for th« same rentals or prices, which the low and moderate income dwelling unit requirements are intended to assure. D. Architectural Design Requirement. The architectural design of low and moderate income dwelling units will be consistent with the design of the overall MFPR Project and shall not be physically separated, screened or in any manner made identifiable as distinct from the rest of the development. Subd. 13. Hard Cover. The total hard cover on any one MFPR Project shall not exceed 35%. Subd. 14. Recreation and Open Space. MFPR Projects shall contain an adequate amount of land fof park, recreation or local open space use which shall not be less than 10% of the Project area, or the sum of one minimum floor areas based upon the number of bedrooms in Subdivision 16, Subparagraph C below, whichever is greater. The recreation and open space shall be easily accessible to the dwelling unit(s) it is intended to serve. The Project area not eligible to meet this requirement are driveways, parking areas, swamps, drainage areas, sumps, public sidewalks, required yard areas and required lot area required in Subdivision 9 of this Section. Subd. 15. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for Community Recre?ition and Open Space in MFPR Projects. Common open space (defined as that area of the project area set aside for the use and enjoyment of all residents in the Project, including residents of lots within a Project which may be under private ownership and on which lots there may or may not be private open space) shall be subject to requirements in Section 10.32. ORONO CC 294 (4-1-84)O 4. S 10.30 Subd. 16. Building and Site Design and Construction Requirements. A. A building permit for a multiple dwelling building shall not be issued unless the applicant's building plans, including the site plan, are certified by an architect registered in the State of Minnesota stating that the design of the building and site has been prepared under his direct supervision. Any building of Type I or II construction, as provided in the State Building Code, shall have its electrical, mechanical and structural systems designed by registered engineers. Provisions of this Subdivision shall in no way prohibit the preparation of the site plan by a professional site planner. B. Development within an MFPR Project shall contribute to the image and heritage of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness and high quality. Proposed buildings, structures and site elements shall be in good proportion; have simplicity of mass and detail; there shall be an appropriate use of materials; colors shall be in good taste and not used for dramatic effect but in harmony with themselves and their environment. The following building materials will not be allowed on exposed exterior blocks or other’structural blocks; corrugated metal or fiberglass panels; asbestos or asphaltic^ siding materials; materials that are subject to rapid deterioration. C. Floor Area Requirements. 1. The minimum net floor area requirements per dwelling unit for multiple dwelling buildings shall be as follows: Efficiency Units One Bedroom Units Two Bedroom Units Three Bedroom Units Four Bedroom Units Five Or More Bedroom Units 500 square feet 700 square feet 850 square feet 950 square feet 1050 square feet 1150 square feet 2. For purposes of measurement, the net floor area of a dwelling unit shall mean that area within a building used as a single dwelling unit, and shall be measured from tne inside of outside building walls to the center of partitions on the interior of the building bounding the dwelling unit being shall not include public stairways, public entries, public public balconies, or unenclosed public porches, rooms, furnace areas or rooms, storage areas not with apartment, or garages. D. Closets and Bulk Storage. Only closet space having a minimum cleat finish to finish depth of 2 feet, 0 shall be considered in determining the lineal feet of closet provided. The following minimum amounts of closet and bulk storage shall be provided for each dwelling unit: ORONO CC 295 (4-1-84) S I'v 1. Efficiency Units - 8 lineal feet of closet space and 80 cubic feet of bulk storage, 2. One Bedroom Unit - 12 lineal feet of closet space and 100 cubic feet of bulk storage. 3. Two Bedroom Unit - 24 lineal feet of closet space and 120 cubic feet of bulk storage. 4. Three or More Bedrooms - For each bedroom in excess of two in any one dwelling unit, an additional 8 lineal feet of closet space and 20 cubic feet of bulk storage volume shall be required. E. Sound. Party and corridor partitions and floor systems shall be of a type rates by a laboratory regularly engaged in sound testing as capable of accomplishing an average sound transmission loss (using a 9 frequency test) of not less than 50 decibles. Door systems between corridors and dwelling units shall be of solid core construction and include gaskets and closure plates. Room relationships, hallway designs, door and window placements and plumbing and ventilating installations shall be such that they assist in the control of sound transmission from unit to unit. P. Projecting Air Conditioning and Heating Units. Air conditioning or heating units projecting through exterior walls or windows shall be so located and designed that they neither unnecessarily generate or transmit sound nor disrupt the architectural amenities of the building. Units projecting more than four inches beyond the exterior finish of a building wall shall be permitted only with the written consent of the Building Inspector, which shall be given when building structural systems prevent compliance. G. Trash Incinerators and Garbage. No exterior trash or garbage disposal or storage shall be permitted. There shall be no exterior incineration, and any storage shall be completely enclosed by walls and roof. H. Accessory Buildings. Accessory buildings including structures for the storage of boats and recreational vehicles shall observe the same setback requirements established for the residence buildings. The Council may require common walls for accessory buildings where common walls will eliminate unsightly and hazardous areas. Accessory buildings shall have the same exterior finish as the principal structure and shall be designed and located on the site in a manner which complements other site elements and facilities. I. The "M-6" District or any development therein may not be adjacent to any One Family Lakeshore Residential District or within 1,000 feet of a lake, or within 200 feet of a wetland. ORONO CC 296 (4-1-84)O S 10.30 J. Elevation. No dwelling unit or any part thereof may be built at an elevation lower than the elevation of the ground at the base of the building. K. Entrances, own separate exterior access. Each dwelling unit shall have its L. Parking. There shall be provided on the lot occupied by the multiple dwelling building two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit, one of which is an enclosed parking space which may be located in or under the multiple dwelling building; detached from the principal building if its location s’erves some beneficial screening, buffering or transitional function; or else completely underground. In addition, .25 parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided for guests, and shall be located conveniently for the units they are intended to serve. The main parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable dust-free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and landscaped and shall be maintained in a well-kept condition. No parking area shall occupy any required Project yard area, nor shall it be located closer than five feet to a side or rear lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any principal building. Each parking space shall have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of 200 feet exclusive of aisles and maneuvering space. All parking areas containing more than six spaces which adjoin either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less than three feet nor more than four and one-half feet in height along such adjoining line. Such fences or walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen planting approved by the Council may be substituted for the required wall or fence. Guest parking stalls shall be easily accessible to or from the main entry of the multiple dwelling building. No street parking shall be permitted. M. Internal Streets. All minor internal streets shall be owned and maintained by the owner of the Project, by a Homeowner's Association or by any other agency or method deemed appropriate by the Council. Permanent easements fifty feet in width shall be provided as required by the Council for all private streets. Collector streets which may be required to maintain neighborhood continuity of circulation between MPPR Projects or with other adjoining development shall be provided with a public right-of-way. N. Outside Storage. No boats, recreational vehicles over twenty feet in length, maintenance vehicles or other similar bulky objects shall be permitted on the Project area unless completely enclosed in a building or in an area completely enclosed by a fence of such opacity and height to obscure the stored contents from any living or pedestrian areas on or around the Project area. Required garages or parking areas shall not be used for the storage of such objects or vehicles. ORONO CC 297 (4-1-84) S li 0. Landscaping. All open areas of the Project or individual platted lots within the Project shall be graded to provide prope. drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. The natural landscape shall be utilized where poss^»^le and reinforced with additional landscaping that is corapatib ith and complementary to the various use areas and functions the site, the structural additior-^ to the site development on neighboring properties and the adjacent public streets and highways. Landscape materials shall be of adequate size to contribute to the environmental quality at initial planting as well as at maturity. Generally new plant material shall be of the following sizes: deciduous overstory trees - 3 inch caliper; deciduous ornamental trees - 2 inch caliper? evergreen trees * 6 foot height; evergreen shrubs - 24 inch spread or height, dependent on form; deciduous shrubs - 3 feet height. Lawn areas other than natural landscape areas shall be sodded. Such landscaping shall conform with the planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the owners' responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained. Procedure. Subd. 17. Application Review and Administrative A. General Procedure. The general procedure for application, review and action on any Multiple Family Planned Residential Project shall be according to the following outline, with more detailed requirements found in the remainder of this Subdivision. Single family detached dwellings are excluded from the review process. 1. Application, filing fee and six copies of the Preliminary Plan are to be filed with the Planning Commission through the Zoning Administrator at least thirty days prior to the public hearing date. 2. Public hearings shall be held by the Planning Commission for all Projects. 3. Planning staff reviews Preliminary Plan and transmits copies of review to Planning Commission members. City Administrator, Park Board, affected surrounding municipalities and other appropriate agencies and applicant at least five days before public hearing before Planning Commission. 4. Planning Commission holds public hearings on Preliminary Plan. 5. Planning Commission makes recommendations for action on Preliminary Plan. 6. Council acts on Preliminary Plan. ORONO CC 298 (4-1-84)u s 10.30 7, Applicant submits Final Plan within ninety days of Preliminary Plan approval and fourteen days prior to Final Plan review at Planning Commission meeting. 8, The Zoning Administrator transmits copies of the Final Plan to the Planning Ccramissionr Park Board, Planning Staff, City Engineer, Building Inspector and Fire Chief. 9, Planning Staff reviews Final Plan and makes recommendation to Planning Commission at least five days before meeting. Planning Commission reviews Final Plan, recommends action to Council. li. If Council approves Final Plan, Zoning Administrator changes the zoning classification on the Official Zoning Map, as required, and files the Final Plan for enforcement. B. Application for an MFPR Project shall be made by the owner of the property except that an option holder may aPPly provided his application is accompanied by a signed statement indicating no objections from the owner or owners of all properties involved in the application. C. Application for a Preliminary Plan shall be filed with the designated Administrative Official and shall be accompanied by six copies of the following plans and information: 1. Location maps showing location within City and more specific location on a half section plat map showing all surrounding property lines within 350 feet of the proposed plan. 2. Resource Component Analysis (RCA). The purpose of the RCA is to determine specific design features of a Project that will minimize the detrimental effect of f the natural and man-made environment., ^^ constraints imposed by or on the site will be key considerations in the City's Project review procedures. (a) Natural Elements in the RCA shall include documentation and analysis o£ existing conditions and rela tionships and a projection of the effect the proposed will have upon: Vegetation (forests and woodlands, wetlands, a grasslands) ,• Geology and Soils (bearing capacity, erodibility, and permeability); Slopes and Topography (slope ®*;aPrlityr landscape features, and development potential); Hydrologic Systems and groundwater, wetlands, flood plans, and absorption). Wildlife (natural habitat, variety, and preservation-protection). (b) Man-made Elements in the RCA include documentation and analysis of the factors that affect development either providing opportunities or constraints, Facilities (schools, parks and City services, such as fire and ORONO CC 299 (4-1-84) S police protection, etc.); Utilities (sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, electric transmission lines, etc.); Circulation (vehicles and pedestrian); Surrounding Development (character transition/ buffers, orientation/access, scale/bulk, and building materials. 3. If platting of public streets or division of land are proposed, all information required in the Subdivision Regulations Chapter of the City ^ode for a Preliminary Plat. 4. General development plan with existing w. jhy at two foot contour intervals indicating: (a) The proposed site and existing development on adjacent properties. (b) All types of uses proposed. (c) Proposed size, location and arrangement of buildings and preliminary architectural delineations including but not limited to schematic building plans and elevations. use. (d) Density or intensity of each type of (e) Parking areas and stall arrangement. (f) Entrance and exit drives. (g) Schematic landscaping showing tree massing, typical plant groupings, and screen plantings, etc. utility systems (h) Park and open space lands. (i) Dimensions. (j) Proposed schematic drainage and 5. Summary sheet indicating: (a) Area of land in each use of each separate intensity of use. (b) Number of dwelling units proposed including number of bedrooms in each area in Item 4(c) above. (c) Tabulation of parking facilities by type related to number and type of use served. (d) Number of acres and general intended use and ownership of open space. (e) Modifications of any provisions of this Section and any other City Code provisions or regulations of the City. 6. Phasing Plan indicating geographical staging and appioxi ’Ti^^te timing of tha Plan or portions thereof. ORONO CC 300 (4-1-84) § 10.30 7. Written statement by the applicant indicating how his proposed development conforms to the stated objectives and purpose of this Section and the Orono Comprehensive Plan cuid why his proposal would be in the public interest. 8. Fee for filing an MFPR Project application which includes the fees, if required, for subdivision; newspaper publications of the public hearing; mailing of notices to owners within 350 feet and staff reports shall be as determined by resolution of the Council and may be varied from time to time. Subd. 18. Preliminary Plan. Planning Commission Study and Review of A. The Pxann:.{ Commission shall make its recommendations to the Council for Project approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Such recommendations shall be made within sixty days of the initial hearing unless the applicant files a written request to the Planning Commissi-?i for delay.^ If the Planning Commission does not make its reco.-. lendations within the specified time period and a delay has not been requested by the applicant, the Council may take action on the request by the applicant. B. The Planning Commission shall be responsible for evaluating the Project in terms of maintaining the desirable character of the City, the neighborhood^ and site. The Planning Commission shall forward to the Council its recommendations based upon evaluation of the following considerations: 1. Relationship to the Resource Component Analysis. Are the features preserved,^ protected or enhanced; or are they diminished, destroyed or exploited? ^ 2. Contribution to the Existing Desirable Qualities of the Neighborhood. Are the Ibcal factors of traffic movement, safety, convenience, appearance and general character strengthened? 3. Integration of the Various Site Components. Are the locations and arrangements of the various development elements functionally and aesthetically related to each other as well as to the neighborhood setting^ 4. Implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Specific Community Objectives. Does the Project correct a deficiency in the balance of community or neighborhood development? Does it integrate or provide a transition between otherwise incompatible areas of existing or proposed development. 5. Compatibility With Characteristics of Adjacent Development. Are visual features, such as overall scale, bulk, height, building materials, landscaping, color, and open space in harmony with each other and with surrounding development. ORONO CC 301 (4-1-84) S 1 .-.0 Are essential but adverse building and site elements properly screened or obscured from neighboring property and public places? C, A finding that any of the above does or does not exist shall not solely be cause for a Project to be unacceptable, but further that it is of such a nature as to produce one or more of the following harmful effects on occupancy of the proposed development or on immediate or neighboring areas: 1. Adversely affects the benefits and desirability of occupancy; 2. Diminishes the stabililty and taxable value; . 3. Prevents the most appropriate use of real estate and resources and the most appropriate development; 4. Produces degeneration of property; 5. Produces adverse conditions on the public health, safety and welfare. D. The Planning Commission and Council may f. time to time amend or vary the application and review procedures and the amount and type of documents to be presented. Subd. 19. Final Plan Review. A. Before a building permit is issued for any structures within the proposed site. Final Plan of one or more stages in accordance with building permit requirements and requirements contained in this Section, all be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and r<. mmendation and to the Council for approval. B. A Final Plan shall be’ submitted with an application for Pinal Plan approval within ninety days after Council approval of the Preliminary Plan unless a written request for an extension is submitted by the applicant. If an application for final approval or a request for an extension is not received within ninety days, the Preliminary Plan will be considered abandoned and a new application for a Preliminary Plan must be submitted following the Preliminary Plan procedure. There shall be maximum extensions of not more than one year. C. The application for Pinal Plan (or for any stages of the Pinal Plan) approval shall be accompanied by a legal description of the total property together with copies of the following plans and data: 1. A plan with locations of all structures including placement, size and type with existing topography showing two foot contour intervals or spot elevations of a 100 foot grid if such contours are over 100 feet apart. V J ORONO CC 302 (4-1-84)u S 10.30 2. Final architectural plans as required for building permit application. Plans for detached single family dwellings may be submitted directly to the Building Inspector for approval unless part of an MFPR Project. 3. Elevations or sections through the site which will best indicate the relationship of the buildings with the various terrain features and site elements. 4. Grading and drainage plan at two foot contour interval or spot elevations on a 100 foot grid if the two foot contours are over 100 feet apart. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Enginev^r before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. No Project shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing flood, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural watercourse, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. 5, Utility plan for all public utilities and indication of private utility service. 6. Landscape plan showing species and sizes of all plant materials. 7. Legal descriptions of proposed zoning district boundary changes.8- Deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, by-laws of proposed Homeowner's Associatijon and other documents controlling the use of property, type of construction or development or the activities of future residents. 9. A Title Opinion by the attorney for the applicant addressed to the City showing that as of the date of the filing of the Final Plan the applicant has fee title to the property, subject to outstanding easements and mortgages, or showing that applicant has a right to fee title to the property pursuant to a purchase agreement. 10. The applicant certifies on the Final Plan and on any resolution adopting the Final Plan that the applicant agrees to bind himself, his successors and assigns to the Final Plan and to limit the development of the property in accordance with the Pinal Plan. . ,11. The procedures for approving and recording of final plats and resolutions shall be followed if the Final ^If^ involves platting or division of land or the platting of.public streets. ORONO CC 303 (4-1-84) S lo.io12. Any other information which is necessary to fully represent the intentions of the Preliminary Plan. D. The Planning Commission shall review the Final Plan at its first regularly scheduled meeting which occurs at least fourteen days after filing of the application for Final Plan approval. E. The Final Plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary Plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: 1. The number and location of the dwelling units has not been changed. 2. Open space has not been decreased or altered to change its original intended design or use. 3. All streets, utilities and other special conditions prescribed on the Preliminary Plan by the applicant or any of the reviewing bodies have been incorporated into the Final Plan. Subd. 20. Zoning C -^u.ge. If the Final Plan includes a zoning change, the Final Plan is attached to and is therefore a part of the ordinance establishing the zoning change. The Zoning Administrator shall then change the zoning classification on the Official Zoning Map if a zoning change was made and issue a building permit in conformance with the Final Plan as approved. Source: Ordinance No. 185 Effective Date: 6-14-76 SEC. 10.31. RS SEASONAL RECREAriONAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "RS" Seasonal Recreational District is intended to provide a district which will allow a low- density seasonal form of residential development or recreational activity on the three Lake Minnetonka islands within Orono. Big Island, Mahpiyata Island and Deering Island are totally surrounded by water. Special problems exist because of their isolated location 2uid because there is no direct access by land or bridge. Transportation is difficult, dangerous, and slow especially in fall or spring when the icf.* is forming or melting. Engineering, financial, administrative and practical difficulties prevent servicing the islands with sewer or water utilities, garbage collection, or complete police, fire, medical emergency or other municipal services. The islands have historically been used for summer cabins, camping spots, temporary boat landings and a disabled veteran’s summer camp. As long as this usage remai' ■: minimal, public health and safety is reasonably maintained, development forecasts indicate increasing pressures for n intensive usage that could easily exceed the City's public service capabilities. For these reasons, Orono's comprehensive plans have ORONO CC 304 (4-1-84) 1389.:/ tTAai\i\\erKj]r^ PLANNED DBVBLOPMENT/TKADITIONAL ZONED SUBDIVISION COMPARISON SELECTED FACTORS 715 NORTH BROWN ROAD APPLICATION Proposed Planned Development If Traditionally Zoned Subdivision (2 Acre Standard) Setback from lot line All structures 50* Rear 30* Sides Primary structure 50 * Rear 30* Sides Accessory 10* - setbacks side and rear Buffering 50-70*None Woodland/ Grading Preservation All trees over 2** except - allowed building pad None - Entire site could be cleared out Fencing As agreed to with neighbor No ability to require Screening As agreed to with neighbors No ability to require Lot Design Number/width across "top"No control over configuration that meets minimum standards Lot coverage 80% of building pad with buildings Total area within . setbacks (accessory behind front lot line wxthin 10 ft. of lot lines.) N. Brown Repair ♦Security ♦Upgrade Security provided Yes Questionable Construction traffic direction Yes No Construction homes Yes 1 No Jl-ljNCIl MEETING " #*v» ‘ A ^ ^ «^.Ir^8 9 • IHD To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator- Proa: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: January 5, 1989 Subject: Pay Request #2 - Woodhill Avenue Attached for review and approval is Pay Request #' for the Woodhill Avenue re-construction. The amount requested is for the final bituminous lift. The only remaining work to be completed is the restoration and seeding of the slopes. Recommendation - To approve Payment #2 to Harddrives Construction in the amount of $16,936.14. Proposed Motion: Moved by ___, seconded by ___, to approve Payment #2 to Harddrives Construction in the amount of $16,936.14. Ayes ___, Nays ____. To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members \ From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato|K/ Forwarded recommending approval. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE: December 13. 1988 PLACE: Orono. Minnesota PROJECT: tfoodhill Ave. St. Impr. PROJECT NO.t 88-1 FILE NO.: 13934 CONTRACTOR: Hardrives. Inc. ADDRESS: 1200 Hemlock Lane N. Maple Grove. MN 55369 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:. FOR PERIOD: From: Sept. 1. 1988To: Dec. 13. 1988 SPECIFIED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: August 12^1988_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUMMARY: 1. Original Contract Amount Change Order - ADDITION Change Order - DEDUCTION Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5 2 Sub-Total 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:. 36.991.50 36.991.50 32.111.52 0.00 32.111.52 1.605.58 30.505.94 13.569.80 16.936.14 Approved By: BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. OWNER APPROVAL: By ___________ By ___________ Date:ardrives. Inc/" PR13934 M *Project: Woodhill Avenue Street Iranroveraents Payment Not 2 Prni. No. 88-1 Orono. Minnesota File No: 13934 Contractor: Hardrives, Inc.Date:December 13. 1988 STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Esfd Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To Date Clear and grub trees Each $100.00 50 47 $4,700.00 Common excavation C.Y.5.00 300 285 1,425.00 Stabilization fabric s.y.1.25 1,350 1,300 1,625.00 Common borrow (C.V.)C.Y.4.00 500 445 1,780.00 Class 5, 1002 crushed aggregate base Ton 6.90 1,600 1,390.22 9,592.52 2331 bituminous base course Ton 13.00 250 321 4,173.00 2341 bituminous wear course Ton 13.00 250 254 3,302.00 Bituminous material for mixture Ton 150.00 30 28.5 4,275.00 Bituminous material for tack coat Gal.1.00 200 175 175.00 Bituminous material for driveways Ton 35.00 20 Sod with topsoil S.Y.1.80 500 Seeding with mulch ^n place Ac.800.00 .0.5 Topsoil borrow (C.V.)C.Y.6.00 250 18" CM pipe culvert (16 gauge)L.F.18.00 48 48 864.00 18" CM pipe culvert aprons Each 100.00 2 2 200.00 .TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $32,111.52 PR13934 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITY: PROJECT: CITY PROJECT NO.* FILE NO.: CONTRACTOR: Orono. Minnesota Voodhill Ave. St. Impr. 88-1 13934 Bardrives, Inc. ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $36,991.50 TOTAL AMOUNT OF C.O.’S REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT Date C.O. # Description #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 Amount Total Change Orders Above PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY* Payment £ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. From Period To Payment This Voucher Value Completed Retainase 3-1-88 8-3C-88 $13,569.80 $14,284.00 $714.20 9-1-88 12-13-88 16.936.14 32,111.52 1,605.58 Total Payment to Date Retainage for Payment No. #_ Equals Total Value Completed PR13934 $30,505.9*^ 1.605.5<^ $32,111.52 Tot Fromt Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R, Gerhardson, Public Works Director January 3, 1989 ■ 9ir.3 ' Ti Of n-* Subject: Pay Request #2 - 1988 Sealcoat Program Attached for review and approval is the second and final pay request for the 1988 Sealcoat Program. The amount requested is within the guidelines and specifications for the project. Recommendation - To approve the second and final pay request to Allied Blacktop in the amount of $2,685.19 for the 1988 Sealcoat Program. Proposed Motion; Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to approve the second and final pay request to Allied Blacktop in the amount of $2,685.19 for the 1988 Sealcoat Program. Ayes _ _, Nays Mayor Grabek and Orono Council MembersTo: From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. f...REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE:__ O^LACEt. December 14. 1988 Orono. Minnesota PROJECT; 1988 Seal Coat Project PROJECT NO.;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTRACTOR: Allied Blacktop Company ADDRESS: FILE NO.; 13944 FOR PERIOD; From; Nov. 1. 1988 To; Dec. 15. 1988 SPECIFIED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE; 10503 - 89th Avenue North Maple Grove. Minnesota 55369 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.;,2nd & Final SUMMARY; 1. Original Contract Amount Change Order - ADDITION Change Order - DEDUCTION Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 0 Z Sub-Total 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.;,2 & F 18.470.80 18.470.80 19.711.18 0.00 19.711.18 0.00 19.711.18 17.025.99 2.685.19 Approved By: BONESTRO^ ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIA^j^/INC. .y:_C4 OWNER APPROVAL; By_ _ _ _ _ _ By. Date; O PR13944 Allied Blacktop Company 4 Project: 1988 Seal Coat Project.Payment No: 2nd & Final File Not 139A4_ _ _Orono. Minnesota > ^ Aiitofi ttiarirton ComDanv Date:December 14. 1988 _ STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Item Unit Unit Price Est'd Quantity Quantity To Date Amount To Date Bituminous material for seal coat Gals.$0.77 12.200 12.806 $9,860.62 FA-2 seal coat aggregate in place Ton 14.88 610 662 9,850.56 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $19,711.18 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUSCITY: PROJECT: CITY PROJECT NO.: FILE NO.: CONTRACTOR: Orono, Minnesota 1988 Seal Coat Project 13944 Allied Blacktop Company, 10503-89th Ave. No., Maple Grove, MN 55369 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT OF C.OJ_S $18,470.80 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT Date C.O. No, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Description Total Change Orders Above PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY: Amount Payment No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Period From 10-1-88 11-1-88 10-31-88 12-15-88 Payment This Voucher $17,025.99 2.685.19 Value Completed 17,922.10 19,711.18 Retainage $896.11 0.00 Total Payment to Date Retainage for Payment No. 2nd & F Equals Total Value Completed $19,711.18 _ _ _ _0.00 $19,711.18 PR13944 0 ,o 1589.2 a TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^^^ January 5, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING SUBJECT: Orono/Long Lake Discussions Attachment: A. Orono Staff Draft Comparison ISSUE - Information regarding preparation of the two requested alternatives. INTRODUCTION - A meeting between the two staffs has been set for Friday, January 6, 1989. Any further update will be provided at that time. Attachment A is an initial draft done by the Orono staff as a follow up to the last Orono/Long Lake meeting. O PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by ^_, that the Orono Council accept the information provided by tne staff. Ayes _, Nays _. Issues Land Use Number of developed Lots Standards • i Street Maintenance Development Costs Access to Wolfe Property 0m flip 1589.2a OPTION A Retain Orono Jurisdiction Up to 10 PRD (?) Private or public If public (Shared arrangement if Wolfe's included) Developer installed or specially assessed Provided OPTION B Long Lake Jurisdiction Up to 10 As agreed Public Long Lake Developer installed or specially assessed Provided Sewer Revenue Available through hook-up to MWCC Estimated - $200 net gain Same Estimated loss Water Revenue Privatv® wells or community well or hook-up to Long Lake under present agreement Estimated - $300 net Gain Plus net to Long Lake of $2,000 Long Lake system Estimated gain $1,500 School System Orono Orono Police Protection Orono Orono thru Long Lake contract Fire Protection Orono thru Long Lake contract Long Lake Ownership As developed -Individual homeowners Same Taxes -Impact Financial/ Arrangement Orono Net gain is a lower mill rate Long Lake Net gain is a lower mill rate O Net agreed amount to Long Lake Net agreed amount to Orom 121388.5 lO TO Mayor and City Coancil PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATS: December 13, 1988 SOBJBCT: 1989 Appointments '.-Sf ?^C!L V •' \'.X iI 'V Attachment: A. Proposed 1989 Appointments Resolution 0 ISSUE - Adoption of a resolution making the appropriate appointments for 1989. INTRODUCTION - Annaully at the first meeting of the year the Council makes the necessary appointments to the various positions to which it has appointing authority (apart from Planning Commission which by ordinance now start April 1st.) DISCUSSION - The proposals for appointments are the same as last year with the following additions and changes: Park Commission Philip Bradley - term expires 12/3J/91 Lester Kelley - term expires 12/31/91 Alexander Vongries - term expires 12/31/91 Changes Park Commission Chairman ~ Philip Bradley Official Depositories - Miscellaneous changes Building Code Board of Appeals - Addition Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization - Addition ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt the resolution as proposed. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Adopt with certain exclusions for consideration at a later Council meeting. 4. Table for futher disucssion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution as proposed with particular review of the Cable Commission representation and whether the Council desires that to be from the Council or from another source. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt resolution __ appointing persons for 1989 to positions for which it has appointing authority (apart from Planning Commission). Ayes __, Nays __. o 123088.2 A RBSOLOTION DESIGNATING SELECTED APPOINTMENTS FOR THE TEAR 1989 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that th appointments and designations for the year 1989 are as follows: APPOIHTMENT/DESIGNATION Acting Mayor Planning Commission Councilmember Park Commission Chairman Representative to Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Representative to Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Liaison AMM Lead Attorney City Attorney Firm ) Alternate Attorney Lead Engineer City Engineering Firm Health Officer Auditor Fiscal Agents Insurance Agent of Record Official Newspaper Official Depositories/ Investment Vendors 1989 Edward Callahan Alternate Philip Bradley JoEllen Hurr Mark Bernhardson Mark Bernhardson Tom Barrett Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman and Doty William Both, Dorsey & Whitney Glenn Cook Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates Mound Medical Clinic Pannell, Kerr, Forster Ehlers & Associates Duweyn P., Carlson Apple Valley Insurance The Laker and Pioneer First National Banks of: The Lakes (Navarre) Wayzata Minneapolis St. Paul Wayzata Bank & Trust Company Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. Marquette Bank, Minneapolis American National Bank & Trust Company of St. Paul First Minnesota FSB, Mound League of MN Cities - 4H Fund Norwest Bank Minneapolis Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Piper, Jaffray Hopwood, Mpls. Dain Bosworth, Inc., Mpls. Franklin Savings Assn., Ottowa, KS APPOIHTNBNT/DBSIGHATION Official Depositories/ Continued Investment Vendors Weed Inspector Assistant Weed Inspector Transportation Committee Emergency Preparedness Director Southwest Sanitary Sewer District Suburban Health Nursing Service Cable TV Committee (2 plus Alternate) West Hennepin Recycling Commission Mayor's Association Suburban Rate Authority West Tonka Senior Citizens Minnesota Police Recruiting System West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (2 plus Alternate) Building Code Board of Appeals Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization O 1989 Colonial Nat'l Bank, Willmington, DE First Mutual Savings Bank, Bellevue, Washington North Fork Bank & Trust Co, New York Nat'l Bank of Washington, D.C. Home Federal Savings & Loan, San Diego, California Exchange National Bank, Chicago, 111 Commerce Bank, Virginia Beach, VA M. H. Novick & Co. Inc., Mpls., MN Bear, Stearns & Co, New York, N.Y. James Grabek John Gerhardson John Gerhardson Melvin Kilbo Mark Bernhardson Mark Bernhardson Barbara Peterson Tim Adams J. Diann Goetten (Alternate) John Gerhardson James Grabek John Gerhardson Mark Bernhardson (Alternate) James Gr&bek Melvin Kilbo Mark Bernhardson (Alternate) LaDean McWilliams Marc McCabe (Alternate) Steve Anderson, Mtka Fire Inspector Tom Anderson, Hopkins Building Officii Maureen Bellows, AIA Architect Jim Hanson, Builder Theodore Paulfranz, Edina Fire Chief Mark Berhnardson Melvin Kilbo (Alternate) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regule meeting held January 9, 1989. ATTEST: O Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor 121388.6 TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: December 28, 1988 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments ISSUE - Determination of what process the Council would like to take regarding its 1989 Planning Commission vacancy appointments. INTRODUCTION - As you may recall the appointments have been delayed until the April timeframe with February and March being the appropriate timeframe for review. DISCUSSION - The terms for the following individuals expire 31 March, 1989: Charles Kelley Maureen Bellows Sara Moos PROCESS ALTERNATIVES - The following represents process alternatives for appointment: 1. Automatic appointment of current members interested. 2. Refer to Planning Commission for a recommendation. 3. Advertise and have a review process to include current members. 4. Select other means for appointment. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - The following represent alternatives for this meeting: 1. Determine process 2. Table for further discussion RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that this issue be referred to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council refer the issue of appointments to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Ayes _, Nays _. ro- 0 Tos Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: January 6, 1989 Subject: 1223 Brown Road South - Lawn Restoration C- 1689.IHD X’HdL MFFfijijg . . j - i :•■ ..r - During the construction of the Crystal Bay Sewer Project, Mr. Curt Quady's lawn at 1223 Brown Road South was not restored to his satisfaction. The project rnecifications allowed for seeding of all disturbed lawn areas. Several attempts at getting grass to grow have not met with Mr. Quady's satisfaction. There is grass but it is mixed with weeds. Mr. Quady is very unhappy with the results and is requesting $1,000 as a lump sum settlement and he will restore the lawn himself. I have offered to continue attempts at restoring his lawn to his satisfaction. Unfortunately whatever methods are used, Mr. Quady would be required to water the lawn at his time and expense. Mr. Quady does not want to agree to watering as he has in the past. The amount requested by Mr. Quady does not include the costs of the easement. TO: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members v ro FROM; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato! Forward recommending the easement amount to which the parties do agree plus commitment to restore rather than'the $1,000 lump sum that has been requested. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. 0 rW. 3Aryy): duud • -dX^i', fX/Oov'^ __X^'A-XlLX-' yC.& 'C-^"tA64^£)tf'V-^^£/<./'^jt_ o —JU^-^^i^A. ijL'U -MjZ/d£/wfeL6-^JO 'YK^■1^.'V^^/u u-tx^ __i^Q,_ ^-6<io ,. ..... -.__. ;___^(L. M^d^ JtsXr4l (XXlX^^ Urp -aA A JjX-AsL. ^ ^^XtrltXjUHKc l^d-u rys. Lo-ft-UA/l Xy^-i^ //^ hsAj, Ata ^dy^gjL XiAXXXk^.__ <itvJAA-cd.A ^ UriruJlJi Xe. (Lc, ^ AUmJ^jJ j AA\<LiuJ£y^ ) ^IfX^-'y'::’^ ArJ^. ■^X ajj '%^ XXo____ ____________________ cj^ o ._!iXJ^ y^SA>-c-S_.^ 0- (W*^, . CZ-A-^-ja^ X^Z/o, -'P^\i>-iAXw\ - X^ w ^1. -. • . P -r-^ .- J7 -4* yk . . . . 0 . »TtP n j ::<M. 0en>4il ^ /OXciM urt^-t^ ^>l-a,__0iUy^ AQ^uA-£i> , (?A<^ 4rPP> ~ Qj)~lujLcXt'> (tit(Xi-.-cLLyy-*‘'wJ/i/i^ — ,„^. -; ^- '.V .• •■ -f - »i' .»;• 121388.9 15 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATS: December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: County 15/Westonka Beautification Plan • # V . • • • % i . S- i . i Attachment: A. Administrator's Information/Westonka Beautification Dated 12/6/88 B. Westonka Chamber Consultant Selection Dated 11/9/88 ISSUE - 1. Determination as to whether the Council wants to contribute money to the beautification plan. 2. Determination as to what role the Council would like in development and selection of a plan. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A the Westonka Beautification, of which John Gernhardson has been a member, has desired to undertake development of a master plan for beautification on County Road 15 between County 19 in Orono through Spring Park to County Road 110 in Mound. DISUCSSION - As noted in Attachment A the Ad Hoc group of the Westonka Chamber is seeking funding from each of the three cities to pay for the cost of developing a master plan. The request is noted on Attachment B is for $1,350 from'each of the three communities. In addition the Chamber is looking for the desired input the Council would like to have regarding this plan. At present they are proposing the following inputs: 1. General meeting available to all members in the Westonka area including the Council for ideas for beautification. This meeting is to be held with the consultant and members of the committee. 2. Once a plan has been developed a two week advance notice of this plan to the Councils and other interested parties to be reviewed and chosen at the Westonka Chamber's general meeting. In addition Council may choose to review that plan in advance of its adoption by the Westonka group, if the present process is agreed to. It is anticipated this would be a presentation probably by Orono staff regarding the plan. Should the Council desire further input or meetings with the consultant on the matter, this could be arranged for on a negotiated cost basis with the consultant and the City. As presently proposed the request for proposals have an initial sum with a cost plus feature depending on the amount of time. The amount requested from each of the three communities is intended to cover any extras. To the extent that there is overage it would be the desire of the Westonka Chamber that this money be spent for actual plantings or other amenities in the community. (As an example if there is $300 left between the three communities that appropriate trees or flowers be planted in an equal number among the three communities.) As an alternative this money could be remitted to each of the Cities as requested. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Determination as ^ level of participation - 1. Fund the requested amount. 2. Fund an altered amount. 3. Choose not to fund. 4. Table for further discussion Issue 2. Process for imput 1. Agree to the Westonka process as proposed. 2. Choose to have additional meetings with the consultant at an additional cost. 3. Submit an alternative plan for the process. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City of Orono contribute up to $1,350.00 to the plan developjan^'t out of budgeted monies for the Navarre Redevelopment Co* ^.989. In addition the process as proposed by the Westonka Chamber Beautification Committee is recommended to be adopted as it limits the cost entailed in the development cl the plan, yet allowing for adequate public input. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by that the Council agree to contribute up to $1,350.00 out ofT”ts budgeted amount for Navarre Redevelopment 1989 and that the Council agree to the process proposed by the Westonka Chamber. Ayes _. Nays _. cc: John Cerhardson Chic Remien, Westonka Chamber 12788. l\rrPf^'jeriiT TO: Mayor and City Council i FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoji^^ DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information WESTONKA BEAUTIFICATION - The group formed under the auspices of the Westonka Chamber of Commerce has continued to work on development of a beautification plan to be available for work done by private owners following the upgrade of County Road 15. At present the group is solicitating landscape design bids for such a project. It is our understanding at this point that they wilT probably be coming forward to each of the cities to contribute for the actual development of a plan in the next few months. It is anticipated that this will be in the range of approximately $1,000 for the City of Orono. The intent is that once the plan is developed and adopted that this would provide direction for persons who desire beautification projects along County Road 15. There is no expectation of a request that the City fund any of the improvements. John Gerhardson has been serving as the City's representative to this group. 1989 BUDGET PUBLICATION - Attached please find the publication that was placed in the paper for the City's 1989 Budget. 1989 CALENDAR - Attached please find the 1989 calendar which includes two dates, one in February and one in July, for joint meetings with the Planning Commission. This will also be transmitted to the rianning Commission. .• POLICE DEPARTMENT PSK-SONNEL SOLICITATION FOR CANDIDATES- Presently the PolTce Department has been utilizing Mike Carlson on a part time capacity to as ist the clerical police department staff. The City is presently seeking applicants for a part time position to replace Mike, starting after the first of the year. In addition given the fact that the City's part time officer James Morrow may be selected for a full time position in another department, the City would like to have applicants on file for consideration for the part time position should Mr. Morrow leave and will be solicitating applications for that position also. COUNTY ROAD 116 - City staff was invited to a meeting in Medina with County Transportation or Monday, November 28, 1988. At that meeting it was indicated that Hennepin County will be designating a route for 116 from its present terminus at Highway 55 down thrc ih Medina to County Road 6. Previously you may recall they were xjoking to go all the way to Highway 12 and were requesting Orono's permission to so do. Such a route designation would bring the route only 300 feet into Orono and the only approval authority Orono would have, as staff presently understands it, would be for the project upgrade last 300 feet from the border to County Road 6. The County remains open should the City desire to 5600 Lynwood BoulevardM^rT^n? -'T^—— /! 5600 Lynwood Task Forc^RStP°rt S'”! Request for Funding SC;,'!:*,!,,'"* ‘"‘' »'■”"« ='•» ^icTTi^TiocrsDn— Rick Bloomquist Paul Huber Nancy /V\ayer Bill McMamee Gene Shavik Gerry Smith Executive V.P.; Chic the County Road 15 tion of the "WorUnn t Bosrd that, throuoh th-fe j conceptual olan T-h f°?r? ""!"«<? Chic Remien as r.,.- . .fhe Boa Pd nained Ch' p * orward to serve on th»i number of volunf^^^^^ ^or a the community percelvoc^^^°^^^^®® a definite willinqlv ramo^ toi. ot, S“ nlnneoacf'« "" Gene SnavHk cufof °'-°no CUrReo^lLnrL'-*"''r:;- - •- -.^^pfrsLVK; IS ....... Initial meetings of the rn™„<**— Eastman, Minnegasco. Initial «/* o'ue Lagoon Marine; Joe E 15 from Navarr^to'^M^® h"'* Concept pfan ?or®^? “"‘Tied, but pleasing senlrof rl?/’?" Provide for , "esidentiai»,... .x"s:.“,'tfIS- sfcSr ‘"IS Committee understands ■M^orA-ihg Togethzr^ County Road 15 Beautification 'Task Force Report and Request for Funding January 4, 1983 Page 2 The to that a design without implementation has no value, and to that end we are committed as a group to encourage the implementation of the Plan through direct contact with individual and business property owners, application for grant funds, and implementation of specific programs such as "Sponsor a Tree, f*^nch...etc.". It was one of the early determinations of the Committee that the simplest method of ensuring a unified plan was to designate one design firm for the entire project. To that end, we sent bid '^quests to approximately twelve landscape and design com panies (Exhibit B) with the understanding that once our Committee had chosen a design firm we would be deoendent upon the three Cities' approval for funding. Coiranittee received five bids from the following firms: Gustafson Design $1,500 $2,500, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. $3,500, Otten Bros. Nursery $1,500 +, Arteka $3,000 +, and James Robin $3,000 +. The Designer Selection Committee (members listed above) reviewed all five bids, and with a specific concern to bid requirement qualification #1 chose three finalists and met with them to determine a final recommendation. All three finalists orovided excellent presentations. Final determination was made to recommend James Robin, based upon his distinguished career reputation and his familiarity with our communities (see Proposal for Ser vices. Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce, James Robin's Bid Proposal, Exhibit C). Upon this Sub-committee's rep' Mr. Robin's firm was aoproved by the full Committee as its choice to create a Concept Plan for the new County Road 15. Funding and a timetable for creation and imolementation of the Plan became our next concern. Knowing that many oeoole would want to do some form of landscaping in the Spring of 1989, the Committee has felt from the beginning of this project a sense that time was of the essence. To that end we have looked to develop an overall generalized Concept Plan, one design firm, and early and consistent contact with the Cities' stiffs, in an attempt to provide a product that can. be ready for implementa tion in the Spring of 1989. Please note the enclosed timetable (Exhibit D)_ for Development and Implementation of the Plan. During this period, our Sub-committee on Grants (members listed above) will 'y: exploring and applying for any applicable State and Federal funding. (Please note Exhibit E). With its preliminary work completed, this Committee comes to the three Ci^y Councils to ask*.for funding to further implement its work. The costs projected for this project are as follows: Landscape Concept Communication, Printing and Mailings to specific property owners and the general public $3,500 »; T-i The requested allocation from each City to further implement this project would be $1,350. Please note that this is for a generalized Concept Plan to be prepared by an individual with specific background in this type of complex municipal project, and with input from this Committee and any additional City representatives C'-e*. inning Commission members, etc.) whom the councils feel inclined to name. This >mmittee as a whole hopes that each of the Cities will endorse and support our effort at continued "Working Together" to develop the he=*rt of our Westonka Community. Respectfully submitted...‘Westonka Beautification Task Force Committee For release Week of 10-15-88 A Beautified, Unified County Road 1511! That's the aim of the Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce's new County Road 15 Landscaping Task Force. This group, in cooperation with the affected cities, has already started to examine landscaping and beautification options along the construction route. Their final proposals will, hopefully, be presented in January for initial implementation in the spring and early summer.of 1989. If you are a County Road 15 property owner with specific questions and concerns, or a Westonka resident with suggestions, please contact one of the following members immediately: Chic Remien, Chair, 472-6780; John Gerhardson, City of Orono, 473-7359; Gene Shavlik, C.P.A., (Spring Park's representative), 473-8300; Jim Fackler, City of Mound, 472-1155; Dorothy Stannard, Minnetonka Mist, 471-8471; Suzie Pauly, Blue Lagoon Marine, 471-8000; Joe Eastman, »T^., 342-5134; Carol Pitsch, West Tonka Interiors, 471-3446. ojccuji.. Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Novc»mber 9, 1988 Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce 5600 Lyn\\oo:l Boulcvjrci. Mound. MM • 472-6780 REQUEST FOR BIDS 1986 OFFICERS President: Frank Hancuch P esident Elect: Fred Gutiormsc Secretary/Treasurer: Paul Hube Past-President: Dan Regan niRECTORS Krc-k Anderson Rick Bloomquist John Burger Roger Finnes Cheryl Grand Nancy Mayer Dorothy Stannard Diane Theis Pro'* ’ct descriptic.-n and Objectives The Westonka Area Chamber of Commarce has formed a committee comprised of citizens and concerned individuals to complete and then implement a coordinated plan of beautification for the newly completed portion of county road 15 which includes the cities of Orono (Navarre), Spring Park, and Hound. It is expected that these cities will endorse the concept and provide modest funding to develop a formal plan. In order to proceed, need a proposal to present to each city that should include the following items as a minimum: ouaiQualifications What experience your company has in developing plans for cities, r :n^ies, roadways, etc. as it relates knowledge of laws, ordinances, right of ways,Gt:c \ / L_i^ou may want to submit examples or references for ocher similar projects you may have done. 2. Who specifically would work, on our project and what are theii qualifications. 3. Please submit 4 copies of your proposal. Time requirements 1. Your proposal must be received at the Chamber office by November 30, 1988. Westonka Area Chamber ot Commerce 5600 Lynwood Mound, Kn. 55f364 2. Once.the company is selected, we would like a plan within on? mon^h or by about January 1989. ipli-' 7- is to be included in the plan The plan should include an overaxl conceptional pl3.n that includes residential, commercia.'? and public property. The .ollowing are suggest. but not ir.tended to ba all inclusive. 1. Where shoul we have planters ar 2. Where should plant.lngs be made l a sug^acted type. Whe^^e should there be •screeni'-'r vr.c ^ typ-^. What spa^'lal eff*»vMS: ran be don« hh<? areas considered to be - hutfor eacn to«n. What signs can be placed identifying the boundries Of each town. 6. Can anything special be done with the light poles. 7. Where should we place benches and what type. 8. Where should we plant trees. 9. What can b^ . >ne to soften the retaining walls. 3. 4. 5. U iwA.";.,' /-■ iji'ttu'f Purchasing materials If your firm also sells materials, we would like to know the pricing structure and whether any of the cost could be refunded through purchasing the materials. . We cannot guarantee, however, where the materials will be acquired. Help to be provided Because this is a volunteer project, we have a number of people with varied backgrounds that are willing to help wherever and whenever needed. We will provide whatever assistance is needed to keep the costs reasonable. In developing the plan, we would expect to work together until a final plan is developed that the committee and each city will endorse. The implementation phase will be handled as a sepa* ate issue. Sincerely, Chic Remien Chairperson Jamesrobin landscape architect 2 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, mlnnesota 8 8 3 3 1 eia/474-3946 30 December, 1988 28 November, 1988 Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 re: Beautification Project i Dear Committee Members: I am interested in providing design services for the Count Road 15 Beautification Project as described in "Request for Bids" dated 9 November, 1988. I am a registered Landscape Architect and have been in private practice at my present location for 16 years. My project work has included large residences, housing projects, public park work, government buildings and commercial sites as shown on the acompanying Resume'. I have been involved in several roadway and streetscape design projects as described below and shown by the selected photos and drawings which also follow. MINNEAPOLIS PARKWAY RECONSTRUCTION Interdesign Inc, 1972 I was the designer responsible for preliminary concepts for this project including road and path alignment, parking bays, curb and roadway detail, lighting layout and planting masses. BURNSVILLE CENTER Bailey and Associates, 1973 My responsibility was for landscape design concepts and preparation of sketch images to describe the proposals. CHOWENS CORNER REDEVELOPMENT. DEEPHAVEN James Robin, 1980 I developed the overall site design for this p 'oject including roadway parking and walk alignments and planting concepts. HUTCHINSON DOWNTOWN AREA DESIGN WORKBOOK Robin and Close. 1982 Working for the Hutchinson Chamber of Commerce, the downtown area was reviewed f;.r problems and potential using visual images to suggest a range of possible improvements. FDRT ROAD STR TTSCAPE, SAINT PAUL Robin and Close, 1982-4 This pri ct produced streetscape improvements worth $1.2 million for the area ousinesses along 5 miles of West Seventh Street. Improvements included new walks, street trees, pedestrian lighting, storefront awnings and ornamental metal grilles. The clients were the West Seventh Street Federation and the City of Saint Paul Department of Flam ing and Economic Development. Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce Page 2 30 December, 1988 28 November, 1988 ST. ANTHONY MAIN - PHASE FOUR Robin and Close, 1984 The concepts of festive retailing and the development of the pedstrian environment were important in the design of this riverfront complex. EAST SEVENTH STREETSCAPE, SAINT PAUL Robin and Close, 1985 This design project proposed Streetscape improvements for an area of East Seventh dominated by older industrial and commercial uses. I propose the follwoing outline of services as my minimum recommendation to achieve a conceptual design plan for the Navarre-Spring Park-Mound corridor. A. INFORMATION ASSEMBLY 1. Assemble currently available information showing road alignment, right of way, utilities and adjacent areas. 2. Photographic inventory of the road and adjacent properties. B. PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1. Design input workshop with community representatives. 2. Prepare the preliminary plan and design inages. 3. Present the preliminary plan. 4. Receive comments about the design. C. COMPLETE PRELIMINARY PLAN. 1. Incorporate comments to date into the Plan. 2. Publish the Plan in traditional 24” x 36” sheet form with freeahnd graphics and images. 10 sheets are required. While your ’’Request for Bids” did not ask for pricing for services, I am prepared to provide the services outlined for a -se of $3,500. I am prepared to start work on your projt immediately following your signing this proposal, which will serve as our agreement, and receipt of a 25% retainer. I will devote my full attention to the completion of the work by February 15, 1989 as you have requested. I will personally perform all the tasks for your project as is my normal manner of work. This work is a professional service and as such will not provide materiaTs or labor for installation on the site. I recommend that implementation of the project follo’-^ traditional engineering practices of competetive bidding based on a published, refined plan and specifications. Thank you for the opportunity to present ray qualifications and proposal; I feel that I am well qualified for the work and I look forward to working with you. Accepted Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce lamesrobin landscape architect Z 3 ^ Z 0 park street excelsior, minnesota 8 8 3 3 1 eia/474-3»'6 Resume: James R. Robin 22 June 88 Projects; Registered Landscape Architect; Minnesota # 12207 Bachelor of Arts, 1969, University of Minnesota Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, 1970, University of Minnesota James Robin, Landscape Architect, Excelsior, Mn Consulting Landscape Architect, Hennepin County James Robin and Robert Close, Landscape Architects Instructor, School of Architecture, U of M InterDesign Inc., Minneapolis, Mn Bailey and Associates, Chaska, Mn Charles Wood Associates, Minneapolis, Mn Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, Jordan, Mn Arborist, self-employed, Minneapolis, Mn United Tree Service, Minneapolis, Mn 1972 1985 1983 1972 1972 1971 1969 1966 1966 1965 to to to to to to to to to present present 1984 1979 1972 1971 1968 1975 1966 Swimming Facility, Lake Elmo Park Reserve, Washington County, Mn 2 acre man-made swimming lake, support building, filtration and chlorination systems and area Master Plan. Openned June, 1986 Swimming Pond Reconstruction, Flandrau State Park, New Ulra, Mn Reconstruction of existing swimming lake. Opened June 1988 Minneapolis Parkway Reconstruction, (Interdesign Inc.) 1972 Design Concepts and prototype details for first 5 projects. Urban Park Projects. Cities of Bloomington, Richfield and Deephaven Citizen input and programming Design, construction documents and observation for 40 sites. Recreation Lake Construction, Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park, Anoka Site analysis, design and permit process for a 20 acre recreation lake involving 1.4 million e.y. excavation. Greenway Development, Jonathon New Town (Bailey and Associates) Pedesti i.an system projects Arneson Acres Park, Edina, Mn Master Plan for 15 Acre Garden Lafayette Club Tennis Facility, Minnetonka Beach, Mn, Concepts Control Data Employee Recreation Area Projects Washington County, Minnesota Winter Ski Facility Master Plan Group Picnic Area Master Plan Fort Road Etreetscape Project, St. Paul, Mn (Robin and Close) Streetscape developeraent: plantings, lighting, ironwork, awnings, building facade renovations and paving. 1982-1985 St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota Music Building Courtyard and Site Planting Speech and Theater Building President’s Residence Gelco Corporation, Eden Prairie, Mn Master Landscape Plan Maintenance Plan Ongoing consulting.. Anoka-Ramsey Cramunity College, Coon Rapids, Mn Planting design for reconstruction projects James Robin, Resume^Page Two 22 June 88 Projects Unity Hospital, Fridley, Mn (cont*d) Campus Master Plan n u m Chowen’s Corners Redevelopment Project, Deephav-n, Mn Citizen imput program and Master Plan Public Building Projects, Hennepin County, Mn Work/Release Facility, Hennepin County ACF, Plymouth, Mn Ramar Building Renovation, Hennepin County Social Services. HeniCepin County Southdale Service Center, Edina, Mn Northeast State Bank and Guaranty State Bank, Minneapolis, Mn Two extensive site reconstruction projects North St. Paul Branch Library Site and Planting design. State of Minnesota Capitol Landscape Design Competition 1985 " Finalist with Rafferty, Rafferty and Mikutowski, Architects. Ridgedale YMCA Recommendations for expansion of 300 car parking area. Camp Christmastree: Miscellaneous projects Uptown YWCA, Minneapolis, Mn Planting design. St. Anthony Main, Phase Four, Minneapolis, Mn . . Site and planting design for streetscape and areas adjacent to urban historic district shopping development.(Robin and Close) Multi-Family Residential Projects ,, , w m-ro Women’s Advocates Shelter, St. Paul, Mn 19/9 Gittleman Corporation: 5 sites, 1981 Como Avenue Family Housing, University of Minnesota Home Leave Apartments, Como and Eustis, St. Paul, Mn ALC Stratford Wood, Minnetonka, Mn 1972 500 units. Master Plan Calhoun-isles, Minneapolis, Mn. (Robin and Close) 1984 Cedar Lake Shores, Minneapolis, Mn ( Robin and Coach Homes, Richfield and St. Louis Park, Mn 1982-1<583 The Lindens, 42nd and Sheridan, Minneapolis, Mn 1984 Sumner Homes, Minneapolis, Mn (Charles Wood) 1970 Mt. Airy Senior High Rise Renovation, St. Paul, Mn 1986 Dartmouth Place, Minneapolis, Mn (Robin and Close) 1984 Thomas Lake Place, Eagan, Mn 1986 Newport-on-Seven, St. Louis Park, Mn 1986 Parkshore Plaza, St. Louis Park, Mn Residences Bud Grossman, Tonka Bay, Mn Bruce Dayton, Long Lake, Mn Thomas Crosby Sr. Wayzata, Mn Conley Brooks, Long Lake, Mn Robert Ulrich, Edina, Mn Stanley Hubbard, Lakeland, Mn John Tocho, Sunfish Lake, Mn Walter Rasmussen, Fridley, Mn William Ulrich, Orono, Mn Ed Orenstein, Edina, Mn Robin Steiner, Long Lake, Mn Marty Baskerville, Deephaven, Mn Zelman Levine, St Bonifacius, Mn Mary Sigmond, Afton, Mn Martha Norton, Sunfish Lake, Mn Mike Cashman, Woodland, Mn Current Work Civic Center Park, Burnsville, Mn Sunset Pond Natural Area, Burnsville, Mn Burnsville City Hall Morrison Residence, Woodlands Messinger Residence, Minneapolis, Mn Goldsmith Residence, Minnetonka Beach, Mn Master Plan Full Service Full Service rf-3-} { I' Ml tii SMERSC^i AVB V § AV£. S.i •' OLRAXAyS s. BRIGHT AVf. 5. ALOt^ A/B.i. CThb^LS hf { ANMNOO AlOIMOrWAaO J9)U90 aiiiAsiunq u6|t«p •dncpiMt rMDd«3U03 f N parK site’ ■'HH.S.ifiiV--- U • <#•«* I S'! .* *1M * •!•«••« C4MI« • ' . ^4 I <* *a MAi t. * • t> *«t** •»<•<•(• I* Ml> Mr '•■• ♦•■>•• decid!trees T section foJd© chowen’s corner redevelopment district deephaven, minn.4 '"S' B'?'^ .. ......«-?jj;.p ■ ■■ .- ■ r '■,“s:yv'.,:;^..-rT^'^"-- ■■': !--';v=4'-i > .■■ . il,»L tMM •tiJtr.x^S* IS existing conditions/problems I expand streetscape onto side streets trees lights storefront renova tiermyi ■ ir • - A ^.vj.rfe:-jr' k'osk at corner approaches/ideas bump out curb 3-t corners r\t©iiiinis©ifii Looking northwest from intersection of Washington and Mai c3@®®/rBfein 25 scale and colors or ouiidings need coordinacion to unity the area , . ‘..'••J y.'. .<• 1 IMIH11 Amr -P; '' ■mm ►I L ~7i existing conditions/probiems }’’H'^\y// 3dd streetscape elements * lights, trees, paving \ MiM ^ ,>■ 1^, 7J|5 I *^C;C mJU iSjji remove utilities 3T Urr screen service areas "ilti approaches/ideas provide and coordinate pedestrian access iQiLiifeifiinis® '■ n Lookinij north from Second Avenue S. between Franklin and Main Streets co^e 10 n / - -- ji"r3=M-- r.'r .-' •-.>.*>►,'•:;« jr* :il/|f-:; II H,‘>|I ffiiiiinti.i.°!tiii I f-=ri WmBm James robin landscape architect 2 3 4 2 0 park street excelsior, minnesota S 5 3 3 1 • i ^ ; V. •; > A ..^ =—F- &l ' ■> It: 1 — ^ V i w^''-u..- t le^-TrT:^ •: !^.-,C ^>.‘W |r^», m ■/ m i.::-.-^X ^ i .«, •■«< "w:?} ^If 1 ....-. h2*^ - ^ ■\ .'■ .•> <fc. f ‘vv r'ir 1--1 Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce 5600 Lynwood Boulevard. Mound. MN 55364 • 472*6780 PROPOSED timetable FOR COUNTY ROAD 15 BEAUTIFICATION CONCEPT PLAN 1989 OFFICERS President: Fred Guttormson President-Elect: Cheryl Grand Sec.. Treas.: lAaty Alexander Past ?*esident: Frank Hancuch DIRECTORS Craig Anderson RicK Anderson RicK Bloomquist Paul Huber Mane/ .Mayer Bill .McMamee Gene Shavik Gerry Smith E.\ecjtive V.P.: Chic Remien 1. Presentations to City Councils completed by January 11th. 2. Hire Designer imnediately upon receiving funding approval from Cities. 3. Hold Community and City Input Meeting (evening meeting) week of Januaryaoth * 4. Hold Task Force Committee Input Meeting same week. * 5. Following Week - Review Preliminary Plan. ** 6. Present Final Plan to City Councils in February. 7. Present Final Plan to Community at Chamber's March 15 General Membership Meeting. 8. Additional presentations may then be made to other Community organizations. 9. Implementation of the Plan by both commercial and residential property owners will be encouraged by the Committee through the following methods: 1. Direct contact by Committee Members 2. rironndtional meetings regarding the Plan Itself, financing methods (i.e. grants, etc.) and special pricing arrangements if any. 10. "Sponsor a tree, bench, etc_Program" will also be developed by the Committee, so that additional Westonka area residents and businesses can contribute to the Plan's Implementation. 11. Grand Re-Opening Celebration for County Road 15, featuring City, County and Community participation, is planned by the Westonka Chamber for mid-May, Chair, Fred Guttormson, C. R. Manufacturing. Any additional representatives from the three Cities Including Council Members. Park and Planning Commission Mpmbers. and rit.v «;t:aff are encouraged to partake in one or both of these input sessions with the landscd.’^e architect. ^ ** Any City representatives present at the Input meetings will be asked to the Plan Review session. '"Working Together"^ While we are suggesting steps to Improve and enhance the appearance of the County Road 15 area, we are also actively seeking outside funds to help pay for the Improvements. Numerous communities have benefited from state and federal programs In carrying out citizen-based projects such as this. Our sub-committee has been In touch with MINNESOTA BEAUTIFUL, a program that provides assistance and some funding toward projects such as this one. We have also been researching other avenues within the state’s Department of Trade and Economic Development. There are a variety of existing programs which offer technical, financial and Information resources. We will continue to seek those which offer assistance to privately- held as well as p<ibllc-owned property In our beautification efforts. We encourage City support and endorsement. We will be pleased to coordinate our efforts with local government staff and public officials In seeking available funds to carry out the goals and objectives of this proposal. 1489.1 TO: FBOM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^^"^ January 4, 1989 , ***' SUBJECT: Highway 12 - Proposed 1991 Safety Improvements ,• ^ Attachments: A. Highway 12 Memo Dated 12/6/88 B. Minnesota Highway Funding Schismatic/Research Department/Minnesota House of Representatives ISSUE - Identification of issues for submission of initial reaction to MNDot for the proposed 1991 safety improvements between North Brown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A the staff presented to Council an initial layout for the proposed improvement. Subsequent to that this layout has been shown to the City's Engineer, its consultant planner, together with property owners Rebers and Otten (At a meeting on January 4, 1989). Attachment B is presented as an informational item only. DICUSSION - Following a review of this item the following issues have been identified: 1. Right-of-way (ROW) - While the diagram indicates the development will be within the current 100 foot right- of-way that exists in Orono, the discussions have indicated that they would desire another 30 or 40 feet for the development along a substantial portion of the route, which would all be taken from the north side of the highway. The centerline of the highway would be shifted to the north as the development in Orono is less than that in Long Lake. There are two issues that create the need for more right-of-way: a. Drainage - The primary reason for the additional right-of-way is to facilitate the 32 feet of ditch needed on both sides if this is to be drained with ditches. The City has asked MNDot to explore the use of a curb section and storm sewer as a way to lessen the need for increased right-of-way. Direct Access - The other reason is because of the numerous curb cuts that are proposed to continue along the highway. Even though these have been substantially lessened, there is still a number of them that create a need for turn lanes and channalization at those points. These are primarily, although not exclusively, in Long Lake and increased controlled access and the use of service v>r other existing streets can help lessen the width nec?ded. 2. Contro lled Access - As noted above, controlled access assists not only in lessening the width but also assists in the safety and local movement of traffic, keeping the volumes off the highway. The City has, at a previous meeting with MNDot, asked if they would look at assisting in the funding of both the north and south service roads that the City has proposed in its Comprehensive Plan. Such an approach may also be feasible in helping Long Lake reduce the number of curb cuts. You may note on the plan that a service road was platted in front of several of the businesses between Virginia and Willow in Long Lake. 3. Channelization - Channelization does assist in directing traffic and may lessen some of the accidents, particularly at Willow and 12. 4. Siqnalization - Willow/12 - With the channelization at the intersection would accomodate a future light. In informal discussions it is the expectation that cross traffic at this intersection would meet the warrants by the time it was developed in 1991. The City has additio*:ally broached with MNDot the possibility of including traffic counts from curb cuts in the vicinity of the intersection, so that those cross traffic counts could be used in trying to meet the warrant. The City staff will be looking for a response on this issue as part of the comments. The installation of channelization now wil ■* substantially lower the cost that had been anticipated for signalization. 5. North Brown/Virqinia Intersection - An alternative plan shown regarding the safety improvement is the realignment of North Brown Road with Virginia Avenue, this alternative does align traffic and may improve site distances with North Brown together with reducing some of the multiple curb cuts found east of Virginia Avenue. It is something, however, that the City of Long Lake may not desire as Virginia Avenue is segregated between the residential area and commercial by directional "One Way" signs. The impact in Orono is that it would place all of North Brown in Orono together with probably placing the retention pond for the Rebers* property on the east side of the newly alligned road. It may also have an impact on the accesses for the Bank and townhouses. 6. Funding - While proposed as a .fety improvement, the amount of funding, if any, from the City of Orono should be refunded. It is expected that they may request the City to share funding for ROW and/or storm sewer and curb and gutter. At the present these seem to be the major items of concern identified and ones that would be addressed by the staff with Minnesota Department Transportation in preparation of the plans. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Provision of additional issues identified by Councilmembers. 2. Comment on direction the City desires to have these issues resolved. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Request MNDot get definitive responses from Long Lake on their concerns regarding the plans. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that once the Council has identified any further issues that a letter be transmitted to MNDot outlining the City of Orono's concerns and recommending that they work directly with Long Lake regarding their concerns if this project is to go ahead. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the staff be directed to transmitt the City's concerns regarding the safety upgrade indicating that overall the upgrade is appropriate and an improvement. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: City of Long Lake 12* To: Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director ^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date: December 6, 1988 Subject: Safety Improvements Highway 12 - Brown Road North to Old Crystal Bay Road —1/ -- - - - Recently we were advised that MnDot was proposing safety improvements on Highway 12 from Brown Road North to Old Crystal Bay Road. These safety improvements are scheduled for construction in 1991. On September 19th, City staff met with MnDot representatives to discuss the safety improvements. At that time the proposed improvement was the placement of a center lane for right and left turn movements. We stated that we would review the proposed improvement and meet with them again at a time designated by them. On December 5th, City staff met with MnDot to review the most recent proposed for the safety improvements. The proposal now shows some curb cut removal, on the north side, channeling traffic for right and left turn lanes at Willow and Highway 12 and raised medians in designated areas throughout the project as well as a realignment of Brown Road North intersection. If the above changes were to take place, they desire to acquire 35'-40* of additional right-of-way, all on the north side of the highway. We advised them that because of the change in zoning along the Highway 12 Corridor in Orono there would probably be frontage roads constructed to relieve traffic on Highway 12. They indicated that that may make a difference as to whether they would have to acquire as much additional right-of-way and that funds may be available to assist in the cost of the frontage roads. Attached for review is a reduced copy of the proposed plan for the safety improvements. City staff is in the process of review but would appreciate Council's input on this matter. Key issues Include: * Curb cut reductions * Limitation of left turns * Design for signal * Right-of-way * Brown Road alignment To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members \ From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded for Council review. The staff will transmit an initial response to MnDot following the January 9, 1989 Council meeting. Proposed Motion: Moved by , ^conded that the Council accept the information presented. Ayes "j , nays _ _. Local Share of MVET Transfer Provisions /(-rrAQiWieux ^ The Board of Directors of Minnesota Good Roads adopted a resolution recommending the 1989 Legislature remove the 1991 "sunset” provision included in the 1988 Transportation Funding Bill so that any MVET revenue continue to go to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (which includes cities and counties) and not only to trunk highways and transit. Below and on reverse side of this sheet are charts detail ing the effective distribution of MVET funds before and after the "sunset” date in the current law. MOTOR VEEICLE EXCISE TAX REVENUES WITH AND WITHOUT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHARE _ _ _ _(F. Y. 1992 and 1993) 1992 1993 With Local Without Local With Local Without Local Gov*t Share Gov't Share Gov't Share Gov't Share Total HVET Revenue 252,385,000 252,385,000 263,4^0,000 263,490,000 MV5T Revenue to Transportation (30S)75,715,500 75,715,500 79,047,000 79,047,000 Highway Share (75X)56,786,625 56,786,625 59,285,250 59,285,250 Trunk Highway Fund 34,923,774 56,786,625 '36,460,429 59,285,250 County State Aid Fund 16,808,841 0 17,548,434 0 -- County Highways 16,329,789 0 17,048,304 0 — Town Roads and Bridges 479,052 0 500,130 0 Municipal State Aid Fund 5,054,010 0 5,276,387 0 Total Local Share of M.V.E.T.21,862,851 0 22,824,821 0 NOTE — "With Local Government Share” means the distribution of M.V.E.T. revenue after f.y. 1991 as it would be if the constitutional formula (62-29-9) were retained. "Without Local Government Share" means the distribution of M.V.E.Ti revenue with the entire highway share going to the Trunk High way Fund after f.y. 1991* as is provided in current law. - 2 - GRAND RAPIDS: The expansion of Blandin Paper highlights the increasing conflict between logging and tourism. The aspen timber has to come down Trunk Highways 65, 6 and 169 after leaving the forest. Local officials have little tax base to draw on to encourage this industry and satisfy their road needs. The sunset of the MVET transfer to the counties and local governments in 1991 will result in a loss of $600,000 in Itasca County. The Blandin expansion is a $600 million investment in the local economy and will result in twice the truck traffic. We need to think of the highways as the workplace of the trucker and continue to stress the safety and capacity needs of roads such as Itasca County Road 7. BEMIDJI: The integration of transportation as an important part of the economic picture, especially in farm products and wood products, and the necessity of an ef fective feeder road system is critical to the area . ■> S Alternatives to existing systems need to be explored and positive solutions acceptable to both metro and rural areas brought forward. While the trees are cut in the forest, two-thirds of the jobs in the timber in dustry occur in the Twin Cities. Legislatively, the sunset pro vision in IIVET after 1990 needs to be repealed and the State Senate needs to be convinced of the needs of the county and local systems, especially in increasing the percentage, of 10-ton roads. Spring restrictions on I.H. 59 virtually isolate the City of Morris and cause solid i^ste management concerns. The community of Dalton and its elevator sit at the end of 7-ton county roads. The local communities, business and beet haulers have been supportive of road issues. The social growth of the .area has been impacted re cently and the diversion of MVET funds away from trans portation is not supported locally. ^_ _ _ _ (clockwise) ROSS Evjsn, B.K. Soby, Don Dean, Dick Borson, Lucky Shol, Dennis BerenO 1489.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: January 4, 1989 SUBJECT: County Road 116 Attachment: A. County Road 116 Memo Dated 4/15/88 B. County Road 116 Administrator’s Information Dated 12/6/88 C. Excerpt of Minutes of the Council’s July 13, 1987 Meeting ISSUE - Presentation of further information to the Council regarding: a. Decision Points on County Road 116 b. Anticipated Options Available to the City of Orrno Regarding 116 INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s July 13, 1987 meeting a public hearing was held regarding tho request for County 116. Given the fact that the County and the City of Medina were seeking the City of Orono’s support for County Road 116 and the fact that the Council at the time chose not to have it brought back until there were positive benefits for Orono, the issue was dropped. This issue was again considered at the Council’s April 25, 1988 meeting when the Council was requested to support a resolution to the County for undertaking County 116. ^s the anticipated positive benefits did not outweigh the perceived concerns raised by residents on Willow Drive, no action was taken. DISCUSSION - The original project for County Road 116 was going to be funded by County/State Aid funds and was to go from Highway 55 to Highway 12. The original proposal was such that Orono would have a say in whether the project would go ahead or not. The proposal regarding County Road 116 that will be presented to the Council at their January 23, 1989 meeting will be one that will be funded solely by County funds and is initially proposed to go from Highway 55 only as far as County Road 6. DECISION ON COUNTY ROAD - Given the fact that County Road 116 construction can go as far as County Road 6 or stop at the Orono/Medina border, it is our understanding that the City of Orono does not have a veto in the route designation as such and if it choses not to participate, the construction will only go as far as the border. As such, the decision rests with the County Board and the City of Medina. As such any support or opposition to County Road 116 should be directed to those two bodies. DECISIONS FOR ORONO - If the City of Orono desires it can express "itrTiewpoint to the City Council of Medina and the County Board as whether County 116 should go ahead. Apart from that the decisions the City of Orono has regarding this project are: a. Completion of 116 construction from the Medina/Orono border to County Road 6. b. Allowing the County the take over Willow Drive from County Road 6 to Highway 12. c. Other considerations such as assistance to Long Lake for reconstruction of the Willow bridge in the future and the City not having to pay as much for the Willow leg of the Willow/Highway 12 signalization. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Table for further discussion until the January 23, meeting. (The County had been requested to the January 9th meeting but the principal individuals who should be present at the meeting were not available until the 23rd. The City had originally expected that this matter would be considered in the February 1989 timeframe and had expressed that to the County in early December, prior to the last Council meeting.) 2. Undertake a resolution to the City of Medina and the County Board expressing: a. Opposition to the project. b. Support of the project. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the item presentation by the County at its January 23, 1989 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by , that the Council table discussion of the item until the Council s January 23, 1989 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. Pat Murphy, Hennepin County City of Medina City of Long Lake 41588.5 /( TOs FROM: DA*nS: Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato April 15, 1988 SUBJECT: County Road 116 Attachment I ISSUE - A. City of Medina Letter Dated 3/15/88 B. County Road 116 Memo Dated 7/7/87 (Plus Attachments A through F only) 1. Determination as to whether the City desires to, at this point, consider further the issue of County Road 116. 2. If the Council desires to further consider the request of the City of Medina regarding 116 the means by which it undertakes this consideration. 3. Present documentation of information related to potential cost for the City of Orono as it would relate to construction of 116. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's July 13, 1987 meeting they heard information presented regarding the proposed extension of County 116 south from Highway 55 to Highway 12. This request for the County Road was made because the City of Medina; a. ) Desires a better north/south access through its community, b. ) It does not qualify for Municipal State Aid funds, and c. ) The County's policy requires that the extensions be from one state highway to another state highway. There was substantial opposition generated against this proposal with attendees both from the City of Medina and the City of Orono when the Council had discussed it last summer. The Council's direction at its July 13, 1987 meeting was that the staff bring back this issue to Council at the point that staff felt that further discussion of 116 would be in the best interest of Orono. To date there has been no evidence to show any benefit to Orono apart from Willow Road capital costs and any impact on signalization. This item is being brought up at this time in response to Attachment A from the City of Medina and staff's belief that it is a courtesy to the City of Medina that the Council should at least address whether they want to further consider the matter at this point. DISCUSSION - Since the Council's consideration last summer the City of Medina has explored with the County both a possible re routing of 116 over to Old Crystal Bay together- with discussions of Orono if it were constructed as County State Aid Road County 116 verses the upgrades it anticipates over the next 5 years, and is presently waiting for those estimates from the County. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Consideration of Issue 1. Agree to further consider the issue. 2. Communicate to the City of Medina that it does not desire to endorse the resolution presented at this time. 3. Table for further discussion. Issue 2. If Consideration of Petition - Should the Council choose" to further consider this matter • 1. Adopt the resolution. . i 2. Conduct a public information session similar to last summer's on the matter. ^ ^ _3. Table the discussion of a process for further meeting. Issue 3. Cost to Orono for County Road 116 1. Accept information regarding this. 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the ^ preliminary consideration transmit a letter to the City of Medina indicating that it presently is not interested in supporting the resolution. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by ", to indicated to the City of Medina in writing its ‘desire not^o endorse the proposed resolution regarding County Road ®nd encourage Medina to work with the County to terminate 116 at County Road 24. Ayes _, Nays_. cc; City of Medina CITY OFMiem2052 - County Road 24. Hamel, MN. 55340 March 15, 1988 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Mayor and CounciImembers, As you may know, Medina has approved the completion of Hennepin County Road //116 south to the Medina city line. We would like to see the completion of it to T.H. //12. The inadequate nunuer of north-south arterial roads in the area is becoming more apparent as each of our cities experience growth and -.n increase in population, We would appreciate it if you would discuss this at your next council meeting and adopt the inclosed resolution and forward a copy to Hennepin County. Sincerely, Mayor City of Medina CC; Greenfield Corcoran Independence Maple Plain Long Lake TRA/sl end. ADMINISTRATION • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • PUBLIC WORKS: 473-4643 / PUBLIC SAFETY: 473-9209 H' CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD i?116 WHEREAS, the western portions of Hennepin County have experienced significant population growth and development in the recent past and are expected to continue to do so in the future; and WHEREAS, there exist an inadequate number of north-south arterial roadways in the area to accommodate present and future growth; and WHEREAS, the comprehensive plans of both the City of Medina and Hennepin County have long shown the completion of County Road j/116 from T.H, 55 J T.H. 12; and WHEREAS, the proposed alignment of County Road //116 is the most practical route for a nort^'-south arterial in the area; and WHEREAS, the City of Medina has requested Hennepin County to place the completion of County Road //116 on its five year capital improvement plan and to proceed with the project as quickly as possible; and WHEREAS, all communities in western Hennepin County will benefit from the m prompt completion of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Orono that the City of Orono be on record in support of the completion of Hennepin County ^116 from T.H. 55 to T.H. 12. Dated:, 1988 Mayor ATTEST: ■.^.rma TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: July 7, 1987 SUBJECT: Extension of County 116 Public Hearing 7:00 P.M.» July 13, 1987 7787.1 Attachments:A. City of M<=»dina - Orono Extension #116/Willow Memo Dated 2/4/87 B. City of Medina - Orono Extension #116/Willow Memo Dated 2/12/87 C. County 116 Memo Dated 3/2/87 D. City of Medina Letter to Medina Residents Dated 2/12/87 E. City of Medina Letter to Mark Bernhardson Dated 5/20/87 F. Letter to Henn. County Dept of Transportation Dated 6/23/87 G. Thomas Crosby Letter to Orono Council Dated 3/13/87 H. County Road 116 - Set Public Hearing Date - July 13, 1987, 7:00 P.M. Memo Dated 5/28/87 I. Petition From Medina Residents to Orono Council Dated 6/21/87 (Petition previously distributed) J. Hennepin County Letter Dated 7/6/87 ISSUES - Determine if the extension of County 116 from the Medina City line to Highway 12 along the current route of Willow is in the best interest of the City of Orono. • INTRODUCTION - For several years the City of Medina has been looking for a route that generally runs north and south through the center of the community. They have looked at this issue over ten years ago, but it was dropped at that time. Medina has a population of about 2,800 and therefore under the 5,000 limit for Municipal State Aid funds. Because Medina does have a landfill in the community and because Baker Park Reserve is predominantly in their community, the expectation of them quickly developing to reach the 5,000 level is expected to take a considetable length of time. For these reasons the City of Medina again approached the County last year to see if the County would be willing to fund the balance of 116 through Medina. It is the County s feeling that they are willing to go ahead with this, but that their policy is that a County road should extend from one State Highway to another which entails extending 116 from Highway 55 all the way down to Highway 12 (see map on Attachment D). Extension of County 116 - Public Hearing July 1, 1987 Page 2 of 4 The City of Medina began consideration of their project last fall and after considerable discussion and exploration of a City funded alternative for such a route it was the Medina Council's determination that they would request Hennepin County to extend County 116 through their community. (As noted in Attachment I a number of Medina residents remain opposed to this extension. Staff has informally asked that the Medina residents use only one spokesperson at the Orono public hearing to express their position.) In order for the Council to gain input particularly from those in the Willow vicinityr Council voluntarily established a public hearing for this evening at their June 8, 1987 Council meeting. As this is a County project Ted Hoffman and Bruce Polaczyk will be present to make a presentation and respond to questions from both Council and those in attendence at the public hearing. DISCUSSION - As noted above the City of Medina through this project will be able to gain a north-south route through the middle of their community where one currently does not exist. As they are not able to gain MSA funding this represents a way of paying for a substantial expense without a burden on the Medina taxpayers. (It should be noted that the County directly receives money for MSA funding that can be utilized for communities under 5,000. In addition to having the County construct the road the City of Medina does receive the benefit of having the County maintain it through their community.) The residents who are opposed to the extension in Medina have indicated their opposition in that they feel that the widening of the road through the community will negatively impact their current situation by: A. Disturbing the rural nature of the community in which they chose to live. B. Additionally generated traffic particularly expecting additional traffic coming from Highway 94 using 116 as a short cut down to the Lake Minnetonka area. The project in Orono would entail an expansion of the right-of- way from 66 feet to 80 feet with an expansion of the travelled portion by approximately 4 feet on each side south of County Road 6 to 9 feet on each side north of County Road 6. Residents most affected are the three residents just north of County road 6. If a rural section of roadway is constructed in the area jus*' north of County Road 6, the ditches would be very close wO the residents' homes. Extension of County 116 - Public Hearing July 7, 1987 Page 3 of 4 Advantages Orono could seek in this matter would be; A. Installation of at least a 4 way stop at County Road 6 and Willow Drive. B. The installation of a stop light at Highway 12 and Willow to improve the situation that has been of some concern for a number of years. (Part of the Highway 12 corridor study was installation of a traffic light at Willow as part of the develooment and this project may put that on line more expeditiously with a different funding arrangement.) The Highway 12 issue is one of; A. Timing - Will the approval of the project speed the placement of a stop light on Highway 12 B. Cost Sharing - Will the cost sharing of the light given the fact that Willow Drive would now be a County Road be better than if left as a City street. The County presently is proposing stop signs for traffic control at both County Road 6 and Highway 12. C. Removal of approximately 3/4 of a mile from the City’s Municipal State Aid System for maintenance and snow plowing^ and allows the City to, if desired, designate other areas for the MSA road fund monies. Concerns related to the extension include; m A. Impact of the width principally for the residents on the north side of County 6, but to a lesser degree those to the south depending on which way the improvement is made from the current center line. B. Amount of traffic expected to be generated by this proposal. Presently Willow south of County 6 carries approximately 1,600 trips per day. It is estimated that 116 will increase trips along Willow in Medina from 1,400 to 3,000. Presently there is no estimate of traffic increase on Willow in Orono. C. Speed limit - presently the limit is 40 miles per hour. Future speed limit on an upgraded Willow Drive is presently anticipated going to the road design speed of 45 MPH. The City, as noted in Attachment F, has asked the County to address a number of issues with the responses being found in Attachment J. Extension of County 116 - Public Hearing July 7, 1987 Page 4 of 4 Should the Council be interested in the extension, the City staff would explore with the County the following items: A. Timing of traffic control on County 6 and Willow Drive. B. Installation of a traffic light at Willow and 12, at least temporary lights, with the cost to eventually be borne by the County and the State within one year. C. That the width issue particularly north of 6 be addressed by utilization of an urban section of road (without ditches) so that the improved portions of the road do no encroach as much into those lots. (This could shorten up the impact of the road from approximately 70 feet to approximately 40 feet.) D. When the County would anticipate take over. RECOMMENDATION - Following the presentation by Hennepin County, together with the public hearing and hearing any concerns any Council members may have staff recommends that the issue be tabled to the August 10th meeting to research issues the Council may have on this matter. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that following conclusion of the public hearing and discussion by the Council members on the issue that the matter be tabled until the August 10, 1987 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. • cc; City of Medina City of Long Lake Ted Hoffman - July 8, 1987 To the Mayor Ci^ of Qrono Attnt Council IfeiberB aleo P,0« Box 66 Crystal Bay^ Mi* 55323 Gentleiasns We feel that the extension of county road #116 will have a negative effect on our property and the entire area and 'wish to voice our disapproval of this project* Sincerely, VHRcClfl ■f; 12987.8 P\TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: February 4, 1987 SUBJECT: City of Medina - Orono Extension #116/Willow Attachment:A. Preliminary Layout CSAH #116 B. Gerhardson Memo Cty 116 Dated February 4, 1987 ISSUE - Identification of issues and concerns Orono has related To the possible entension of County 116 from its intersection at Highv/ay 55 to Hiqhway 12. INTRODUCTION - The City of Orono has been recently contacted by the City oF Medina as it has been indicated they have again requested that the County look at ex tending County 116 down Willow to, at least County Road Six, if not Highway 12. It is their feeling at this time although the expenditure is nota programmed expenditure, that the County may be interested in doing this for the City, as a quid pro quo for their ongoing landfill. When this was last considered by the City of Medina in 1983 people of Medina south of County 24 along Willow objected to it, however those north of County 24 were generally in favor of it. As noted on the map this would provide the only direct north-south link for the community apart from County 19, which is on the western edge and segments of Willow that weave back and forth in the community. DISCUSSION - The City of Medina invited Orono to be attendance at their February 3, 1987 informational meeting on the matter. John Gerhardson was in attendance at that meeting and relayed the following issues and concerns that the City of Orono may have in relationship to this proposal. - Estimate of increased traffic in Orono - Impact of status of Willow as a Municipal State Aid street (MSA) - North of Six - Between Six and Highway 12 - Attendant traffic control improvements at: - County Road Six and Willow - Highway 12 and Willow - Impact on proposed frontage road system north of Highway 12 - Impact of traffic on Highway 12 - Extension of physical portion of Willow as to; A. Traveled portion (traveled portion is presently 24 ft. with 3 ft. shoulder width south of County 6 and 20 ft. north of County 6) expanded to 8 ft. shoulders similar to Willow south of Watertwon - Ditches would also be included if a rural section. B. Right of Way increase from 66 to 80 ft.) As an Alternate to using Willow as County 116 the County may explore use of Old Crystal Bay Road from County Six south. This could provide for a County Road all the way down to County 51. Issues include: - Impact on traffic and width - Signalization improvement at Old Crystal Bay Road - Impact on frontage roads This alternative however, is presently not an option considered by the County. It is anticipated that this would probably take 2 to 3 years before it is funded together with another 2 to 3 years of construction to complete the road. While it is anticipated that such a route would serve as a cut- across between Highway 12 and Highway 55 it is not anticipated that the amount of additional traffic would probably not be substantial. The significant issues for Orono are as follows; 1. Impact of increased traffic on; * a. Residents abutting Willow b. Major intersections along the route - County Six - Highway 12 - North frontage roads 2. Conversion of portions of Orono streets to County roads. 3. Funding source for necessary traffic control improvements should the extension be made. As this change would be partially in Orono, Medina will be formally requesting Orono*s approval should they vote to go ahead with it. RECOMMENDATION - Given the fact that this would be a significant north/south route through the community to assist both police and fire access in the Medina community and to some degree not in substance different to the north/south routes Orono has in Old Crystal Bay Road, Willow and North and South Brown that Orono not object necessarily to the extension. Orono needs to look for ways to have the impact such an extension mitigated. Absent a good estimate of what increase in traffic that this would create apart from improved intersectional control at various points it is difficult to suggest other improvements to mitigate such. It is recommended any other issues or concerns to staff and that this be brought back at your Febraury 23, 1987 Council meeting for further discussion. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by __, that this item be tabled until February 23, 1987. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: City of Medina City of Long Lake \. mm '1 r O. OrohojI . > “5/^_ ..I A ^ > PROPOSED CSAH 116 EXTENSION V PROPOSED ALIGNMENT J To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator Date: February 4, 1987 Subject: Proposed County Road 116 On February 3, 1987, I attended a public information meeting at the Medina City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed extension of County Road 116 from State Highway 55 south to State Highway 12. The upgrading of the road is being promoted by the City of Medina because presently there is not an adequate north-south road through Medina and city roads are being used which in turn is causing extensive maintenance costs. If County Road 116 is constructed it will be paid for and maintained by Hennepin County. As you can tell by the attached information, the extension of County Road 116 has been part of Medina's and Hennepin County's Transportation Plan for several years. l*owever, it is Hennepin County's position that the road will not receive consideration unless it is extended further south to State Highway 12. Previously all proposals indicated construction of the road to end of County Road 24. During the presentation by the Medina Engineer and Hennepin County it was determined that the design of the road would be an 80 foot right-of-way, 24 feet of driving surface with 8 feet bituminous shoulders, the design speed limit would be 45 MPH but the Minnesota Department of Transportation would have the .final say about what a safe and reasonable speed limit would be. Currently the traffic counts on Willow Drive between County Road 24 and County Road 6 are approximately 1,400 VPD (vehicles per day) on the south end and 1,900 VPD at the Orono/Medina border. Hennepin County estimates that when the road is completed traffic counts may be 2,500-3,000 VPD. There are no plans for signalization at County Road 6 and Willow Drive but a traffic signal at Willow Drive and Highway 12 is a probability. Following discussion by the audience, the Medina Council voted to table the matter for six weeks to allow time for more information to be received from residents abutting the proposed or existing roadway. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrat D/il' February 12, 1987 SUBJECT: City of Medina - Orono Extention #116/Willow Attachment;A, City of Medina - Orono Extention #116/Willow Memo Dated 2/4/87 B. Present Traffic Counts - Proposed Layout ISSUE - Discussion by CounciImembers as to concerns they may have related to the extention together with laying out the process for Council’s further consideration of the matter. IMTRODUCTIOI^? - Presented as a consent item last ‘time was a memo related to the extention of 116. At the public hearing that Medina had on the natter on February 3, 1987 they chose to table the matter until March 17, 1987. DISCUSSION - Attachment B outlines present and anticipated traffic counts to give CounciImembers an appreciation for the impact of this change on residents abutting Willow Road. While it is anticipated that traffic would increase along Willow it would not be a direct shortcut between 55 and 12. The shortcut however may be 116 to Tamarack south to County Six, particularly if the stretch of Tamarack north of County 24 was paved, this is a concern because of the current concern related to the intersection at Tamarack and Six. It is our present understanding that the County desires that 116 continue down Willow to Highway 12 rather than going over to Old Crystal Bay Road. An additional indication has been given to the City that the County would work for signa 1 ization of Willow at Highway 12. If Willow were currently a County road two of the four legs for payment of signalization would be the State’s, one the County’s and the fourth Long Lake’s, with Orono bearing a portion of the County and State shares. There is a concern that there may be a need for signalization at that intersection prior to County takeover and that this would have to be worked out with the County for payment/reimbursement of such an action. It additionally is anticipated that stop signs would have to be installed at County six and Willow together with traffic control at the proposed frontage road. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City table further consideration of 116 until the City of Medina has undertaken formal action regarding this matter. Once such action is taken it is recommended that a public hearing be established by the Orono City Council with notification going to all abutting property owners on Willow Drive. Given that no formal action has yet been taken regarding this natter and the City anticipated development of the corridor which may necessitate some improvements anyway that the Highway 12 Corridor Comp plan Amendment not incorporate any anticipated change for possible extention of County 116 at this time. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, to table this matter until formal action is"taken by the City of Medina. If such action directs 116 to be established by the County, staff is then directed to establish a public hearing on thi»^ matter and notify all property owners abutting Willow. (Including all residents whose access is onto Willow within four weeks of receiving notification from the City of Medina.) Ayes _, Nays cc:City of Long Lake City of Medina To: From: Date: Mark E. Bornharciibon , City Administrator Jobn R. Gerhardson, Public V^Jorks Coordinator February 4, 1987 Proposed County Road :^.i6 On February 3, 1987, I attended a public information meeting at tha .-ledina City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed extension of County Road 116 from State Highway 55 south to State Highway 12. The upgrading of the road is being promoted by the City of Medina because presently there is not an adequate north-south road through Medina and city roads are being used which in turn is causing extensive maintenance costs. If County Road 116 is constructed it will be paid for and maintained by Hennepin County. As you can tell by the attached information, the extension of County Road 116 has been part of Medina's and Hennepin County's Transportation Plan for several years. However, it is Hennepin County's position that the road will not receive consideration unless it is extended further south to State Highway 12. Previously all proposa? . indicated construction of the road to end of County Road 24. During the presentation by the Medina Engineer and Hennepin County it was determined that the design of the road would be an 80 foot right-of-way, 24 feet of driving surface with 8 feet bituminous shoulders, the design speed limit would be 45 MPH but the Minnesota Department of Transportation would have the /inal say about what a safe and reasonable speed limit would be. Currently the traffic counts on Willow Drive between County Road 24 and County Road 6 are approximately 1,400 VPD (vehicles per day) on the south end and 1,900 VPD at the Orono/Medina border. Hennepin County estimates that when the road is completed traffic counts may be 2,500-3,000 VPD. There are no plans for signalization at County Road 6 and Willow Drive but a traffic signal at VUllow Drive and Highway 12 is a probability. Following discussion by the audience, the Medina Council voted to table the matter for six weeks to allow time for more^ information to be received from residents abutting the proposed or existing roadway. mi PROPOSED CSAH 116 EXTENSION A PROPOSED ALIGNMENT • # M '4M. JSm. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY SIngIs Family 63.7 AC. Town Homes 18.4 AC. Multi'Famlly 15.7 AC. _ .Dommorclal 26.8 AC. Inatitutional 6.0 AC. Open Space 27.2 AC. R.O.W. 11.2 AC. 161.0ACRES City of Orono HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY 0 wr #ocf 3287.5 TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: March 2, 1987 SUBJECT: County 116 Attachment: A. Attorney's Opinion Dated 3/iyS7 ISSUE - Transmission of information to Council regarding its rights vis-a-vis the County relating to jurisdiction over a current M.S.A. street. INTRODUCTION - At Council's J.ast meeting the issue of 116 being extended from Highway 55 down to Highway 12 along Willow was discussed. At that meeting the issue regarding the City's ability to prevent Hennepin County from taking over the Orono section of Willow, should they desire to build it, was discussed. It was requested that the City Attorney research the issue. DISCUSSION - Based on a review by the Attorney it is our present understanding that while the County may have some authority in taking over the road from the City as it currently exists, a M.S.A. street, the legality of the situation would require a court hearing on the matter. Additionally since the road request is one initiated by the City of Medina and not Hennepin County it is not anticipated that the County would not force the issue and may drop the entire project if Orono is in opposition. RECOMMENDATION - That the Council accept the information from the City Attorney and that upon Medina taking formal action on the matter a public hearing be scheduled for the City of Orono. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by^^, seconded by Attorney's information on the^^tter and ^abi^ future public hearing. Ayes C, Nays \ .\ , to accept the e matter until a m. >. M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor and City Council Members City Attorney Extension of Willow Road March 11, 1987 Issue: Analysis At the last Council meeting the City Council requested that I provide you with some information regarding the process by which county state-aid highways (CSAH) are designated and the City's ability to affect that process. Minnesota ;'l:^.utes §162.02 Subd. 7 states that the County ooard of any county may establish and locate a CSAH upon or over any established road or street or a specified portion thereof within the County's limits. The statute does provide, however, that no CSAH can be established or located within the corporate limits of any city without the approval of the governing board of the city. Minnesota Statutes §162.02 Subd. 8 amplifies the approval requirement by repeating the necessity of council approval set forth in Subd, 7. Subdivision 8 reads as follows: Approval by City. No portion of the county state-aid highway system lying within the corporate limits of any city shall be constructed, reconstructed, or improved nor the grade thereof changed without the prior approval of the plans by the governing body of such city and the approval shall be in the manner and form required by the commissioner." Minnesota Rule 8820.0800, Subpart 1 prescribes the procedure for route designations. Subseqr^nt to County Board and City approval, the high* street selection must be reviewed by the dir state-aid engineer of that area who in turn forward a recommendation to the Commissioner of Transportation. Upon preliminary approval by the Commissioner, the county board can establish the routes by designation. Only after resolutions of approval are received from the county and city, can the commissioner give final approval to the designated route. Conclusion:The city can approve or reject the designation of Willow Road as a CSAH. Therefore, the power to deny imbues the city with the power to negotiate with the County should the Willow Road designation be unacceptable. KAB/11/3048A cc: Nancy Husnick -2- City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 FEB23|ggf I r ■: (V ■■■0 ! February 12, 1987 Dear Medina Residents; The Medina City Council held an informational meeting on Tuesday, February 3rd to discuss the possibility of approving an extension of Co. Rd. 116 through the City of Medina. The proposed alignment is designed to connect Hwy, map on the reverse side. 55 to Hwy. 12, as shown on the At the meeting the City Engineer presented the following information: 3+ miles of City street would be transferred to the county highly system; Cost of constructing 1*2 miles of new road would be approximately $415,000 with the entire cost of construction being borne by Hennepin County; a north/south road had been included in the cities Comprehensive Plan. Benefits of the project would be; faster response time by emergency vehicles; a safer road than city streets because hills would be cut dovm and curves straightened; less use of city streets by north/south traffic. Ted Hoffman of Hennepin County Transportation explained that construction would consist of a 9 ton road similar to Co. Rds. 24 and 19 with two-12 ft. lanes and paved 8 ft. shoulders on each side. After designation as a County State-Aid road, the estimated cost of 2^ million dollars for the entire project could be taken from State Aid-funds. The County would then put the project into its 5 year plan and detailed design wrk could commence. The road \/ould be constructed to a 45 mph design with stop signs placed on Co. Rd. 116 at Co. Rd. 24 and Co. Rd. 6 with signals at Hwy. 12. Various city residents spoke in favor of, and against, the construction. Sane of the favorable comments vrere; The inability to travel oh Medina Rd. during the spring, mud season; the ability to move emergency vehicles through the City in a faster, safer manner; a north/south road through the City is inevitable when consideration is given to there only being Co. Rd. 19 and Hivy. 101 which are north/south routes but are 7 miles apart; the ability to have a through road at no expense to residents; the need to upgrade Willow Dr. in a years at a cost of $100,000 to $200,000, assessed to city residents. Opponents expressed the following concerns; A ^"orridor bet^veen Hwy. 55 and Hxgy. 12 for the benefit of others; a major road through the middle of the city wuld alter the rural atmosphere and hasten development of the city; an increase in truck traffic; convenience for commuters, rather than residents; traffic speed will increase; the city is being asked to approve a 24 foot wide road, which is wider than the new city road width policy for rural residential roads. The City Council agreed that the magnitude of the proposed road ^/arranted notification of all residents and business owners in Medina and request that written comments be fon/arded to City Hall prior to their next discussion of the matter on Tuesday, March 17th at 8:00 p.m. Yours truly, CITY OF MEDINA 'Donria Roehl, Clerk-Treasurer W^y TOsiBasfe- ^ -I -r-v^mr I i *•• ^^>v. ♦*. •}.’■’•; ••. ^ iw.'- > >f ■ Hassan ‘’if Greenfield .rrir.B s<»« •!, ?■ ■e- ra. ,ff%4 Corcoran 5T®' Dayton 1?^ (*) E :<ii> \ 5 . j .. ■ i &MS> J viapie Gcove'j U-"- C TV o sKSi O i- 3lA! i mmi JH^ ^trista^ XJ..;zxT f 1 10-? m i 1•:1 Plymout I lA 6Uu. *• • •'. /•■kd City of Medj 2052 County Road 2 Hamel, Minnesota 55^ May 20, 1987 ^y2 2S8T ■! Mark Bemhardson City of Orono P 0 Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mark: Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Hennepin County regarding Medina's approval of the Co. Rd. 116 extension through the city. I presume the County ^ri.11 be contacting Orono for approval of extension to H\7y. 12, so if there is any help that ^/e at Medina can give you, please call. Would you keep us informed as to the procedures the City of Orono is follo\ving with regards to this project. Yours truly, CITY OF MEDINA Donna Roehl, Clerk-Treasurer City of Medina2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 May 20, 1987 Hennepin County Department of Transportation 320 Washington Ave. Hopkins, MN 55343 To Whom It May Concern: At their May 19th City Council meeting the Medina City Council approved the extension of Co. Rd. 116 through the City of Medina according to Project 7735, prepared by your department; that is: south from Pinto Dr. (Co. Rd. 116) at Hwy. 55, connecting to Medina Rd and continuing to the Orono/Medina boundary on Willo\^ Dr. We request that you proceed with design plans for construction of the road so that the actual construction can begin as soon as possible. If anyone in the city can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to call. Our office number is 473-4643. Yours truly, CITY OF MEDINA Donna Roehl, Clerk-Treasurer Commissioner Robb Vem Genzlinger City of Orono City of Long Lake & CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66«Cry8Ul Bay. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 23r 1987 Hennepin County Department of Transportation 320 South Washington Avenue Hopkins, MN 55343 Attn: Ted Hoffman, Chief Design Engineer Dear Ted: On July 13, 1987 at 7:00 p.m., the City of Orono will conduct a public hearing in regards to proposed County Road 116. We are requesting you to give a brief presentation on the following: 1. Where the new road would start at the north and where the road would terminate at the south. Initially the road was to terminate at County Road 24. 2. Why there should be a County Road 116. 3. Roadway design - rural or urban. 4. Type of traffic projected to use and proposed average daily traffic counts. m 5. Intersection control at County Road 6 and Highway 12. 6. Cost to the City of Orono. I am sure there will be other questions asked of you at the public hearing. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 473-7357. Sincerely John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator JRG/tln BUILDING a ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 MESS. KEY ( ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT CCONTROL NUMBER (OCA) CONT. AGENCY NCtC IDENT. (CAG)mlE ,C. 1 \ /\ J?','?\/r)./*y,A/. iM.NlO ,2 ,7 I NBR DATE REPORTED (RPD) TIME RPD (TRP) LOCATION GRID NBR (LGN) il] / I/I.7L?./ IITt] / \y^ <TI / OATE/TIME REPORTMADE DAY: ISIMITlWITf^iJ-S PLACE COMMITTED (PLC) 1 /Jrcy Jh I L NBR MRP SQUAD OR BADGE # (SBN) TIME ASIG. (TAS) TIME ARR. (TAR) 0/1 TIME CLR. (TCL) ^/l a. A <^sO\/\ yt Atr\C!i\/\ ^BR ISN IJQC_________ ~UCS±j/ rrn/1 i , i i wri >PPENSEn INiTI^COMPLAINT'tf /ro-TT/^ OFFICER ASSIGNED ASSISTED BY HRDCodn P — Phon* R - Radio A — Alarm I — In Parson V - Visual M- Mail T - Othar O mn3 00 <? M- OTHER PRINCIPAL: :OMPLAINT □offender Q VICT D.O.B.BUSINESS ADDRESS HOME ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE OTHER REPORTS INCLUDED Impound Q Prop Invantory □ Impllad Consant □ Accldant Raport QTags □ Influanca Raport □ Photos □ REPORTING PERSONBfOFFENDERQVICTIM□ 1 D.O.B.BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE i 0^ o^O/'o/if) HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE □ SEE CASE ^i'lLE ROLL CALL □ Warn & Release Dept. Assist Message Deliver Treated & Transported Advised Citation Issued Detail Completed G.O.A. y A/d/'T^./^yL/yj'T/r/ ^3Ay>. Ir^j ^ yhr'oJjUjC ‘ t^(rt ^ COPY TO: CO. ATTNY □CITY ATTNY. □COURT □CHIEF^_ List OTHER: ■DISPOSITION: Unfounded^leared by arrest Ref. other agency Inactive Other SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE ('ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT C MESS. KEY CONTROL NUMBER (OCA)CONT. AGENCY NCIC IDENT. (CAG) I E , C ■ 1 I / I ^^1 /Cl/S. / iM.NlO ,2 ,7 ! / . NBR date REPORTED (RPD) TIME RPD (TRP) LOCATION GRID N8R (LGN) T| / I />. si^\ O', 7l / [ & I / DAY OATE/TIME REPORT MADE mitix Itifis I m b n fc r w n l/i\./irti11i^d-^ PLACE COMMITTED <PLC) I I L NBR HRD SQUAD OR BADGE # (SBN) TIME ASIG. (TAS) TIME ARR. ITAR)TIME CLR. (TCL) /I y,^ijrt/l /Or /i Vk^/I /y NBR ISN UOC UCS 4i/r7^/r ■ i/g~ NBR ISN UQC ' UCS OFFICER ASSIGNED ASSISTED BY U\y HROCodn F' - Phont Ft — Radio A— Alarm I — In Parson V - Visual M- Mail T - Othar O m Is 3 oo <! <! -FENSE Q ^R INITIAL COMPLAINT W OTHER PRINCIPAL: COMPLAINT □offender Q VICl^D.O.B.BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE OTHER REPORTS INCLUDED Impound 0 Prop Inwantory O Impliad Contant O Accidant Raport OTaps 0 Influanca Raport 0 Photos 0 REPORTING PERSONg)OFFENOER0VICTIM□D.O.B.BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE 4 ^rV\iV f HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE r~l SEE CASE FTLE ROLL CALL Q Warn & Release Dept. Assist Message Deliver Treated & Transported Advised Citation Issued Detail Completed G.O.A. An . - i ,-nrJi,.i ___________- _■ > /JtvTyJi^yyUA/ £0/^ ~SyM>/dd It ■r COPY TO: CO. ATTNY □CITY ATTNY. □COURT □CHIEF OTHER: DISPOSITION: Unfoundedj:iJear^bv arrest Ref. other agency Inactive Other OFFICE SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE ’-I III I....12788.4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information WESTONKA BEAUTIFICATION - The group formed under the auspices of the Westonka Chamber of Commerce has continued to work on development of a beautification plan to be available for work done by private owners following the upgrade of County Road 15. At present the group is solicitating landscape design bids for such a project. It is our understanding at this point that they will probably be coming forward to each of the cities to contribute for the actual development of a plan in the next few months. It is anticipated tnat this will be in the range of approximately $1,000 for the City of Orono. The intent is that once the plan is developed and adopted that this would provide direction for persons who desire beautification projects along County Road 15. There is no expectation of a request that the City fund any of the improvements. John Gerhardson has been serving as the City's representative to this group. 1989 BUDGET PUBLICATION - Attached please find the publication that was placed in the paper for the City's 1989 Budget. 1989 CALENDAR - Attached please find the 1989 calendar which includes two dates, one in February and one in July, for joint meetings with the Planning Commission. This will also be transmitted to the Planning Commission. POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SOLICITATION FOR CANDIDATES- Presently the Police Department has been utilizing Mike Carlson on a part time capacity to assist the clerical police department staff. The City is presently seeking applicants for a part time position to replace Mike, starting after the first of the year. In addition given the fact that the City's part time officer James Morrow may be selected for a full time position in another department, the City would like to have applicants on file for consideration for the part time position should Mr. Morrow leave and will be solicitating applications for that position also. COUNTY ROAD 116 - City staff was invited to a meeting in Medina with County Transportation on Monday, November 28, 1988. At that meeting it was indicated that Hennepin County will be designating a route for 116 from its present terminus at Highway 55 down through Medina to County Road 6. Previously you may recall they were looking to go all the way to Highway 12 and were requesting Orono's permission to so do. Such a route designation would bring the route only 300 feet into Orono and the only approval authority Orono would have, as staff presently understands it, would be for the project upgrade last 300 feet from the border to County Road 6. The County remains open should th<. City desire to include the section of Willow between Highway 12 and County Road 6 as an addition to the route designation. This item will be presented formally for Council consideration in the latter part of January or February of 1989. Presently the construction of the road is slated for 1990. HIGHWOOD STORM SEWER - The Staff had originally desired to have this item considered at this meeting, however felt it best to wait until the January 9, 1989 meeting at which point it is hoped that this will be brought to a close. ADMINISTRATOR'S GOAL SETTING - See attachment. WESTONKA BEAUTIFICATION - The group formed under the auspices of tHe Westonka Chamber of Commerce has continued to work on development of a beautification plan to be available for work done by private owners following the upgrade of County Road 15. At present the group is solicitating landscape design bids for such a project. It is our understanding at this point that they will probably be coming forward to each of the cities to contribute, for the actual development of a plan in the next few months. It is anticipated that this will be in the range of approxim.itely $1,000 for the City of Orono. The intent is that once the plan is developed and adopted that this would provide direction for persons who desire bea>itification projects along County Road 15. There is no expectation of a request that the City fund any of the improvements. John Gerhardson has been serving as the City’s representative to this group. 1989 BUDGET PUBLICATION - Attached please find the publication that was placed in th~paper for the City's 1989 Budget. 1989 CALENDAR - Attached please find the 1989 calendar which Includes two dates, one in February and one in July, for meetings with the Planning Commission. This will also be transmitted to the Planning Commission. POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SOLICITATION FOR CANDIDATES- Presently the Police Department has been utilizing^ Mike Carlson on a part time capacity to assist the clerical police department staff. The City is presently seeking applicants for a part w:.me position to replace Mike, starting after the first of the year. In addition given the fact that the City's part time officer James Morrow .day be selected for a full time position in ©nother department, the City would like to have applicants on file Cor consideration for the part time position should Mr. Morrow leave and will be solicitating applications for that position also. COUNTY ROAD 116 - City staff was invited to a with County Transportation on Monday, November 28, 1988. At that meeting it was indicated that Hennepin County will be designating a route for 116 from its present terminus at Highway 55 down through Medina to County Road 6. Previously you may recall they were looking to go all the way to Highway 12 and were requesting Orono's permission to so do. Such a route designation woul bring the route only 300 feet into orono and the only approval authority Orono would have, as s; vtl' presently understands it, would be for the project upgrade last 300 feet from tne border to County Road 6. The County remains open should the City desire to mNUTBS OP THB REGUi<AR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY d EXTENSION OP COUNTY ROAD 116 - PUBLIC hearing 7:08-8:07 Mayor Grabek explained the purpose of the public hearing to consider the request made to Hennepin County by the City of Medina to extend County Road 116 south from the Orono/Medina border on Willow Drive to Highway 12 in the City of Orono. City Recorder Peterson noted the affidavit of publication. • City Administrator Bernhardson introduced Commissioner Budd Robt of Hennepin County for this area; Vern Genzlinger of Hennepin County; Ted Hoffman, Hennepin County Engineer; and Acting Mayor Scherer of the City of Medina. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that for several years the City of Medina has been looking for a route that generally runs north and south through the center of the community. Recently Hennepin County indicated that since it was their policy that County roads extend from one State highway to another, they would consider an extension from Hwy. 55 to Hwy. 12. The obvious advantage to the City of Medina would be the north/south route to be constructed with money other than local tax money. Medina, unlike Orono, does not receive Municipal State Aid t . -s because they are under the 5,000 population limit. Issues for the City of Orono to consider are better intersection control at Willow Drive - County Road 6 (4-way stop f.ign) and Willow Drive - Hwy. 12 (traffic signal light). Items of concern include the traffic speed limit increase and widening the road in relation to properties on the north side of County Rd. 6. The County indicated that in regard to the signal issue, they cannot make any committment to traffic control improvements-'pending meeting the required warrants. Ted Hoffman reported that in 1976 Hennepin County undertook a study of their overall transporation system. This study recognized the need for another north/south route between Hwy. 101 and County Rd. 19 that would extend from Hwy.12 to Hwy 55. The proposed route at issue is referred to as the Willow Drive alignment which is consistent with Hennepin County's plans, and consistent with the plans of the Met Council, City of Medina, and Orono's 1980 Comprehensive Management Plan. He reviewed the steps involved to undergo this project as follow: 1. Approval of the route alignment by the communities involved. (The City of Medina Council approved the plan on May 19, 1987.) wm'MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 13, 1987 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED 2.by the County Board of the routeApprova1 designation. 3. Approval of the screening committee comprised of state-wide representatives to get the proposed route on the county-state aid highway system. 4. County Board to approve the project in the 5-year capital improvement program. 5. Staff to design the project. 6. Approval by both community Council's of the final detail plans. He reviewed the proposed alignment which would consist of two 12' lanes with 8' shoulders on an 80' right-of- way. He noted the concern with the impact to residents north of County Road 6. To solve this problem, an urban section could be considered that would involve different types of bituminous or concrete curb and gutter. The proposed traffic control at County Rd. 6-County 116 would be a stop condition on Cty. 116 and a non-stop condition on County Rd. 6. The proposed traffic control at Hwy. 12-County 116 would be a stop condition for County 116, however, they would recommend installation of the undergound conduit for a future signal system that is anticipated as coming sometime in the future. In response to Mayor Grabek's question, Mr. Hoffman stated that a signals system is not a proposed expenditure at this time because they are unsure that the intersection meets the required warrants based on traffic volume criteria that would allow them to install such signal. Acting Mayor Scherer reviewed the reasons for approving the proposed County 116 extension as noted in their letter dated July 13, 1987 submitted to the Council. Polly McCrea, spokesperson for the Medina residents opposed to the extension of County 116 reviewed their reasons for opposition as noted in their letter and petition containing 352 signatures of Medina residents. She noted that County 116 would not benefit the Medina residents and would bring undesirable economic consequences, more conjestion and pollution, increased car and truck traffic and noise, and hazardous conditions for bikers, joggers, and walkers. They urged the Orono Council to say no to this intrusion into the area. She noted that the action taken by the Medina City Council in approving the extension of County 116 did not represe It the views of a large number of Medina residents. ' 'minutes of the regular ORONO council meeting held JULY 13 r 1987 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED Acting Mayor Scherer noted that the Medina population is approximately 3,000, with approximately 1,607 registered voters. The Medina Council voted 4-1 to approve the extension, noting that the one disenting vote preferred and alternative north/south route in which Medina would have to pay the cost. Gene Hite, 2475 Countryside Drive, contested the City of Medina’s viewpoint on the necessity of the extension, and further felt that the extension would impact Willow Drive south of Hwy. 12 feeling the traffic would continue south on Willow rather than turning east/west on Hwy. 12. He submitted petitions signed by 99 Orono residents mainly on Abingdon Way, Countryside Drive, Woodhaven Drive, Dickey Lake Drive, Devin Lane, Longview Circle, Willow Drive, North Brown Road, and Salem Court opposing the proposed County 116 extension. Bruce Kelley, 2340 Fox Street, felt it was a misconception that the extension will generate traffic whereas the increased population generates its own traffic. He also noted that the extension would serve northbound traffic as well as southbound traffic and that it is a much needed road. Gary Roderick, 770 Dickey Lake Road, did not feel the local residents needed a road extension of this magnitude. Phil Miller, 2435 Countryside Drive, felt that the first necessity is a stop signal at Willow Drive and Hwy. 12 where an extremely serious problem exists. Bill Wear, 36 Hackberry Hill, felt a north/south access has been long needed in addition to proper signals installed. Steve Helland, 1920 Beach Lane, Minnetonka Beach, explained that his two children were recently involved in a personal injury accident at the intersection of Willow Drive and Hwy. 12 and desperately urged the installation of a stop signal at this intersection as a more important need at this time than a north/south access. Jim Long, Willow Drive North, felt that the proposed extension to County 116 had the following disadvantages: -traffic and speed volume would increase, noting the existing speed on Willow is intolerable -decrease in property values -found no advantage to Orono, only advantageous to the northern communities MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 13, 1987 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED He felt that the only advantage was the possibility of getting a stop signal at Willow & 12, feeling there are better alternatives to getting the stop light than increasing the traffic volume. Mary Fettig, 960 Willow Drive North, stated that there are north/south access alternatives, noting they are the rural alternatives that the residents prefer. She did not feel the traffic level warranting another north/south access was present. Debbie Lewis, 2355 Abingdon Way, felt that the extension would generate more traffic into Orono residential areas rather than east/west on Hwy. 12 where east/west accesses already exist. Mayor Grabek questioned Acting Mayor Scherer where the City of Medina anticipated the destinations of the traffic requiring the need for the extension. Acting Mayor Scherer felt the major need was for going to and from work north and south. A Willow Drive resident noted that when Willow Drive was upgraded traffic increased. Jim Dillman, 225 Willow Drive, noted that many voiced concern with ruining the rural development, whereas all the new developments have ruined the rural atmosphere for him. Ron Rogers, 225 Medina Road, felt that Medina residents needed some decent major north/south access road. He noted that gravel roads are costly to maintain, that a blacktop road would not ruin the rural atmosphere. He also noted that the City of Medina needs the County's help to put an access road in because of the funding problems. Dick Ziminski, 1095 Brown Road North, felt that the extension would generate traffic from northbound weekend travelers. Martha VanDeVen, 1765 Medina Road, noted that Medina has a plan to pave their own road to eliminate the "dirt" roads and would eliminate the need for an access road. There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. MIMUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 13, 1987 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED ^ _CounciImember Goetten asked about the status of installation of a stoplight at Willow Drive S Hwy. 12, feeling it was an important need to be addressed. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that staff will continue to work on the stop light issue independently regardless of the outcome of the County 116 issue. Ted Hoffman stated that the stop light was a State matter of which he understands that the intersection is a long way from warranting the need for a light at this time. Based on this. City Adi. .nistrator Bernhardson stated that staff will review the requirements needed to warrant a stop signal, v»here they stand in regard to those requirements and the funding; and then what alternatives they have to possibly getting the lights in through other means . Acting Mayor Scherer stated that the City of Medina would assist Orono and Long Lake in any way possible to acquiring the stop signal, which is also of concern to them. In response to CounciImember Peterson's question. Acting Mayor Scherer stated Medina will not proceed to County 116 on their own if Orono votes against the County 116 extension, Councilmember Callahan felt that the proposed extension seemed contrary to the comprehensive plan amendment. He noted that there are long range problems to consider, and would like to give the matter more thought. Councilmember Sime felt the prime reason to upgrading the road is because the County will pay for it, noting that the residents ultimately pay the County. He would like to see more recent traffic statistics. Councilmember Goetten stated she would like to remain open and review the matter further in conjunction with Orono*s plan for Hwy. 12. Mayor Grabek found no concrete information from Medina to support the proposal, other than basing it ® need in a 10 year old County traffic study. He felt the stop light was a major issue and concern. minutes op the regular ORONO council meeting held JULY 13, 1987 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED ^ ^ ^It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Sime, to direct staff to relay Council's concerns to the City of Medina and Hennepin County and table this matter pending more information to consider the proposed County 116 extension. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OP MINUTES* ^ j j u .moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1987 Council meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTSChairperson Robert Kost was present for this matter. Chairperson Kost reviewed the background of the Livingston Tower Park (previously designated at the Navarre Tot-Lot). He explained that based on the 1986 park tour and maintenance survey, the Park Commission identified the Livingston Tower Park as a park which was both underused and in need of attention, therefore the Park Commission has developed a landscape plan which would utilize the existing benches, diminish the effects of the nearby water tower and incorporate plantings that were available in the City nursery. As a focal point, the plan suggests placing a small piece of sculpture in front of a backdrop of evergreen trees. The Park Commission recommends using the recent Lions Club donation fcr public beautification for this purpose and has also contacted the Minnesota Art Center on this matter. Proposed improvements without the sculpture would cost approximately $5,000 to be paid out of the park dedication fund. Councilmember Sime asked if the park fund was precluded from the downtown Navarre redevelopment plan. Staff advised Councilmember Sime that the fund was for park use only. Chairperson Kost noted that during the spring tour, the Park Commission came up with a variety of improvements for other parks to be presented in the future. Councilmember Sime felt the Park Commission has done an excellent job with the parks, specifically Summit Park on Long Lake. It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, that Council conceptually approve the Livingston Tower Park Improvement plan as presented. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. To: Proa: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director January 3,. 1989 110188.IHD ■j. Subject: Curb Cut Request - 490 Old Long Lake Road Mr. Larry Wiken is currently in the process of constructing a home at 490 Old Long Lake Road. The above address Herrick Circle subdivision and is Lot 3, Block 1, Summit Station. Mr. Wiken is requesting a driveway curb cut on to Long Lake Road. The current ordinance allows one curb cut per lot. I have advised Mr. Wiken that the information in our files indicates that all lots on Herrick Circle will access to/from Herrick Circle. Mr. Wiken states that traffic flow as he has proposed will improve regarding safety concerns. It is my opinion that there is room on the property to construct a turn-around, therefore allowing forward motion entering/existing Herrick Circle/Old Long Lake Road. RECOMMENDATION - To deny access to/from Old Long Lake residence at^90 Old Long Lake Road and to direct Mr. Wiken to construct access to Herrick Circle. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by to deny accessPROFUbBU nuxxuw - - -r - - -- - - - -—r-1- to/from Old Long Lake Road from residence at 490 Road and to direct Mr. Wiken to construct access to Herrick Circle. Ayes _ _r nays _ _. / TO: MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MARK E. BERNHARDSON, CITY ADMINISTRATO Forwarded recommending denial. This was platted as a PRD and so that setbacks were taken into account in the commons area between lots, there is an additional issue if Council desires to approve which is the owners right to cross the commons area with a driveway. cc: Mr. L.F. Wiken OCT Uses October 13, 1988 Mr. John Gerhardson Public Works Director City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gerhardson: The purpose of this letter is to request your approval for direct access from our lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Summit Station) to Long Lake Road. The attached Surveyor's Certificate drawings show how we propose to cut the access. We believe that access from the property onto Old Long Lake road would not cause any additional traffic or safety risk. To the contrary, the cut as we propose would facilitate the entry to the street In a forward motion. Please contact me at my home, 476-0326, or office, 476-2002. regular meeting of the ORONO council, SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 Page 4Mr Alan Olson, Assistant Building 6 Zoning ^^^(jMMIT STATION PRD ^inistrator, entered into the record the following Circle) meno concerning Summit Station PRD (Herrick Circle) #152 dated August 16, 1977, which states: Completion of the replatting of Herrick Circle, to S known as Summit Station, will require the following: 1. Council action to extend the May 1, 1977, dead line of Resolution #726, to allow the following steps. Final plats are now on file with the City and the sewer is in operation. The City Engineer will supply a letter of final acceptance. 2. Planning Commission review of the proposed homeowner's agreement and open space easements over Outlets 162. Outlet 2 also should have an underlying access easement to the City as the proposed drive will be the only access to the six lots. 3. Planning Commission public hearing (scheduled for September 19, 1977) to be held concurrently on the land use plan amendment, rezoiiing and street vacation. 4. Council action, in order: a) Resolution amending the land use plan within the fraunework of the comprehensive guide plan- b) Ordinance rezoning from RR-IB to R-IA c) Resolution vacating Herrick Circle Street d) Resolution approving the Summit Station plat 5. Staff collection of park fee and reimbursements, before signatures on the plat drawings. 6. Applicant recording of the plat. Council Meeting - August 22, 1977 Extended deadline date 90 days, to November 22, 1977. Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 1977 Reviewed proposal. Recommended approval of land use plan amendment, rezoning ordinance, plat vacation and final plat drawing. Recommended approval of same. Staff - September 20, 1977 Discussion with Bruce Malkerson, City Attorney. Plat approval should await receipt of easement documents and title opinion. Council should review the petition for plat vacation.(Continued) I ■1 r Suweifors Certificate OiS^V d AS: rC*t"3',‘*lIl^k l, SI»WIT STATHIN, city of Or«iu, Hennepin (kH«ty. Mlnncsotv «hJ reserving easements of rccoid. rt. n I Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froas Dates Subject s Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator December 29# 1988 Pillars# Entry Monuments and Gateways Per Council's dire^.^on in November# we have reviewed the currently existing codes pertaining to entryway pillars# monuments and gateways. There are three general cases where such structures are occasionally requested# namely: 1. At the entrance to a public street - new or old subdivision. 2. At the entrance to a private road - new or old subdivision. 3. At a private driveway entrance serving 1-3 persons. Related to these three general cases are four general items that often become a concern. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Pillars and monuments. Gates. Signage. Lighting. The code sections dealing with fences a'^d walls are: Section 1C.03, Subdivision 15 (O# the "non-encroachment" section# which generally states that "fences . . . are allowed up to 3*j* high in any yard • . . and up to 6* high on lakeshore lots along major thoroughfares." (This is further restricted by Section 10.22# Subdivision 1 which generally would disallow any structure within 75* of the lake.) Section 10.03# Subdivision IS (D) allows "fences and walls. . .up to a height of 6* above original grade. . . but no fence or wall higher than 42" can encroach lakeward from the average lakeshore setback*# and also again states that fences cannot be constructed within the 75* lakeshore setback. Section 10.03# Subdivision 15 (B) generally •ares that accessory structures can be located as close as 5* to a rear lot line# but that fences and walls may not exceed 6* in height in a rear yard. Section 10.03# Subdiv ision 15 (F) states that a 10' setback is *«qulred for a 1 i acceiTsory sFructures In a side yard and no fence or all constructed within a side yard may exceed in height. PlllallSf Entry Monuments & Gateways Decemper 29, 1988 Page 2- of 5 I • Additional code sections dealing with various aspects of this issue are as followsi 1. Section 6.01, Definition of Private Road and Private Driveway. 2- Section 6,07 makes it illegal to place signs or other structures in right-of-way of a public street or private road. 3. Section 10.02 zoning code definitions of: - Accessory use or structure (Definition #1) - Building (Definition #12) - Signs (Definitions #58 through 64) - Structure (Definition 69) 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 deals with accessory buildings (note that most entryway gates and monuments would not fit the definition of a building). Also, Subdivision 16 deals with corner lots and traffic visibility. 5. Section 10.61 - "Special Provisions," Subdivision 1 deals with sign standards and requirements. 6. Section 10.75 - "Height of Structures," Subdivision 1 (E) suggests that "monuments" are an item that could be allowed a 50% increase in height under a conditional use permit. At issue is whether this monument terminology is intended to apply to entry pillars. Zaaiias - The following would appear to be general issues to be addressed in formulating a polJcy or ordinance amendment regarding pillars and gatesx A) Should pillars or monuments be allowed flanking existing or new public roads ? (a recent example is the Bro*m Road entrance to Webber Hills)I flanking new or existing crivate roads ? (a recent i^ple is Countryside Drive); or sho u1 d they be allowed . .anking private driveways? (recent examples are Gumucio on West Ferndale, Asahari on Fox Street, and Halley Homes/Terry on Kelly Avenie). B) For pillars and "wing walls", what should be the maximum height of pillar or wall, what should be the maximum dimensions of light fixtures above such structures, what setbac should be required from property lines? C) Should there be limitations on the type of lighting used with such structures? D) What should be the minimum clearance between pillars (with or without a gate)? Pillarf, Entry MonumentSi * Gateways December 29, 1988 Page 3Kof 5 ' ♦ E) At what level of use *»hould gates be allcwe'vfT (1 residence - 2 residences ~ 3 or more residences?) F) If gates are allowed, what means of authorized emergency vehicles accessibility should be required? G) Where gates are allowed, should a turn-around be automatically provided? H) Should an integal delivery box, phone system, etc. be required where a gate is in place? I) Should a standard tor monuments and slgrige for indentifying subdivisions hn adopted? How much signage, height of lettering, etc. should be incorporated? J) Do the current non-encroachment section standards for lakeshore and non-lakeshore lots adequately address entry strLcturea, or should entry structures r"‘ rail under the non-encroachment sec^ on? Dlscuseioii - The general concerns of this Issue revolve around whether or not pillars and e :try monuments should be allowed, and should they be placed, how should they be built, should they be provide lighting, what degree of signage is appropriate, barrier gates be allowed or disallowed. Some members of the Plann^ Commission and Council have stated a general disapproval of gate structui*?^ for private driveways, and would place specifi' limitations n the type of pillars, walls, lighting and signagt associated ‘^h them. The lighting, location and spacing, of such pi1lar» can become a safety issue, as ca.i placement of u gate for the purpose of barring entry. Ifufthermore, such ••■^•’rtures and associated lig^t^ng can become obnoxious to traffic dep«r'.5!» i their conatrucflon, location, an'^ entation. From an aesthetic standpoint, beauty and taste ar« n -he eye of the beholder, end what may be a tastefully d signed end ^ • tructure to one person may be considered nstr The essoclatud aesthetic issue is that of in Orono. Again this Is not easily defin taste, however, the Intent Is that one n rather then vi*^s of fences snd walls, s » y to someone else. . "open* atmosphere he whisw of persooel ^ of the leradecepe, tfvwAte our roeA*eys. rro» • ..cu- y .t.-'.-.r*, .• • d.t.r...* th. casual •nuiaanc'^ »ta».l.^r -ho la out ai^.it *..tnq. Intant oi aurb atructur'. la to barrlead# on. a raald.nc. fco» Inttj^ra I foul Intant, auch «ataa .111 llk.ly !«>•• affactl.anaaa aa th. d.tomlnat a of the intruder lr.4.reeeee. Pillars, Entry Monuments & Gateways Decemb^ 29, 1988 Page 4 of 5 Staff RaooaMiidatiofi > In light of the abov* issues and concerns, for discussion purposes, staff would make the following recommendation regarding standards for entry monuments, pillars, gates, lighting and signage: T^.try pillars or monuments should be allowed for new and existing subdivisions, flanking either public or private streets. 2. Such pillars and monuments must be set back into the private residrntial building lot at least 10* from property lines, and meeting the required 30* sight triangle at the corner. 3. Pillars and monument* flanking private driveways within private property must also meet the 10’ setback from property line and be spaced a minimum of i6' apart to provide for adequate emergency vehicle clearance. 4. Gates should only be allowed for private driveways serving from 1- 3 residences. Gates shall require a mandatory manual opening mechanism for emergency purposes. Where a gateisin place, an integral delivery and phrne system will be required. Where the City determines that 'blockage of vehicles by a gate will create an unsafe backing up situation, a be'*' -up apron must be provided within the private property. 5. For entry monuments or pillars with or without gates, no sK^re than two pillars (one on each side of a road or driveway) may be constructed, and the top of the structure, excluding light fixture, shall not exceed 6*. The portion of the frillar exceeding 3.5* in height shall not exceed 5* maximum ^dth on each side of the road or driveway. f. Light fixtures that are %rate unit from the pillar may extend as high as 3* above the top the pillar. Light fixtures that are intregral with the structure are subject to the 6* structure height limitation. 7. Pillars or signage monuments which indentlfy a private property may include only the name of the property owner and the address, subject to the sign provisions of Section 10.61, Subdivision 2. For subdivisions, any permanent indeiitifirai *sign or monument shal? be intregral with or take the place w entry pillar monuT nt, nd the sign portion of the structu» ‘hall not exceed € s.f. per pillar, or 12 s.f. total. In no case 11 the sign on each pillar or monument exceed 501 of the face area of the pillar or momMuent. Pillaryf Entry Monuments & Gateways December 29, 1988 Page 5‘’of 5 9. For properties which legally contain two driveway entrances to a public or private road, a second set of pillars/monuments are allowed except that the signage allowance may not Increase per property, however, the signage allowance may be spli^ between the two entrance areas. 10. The above standards are intended to apply universally to both lakeshore and non-laJceshore properties. 11. The provisions of this section are intended to supercede the front yard fence limitations on non-lakeshore properties and lakeshore properties not on major thoroughfares. 12. A permit shall be required for all such pillars or monuments, and a permit application including a survey and site plan, construction plans, and elevation views shall be submitted for staff review. Where such proposed pillars meet the standards set forth herein, a permit may be issued by staff without Council approval. Where the required standards are not met, a variance application will be required. All gateways located less than 30' from a front or street property line will require conditional use permit approval. o. 8 a It < ♦i------------------ .-4 . II 4 s 10.02 1 SBC. 10.02. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Zoning Chapter the following words and phrases shall mean: ' d 1. "Accessory Use or Structure" - A use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. / 2. "Agriculture" - The utilization of land by raising plants, trees or shrubs or the raising of domestic animals or fowl, or both, for the purpose of selling to secure a profit. 3. "Airport or Heliport" - Any land, water, or structure which is used or intended for use for the landing or take-off of aircraft, and any appurtenant land or structure used or intended for use for port buildings or other port structures or right-of- way. 4. "Alley" - A public right-of-way which affords a secondary means of access to abutting property. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 5. "Animal Unit" - The following animals constitute one animal unit equivalencyr"^~on^ cow or steer, one horse, donkey or burro, three sheep oc^fifty fowl. , — L Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 6. "Automobile Repair-Major" - Gener. 1 repair, rebuilding of trailers, including body work, framework and major painting service. 7. "Automobile Repair-Minor" - The replacement of any part or repair of any part which does rot require the removal of the engine head or pin, engine, transmission or differential; incidental body and fender work, minor painting and upholstering service when said service above stated is applied to passenger automobiles and trucks not in excess of 7,000 pounds gross rating. 8. "Auto Reduction Yard' - A lot or yard where two or more licensed motor vehicles or the remains thereof are kept for the purpose of dismantling, sale of parts, sale as scrap, storage, or abandonment. 9. "Basement" - A portion of a building located partly underground, but having half of the floor-to-ceiling height below average grade of the adjoining ground. 10. *^Basement Walkout" - A basement having an entrance at grade level. ORONO CC (4-1-B4) S 10.02 11. "Boardinghouse" - A building other than a motel or hotel where, for compensation and by prearrangement for definite ^perlods, meals or lodgings are provided for three or more persons, •but not to exceed eight persons. 12. "Building" - Any structure having a roof which may p/ovlde shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel, and when said structure is divided by party walls without opening, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. 13. "Building Height" - The vertical distance from the elevation of the adjoining ground level to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a or the roof, to the uppermost pclnt on a round or other roof; to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. 14 "Bulk Station" - Distributors warehouses for materials which are stored in tanks above ground in aggregate capacity on the site of 6,000 gallons or more. 15. "Carport" - An automobile shelter having one or more sides open. 16. "Cellar" - That portion of the building having more than one-half of the floor-to-celllng height below the average grade of the adjoining ground. 17. "Commercial Kennel" - Any premises where three or more domestic animals over six months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. 18. "Commission" - The Planning Commission. 19 "Dwelling" - A building or one or more portions thereof designed or Intended to be occupied dene, purposes, but not including rooms in motels, hotels, homes, boardinghouses, not trailers, tents, cabins, ot coaches. A dwelling shall not be Interpreted to Include lodging rooms. 20. "Dwelling-Attached" - A dwelling which is joined to another dwelling at one or more sides by a party wall or walls. 21. "Dwelling-Detached" - A dwelling which is entirely surrounded by open space on the same lot. 22. 'ramily" - An individual, or two or more persons each related by blood, martiag. or adoption, living housekeeping unit; or a group of not more than four persons not so related, maintaining a common household. OROlfO CC S 10.02 57. "Shelter-Fallout or Blast" - A structure or portion of a structure intended to provide protection to human life during 'periods of danger to human life from nuclear fall-out, blasts, air ' ;'raids, storms, or other emergencies. 58. "Sign" - Any written announcement, declaration, t3emonstraticn, display, illustration, insignia, or illumination used to advertise or promote the interest of any person when the same is displayed or placed outside in view of the general public and shall include every detached sign. 59. "Sign-Advertising (Billboard)" - A sign which directs attention to a business, community service or entertainment not exclusively related to the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. 60. "Sign-Business" - A sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted or to a commodity, service, or entertainment sold or offered on the premises on which such sign is located or to which it is affixed. 61. "Sign-Flashing" - An illuminated sign on which the artificial light is not maintained stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times in which such sign is in use. 62. "Sign-Nameplate" - A nameplate sign shall mean any sign which states the name or address or both of the business or occupant of the lot where the sign is placed or may be a directory listing the names, addresses and business of occupants. 63. "Sign-Gross Area Of" - The area within the frame shall be used to calculate the square feet except that tl.e width of the frame exceeding twelve inches shall constitute advertising space, or should such letters or graphics *be mounted directly on a wall or fascia or in any such way as to be without a frame, the dimensions for calculating the square footage shall be the area extended six inches beyond the periphery formed around such letters or graphics bounded by straight lines connecting the outermost points thereof, and each surface utilized to display a message or to attract attention shall be measured as a separate sign. 64. "Sign-Illuminated" - Any sign which has characters, letters, figures, designs or outline illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes as a part of the sign proper. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 65. "Stables and Barns-Private" - A building or structure used or intended to be used for housing horses, mules, donkeys or ponies belonging to the occupant of the property, and kept "or onotK) cc (4-1-84) S 10.02 noncommercial purposes. (Should not be located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line.) I 11 I. Source; Ordinance No. 117 Effective Date: 5-25-70 66. "Stable or Barns-Public" - "A building or structure used or intended to be used for housing of horses, mules, donkeys or ponies which are owned by those other than the occupant of the property, where animals may be rented for a fee for riding purposes or where riding lessons may be provided. 67. "Street" - A dedicated public right-of-way not less than fifty feet in width which affords a primary means of access to abutting property. 68. "Street or Road-Private" - Any private way set aside as a permanent right-of-way for vehicular access fifty feet or more in width. 69. "Structure" - Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a location on, below or above the ground, or attached to something having a location on the ground. Source; Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 70. "Study and Research Center" - One or more structures, together with the land used in connection therewith, whether contiguous or standing separately, including any building used as a temporary or permanent residence, or a park, nature or playground area, owned or operated by one or more nonprofit charitable, scientific or educational organizations, and used primarily as a center for study, learning, research er educational oriented conferences. Source: Ordinance No. 127 Effective Date: 1-25-71 "Use" - The purpose or activity for which the land or building /reon is designated, artmged, or intended, or for which it la occupied, utilized or maintained, and shall include the performance of such activity as defined by the performance standards of the Zoning Chapter. 72. "Use-Accessory" - A use subordinate to the principal use on 1 lot and exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use. 73. "Use-Conditional" - Those occupations, vocations, skills, arts, businesses, professions, or uses specifically designated in each Zoning Use District, which for their respective ORCNO CC (4-1-I4) S 10.03 I . ' 1 Sabd. 7. Jone Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Re^ldentiari Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot. Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building axcept barns or stables which shall be subject to the approval of the Council. C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area except barn, st^le or greenhouse. D. Location. No detached garages or other acces sory building shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal buildt^ on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake. 1. Location of Principal Building to Lakeshote. No principal building shall be located closer than ^ feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. This lakeshore setback shall be determined as the mean horizontal distanje between the natural ordinary high wate 'ark m the lakeshore and the allowable building line. 2. ^^ari?nce Prom Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from the requirements of Item 1 above shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for its approval before final action by the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 155 Effective Date: 2-14-74 Subd. 10. Conditional Use Permit Required. All a^es- sory hulldinas on through lots located in "R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. Subd. 11. Dwelling Use Prohibited. No cellar, basewnt, tent, trailer, or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ORONO CC (4-1-N4) sSjg#:MM=Ms3 ““llvK'n^y eSs^%^i^»‘'sVUnpV‘ro"vid^ry ‘tb^e“ C^^t^lnlmonths# sny extensio » rertilficate of occupancy forshall expire upon Issuance Oi. a cerriticare ox o y j the new structure and such structure removed. Ordinance No. 24, Second Series Page 2 of 6 Section 3. Ordinance Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) is hereby repealed and the following language substituted in its place: D. No detached garage or other accessory bu'Iding shall be located nearer the front or street *lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requiiements of Section 10.23, Subdivision €B. Section 10.24, Subdiviiion SB and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6B except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn^-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lake« shore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. s 10.03 I Subd. 12. Crowding Principal Building. No accessory uilding or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered, or moved within ten feet of the principal building. Subd. 13. Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors thirty feet or more from the property line when said doors face on a public alley or street. Subd. 14. Yards and Open Spaces. A. Reduction Prohibited. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimensions so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by the zoning Chapter and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. B. Application to Only One Dwelling or Group. No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling grout shall be used to satisfy yard, other open spactJ, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building or dwelling group. . Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct 9* is not visible from the public right-of-way or ^ property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. C. Pences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not ov.r six feet in height along th. front frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, *^*f'*f**' V P.*/ uncovered porches, stoop, or cimilar structures, extend abov. the height of the ground floor level of the building and extend to a distance of not lass than two feet from any lot line. D. In side or r.ar yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than twenty ■4»a^ feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of three Mils not to exceed a height of six feet above grade and open off- atr««t parking. OROMO CC (4-1-14) S 10.03 1 E. Rear yard only; balconies, accessory structures {except that no structure shall be closer than five feet from the , xear lot line, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and •recreational equipment, except as regulated hereinafter. F. Side yards oily; accessory structures except that no accessory structure shall be closer than ten feet from any side lot line. ling n Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences, structures or plantfn^ more than three feet high in the "R*' District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chc'pter sha.l require a permit for all structures including util-.ty poles, a id right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation, as for transmitting power, water, heat, communica tions, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. , Subd. 18. Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975 shall be permitted to ccntinue operation subject to the following conditions: ivr {^efT ‘ new "stock farms" shall be ere ted or existing scock'"^rms enlarged more than twenty-five per c (251) in animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any •'J^h permit, the maximum nurabei and type of animals to be kr t shall be determined. The site design and method of operation sh. be reviewed Council shall find that the proposed stock ' ' will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. f any new building for the uated 150 feet or more from(b~) The establishme. iWls or fowl shall behousing of ani_ the nearest offsite residence. C, Products produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be estiblllhed for conducting such business. One temporary business sign not over ORONO CC (4-1-84) J ORDINANCE NUMBER 9, SECOND SERIES AN' ORDINANCE AMENDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO THE MOM-ENCROACHMENT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SECTIONS OP THE ORONO » MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of Orono Ordains Follows: SECTION I. Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby ainended by amending Sections 13.33 Subdivision 15(C), (D), (E) , (F) and 13,22 Subdivision 1 to read as follows: y SECTION Subdivision 15 Non-Encroachments y y C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over six feet in height along the straejt lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, i^J^LLAS- requlred, the_total combined height of both fence ajid f i shaIJ. not exceed 6 fee"t alSTethe “^ight of tjie cxavn_<^ tji^ Ce^aces, steps, unco"veted porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal build:ng and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. 0. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than twenty square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of three feet, fences and walls not to exceed a height of six feet above original grade and open off street par'^ing except for lakeshore lots, no_fence or wa 1 1 ove^ forty.two inches bu.t not ijj_ excess qf_ seventy-two ipch^ ui. height above original grade may be locat«ed closer^_to, tli^ shorel ineTthan the average distance, from the^ sho^l 1 n^ existing res i die nee bu 1 Id i ngs on ad i acen t. such fe*“ tos sha 11 I ot be cons true ted ithin 75 feet o^th^ siioraline. C. Rear yard on'^, balconies, bteezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipm-nt except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shalj,^ feet from a rear lot line shall ^ constr^^"*^*^ within a rear yard exceed a heTght six feet above or igina> ^ f. Side yards only; no aqs;jLRi''cy structure shall t^closgy ten feet from any s^e 1 in* OflJ sJlRj. 1 within a side yard exeged aJhe^ght_o^ six fe^t^bove original yrade. SECTION If.'2. Regulations for One family Lakeshore Resi dential Districts.Lai D: W sSubdivision i. Lakeshore Sei. Sack Eolations. The set back Crosi^ the shoreline fer lakeshore lots shall be at feet Slid no building, ft nee or wall over forty»two Inches out not A excess of seventy-two inche^^n hel9ht above original grade may be located closer to the shorfellne than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. SECTION 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption, and a short summary shall be r ’blished in the Lake Minnetonka Sun and The Laker newspapers. Adopted by .e City Council of Orono on this 23th day of January, 1935, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. I City Clerk MaTy C. ^^er. Mayor \ S 10.60 vlthln a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except boats and unoccupied trailers less than 20 feet in length, which are not stored for commercial purposes, if stored to the rear of the house and a distance of 10 feet or more from any property line. Source! Ordinance no. 172 Effective Date! 1-1-75 Subd. 14. Waste Materials. Waste material shall not be washed into the public storm sewer system nor the sanitary sewer system without first having received a permit to do so from the City. If said permit is not granted, a method of disposal shall be devised which will not require continuous land requisition for permanent operation and will not cause a detrimental effect to the adjacent land. Should the waste be of solid form rather than fluid, the storage area shall be so located and fenced as to be removed from public view. In all districts, all waste material, debris, refuse, garbage, materials not currently in use for construction or otherwise regulated herein shall be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container for such purposes. The owner of vacant land shall be responsible for keeping such vacant land free of waste material and noxious weeds. Subd. 15. Drainage. Mo land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing flooding, or erosion on adjacent properties. Such runoff shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, water course, ponding area or other suitable facility. Subd. 16. Traffic Control. The traffic generated by any use shall be channelised and controlled in a manner that will avoid congestion on public streets, safety haxards, or excessive traffic through residential streets. Vehicles backing from a parking space •hall not back Into the public street. Mo access drive to any lot •hall be located within 20 feet of any two intersecting street right-of-way lines. Subd. 17. Radiation, Etc. Mo activities shall be permitted that emit dangerous radio activity beyond enclosed areas. There shall be no electrical disturbance adversely affecting the operation of any point of any equipment including but not limited to radio and televlsioi • Subd. 1. Signs as accessory Osm. Signs are a permitted accessory use in ail districts subject to the following regulations I mom oc (4-l^S4) S 10.61 H A. ^ On Right-of-way. Private signs are prohibited Within the public right-of-way or easements except that the Council hiay grant a conditional use permit to locate signs and decorations on or within the right-of-way under their jurisdiction for a specified time not to exceed ninety days. B. Flashing. Illuminated flashing signs shall not be permitted in any district. C. Beams. Illuminated signs or 2e/lces giving off an intermittent, steady or rotating beam consisting ® or concentration of rays of light shall not be permitted in any district. D. Sales Signs. For purpose of selling, renting or leasing property, a sign not in excess of ten square surface may be placed within the front yard of such sold or leased. Such signs shall not be less than fifteen from the right-of-way line unless flat against the the purpose of sellinq or promoting a residential project of six or more dwelling units', one sign not to exceed 48 square feet; a commercial area of three acres or more, or an ten acres or more, one sign not to exceed 96 feet surface may be erected upon the project site. Such sign shall not remain after 90% of the project is developed. B. Existing Signs. Signs existing on September 14, 1967 which do not conform to the regulations are a non-conforming use. F. Traffic Interference. No sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape or color would way with the proper functioning or purpos'* of j traffic sign or signal. G. Building Wall Signs. Signs shall not painted directly on the outside wall of a building. Signs shall °® painted on a fence, rocks or similar district. Paper and similar signs shall not be to a building wall by an adhesive or similar means. Signs shall be considered as a structure or fastened to another structure. Sifln*. Th.t. •hall b. no »ot. th.n on* t.opoc.ry (thr.. oonth, or !•••) al^n In »ny raqulr.d y«t<I and tnata ahall ba no aora than thraa auch al9na on •jr and tha total at.a of auch algna ahall not aaeaad « aquara faat. I. Blactlon Slqna. tlactlon algna ara pacalttad on ptl.at. ptopacty In any diatrlct provldad *7 •Ithln thirty daya folloalng tha alactlon aa ralatad to tha •i?"*- No alactlon tlgn ahall ba oacNlttad In any Olatrlct aoonar than ttra aontha ptacadlng tha alactlon ealatlng to tha algn. OWMO CC 1»0 (4-1-M) 1 fhe follow , Subd. 2. Signs in "R" Districts, owing signs are permitted: A. Nameplates. 5 10.61 Within "R" Districts, 1. One nameplate sign for each dwelling and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per surface, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. 2. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square feet In area oer surface and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two su^ces..^- - - -- - -;- -~ 77”_ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _3. One nameplate sign for each permitted use , cr use by conditional permit other than residential and such sig^X shall not exceed twelve square feet in area per surface._ _ _ _ ---------------- ^ Illumination. Symbols, statues, sculptures and Integrated architectural features on non-residential buildings may be illuminated by flood lights provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential district. ^C. Setbacks, Etc. Any sign over one-half square foot shall be set back at least five feet from any property line. No sign shall exceed eight feet in height above the average grade level. Signs may be illuminated but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect^_ _ _ Subd. 3. Signs in "a" and "I" Districts. Within the and "I* Districts nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to the following regulations: Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. "l-l", "B-2" and "a-l": Size. Within the "B-l", •B-2* and "B-4* Districts, the aggregate square footage of *^^90 space per lot shall not exceed the suit of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot fw>t occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed fifty square feet. Source: Ordinance !lo. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B. "B-a": Size. Within the "B-l* District, the •egregate square footage of sign space per lot shall ^t exceed the Bum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building, wo Individual sign surface shall etceed 100 square feet, C. Size. Within any 'I* ®^^^ • aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed tne omoNO cc 43-1-B4) 4 § 10.75 SEC. 10.75. HEIGHT OP STRUCTURES. Subd. 1. Special Provisions. The height limitations ' imposed by other provisions of this Chapter may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent when applied to the following structures: Antenna or antenna structures. Church spires. Belfries. f]!iinQlas and domes which do not contain usable space MonumenJ lowers. G. Fire and hose towers. H. Observation towers. I. Flag poles. J. Chimneys. K. Smokestacks. L. Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above height of the building. M. Cooling towers. N. Elevator penthouses. Subd. 2. Conditional Use Permits. Heights in excess of those allowed under Subdivision 1 above for the uses enumerated therein may be permitted only by conditional use permit granted pursuant to the procedures as set forth in Section 10.09. Source: Ordinance No. 198 Effective Date: 8-22-77 Subd. 3. Additional Heights on Sloping Lots. On any lot sloping downhill from the street, which has' an average ground slope on that portion of the lot to be occupied by the main building of 25% or more (measured in the general direction of the side lot lines) an additional twelve feet of height may be permitted in such main building and the garage or parking space may be in the required front yard provided a yard of ten feet or more is maintained. Subd. 4. Yards: Additional Provisions. Required yards in the districts specified shall be subject to the following additional requirements: A. Through Lots. Through lots in any district shall have a required front yard on each street. B. "B" and "I" Districts: Adjacent Lots. In the "B" and "I" Districts, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question are less or greater than the minimum front yard depth ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 10.75 Required for the district, required front yards shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than five feet nor be required to exceed fifty feet. C.Districts: Adjacent Lots. In any District, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed fifty feet. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 (Sections 10.76 through 10.98, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 392 (4-1-84) s 6.06 llien upon each lot or parcel proportionately, or such charge may be ^assessed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.01 etseq. ' I'Said proportionate share is to be determined by dividing the total costs of maintenance, repair or replacement, including without limitation, the cost of cleaning, snow removal, surfacing and ■resurfacing, by the number of lots or parcels, adjoining the private road, and each owner shall become liable for said proportionate share, or as may be determined by the Council. SEC^^07. CBSTROCTIONS IN STREETS AND PRIVATE ROADS 'Subd. 1. Obstructions. It is a misdemeanor for any terms and conditions of such permit, and taking measures for the protection of the public. An electrical cord or device of any kind is hereby included, but not by way of limitation, within the definition of an obstruction. Subd. 2. Fires. It is a misdemeanor for any person to build or maintain a fire upon a street or private road. Subd. 3. Dumping in Streets or Private Roads. It is a misdemeanor for any person to throw or deposit in any street or private road any nails, dirt, glass glassware, cans, discarded cloth or clothing, metal scraps, garbage, limbs, paper or paper products, shreds or rubbish, oil, V^ease or other petroleum products, or to empty any water A other injurious chemical thereon. It is a violation of this Section to haul any such material, orcovered, thereby permitting the same to fall upon streets or private road. It is also a violation of .^®.®baildina store any building materials or waste construction or demolition on any street or private ^o®J^^J^5ina first having obtained a written permit from the City. The building permittee shall remove all construction or demolition waste, or soil washed or tracked into any street.w^^( advertisement, or other structure in any street or the right of y of any private road. Subd. 5. Placing Snow or Ice in a Roadway. misdemeanor for any person, not acting «"^®^^®-City to with the City or without special permission from the City, co remove snow or ice from private property and place the same in the roadway of any street or private road. ORONO CC 144 (4-1-84) !.'i I* , f 1 ORDINANCE NO. 54, Second Series AM ordinance amending section 6.01, 6.05 and 6.06 OF THE AN ORDINMM municipal CODE RELATING TO improvem^” on public and private roads and rights op wae the city of ORONO does ORDAIN: read a3..£aUdl6a,: Section 6.01 jSpiNITIONS. _ _ _ _ otherwise defined in the City Coda, the following meanings, unless the context ihgx rtw^Suo' B. “Curb Cut" means the opening a street curb ?ine or pavement edge for “e P^Pome of »otor j^icle^^ iSinie ?Se eirtro^tJJe^nvt^al^'app/oach and of the curb returns, if any. ^iv^^tr^^l'^Mch^olln^rfhe driveway approach to the public or private road curb. and other vehicles. B. “Driveway Sl"i“?Sg!fc “5rprS5at‘S%5il and fro. iTr?v:te^Sr'’^Sb1t: ^rotril approach must provide access to a parking area, driveway, a door intended and used for the «“«ance of vehicles, or other ai"H?^’‘^^“^wrc!asfes- aT’resident Driveway approaches ®’’all be of two c approaches, driveway approaches: and b) business driveway app ! I,. .’■H F. -Business Driveway Approach'* means a driveway approach from any public right-of-way providing motor vehicles with ingress and egress from the public or private road to any property other than a single family dwelling. G. -Resident Driveway Approach” means a driveway approach from any public or private right-of-way providing ingress and egress for motor vehicles from the public or private road to a single family residential dwelling. H. -Driveway Turnaround- means a paved or otherwise clearly delineated area which is part of or connected to a driveway or driveway approach, on private property, sufficient in size for an automobile or other vehicle to turn 180 degrees without leaving the paved or delineated area. I. -Frontage” means the lot line abutting a public or private street. J. -Parcel of Land” means a lot or contiguous lots or a tract officially registered under one ownership. K. “Private Road” meanr any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use, or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an ease-^.-ont between personj or between a person or persons and the City. L. -Public Rosi” means the entire area dedicated to public use, or contained in a plat, a‘n easement or other conveyance, grant or by adverse possession, to the City or other governmental body, and shall include, but not be limited to, roadways, boulevards, sidewalks, alleys, and other public property between lateral property lines in which a roadway lies. Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. -2- 1589.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrato DATE: January 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Refunds • ,vt.- I *'I ■ Attachments:A. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Refunds Memo Dated 1/3/89 tho%%'7ho wou"l^a ?eJ:X^e\fe r^^lu^ri:eV'^°oT'”SrXo portiSn “/thrhora\"^va\‘’ue. rhas°°receiU^^ SAC charges on any new construction since January 1, 190/. / To: Prom: Date: Subject: Mark E- Bernhardson, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 3, 1989 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Refunds SAC Refund Letters Prom M.W.C.C. Dated 5/29/87, 7/13/88 Exhibit B - Letters From Various E^ibit C - SAC Refund Eligibility Memo Dated 10/25/88 Exhibit D ~ Map of Eligible Areas Introduction - ' 4.4^^ car ,-haroes in the early 1970's for unsewered properties were paying for ®=li®V t^ie^*^ As of 31, 1986some day be used by these unsewered prope^ “?!s* properties that had previously paid the charge. Under the M.W.C.C. Program, it is t° ^t^h^® th^t °ufe*M.w!c.C. determine who will receive the ^®^ with individual propery owners. Of will deal only with the city and not with individual propery the 30 or so communities «ho ProPerti^ a\ iea3t °ne of^fhlse, the date only four have chosen fo participate^ „o„ey to the residents, but to community chose ^ "ability to indent if the original property distributing the funds. “‘“""Sn^ran'uary 3, 1989, s\^"urdVarticir.-rn"i:cf I program. These issues and concerns are as follows: . . t,. m»nv cases, the SAC charge was okgfnall?Vaid by a'builder or |;jj9inal^property^own^ longer irc%h«rw^Trnci^^d%d nfs?^!rle-rd ^rtcip^iln\‘’:o^u\V £th\ -{ent^Lme -n« nerrYyT^o7o “oo"?n r\S m“n^^^ the Ci;y would lively ulti»at^^ be "Sponsible for paying future SAC charges for these properties, an expensive proposition.) Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Refunds January 3, 1989 Page 2 of 4 2. AMonnt and value of refund. - The SAC charge has Increased from an initial $275.00 in the early 1970*s to a current level in 1989 of $575.00. The amount per property that will be refunded by the M.W.C.C. is only the amount that was orxginally. paid. The M.W.C.C. intends to maintain their current policy that any property receiving a refund under this program would have to pay the full contemporary amount at some future time that they connect to sewer, but if no refund is given, then the SAC charge need never be paid again. In other words, for someone who paid a $275.00 SAC charge in 1973, if they hook up to sewer in 1989, they will not have to pay a new SAC charge nor will they have to make up the difference. On the other hand, if that same person accepted a refund in 1989 and then hooked up in 1990, they would have to pay the full 1990 SAC charge which is estimated at $600.00. Clearly, anyone who accepts a SAC refund is taking the risk that.they won't have to pay a full SAC charge sometime in the future. 3. Comprehensive Sewer Plan viability. - The 1973 sewer projects in areas such as Hackberry Hill, Tonkawa Road, and North Arm Drive, at that time were intended to be the "last sewer projects ever to be done in Orono". Since then the City has sewered areas in Minnetonka Bluffs, West Ferndale, North Shore Drive, and Crystal Bay. An additional area under consideration at the current time is the north side of Stubbs Bay. Clearly, history has shown that on a long term basis, sewer is inevitable in densely developed areas of the City. If and when the Stubbs Bay area is completed, there are other areas of the City of such an existing developed density that sewer will likely be necessary sometime in the next 10-20 years. In the overall scheme of things, it would be naive to say that "the Stubbs Bay Project will be the last area ever to be sewered in Orono". Therefore, we must consider that other areas of the City will ultimately be sewered, and SAC charges will ultimately need to be paid. Coupled with the expected development pressure from the current and future Highway 12 upgrades, a SAC refund program might in the long run be viewed as "robbing Peter to pay Paul". 4. M.W.C.C./MUSA status. - Although this concern has not been discussed by M.W.C.C., staff would question whether offering or.not offering a refund has a political Impact on the City's relationship with M.W.C.C. l.e., if we do a refund program, does it make a statement to the M.W.C.C. that we will never request approval for extensions of the municipal sewer system into these areas? Conversely, if we don't do a program, does it suggest that we expect to request additional sewer extensions in the future? Along the same lines, does not doing a program indicate to Orono residents that the Comprehensive Plan goals of never expanding sewer in the City, are open to revision? Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Refunds January 3, 1989 Page 3 of 4 5. PrograM administration. - The program as established by the M.W.C.C. has no specific provision for the City to receive reimbursement for its efforts as administrator of the program at the local level. Significant staff time would be expended in developing, transmitting, receiving, and processing applications, and issuing checks to individual property owners. Furthermore, anticipating that such a program would only be taken advantage of by a portion of the eligible property owners, careful records will have to be kept to insure that future SAC charges are paid or not paid for appropriate properties if sewer connections occur. Additionally, such a program would necessitate City Attorney time in reviewing specific "full disclosure" dc :uments that would have to be filed for each property receiving a refund (discussed further below). If a program were * to be undertaken, staff weald recommend the following procedure: A) Formal notification to eligible property owners by certified mail. B) Transmittal of refund applications to interested parties. C) Establishment of a deadline for receipt of all applications (in order to make it a one-time effort). D) Receipt and processing of applications. E) Request for a single check from M.W.C.C. F) City transmittal of individual checks to individual recipients. , G) Filing in the chain of title "full disclosure of ramifications" document signed by property owner. The cost of such a program is estimated at 400 hours of in-house staff time at an average of $15.00 per hour, plus initial mailing costs of $600.00, attorney fees estimated at $1,000.00, and an average $20.00 per property filing cost for the "full disclosure" documents. The relatively high amount of staff time estimated is based on the anticipated number of questions and phone calls, as well as follow-up efforts over the next umpteen years. In summary, it is estimated that this program will cost the City $7,500.00 in staff time, postage and consulting fees, in addition to the $20.00 per property document filing fee. These costs would be recovered by charging a $45.00 application fee if all 323 eligible properties partake in the progr^. However, if only 1/3 of the eligible properties partake, the application fee might have to increase. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) P'^funds January 3, 1989 Page 4 of 4 6. Pull disclosure requirement. - It is our opinion that if a refund program is undertaken, the City would potentially assume some liability for future SAC charges for properties that receive a refund. It is conceivable that a current or future property owner in 10 or 20 could come back and make the case that he was unaware that he would have to pay a future inflated SAC charge and the City should pay the difference. Because of such a potential liability, staff is recommending that if a program is adopted, a document be signed by the property owner indicating that he is aware of the future ramifications for his property that are spelled out in that document, and that such document will be filed in the chain of title of the property. Alternatives for Council Consideration - 1. 2. OR OR 3. 4. Develop a program majcing all currently unsewered properties eligible for a refund. Adopt a partial program to include only specific areas of the City, for instance: A) just Big Island; B) just the 5-acre zone and Big Island; C) the 5-acre zone. Big Island, and the 2-acre zone excluding the Stubb ’s Bay; D) the 5-acre zone. Big Island, the 2-acre zone excluding Stubb's Bay and excluding the 5 other areas delinlated on the map (Exhibit D) indicating future potential sewered areas. Choose to not undertake the prograun. Table discussion for further study. Recommendation - Having discussed the potential consequences of such a program.at length, John, Tom, Jeanne and I agree that undertaking a SAC refund program has inherent administrative problems and costs and may have potential political ramifications, while providing a relatively minor short-term benefit to the affected property owners. It is therefore recommended that a SAC Refund Program not be adopted. However, if Council does wish to opt for a partial program, we would recommend that such a program be adopted only for Big Island. 9SS^'T>^W^ t S-J: r 'Jj^/TCi COnTiK>i-fttf-i •*- W^\ t;:VUr.' r^-f i Ta-“ C*JZ j rC-Z'Z May 29, 1987 Mr. Richard Benson Clerk-Administrator City of Orono Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Benson: There.have been a number of Ind implementation of the policy c | (SAC) which were initiated onrefund of Service Avaiiability Charges [SAC) whicn^we^^^. lo t4ke®?h; 4p«^“"°p^S„^!;iLi®were dLcrIbed in*!ett«s°L 2* “• »“■ n.policy, initi.t.o i» i*f'i;,“ “"tSoS “3 ‘iw5 “i'.=* building and/or sewer f®[na[rectly to the Metropolitan facilities have access directly . collect SAC only if sewer °ir??ll\s"avaTiabL?sugPsted^that^ ESSni!rf^u?iS “thrperiorof'l98fthrIugri98?!^^^^ communities^d g^^ responsibility of the community. TO implement this optional f^C refund^program^it^is^nece^ for^the community to such as: the permit number and dateprocess will require infor^tion such as^ u ^ ft was issued; lo^^ion and type “I'tSfcommission. We are amount paid; and the heloful in identifying eligible SACenclosing a form v/hich will be P g]; ^y City Council Resolution, refund units. It will also be necessary, oy^^^ to inform the Commission city elects to have only aeligible units should be refunded. If tne cicy eie necessary to !°?.^bUsfan*^arei^Shich en^pasl^the^eligible^unU for lliT.;. |f|^^ri°!fsrot°exIgiie!Eern^ts tor whicn you SAC refund. .350 Metro Square Buildir^g. Saint Paul. Minnesota 55101 612*222-8^23 P^ge Two May 29, 1987 iQ0y b© sonis cominunitiss who do noti have any eligible unibs (on-site systems for which SAC had been previously collected). In these cases a written communication from the community indicating,, that no SAC refund is requested should be submitted to the Commission. For buiiaings constructed after January 1, 1987 and served by on-site sewer systems, or for existing buildings that receive a refund under this program, SAC will be collected at the time the buildings are con nected to sewer system. For this reason, it is recommended that the City implement a sewer connection permit program that has sufficient detailed information on each permit form to allow for the deter mination and verification of SAC units. The Commission will work with you to answer questions regarding the implementation of the SAC program at any tiir .. Your cooperation is appreciated. LJBrRAO:jlw MWCC Commissioner J. J. Hiniker W. K. Johnson J. M. Erickson R. L. Berg M, P. Ferguson .«4 g P » u< V) touo:<mm U dH l-la< M<>< uu M> OSu Wl E U4 u C V Oi 0) Jj «8 OI O T) «Ha xi • ••i^ C7* E *0 wi -H 0) CO CL. LLU tfl O JJ 'H c O D tw O 0)a c >i3 oz « O' 10CL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CO ijI K f- 00 00 • I in IS Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth;Street,_Sl. Paul. Minnesrta 55101 July 13, 1988 :lj j P ^612 222-8423 P-'l I I 81988 hil'! To All City Managers: This letter is to remind you that the SAC refund program is still available to the communities during the remainder of 1988 and 1989. Please inform the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, by City Council Resolution, as to your community's decision regarding par ticipation in this program. Under the refund procedure you are to submit your entire list of eli gible permits for a SAC-refund providing the following information: the permit number and date it was issued; location and type of building; number of SAC units and amount paid; and the date it was reported to the Commission. This list should be accompanied by your City Council Resolution and a map designating those areas for which you desire to receive a refund. There may be some communities who do not have any eligible units (on-site systems for which SAC had been previously collected).^ In these cases a written communication from the community indicating that no SAC refund is requested should be submitted to the Commission. If you have any questions, please contact either Mr. Ray Odde or Mr. Donald Bluhm of the Pl-nning Department at 229-2114. Your cooperation is appreciated. PEM:SLS:loc cc: MWCC Commissioner J. J. Hiniker, Deputy Administrator Planning File: 19.775 ^\J vears 195S-195S V J **i ‘T i- CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. MinnesoU 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka April 21, 1987 Connie McLaughlin 2340 Watertown Road Long Laker MN 55356 Dear Ms. McLaughlin: This letter will Ho! a refund of your SAC e”aVlifheVtn°®in“house- procedure' for handling SAC refunds. Your letter of April 14, 1987 has been placed in a pending file and you will be advised as soon as this matter is reso Please call me if you have any questions Sincerelyr feanne A. Mabusthr milding & Zoning Administrator w'^^torlc E. Bemhardson, City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director BUILDING k ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION k RNANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 V illw McLaughlin Woodworkinj 2340 Watertown Road Long Lake. MN 55356 12)479-1664 (612)473^M iiBsrljj dpi^ /f/? djUf .of OyTJnO “pO- (^iyLfS^bZU. , /DkJ SS33 3 ''Stu.i€A^ docLib::i>-UU'^ " co<- M fXUd A A' M /eoL^fstA^, 'd/ijSU. hMIU^ fUiOM <2^ 7?A.JJ hic^ OJ- . I7^. \il [i©iiowi 0CTI6I98T Scott K, Goldsmith __ 265 Old Crystal Bay Road North Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 14 October 1987 Hr. Tom Jacobs City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Building Permit # 5798 Dated 10-11-85 265 Old Crystal Bay Road North Dear Mr. Jacobs: 9 Building Permit # 5798 was issued to me on 11 October 1985 for construction of my residence at 265 Old Crystal Bay Road North. In the total fee for that permit, a "SAC Charge" was included. I understand that it may not have been appropriate for that SAC Charge to have been assessed for this construction. Accordingly, I would respectfully request a refund of the SAC Charge for Building Permit # 5798, dated October 11, 1985.. Thank you for your consideration. Very toruly yours. Qiarles M. Kelley 2720 White Oak Cirde Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Cihj ^ /€<»-«.«/’ 6-#^vd4t-/ 5"^32-3 JAN I 5J9Sr II Jli:^ I - s- 8V Office* i^ys ;4£./-lX .^At>T7 ;44_ Ml (:>,^„c P y.:- yrr^,^.. Me. ,jp. V L.L^Mi4. ^ -C-S^ J‘^i,y^^cy cyi^y. V /ZmM- u/MMi- —*t-^ Tos Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 25, 1988 Subject: SAC Refund Eligibility List Deputy Clerk Teri Naab has completed a listing of all properties in Orono for which SAC charges have been collected but which are connected to septic systems and did not have City sewer laterals available. This list numbers 323 properties. Of these 323, 7 properties are located within the Stubbs Bay Alternative Waste Management Study Area, and have a potential for being sewered in the next year or two. This leaves 316 properties which have paid SAC charges but are not contemplated in the current Comprehensive Plan to be sewered in the near future. Given that your next question might be, what additional areas would the City have to consider sewering in the next decade? I would list the following clusters of historically denser-than-2-acre-development: -Lake View Terrace & Country Club Road -Dakota Avenue and Long Lake Boulevard -Heritage Drive and Heritage Lane -Cygnet Place -Shevlin Drive and Webber Hills Road Obviously, if any of these 5 specific areas were excluded from a SAC refund due to the potential for future sewer connection, this would be the first public inkle that additional areas of the City are contemplated for sewers other than the 5 areas delineated in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. In these 5 new areas, the number of SAC charges that could potentially be refunded is 31. The average SAC refund for these areas would be in the range of $300.00. If these properties are not refunded the SAC charge, this would represent a t i: cure potential cost saving to each home owner of $275.00 under the 1989 SAC rate of $575.00, and the savings would increase as the SAC charges rises over the years. In my discussion today with Ray Odde of the MWCC, he indicated that the SAC charges paid previously are considered as paid-in-full and there will never be an incremental additional SAC charge for new connections under current policies. SAC Refund Eligibility List October 25, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Odde brought up another interesting fact. He said that of over 30 cities eligible, for SAC refunds, only 4 have taken advantage of the program to date, and of those 4 at least 1 bad so much trouble identifying or findina the property owners who are due the refund, that the City ^ded up keeping the entire refund amount and put it into some type of sewer improvement fund. Odde noted that although this was not the specific intent of the SAC refund program, this possibility was contemplated when the program was put into effect. However, he notes that other cities with the same concerns have not participated in the program because they had similar difficulties in identifying recipients, and felt also that if future connections occurred, the city would be liable for paying SAC charges for those houses for which the city gobbled up the SAC refund. Another point that Odde mentioned was that the intent of the program is to refund monies directly to the city for distribution by the city, rather than having MWCC write individual checks to individual property owners. Presumably, the city would have to identify the current Property owner for each eligible property, and if there is for instance a 50/50 split between property owners who want their SAC refund vs property owners who do not want to incur additional SAC charge expenses 20 years from now, the city would then have to send individual checks to the homeowners. Odde also noted that if we wanted to refund to just specific ar j of the City, that was a possibility. This may be more trouble than its worth in the long run. However, as we discussed, twc options could be proposed to the Council: 1. Proceed w;." i a refund progrsim under the following conditions: a) Include all 323 properties as being eligible for a SAC refund. b) Create a list of all the current property owners, and send them a letter outlining the SAC refund program, noting to them for the record that if they take a refund now, they would be responsible for a full increased SAC charge in the future i^. they are ever connected to the sewer, and setting a deadline date for their ^'application for refund" to be returned. c) Include with that letter a refund request application form which they have to sign, and which includes wording that they must initial paragraph^^]^-paragraph , indicating tneir acknowledgement of the wrart^^hey may be giving up by accepting a refund. This document should be in a format so that it can oe filed in the chain of title of the property, to warn future buyers of the property that a refund occurred. SAC Refund Eligibility List October 25, 1988 Page ^ of 3 d) After the refund application submittal deadline, the City would compile the listing and total amount requested for refund and would request a check from the MWCC, then the City would send individual checks to the property owners. e) Using the above procedure, the City would probably have little or no liability in paying future SAC charges for people who have received a refund. 2. The City could choose to not participate in the refund program for the following reasons: a) The City will incur some expense in creating a list of property owners, in correspondence with those homeowners, in printing costs, and in the costs of issuing checks. There does not appear to be any MWCC participation in these administrative costs. It seems that there would be quite a bit of staff time involved in this refund program if the City chooses to go ahead with it. b) The City on a whole receives no benefit from this program. Only individual property owners would benefit but only to the extent that they are receiving monies now which they may have to repay at a future connection date in amounts far exceeding the refund aunount. 121383.8 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoj|^ DATE: December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Salary Resolution Attachment: A. 1989 Salary Resolution Dated January 9, 1989 ISSUE - Determination as to adoption of salary resolution for 1989. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 12, 1988 meeting they desired tabling the 1989 salary resolution until the January 9, 1989 meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt as presented. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Adopt a portion of the resolution leaving selected positions for further review. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended tha^t the 1989 salary resolution be adopted as presented. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt Resolution No. __ as its salary resolution for 1989 for all persons not represented by a bargaining unit. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director 12888.5 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 1989 BE IT RESOLEVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that initial salaries and wages for City employees be established as follows, effective January 1, 1989: NAME Mark Bernhardson Dorothy Hallin Melvin Kilbo Gary Cheswick John Gerhardson Jack Brinkhaus Thomas Ruehn Jeanne Mabusth Michael Gaffron Thomas Jacobs Ronald oteffenhagen Theresa Naab Sue Bobzine James Gregory Steve Hansen John Sass Dale Skreen Wayne Quast Barry Rathbun Randy O'Brien Charlotte Knutson Robin Mikelson Lyle Oman Carol Hansing Laurie Scheffler Jaunie Bosma James Morrow Kevin Walsh POSITION City Administrator City Clerk Police Chief Police Lieutenant Public Works Director Street/Utility Foreman Treas/Finance Director Zoning Administrator Asst. Zoning Administrator Building Inspector Golf Course Supt. Depty City Clerk/Admin Sec Police Secretary Street Dept. HEO Street Dept. LEO Street Dept. LEO Street Dept. LEO Utility Mechanic Utility Mechanic Utility Mechanic Depty Treas/Account Clerk Finance Accounting Clerk Field Inspector Asst. Police Secretary Recorder Copy & File Clerk I Police Officer, P.T. Community Service Officer 1988 SALARY 1989 SALARY $53,146.00 (5/1/89 Review) 27,851.00 $28,683.00 45,760.00 47,133.00 36,878.00 37,974.00 42,539.00 43,790.00 32,861.00 33,848.00 42,813.00 44,104.00 37,806.00 38,940.00 31,554.00 32,500.00 31,554.00 32,500.00 27,892.00 28,729.00 10.71/Ht 11.03/Hr 10.71/Hr 11.03/Hr 13.355/Hr 13.49/Hr A.) 11.990/Hr 12.11/Hr B.) 11.990/Hr 12.11/Hr B.) 11.990/Hr 12.11/Hr B.) 12.674/Hr 12.93/Hr C.) 10.28/Hr 10.5S3/Hr 10.08/Hr 10.300/Hr 10.71/Hr 11.03/Hr 10.858/Hr 11.182/Hr 12.720 13.101/Hr 8.648/Hr 8.909/Hr 8.19/Hr 9.378/Hr 7.679/Hr 7.906/Hr 7.00/Hr 9.24/Hr 5.10/Hr 5.75/Hr Foot Notes: A.), B.) and C.) In addition a lump sum based on hours scheduled and worked will be paid quarterly (March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15) A. ) $.27/Hour B. ) .24/Hour C. ) .13/Hour BE IT P0RTHBR RESOLVED, that mileage for City use of private cars on City business be reimbursed at $.24 per mile* Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held January 9, 1989. ATTEST:James R. GrabeK, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 122988.1 TO: Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director^ DATE: Janv^atfy 3, 1989 SUBJECT: Internal Revenue Code Section 89 Compliance Attachment:A. League of Minnesota Cities Article on Section 89 - December 1988 ISSUE - The 1986 Tax Reform Act established a new section in the Internal Revenue Code (section 89) which sets forth basic qualification standards and nondiscrimination tests with which certain types of employer-sponsored health and welfare benefit plans must comply. The City of Orono, along with all other municipalities offering health and life plans, is subject to compliance. DISCUSSION - The City, as with all employers offering health and life insurance plans, must comply with the provisions of Section 89. The League of Minnesota Cities magazine had an informative article regarding this subject in the December 1988 issue. In that article the author noted that "the requirements are extremely complex and lengthy." He also stated that "there isn't space in . . . this magazine ... to cover all the ins and outs of Section 89." I have attached a copy of that article for your information. The basic problem of compliance, meeting all the legal criteria, is complicated by the varied consultants (attorneys, certified public accountants, insurance companies) offering to do t:,e necessary testing proceedures and reviews to determine nondiscrimination status of each plan. We do have a good consultant available to us. The LOGIS Health Care Group Plan is administered by DCA, Inc. who has offered their services at a discount to the LOGIS health plan members. DCA, in conjunction *th the law firm of Moore, Costello & Hart, will help us ntify the data to be collected in conjunction with Section 89; jommend actions to help us meet our benefit plan objectives within the context of Section 89; and perform the initial tests to project the application of the nondiscrimination rules of section 89(d) and (e) to our benefit plans. Moore, Costello & Hart^will help us identify those employee benefit plans which ‘are, or may be subject to Section 89; furnish us with an opinion as to the qualification of those plans under the rules of Section 89(k), recommend actions which will help those plans qualify under the rules of Section 89(k) which do not currently so qualify; and to perform tests to project the application of the nondiscrimination rules of Section 89(d) and (e) to our benefit plans, then to furnish us with an opinion as to the federal income tax implications of the test results. We have been given a cost estimate for the services described above of $4,200 to $5,000 if we use DCA/Moore, Costello & Hart and $2,200-$2,600 if we use DCA only with seperate legal services from a firm of our choosing. In view of Moore, Costello & Hart's stated active practice in employment and employee benefits law, regularly working with clients in the design, drafting and implementation of health, welfare and retirement plans I would recommend contracting with DCA and Moore, Costello & Hart for the Section 89 compliance program in the amount of up to $5,000 to be appropriated from the General Fund Special Projects for other consulting services with the budget amended at the end of 1989 if needed. As an alternatve we could utilize Popham, Haik if the service they provide is equivalent. Mr. Ardy Prekker of DCA has offered to attend the Council meeting to further explain the law and the compliance system and proceedures if we desire. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate f Forwarded recommending approval. DCA as the administrator for Orono through LOGIS health plans, which comprise a substantial bulk of the review, it is therefore able to give a significant discount on this portion. Many cities in the Metropolitan area are presently contracting with a consultant or are entertaining proposals for such a review at this time. While normally the staff would have submitted this as a budget item prior to this, no one was offering the service to review and verify compliance until the past few months in the municipal sector. Presently the City is communicating with Popham, Haik as to the level of service and cost to do the legal review and certification. If it is an equivalent service within the budget the City could go with Popham, Haik. In addition the City is currently exploring with DCA, Inc. the costs involved in establishing an IRS Section 125 flexible benefits plan. This would be brought forward as a separate request in the next month or so. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Authorize as recommended. 2. Table for further information. 3. Choose not to undertake a review with the attendant risk of making all benefits not meeting the tests becoming taxable. PROPOSED MOTION - Mov- by _, seconded by_, to contract with DCA, Inc. and either Mocre, Costello & Hart or Popham, Haik as selected by staff for their respective services in connection with the Section 89 Compliance System in -an amount of up to $5,000, to be appropriated from the General Fund Special Projects for other consulting services, with a budget amendment if required at the end of 1989. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director Did you know? Is your benefit plan discriminatory? Peter Tritz What must cities do to make sure their employee benefit plans are not discriminatory? Under Section 89 of the IRS Code, some employees may be taxed on health and Itfe insurance and other fringe benefits. When Congress was working on tax reform in 1986, one of the questions they considered was whether enq)ioyee fringe benefits such as group health insurance should remain tax- exempt They concluded that these benefits should continue to be tax- exempt provided that the employer ’s benefit plai 1) is a ’’qualified” plan; and 2) does xx>t discriminate in favor of higher-paid employees. The require ments take effect January 1, 1989 and are found in Section 89 of the IRS Code. It is extremely important that cities be aware of these provisions. Not meeting the requirements can result in the premiums paid by the dty and/or the benefits received by the employee being taxable to the employee, and the dty being liable for substantial penalties. The requirements are extremely conq)lex and lengthy. There isn’t space in this artkle (or in this magazine for that matter) to cover all the ins and outs of Section 89. But, hopefiiUy this artide wiD give ddes an idea of what they need to do to comply. Qualification In order for health, life, and other hinge benefits to be exempt from tax ation as income, the first question is whether the plan is ’’qualified.” Est^ lishing that a plan is ’’qmdified” is fairly simple but is extremely important. The tax consequences and penalties for hav ing a non-qualified plan are very severe. The qualification rules apply to group health and life plans; c^eteria plans; dependent care plans; employee discounts; other services enq)loyees receive at no cost; and employer-oper ated eating facilities. These rules do not apply to other fringe benefits such as sick leave or vacation leave. In order to be qualified, a plan must meet five requirements. First, it must be in writing. (A resolution of the dty council specifying who is eligible for the benefits, what portion of the premium is to paid by ^e employer and what portion by the employee, and referring to an employee bc^et or to the insurance policy, HMO contract, etc. that specifies the precise benefits pro vided would probably be sufhdent.) Second, the employees ’ rights under the plan must be leg^y enforceable. Third, the employer must notify employees of their braefits. (The dty should give each employee something in writing explaining the benefits avail able. The employee booklet the insur ance company provides won’t in itself be sufficient. While an oral explanation to each employee might meet the stat ute ’s requirements, the problem is that h ’s hard to prove later that you did it and that you covered all the important points in the oral explanation.) Fourth, the plan must be for the exdusive beneffi of the employees. (That is, the benefit plan can’t be a money-making proposition for the employer.) Fifth, it must be intended to be permanent. If a benefits plan does not meet all five of these criteria, the benefits received are taxable income to the employee. In that case, the dty must report it as compensation on the employees ’ W-2 ’s. If the dty fails to do so, the dty is subject to a penalty equal to the dghest individual income tax rate times the total value of benefits paid under the plan. Note that if the plan is not qualified, it is beneSts received — not the prem iums paid by the employer that become taxable income for the employee. In other words, if a non-qualified health insurance pkui paid for a $50,000 heart operation for an employee, that employee would have another $50,000 of tax^le income. And if the dty Med to report that $50,000 on the employ ee’s W-2, the dty would also have to pay a penalty of as much as $16,500. Non-discrimination The non-discrimination requirements apply to group health and group life benefit plans. Section 125 cafeteria plans, and dependent care plans. Essentially, any benefit plan will be presumed to be discriminatory unless the dty formally determines that it is not, by following the procedures spelled out in Section 89. The non-discrimination requirements are intended to assure that an employ er’s benefit package doesn’t discriminate in favor of the more himfy-paifi employ ees. If the plan is discriminatory , the dfy wiE have to report the ’’discriminatory excess” that the highly com>ensated employees receive as ta:^le income on those employees ’ W-2 forms. If the dty doesn’t report it, the dty is liable for a penalty equal to the highest individual income tax rate times the total value of benefits — not just the discriminatory excess — paid to the hi^iiy compensated employees. There doesn’t seem to be any simple ’’safe harbor ” approach that will assure that the dty is in compliance. Even a simple and straightforward approach like paying the same dollar amount toward the premiums for every employee won’t necessarily guarantee that your plan isn’t ’’discriminatory.” Nearly every dty that has more than one employee and provides health or life coverage will have to perform the formal non-discrimination tests. TTie first step is to determine how many employees the dty has. The dty is generally permitted to exclude employees less than six months of service; those who work less than sbc months per year; and employees under age 21. Under some circumstances, the dty can also exclude employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Part-time employees must be induded unless they work less than 17.5 hours per week. But employees in any of these categories m^ be exduded only if no employee in* the category is eligible for bene^. j The next step is to determine who are the dty’s ’’highly compe^ted employees ” (HCEs). An HCE is any employee who either 1) is paid more than $75,(XX); or 2) is paid more than Minnesota Cities $50,000 and is in the top 20 percent of all employees in compensation; or 3) is an “officer” and is paid more than $45,000. • Unfortunately, you may not be off thfr hook even if none of the city’s employees earn that much. In that case, whichever “officer” is the high est paid is an HCE, regardless of his or her actual pay. It isn’t clear whether for example a dty clerk or dty council members would be “officers” for pur poses of Section 89. Some testimony indicates that Congress intended that every employer would have to have at least one officer, and therefor at least one HCE. Whether or not the dty derk, dty treasurer, council members, etc. are “officers” for purposes of Section 89 turns out to be a very important ques tion for smaller dties who don’t have any employees paid more than $50,000. In effect, this will determine whether or nc?. ’J '.se smaller dties have any “highly o:v,i«nsated employ ees.” If the dty doesn’t have any HCEs, the dty obviously can ’t be discriniinating in favor of HCEs. But if these positions are “officers” for pur poses of Section 89, then every dty by definition has at least one HCE. Another point to note concerns employees who are related to high-paid employees. If any employee is a rela tive of one of one of the top ten highest paid employees, those two employees are considered to be one employee for purposes of these tests. The next step is to test each “plan ” the dty offers, to determine whether it discriminates in favor of the HCE group. A plan is separate if coverage varies in any way. Employee coverage and dependent coverage are separate plans. If the dty offers a choice of an HMO and a fee-for-service plan, those would each also be separate plans. A dty offering both an HMO and a fee- for-service plan, and a choice of single or family coverage under each has at least four plans. The dty must test each of those four plans separately. If the dty provides retiree coverage, the retiree plan must also be tested sepa rately. There are two options for testing a plan: the “80 percent coverage” test, and the “three-part eligibility and ben efits” test. The “80 percent cover age” test is the easiest. A plan passes the 80 percent cover age test if at least 80 percent of the non-HCEs are enrolled under the plan. Note that if the dty has more than one “plan,” it would seem to be impossible for both plans to pass the 80 percent coverage test. The “three-part eligibility and bene fits” test actually has four parts. First, at least 50 percent of the employees eligible for the plan must be non-HCEs, or the percentage of HCEs eligible to participate rannot exceed the percent age of non-HCEs eligible. Second, at least 90 percent of ail non-HCEs must be eligible for a benefit that is at least 50 percent as valuable as the greatest employer-provided benefit available to HCEs. Third, the average benefit received by non-HCEs must be at least 75 percent of the benefits received by HCEs. Fourth, the plan must not con tain any other provision relating to eligibility which discriminates in favor of HCEs. In these tests, “benefit” means the net value provided by the employer. The “benefit” the employee receives equals the percentage of the premium that is paid by tl e employer times the plan ’s “total value ” The Section 89 discrimination tests do allow the dty to provide proportion ately lower benefits to part-time employees working between 17.5 and 30 hours per week without necessarily creating discrimination problems. Spe- dfically, for purposes of the tes^g formuias, the dty can double the value of the benefit actually received by employees working between 17.5 and 22.5 hours per week. For employees working between 22.5 and 30 hours per week, the dty can multiply the actual benefit received by 1.33. One problem is that so far there isn't any way to tigure out the plan ’s “value.” The IRS is supposed to develop a table that will give the “value ” of a plan, but the table doesn’t exist yet. For now, cities should prob ably just asstimg that the “value ” of a plan equals the total premium cosL What if one of our plar'" is discriminatory? Under certain circumstances, dty ca n “aggregate” two or more “comparable ” plans, and treat them as one plan for testing purposes. The first thing to look at is whether you’d be able to aggregate the diserhninatory plan with another plan and meet the requirements that way. It is ^te possible, though, that some dties may have plans that are considered “discriminatory” under Section 89. This could easfly occur if the dty employs a number of part-time woricers who don’t receive benefits. If a dty’s plan is “discriminatory,” there are really two basic ways to deal with the problem. One option, obviously, is to amend the benefit package to eliminate the problem. This could mean either increasing benefits and/or eligibility for the non-HCEs, or decreasing benefits for HCEs. The second option is to concede that the plan is discriminatory. The conse quence of having a discriminatory plan is that the discriminatory excess that the HCEs receive are induded in the gross income which the city must report on the W-2 and on which the employee must pay taxes. It may turn out to be cheaper in some cases for the dty to make an agreement with the HCEs to increase their taxable com pensation enough to make up for their benefits becoming taxable, rather than to increase the benefits which the other employees get. While this seems a rather perverse result in light of the apparent intent of Section 89, never theless it would apparently be perfectly legal and might be the cheapest way out for the dty. Unfortunately, the Section 89 requirements may also turn out to have another even more perverse effect Some employers may just dedde that the hassles that are now involved in providing health and life benefits to their employees simply aren ’t worth it. These employers mi^t simply dedde to stop providing health and Iffe bene fits, give their employees a one-time raise equal to the premiums the employer used to pay. As dty offadals begin to struggfe through the task of complying with this section, it win be worthwhile to make sure that Minnesota ’s congressional delegation is kept mformed about just ‘ ow much work they’ve created for .es. (Thanks to Rick Vanek of Cooperd and Lyfarand for reviewing this article and hdping sort through the implica tions of Section 89 for dties.) ■ December 1988 1589.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: January 5, 1989 SUBJECT: City Facilities - Site Analysis a COtWCUMSrWG D Attachment: A. Discussion and Approval of Relevant Site Criteria for City ISSUE - Update to Council on site analysis progress. INTRODUCTION - Boarman and Associates have done the bulk analysis for the two sites and are at the point they need to review the third site before proceeding further. The staff has been attempting to contact the owners but they have been out of town and are expected back this weekend. RECOMMENDATION - "tit is recommended that this item be tabled to the C^ncil^s February 13th meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council tables this item until its February 13, 1989 meeting. Ayes —r Nays _. SI'S- TOs FHOM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato COUNCIL MEETINGJanuary 5, 1989 • • • • , »• ^ SUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer Attachment: A. Financing Alternatives - Sewer Installation ISSUE - Presentation of updated information related to the Stubb*s Bay Sewer. INTRODUCTION - The staff has# this past fallr been working with the City Engineer to update the proposed costs of the project together with exploring project and financing alternatives to make this a more "reasonable" project. The staff. Engineer and Attorney now need to review the revised concept to determine the feasibility of this refined approach primarily from a legal aspect. As noted in Attachment A the approach combines the elements of a special assessment, connection charge and use fee together with a possible "reserve charge funding". It is expected this will be presented to Council February for their reaction prior to any work with effected property owners. A key to going ahead with the project in total may be the waiver of assessments by a substantial number of people. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, the Orono Council accepts the information provided regarding Stubb’s Bay Sewer. Ayes _, Nays _. o 8488. m .eioT n TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Financing Alternatives - Sewer Installation ISSUE - Provide the Council with information related to financing 6f“Initial sewer installations that may be applicable in various areas of the community. INTRODUCTION - As a result of the outcome on the ultimate fInancTng“of the Crystal Bay Sewer Project the Council had indicated to staff a desire to research alternatives financing arrangements for future projects particularly in established areas. DISCUSSIION - Staff has been working with the City Attorney to determine what methods, if any, would meet the objectives of fully financing a project by those effected property owners should the City choose that financing route. This research does not preclude the City from participating in the installation of that sewer at a level that it may deem appropriate in the future. The elements of the financing strategy would be as follows; A* Assessment - Based on the market value beneIit~to the property the City would assess within the total amount of that estimated benefit a special assessment to the property. In the case of Crystal Bay this amount was deemed to be $5,500 per unit. This may or may not be an applicable number in the Stubbs Bay area. In addition to getting an apprisal of the properties in advance of determination of the special assessment the Attorney suggests that the Council may consider it appropriate to undertake any preliminary appeals by a review by an Administrative Law Judge prior to adopting an amount for the special assessment. B. Co nnectio n Charge - This would be a charge paid by the ploperty owner upon hook-up. The statutes and state law are somewhat vague as to the extent of the charge apart from the direction that the amount has to be just and equitable. Elements for a connection charge including the actual expense of the City involved in the connection which could include according to the statute; "To pay for the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement ..........and the maintenance, operation and use of (sewer systems), the governing body may impose just and equitable charges for .......connections with them and make contracts for the charges as provided in this section." Minnesota Statute 444.075 Subd. 3 (1987) In Subd. 5 of the same section the City may impose a sewer connection and "devote the money received in construction maintenance or use." According to the case law the connection charge can be an addition to the special assessments and does not have to reflect the improved market value by the improvement. Based on the statutory language the City may include a wide array of charges in determining the connection charges. It must not however, be arbitrary and capricious and must be in equal value on similarly situated property. The City can not rapidly increase connection charges, however, in trying to force hook-up but probably may be able to escalate connection charges based on the value of money for the initial connection charge to meet the equitable standard . C. Use and Aya^labi^^ty Charg^e - These can be in addirron to both special assessment and connection charges using in the same "just and equitable standard" as a connection charge. The advantage to this charge is that it can be made on all properties to whom service is available without regard to whether they are actually hooked up or not. The City does use this type of charge forwater service in areas where people are not presently hooked up. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Direct staff to further refine strategy for connections to be incorporated in the capital budget. 2. Request additional information regarding the types of charges. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council direct staff to”establish a^policy utilizing the three elements outlined above to have a policy available for financing the charges with any City contribution being an additional element should that choice be undertaken. An issue that has not be answered at this point is whether the City can couple its connection charge together with its mandatory hook-up in order to achieve the connection charge. This concern may be eliminated by the use and availability charge. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by_, seconded by _, that the Council direct staff to further refine a policy for financing sewer installations in an established areas in the community. Ayes —, Nays __. © o 1589.2RD COUNCIL Mf ETIN6 «• ^ To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Prom: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: January 5, 1989 Subject: 1910 Shadywood Road On December 12, 1988, Council received a complaint from Mr. David Bie, 1910 Shadywood Road, regarding "No Parking" enforcement on a county right-of-way access to his and neighboring property. Council directed staff to contact Hennepin County to determine if vacating the county right-of-way was feasible and to serve as the liaison between Hennepin County and the neighbors. I have contacted Hennepin County and have determined that vacating the right-of-way is a possibility. I am in the process of contacting all affected property owners of the options and to determine if there is a total consensus. Recommendation - To direct staff to continue to pursue the vacation of right-of-way in the area of 1910 ShadyWood Road. Proposed Motion; Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to direct staff to assist in resolving the vacation of right-of-way in the area of 1910 Shadywood Road. Ayes _ _, Nays _ _. TO: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat / Forwarded recommending acceptance of the information. c2 o To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: January 5, 1989 Subject: Highwood Storm Sewer 1589.2HD COUNCIL MEETING -Ari -0u33 .... During the summer of 1988, City staff inspected the efficiency of the in-place storm sewer in the Highwood Area. It is our opinion that there are no obstructions in the current pipe and have also determined that the pipe is drastically undersized. The problem at this time is that there is great opposition to any storm sewer project and/or upgrading of the current storm sewer. It is my intent to communicate with the most affected property owners in January/February to determine if he could accept some other type of alternative to a Capital Improvement Project. Recommendation - That Council direct staff to discuss with the most affected property owner options to a Capital Improvement Project. Proposed Motion: Moved by seconded by to direct staff to discuss with the most affected property owner any options to a Capital Improvement Project. Ayes _ _, Nays _ _. To: Mayor Gri’^ek and Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator 'S / Forwarded recommending acceptance of the information. 122988.4 O TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director DATS: January 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Insurance Renewals 1989 II COUNCIL MEETING -i \::i o ISSUE - Adoption of award recommendations for renewal of certain insurance coverages effective January 1, 1989. DISUCSSION - Since the awards approved at the December 12, 1988 Council meeting we have received the premiums for the 1989 worker compensation, the mini computer coverage and the umbrella coverage. A comparative tabulation of the 1988 and 1989 premiums and the 1989 budget amounts is shown below. The worker compensation insurance reflects an increase of only 6.12% (despite the experience modification factor increase from .93 in 1988 to 1.21 in 1989) due to a significant reduction in rates for the police and "municipal" class employees, which represent over 60% of the City payroll. The umbrella liability policy premium was $23,172 in 1980 but is $29,441 in 1989, an increase of $6,269 or 27.5% from 1988 to 1989. We had projected a 10% increase. The amount of 1989 additional premium over the budget $3,841 will be covered by reallocating the other insurance budget amounts. In total for all insurances, except the golf course liquor liability which renews April 1, 1989, the 1989 actual premiums are $139,387 compared to the 1989 budget of $143,730, or $4,343 under budget. Policy Awarded To Worker Compensation LMCIT Computers St. Paul Co. Umbrella LMCIT Actual Premium 1988 $51,253 505 23,172 Actual Renewal Premium 1989 $54,389 500 29,441 Insurance Premium Budget 1989 $63,530 510 25,600 O This concludes all insurance renewals for 1989 except the liquor liability for the golf course which renews April 1, 1989. When the premiums are known this will be brought to Council for approval. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the 1989 insurance policies be awarded as presented. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato Forwarded recommending approval PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by_, seconded by_, to award the Orono 1989 insurance for worker compensation and the umbrella liability to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust# and the computer coverage to the St. Paul Company effective January 1, 1989 as proposed. Ayes __, Nays __. 121388.7 TO Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Fee Ordinance and Summary mm j :::3 • »•*», Attachment: A. 1989 Proposed Ordinance and Summary Dated January 9, 1989 ISSUE - 1. Adoption of a fee schedule for 1989. 2. Adoption of a summary of that fee schedule for publication purposes. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 12, 1988 Council meeting they requested that the issue of fees be tabled until the January 9, 1989 meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt 2. Amend and adopt 3. Table for futher discussion 4. Choose to take no action RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the fee schedule ordinance and the summary as presented. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt Ordinance No. _ to be effective upon publication and authorize the attached summary for publication. Ayes _, Nays 0> rH CM in r-j rH CM »H I—I CM ^m^cMiH^vcro^mcM^roiH m ^ 43 .H $ Si ^ ^ W <U 43 Ui«?sr* •'■I iH C _ ^t-o ®S}|i S-35 &H S •d 43 M fJ r-i 43&Sf^$SI •H fl fljb ^ s w s IpE4 • ■ I I* • • • r4 I I ' ■ e*EM *a)*QiJ -^1 gl sf ij g| SB.§.§ •HCUP k 5b43.H (U*H (04343 illMK'B M O -H k4•s o> ' n S> c K •S S-'S-S S.S I *g (H <H cs*.!. |M1 = ArtK oi w w w > > 00 ON 00 O 00 ON (7> iH iH iH Cl r4 iH r-4 ON iH 3 & °S«S o ro o ro O'CM CMCM CM CM I KD NO CM CM .J3 • e • ^s (0 43 iH 43 3M3 3mp > > •H »H •<-* ^ U V4 l““ 84 ^ m W fH IM O e 04 o -HU > 43 gi o u *rS ^*0 ^ ^ ON r*^ ON ON iH fH• •..a . a • ONONr^CMCMinCMONDf-I^^CMON iHCMCMiHCMiHfHiHiHiHCM .« . all U4 > 0> U g ^ _ «w ‘H YrH.S gO-tJfl s gs ’s krj •S’•• d & - * 43 S '•g>o •J5 0) 6) O b • C m(00)>-*h *C 43 O 0) ? 43 CO) 8.1 8- rH *H iH fl. 11 5|S£;a u u O 82 1 n (0 8 «H 0) § Sg g 0, S.Q •H «H fo &4 P4 lllll SS'3“ a “ •H C m 0) w O) lilllilr in CM •siCMiHrHOOONOCMON CMCMCMrHrHCMCMrH I s riiiiie -a, <0 C «H I 8 c « JS'lS C M —I I 13-^53 •a 0) S CT» D» SfiouSi •>1 to c»o P c 9 0 •H CT» iH u <d o Q Q Id 0)*o p ro m o CO c HI 0)flj 0 •o *o *ow fv^Wi >1 p 0) >H p P PnsJDiH P 9 9 9 Al 0)P o CO CO COw r %to u M Id o CO 0)<D 0 O CO f f H C •H JC »•H VO VO OI M to U iH <U o o ofac0)0)IM a»o ••• H H •H CO •a M-l ou o o o o .J w »a 0 Id < CJ rH iH fH D ^u »o u.JJQ S cn o c CO H Z fa 0 iH tZ2 O M •o <CJ ••M CQ U ^rH 0)cus:0) H CO U U CO JJ M CO c«t.n ov IM pei U O VP .H -•IdW Q •H in c o O O O O O tn fa ^ z jj 3 CD o o o o o o O CJ *0 s ?1 —1 0)••• • • • O a\ • u 0)c ja 0)o in o o o o Z 00 o u CO <0 M o c o o CDz z *w ■fad CO 1 Id ••n^ o w <•u s «*c P o 0 • z 9 Vj »o ° o 0 p in MO*•M fa CO 0 c —4 c in-O4P 0 o |H o W c 0)<u 0) P Z fa M o e (U M iH c M CDo o fa c Qi 0 M f -d ouD z w 0 CO •f^ ■Id & i=•H CM CO f u 2 w CO u r ^o p •H p z tJ O OV o *=HD cn*H Id 0 Id 0< a< Q c C p o cn E V4 Z U H Z M ii Id iH »H •iH M -H 9 M z fa O 0 Wj 3 > TJ fH Id c p Q H u CO »-l CO iH »0 04p 1^ CJ r^s z fa w >1 <y A)(U 0 Id 04 o ^ cn O M CO 4J •H a 2^CD >IM c c o 0) ID rH fH ID fa U os CJ o n •M Id c iH C CO 0 *D COo z CO e c Id Id o D 0 iH D<(U o ^o to 0) *H c P fH z z JS 'O s ^•H C M M •H >1 0 9 iH <4J c o 1*^JJ 0 ■•H Id cjsfa M CO p Idp0W 1^ Id ^ 9 >•H M 0 *»HfaIMuUJ ^o P 0^M as CO MMo00>H>4 CO •H •Id 0) p 0 fa CO D 0) P CO O 10 B c O U u fa ID CO O4 tozr—1 <•V Id >.0|iH M Z p CO Id *M MC MM •c cn o u u fa Id »cu <D rH C *0 \D 0 9 C Pm h a M CD Id 0 0) iH0z0 -H p M rH c (U 0)fa Dip fH fH M Idu• fa Cy CM 0 •H o p < c Id Z C 9 U >1 0 *0 <CO Id p fa fH Id 0>P O 0) P X M4JC 0)^ iH z a fa Z Q (D C 9 0 V fo a 0^ 0)P s fH Q « ^Z Z fa M Q U u (U JC P H O rH c a •<0 O u H AJ CO N <0 «21 >fa U d o 0) <H iH 4J JO u (0 (1) U CQ iH O a'o 04 o ■ O4 C «H Wl U ^ a>0f-H<D6a>gc + V4«Ha)O43O430) o to » e e ^ o ^•H»00*^0*'- OCOC3 • CQ 0) *H u • ft • >H L) O'O^'O (U»r> eo g fS (0 iH t. *H \ </>• >1 to V> </> rH VO o ro fH o c U O 0) C fl) (0 <D 4J •H c to ns O to JJ O pH O CM</>+ p-» pH cnov pH C *H u < id0) W w <D r* c H H •pC 0V»0 *0 C 13 JO H 3 3 \to to pHns ^ ^ o>o o tt) iH pH ►J • • pH pH pH pH pH to •ft U 0) 04 CO + So•so ^ m o o• o in pH to co OS CJIO o u o o ns • • jc in o U r- ir» pH <0- <o- 0> a; 4H c OS u u 3 o (Mo 0 O4 0 tn to ft r-Jj 0>JO 1 d JBrt C7»3 0 CO U 0 C ns x: c 0 *H Q)> u 0 x:d pp 0 pH 4J 0 pH u (U •H d •H ns c tH ^0 X>0)•H tJO 0 OS •H ns 0 JJ > to d to 3 d d to 0 pH 0 •Pt •H d M OS JJ d •o pH ft >JJ pH •H M *3 c 0 0)ns to •H •ft Oi IH M pp *H —»OS ft 3 • % mpI *3 e Qt to to to M e JJ c 0 >JO iH ns ><« d OS M os ns •H JJ D'*'H 3 0)0 »J M to u HJ 1 ns pH •c ft Si fO JJ M to d to pH fa pH t-4 0 Ifc c 3 HJ 0) d pH W pH 0 to d OlSL)OI.H to 3 to *H »> d ns 0 +Ol 0 d ns 0 tD Oi p »fH pH '2 OS to 0 fa d to d d d •H 0 fa 0)fa •ft pH H 0)0 -p-< 0 0 0 X> U fa s •-< s >ns U3 > Eh a fa •ft DVpH *pi •H pH •ft UJ 0)OS pH >to jj d ns jJ JJ JJ •3 to JJ fa ••*33EhDns *H ^ ns ns ns d 0)D Ci M C >1 >1M to SJ H u »o u U 0 0 u*ns CO ns IH M Ul M JJ OS 3 •J C 0) ns ns *H pH pH u d pH fa Z pH n ns ns OS CO fa 0 s HJ IH 0) pH pH pH ns ns 1 fa 0 fa C C w pH fa fa •p4 pH to CO O4 Oi Qt pH J3 C 0)<M to to fa pH <JJ 0 id Ot Qi Ot ns u 0 x:M CO x: S ns B ns C7I ns ns M <id <•H JJ u M 0 pH •p' pH pH d 0 0 Eh »o 0) 0 JJ 1 fa > XI pH 0 P^ U ns •pi os X •H M d Q Q Q d d IH u M OS OS OS ^d pH d H pH Q ns fa fa M 0)»0 OS X Q ^ U IH pH ft os X Ot Z fa fa fa fa fa C JJ s CQ CO fa fa fa fa fa 0 Qt 0 0 UJ 0 D N tM UJ 4J JJ 0 rH 4J iH tH iH iH iH W to 6 CO CO Q4 JH U >1 S 0> 0)iH f—1 0 (0 0)C -P C C C C ^ 0 ^ ,H ID ID iH iH iH O CO 0 u 0 0 0 0 ^ 2 0 n 0) <U 0) (D ou •H •H 0) t-l •H •H •H •H •-< Tl *2 C C CU Oi iH 0)4J O4 Qj U in in CO* coneon•H 52 C m 10 0) CO co CO 0 y ID •«3 3 3 3 U U CO *w W S O4 O4 O4 O4 OlUH •ij (0 0 0) ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sin 0, O'000 000 0 0 C^-H 0 0 0 0 5 IW ^000 000 0 o > 0) 0 ••••0 5 • • •• • •• o 0 JO m cu 0 0 0 0 **^ c ^000 000 0 b to e>i O4 lO 10 10 10 > 0 ^000 in in 0 n <o- (0 rH CN CVJ ill ^VO o^ o\n CM <s </> ^<o-</><o-V>2 ^ ^ W A) </y</)-v>CO-CO- CO*CO* “ D4> ^ m Q) •See' X Oi 2 ® -1-1 •p > E-i C3i CO 0) M 0 W M ®c C OS c Z 3C Z z ••H (U 0 0 M <>12 JJ JJ C -rl M Q z >-3 JJ 4J ••H •H CO *0 u c ^ CO M 0 CO CO M >1 0 M 03 Oh 03 •H a> u .H ^ > C C ID-P M M OS >0 3,•H 0 e 3 *o Q 0 M iH 0 CO c JJ ID «H (1) rH CQ 5 0 CO 0 ^0 04 S CO JJ ID 3 D CO CO z z U4 0> *D .|H 0)C CO > CO CO CO Z M 03 C JJ 0 M 0) >1 03 z < 0 Q a CQ .H MH j D CO 0 a JJ CO ^ rH 0 a M D 03 (uTJ 0 0 »D CO ID ^ X CO 0) ID M E-i El •J PS Si 3 ID »0 (U 03 u JJ JJ iH Eh M 0 «a;CJ 04 U rH JJ rH 0 ID 0 CO 0) U*H 3 <Z u z s CO M c; P &OS 0 JJ C ^ 0) CO P U M M 0 EH 2 C ID 04 PS >1-H (U > <c CO CO ^u Z 7: *H C3U *D 1 M ID CO rH 1 0 >z z o«CO 03 0 ^JJ 0 JJ ID e 3 JJ CO 0)0 0 Pu Eh Q ID *rl »*H *0 JJ M 6 C3 e C a >H M M <Z z W 3 <D >rHCJlD*H(UiH 0)<UO >1 H CO El 03 •H ^ 0 C JJ 0 CJi JJ rH *H OS < z < Z 2 s 0 ^ (l,iH 3 iH IH ID ID JJ C3 CO ^ JJ u u 0 u 0 Q 2 « ID^ « ^04 PU 0 CO ^ CO*H >1 ID ID C 04 < M < M Z £1 *0 CO ^liH 0)»0 CO C3 0 0 0 > H > CO 03 0 aa c 2 0 ^*0»0 JJ»o»0»03 *H -fH •H OS <M s Eh 3*0 04^ID 0 JJ ID (U (U ID rH 0) rH rH -P 04 B-> U H ><CO CO CO >CO CO CO U -P O4 Q4 ID Z M Z M Eh 0 0 <y *H 0 0 0 X -P a Q4 0 u a tj a a u CO CU O4 3 u Q4 CU Q4 0) CO ID ID •H M S 04 Z OQ z 03 M P CJi O4.H U • *P ^ 000’04000'-l^ i-H i3 03 o«U D M D iH iH 0 PH 04 OS O4 PH O4 0 Q D <<0 03 0 l4 0 0) p iH<1 0«03 N OS CO Z *3 ID PU ou i H § M S! H § N Co 0) *H •H ip ^ U (d 0) U CO •H rH 0) 04*0cu o 1 co •H p o •H »Ha Qt< 0) + O' u o (0 o 43 • U o o O «H o 0 5 • 0) o •H O > rH 0) <Oi U II D p u -H p 0) 01 tp (p (0 p 2 W c o OI •H C P *H fd p iH CO iH *-H Id X Q4P 0> Id 10 u c I *Hcu p ID 2 iH Id e Id i3 p o c p •H Id 04 (U p:^ (U •p »p > « 04 id PS I 04 *0xa 3 CO VOo o iH oo•oo rH i/y Z C O O •H *H CO (0 to 1’° U 0) > O .p Z p M Id Z p Z p fi^ to •J -H p4 C (0o COco 04 X Q> rH Id C CPO o> •P iH P CO Id 3 p 3 iH O iH CU«-i Id > 6 P 3 COo e 0 0) 0) «p 04 > •n C 0) *H O *H *0 P p 6 Id 04 OP OOP u-i o • CO O • o *p 00 c ^ in o *p rH n - 6 • </>in »o o ^i/y Id 05 rH •P 0 6 Id tH »C3 M O4 UH 3 <05 tcC IP to tH CO Id 3 r«C »P CO 1 p c CP 0 D Or CO D Or Q M Or Z Or <M rH iH• O rH co •p po <1> to CO » H dk O w H •< U M P4 04 < 0 to CO Uu Xw •• z o M rH <UH xa CO Z X3 W p 04 pX o W »W P 04 0) IP (0 5 0) 10 IH 3 01 »o o 0) Cm 43 O W CO 53OS 0) «< 01 S 04 ^ p D 0) CO 04 p CO ou »o P P 0) 3 3 rH P O O rH to 43 43 -P OV^v^cn cj o o O O rH rH • • Id Id in m 3 3 OJ rH P P O O </yvy ft < to pc • Id o p p rH C4 3^ CO 0)c cn O Id U P to O CJ' o 6 c 04 •p »p \ H p n 0) 0) o rH e 0) id'p c 04 c H *H o o o'U •P rH C \ to Id IP ID CO CJ \ CJl V 0) O4 p 0) CO 3 iH Idco ^•p VO P O *pm »c« rH C 6 *p 0) rH > °rH 04 ® 6 S•p c 0) co •p p 3 rH o O rH U Id •P •• .• O M to 0) 0) 0) O4 CO o CO c 0)w Id ^ o tou,, O' 0) 0* W c 04 2^ Ip ’P C ^ 9 '2 “ ~ rH j. D .p S 2 I 6C CU >s. ^ S **^rHW 5,g e l"c Z OrS 5 .p *o O 4J c g S e 3 a o> 6 'g^ 2*5 S Eh rH N -- - 0 lU < Cm 1 CPz Eh OS ,H -P '3 CP 04*3 *3 rH Eh Qt,^ Id »P Cm < 3 P 3 <4: --r CO CJ'iO Id pS 04S CJ' CJ' d rH 6 e ^ p p o c (U 0) p o a 04 •p CO m rn ^ 0,-rH 3*C •P > C -H i M B H SI § Ms w o» a» w I • c »w •HC.fi<^ki<VfOO ^ CO „ n VJ *H O *0 ^ CO ^S « "rt C o u o>O* <8 c 0) S‘c2"'“o ^o»=g«^ «3 i b.2 5.2 se«so'04J'°^° V4 u u <0 (0 to 4J d 3 u o o O.H ^ «J 0) *H £ ^ -tJ 4J O C «j rH 10 0> N e-H >, u <0 o Pl4 JC JJ 3 10 >io (0 •H 0> U-l O •'^ *H tM iH O 0) <1) rH 10 iH '2 c «J §0) O h OU w .M o e 5 •£ 3 O 5 3 u ^ “ *^6 0C *H lu O C *H O .H m •‘J 6 COJC <0 0) »0 <0 O 5 0) 0) to 4J n *®P C o O go <0 •‘J .H <y 0.H _ 4J C ^ C S <0 -tJ H JJ m to 0) CM V4 > o c»w .H •H 3 lo to ^ 10 0) M u 2 •*J o X, 0) S “ 3 ^0) Jj O JJ U4 ,M U IQ ^ C 4J u «0 to o a « O-^ <11<y 0) u 0) 0">«S ^____I >1 JJ •*5 <u£rn ’2'" CO <0.2 rj S S •'^ fl>0) _e TT o 5 *3 ^,_j •“ f) X jJ ^ CO ^ •"jjyo*- ujjj J »8'S.«:2.oS°3 ^ c c-i" 5 ... *3U d^ J3 O to OJ •H S O «H Wi _ Ot .H OjJ d 5o ° o ,H <0> ou 04 04 (0 £5o) 0)x:o ^”04M ^ x: jj-^-24J 0) 0, o<04 dwp cQ<*^®3ij *3> cn.H 04 ‘M OO) O d 10 u I ^y. x: u 04 u’3jJ J=^° 3 0435^UV44J2 u-^^3’«0»O^3a»l PflJcOfl) rHcM^M3'®'dU _>iQ)Oi4Ja) Q)Q)JJ<y*'^<0 0) JC o*H flj cx!x:u-ijc <0 cnx: ;SuU£*H4J3!(0-U^(0-U JC u o (0 «c 0) *3 ^ uo d g O rH JJ (0 0) X> 0) d o *w O X) •H W ^ VO X) >H O •H X» CO CO »0 d 10 fH 3 X3 O 6 •H X)to 0) > d H XI 0 to tu 1 0)x: XI Iu 0) XI (M < *0 X) 9 CO CN SO• iH iH Co •H ipo(Uw U 4-> o Xi 0) »o e c a (0 o (0 0) toau 9cu iH 0)> 0)•o •0 .H 0»rH fl5 g - ? c •H ^ 24j iH M 2 u w x: g I f-i 9 U*o Id p»« ^ fr<I) *o §2 * •!-» e O’ o u O (0 C •-I 10 0)x: 4J >1 <y 10 M 39*2 g 2 ^ O 0) p u as ou >1 Id *0 iH c uosu »o C Id cnu H IP zo Hsu M Qa Q gs»< o to JS 3 -p ^ O-C °•H •” 4J •H O to i3 0) C 9 C O Oi C •H O 4J *W O (J> »HX3 •H U XJ Coo Is p 6 O § px= to *H 4J Id Id IDu e p o 4J usc •p •ouo c,Si rH iH 5 •to •o 0)x> Idu •iH »o 0)*o toco •H 4J 9 X) •H p JJcou x:to Id 0 1 4Jc 0)eao iH 0) ••ss«-s •H 4J •P 5* XJ C ft •H to «P 0) o cn IP 0). x: M XJ 0) O' o c c •H fH XJ I to O-p X H o vy tP Id •H XJ C 0)•o •H to 0)cn >1 iH •P g Id fn 0) iH O'c •H CQ 0> .H 5 O' mmiftO'fftr^rPift iH m m ^ ^ vy 0) O' O' W P0'<J'0'0'CM'«' to O • • O' ^ ro cs 1 4J •H (Q C 0)•o T3 1 4J •Hnc (U *3 »C3 (U U) W >1 O W 4J 04 «*H O (0 u c a iH o CUQ «w •H O 4J 4J I—I *H u 3 C 0) S D ^ <0 * C7» (Uc c; •H C (M 0) I W »o CJ *H .H X 10u o 4J • -H •P c •H D U 3 S U 0) 04 C7V X ra O rH rH 03 Q 04 3 M Q 0) 04 (U Ui O< M Q) 04 (0 4J •H cD C7Tc •H rH rH oooooooo inOOVDCMOO^O rHmvovor^r^ooCTv</> oooooooo inooooooo (NinorHtsro^in rH iH •—I i-H rH rH CO CO rH (U (S rH • u O O .U o o (N IT) rH rH rH rH 0) rH O O O O U in • • • • O • rH CH ro ««J' B O O O O O M HJ 4J 4J O O O O O O rH O O O O O O • . rH <N r> •il* VO VO (U •Q O ■O 0) 0) 0* .C tW (U •P*H C •H O S-tS (y »H ^ e 2 O cL*'H CO »0 *H fl) > J-> .r4 <0 n ft~ 0,01 O >i.C i,:] iH ^ CO *H JJ 3 ^ C OSt'S fl a 0) ov c .Q c o •rH 4J 0) CO o •H C X . c.^rl o o 0) MH Voc 0> *C5 •H CO 0) (x; >ii ^ B •H Me u nj 04 a>.5 rH riQ CT>rH C -H •r4 3 cn jQ <uu: V4 O UH co •fH CO •rH > •rH *3 JH 3 CO •c HJ •H *3 •H (0a 0) o HJ 3 <1) pH JJ O 3 3 . rH3 3 C ■5 " rH (0 04 •rH 3 C •H l-l 04 C3V C •H •U CO •H X 3 U Ovu »3 3u •rH 3 O’ 3 IH CO •H 3 3 UH Oz rH 3 •H HJ c 3»o •rH 3 JC 3 c 3 £ 3 JJ rH 10 ^HJ •H •H c > X »0 fH ^ 3 rH rH rH p (0 U JJ S cuo-c 4jSm 0) 0 rH iH 3 e perm l(3ing it s ), the f rm it. fl) *0 04*'^ OV C cjv 3 c - ?!c5=>2 “- C 3 •H *3 tn ’H 2 S <8 ft.5 rH W •H 3 3 ajj 2 ^ 3 3 C 0 -rH •Q »0 3 H 3 _ '3 JD 5| «'S«.w itheaclt SstiS u »3 0 *3 •H 3 O ^ UH fH •H E ^ r-> -F.4J •H •OJ 3 <y jQ iH 3 UH IH o 4J 3 3 fa 0) 3 '3 3 o M o •3 3 u JS r' o 3 CJ) C c <y c 3 O E 3 3 iH >1 3 rH fO 3 Xi JJ 3 C »c 3 .^ 3 JJ e J3 *r1 .3 4J 3 0 3 3 »3 3 •H S,§ ^ •H C7V® 3 fl UH 3 C *rH 3 •& 0 3 3 •H 3 >1 to *3 ^ 5 fH X! 3 rH (I)3 ^•H JJ C7»land ng" rrH IH E fa ^ ^ 3 XS-2 Res sion, 1 as g sin f ofJJ •rH (11 c rvi^ C c S "3'j3 rr, ^ 'O in S*^ 3 > ® -H 3 . -H C JJ JC 7! *3 3 S X c 0 3 10 O4 jD UH ^ fl) •H (0 3 3 3 3 X C > c CO 3 rH u 0 3 *3 3 0 CQ U 0 CT 3 •H 04 «f3 JJ rH S.w*-•Q*^ s O *H .Q X »w 3 •H 0) 3 3 fa 3 C 3 3 U •• O 3 rH U 3 V4 O •H 3 E •M > . C 3 g 3JS ° *0 3 0) •H rH (y 3 x: U 5 ^ -c OS JJ rH •H »o 9 (0 SO• iH iH Co o 0) CQ cnu H b zo Msu M Q U Q iH O' W r-4 C M 10 45 *0 CO iH •H •O D <0 45 O 4J ^ *H ^*o > O <y »H »o «o -c •H * CO (0 o c •H <D O JJ »H 3 CO 43 O-H 4J > U .iH JJ •*inC <8 ^ 0 0 3 U u (0 CO .C ^ U-i CO'S o d C O o 0) ^ eI c og o U-I IH o •H CO 4J CO O Q) 45 O*^ O>o Q rH <0 •H kl JJ *- O H ,/N r^ U 5o 3 cuz “ o 3 •Do W VV *0 hi 04 O IM *H o o iH C d o *H •H 4J V4 o d o< U M O 15- S" u O JJ • JJ ••-« JJ d e CO • kl t-4 M O 0) M 43 O4UJ co 0) iH 4JX) u <0 0) O CO •H 0) 04*0 04 O U 0) C C CO {X4 O fO »H no XI iH ^ U *H -H fO E 3 >-i (Q (U ^ do* • C CQ CJ • «H CQ *D O »0 CO »H . iH \ *H M *H L) 3 3 CQ CQ XI CQ »o C (0 XI CO (0 3 iH rj > cnc:oo oro in 00 cr\ rH a (U 10 U *0 k4 V4 3 to U *3 U <0 Cl XI 04 CO Cl fH 3»o Cl U CO »o u (0 E »0 3 C E la •H XI C CO •H E U CQ o D o • in O 00 m o> I—I <0* M Cl 04 K CM O o o ro Cl iH 3»o 01 x:u CO 'O M (d•o c: (d XI CO u CQ CO o CQ D in 00 iH U Cl 04 VD CM nsuo o o o o o o in cn XI c; 01 •r-i 0 Ua u 01 a XI 01 (0 01u E 01 01 3 U U E 3 3 •H XI XI C M X E *M M-l O O O O o o o in o in cn H cn WWW 0 HS*£(0 •H *02Id Cl 01 O Cl CJI H * o u Eh ^<N X Id o D 01 ^ Cl 01 x: H O w M u 04 ns « 3 UH XI 0 CO u 0 idx:CT' 2 to M C x: to c H ns 2 --H 0) XI 01 •H c 0) M rHQtoJM Cl 01 n Id »osXIU 3»O rH rH c CO z c X rH Id < Id Cl Id c 01 Cl JC c 04 JS 5 ‘rH Ml U o D U c •J 3 3 W0 H •• .H O'--•H »0 »0 r«*<iQ XI XI 2 Cl XI y ^ 0) O to M <Eh O O 01s01 <d O H U XI 01 Eh M M 3 3 CJ'H El 0i .H 3 M CO 01 Id W4 Z u 2 M H Eh Id 04 M rH Id iH h 2 »j u Id CQ CQ S XI XI M XI s 01 ^ Id *'■1 Id o S •J XI 0 O U IQ CO CO 2 to 2 S Cl 01 01 *n XI >CQ < iH »0 M 2 04 S 0O01uCm 01 *H U C cq 04 2 01 01 to rH >1 CQ 04 H o c^04 > u 01 Eh rH XI XI O z Id Ml 04 ft >1 E 01 01 'O c < o O C3i4 0 O «U o a 0 cuo3 rH CQ E u z Z «H c Cl M •n 0)P •H p z E Id E (0 »0 M M M XI XI 1 1 Eh o CO z 1SXIM•H E C 0 Cl rH C m Q Z rH »0 0 M C Cl «H rH •H Q C U4 Id U CQ M J M 3 C V4 CO CO iQ •H O s •rl CO E iQ •H 0 rH 3 Eh m < E Id a tQ CQ O Ml u 2 Id2uMS 2 04 CQ o: D Eh u y 2 CQ <!D 2O01DCQ CQ CQ o o CQu04CQUCQQ Q Q 04 co iH JJ JQ U (0 <D o cn pH 0> 04*0 04 O• </> 4J •H eu0) (U 04 O'u pH IO Id JC O O •H n O' Id c 43 *H O pH 0) *o £ C Id >i45c Id hO e c 3 ‘H g I •*H fH C *H *H Id s s 4J 44 4-) J-l •H »H “H **H »Hc c c c c 3 3 3 D 9 O O O O O Id Id Id Id Id (U lU 0) (U ID jj g u 0) ID 4J 44 •O CO *H O >1 c U CO 3 04 0) x: 4= > ui U O O ID Id Id 43 04 ID 0) Id >1u Idu Oa g 0) 44 U 44 O O ID 44 •n C O O u C O4 Id g u u ID ID 04 a 00000000 CO o o o Id o o o 0) O' Id 44 COoa ID 04 Eh 44 ••M C D >4 Xi X Q> pH O4 3 Q >1 pH •H g Id 04 0) pH O'c •H CO pH Id •H 44 c ID -O •H CO ID o: (D in o in 6 pH ro pH Id</>•</></>w</v<n- io</>v></)- in in in in in in pH rH pH pH pH pH >H (D » 3 pH U *4H ID pH x: 44 •Hc 3 C 0 1»o T3 Id U 44 0) o •Pl 44 44 Id U ID O 3 pH Co •H 44 .H 43 O >H 44 44 ^ Id *H C ^ U ID O > 43 ID O g O 0) 44 O Id 0 (0 o pH Id O4 C T) 'O ID ui O O V4 3 O 0-H UH ^ $ UH 1 S I I c 0x: C7' O C 44 •H -H c a: O •H 44 x: •H 44 *o Id C 43 0 U CO U C •H Id Id UH pH 44 Id CO Wi 3 44 10 C 4: 0) M U 0) 1 I 44 c IDI •H 3 O’ 0) O' CO C u >«H (D 44 44 Id Id ID ID 43 43 ID U U 0) Id 44 04 Id CO » Wl u Id Id pH pH o o CO CO 0) u 3 CO CO ID V4 04 » O pH \ 43 O' •H 4: c o •H 44 O ID 04 ID CO O' C Id *»H Wl O Q> CO Q444 c U CO CO >H •H pH Id ID pH O4 Wl ID CO ID ‘Pl 3 Id U UH UH O' I I I I ID> O 43 Id ID 43 44 tu O 44 C CO ID g g 0) ID 44 U CO Id >1 pH CO O4 ID Wl W4 ID pH fO ^c c Id *H Wl ID Oi >1 Eh 44 •H C D >1 43 pH Id •H 44 ca HD •H 10s >1 rH •H g Id IM I •p| 44 pH 3as •oc Id pH Id •H U 44 CO 3»oc M 44 3a 44 3o 43 3 44 43 o o 44 o •pl c o 3 in Wl u 0) ID CU O4 o o o o • • in in pH pH »oc Id 10u 0) 44 44 Id c 0) ID 43 g CU44 •H »H 3 C O’ 3 0> 44 CJ O co 44 COc o Wl *H O 44 CO O CO 0) 0) c ID U C r-» Oi O 0 g O M O 01 U 00 Wl Wl u u ID ID 0) ID Oi Oi Oi Oi 0000 0000 >1 Wl Id Wl O Qi go 44 Wl 0 44 c 0)c Id g Wl ID 01 O O O O in in in in mm pH pH pH pH pH pH vyvy vyvyvi-i/y vyvy o pH u •H pH 3 Idu»o >1 4: O'c •H c o •Pl 44 *pl 0) CO CO *0 a Wl 44 C >1 0) *H O 44 pH c O g ID CO 44 CO 0) >|44 CO C ID Wl > 44 Id 44 C CO ID *0 3 ID 44 x: 44 •H •Pl 3 CO 0 g 0 Id ID pH 0 U C *H Qi CO 43 O' Id 43 Wl Id 44 >H CO X Id •H •Pl Id M-l Id 3 01 0)Wl 44 ^ Id Wl O’ Wl 0cID pH 44 ID ID QiC 44 0)u Oi Id CO CP g V CO»o Id 3 Wl 3 *H »a 043 •H c: ID 44 Id Wl ID 0 0 pH CO UM C.C UH X 44 0) ID 3 Id 0 X 0) ‘H Wl *pl 3 Wl U-l 6 u ID Wl M-l 0-X IM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 coQ) rH 4J Xi U 10 Ou cn •H iH Q)a»o Qt o 1 FH •H Eu 0)a o in TJ 4J 10 U) 0) u jc •H co<D Q) U4 (0 3 4J fH •H (0s >o u 44 U in (1) C V. o> 0*0 »o a»—I (0 10 rM »Q 0) o *H \ © J3 cn 4J rH W • «H © U C ^Xi © I .H © Qi >H © M Wi > O) O >D © © M o © (x; © • ©44 s: rg £ © c u © u iH 3 Vi- a CO E © 4J © >1 © U ©o* o o• o m E © 44 © >1 © O'c •H 4C © •H 3 O’c •H 44 X © © 14 •H 44 C © JC 0 44 •H 1 © © O' M © 43 O co •H 44 O © c c o o © © © 43 44 •H U © 43 44 © O' O 44 E-i M ua zo M uuz ou C4 Mu Mz s © •H © © O O 00 ^ O 43 O O ^ O' O • ••••© O O *tj* CN 44 ro ro iH in -H O H 1-4 rg 3 Vi V)-</>■</></> O’ X X © © 44 44 © © 44 © © •—I I—I © © © © © © iH © O' O' ©c c •H O'*o *0 c 3 3 -H iH iH »0u a 3 C C IH •r4 -H O u c © U *f4 4414 © 44 © E u e e © 00 ^ 14 © O' l4 - - © © in tn i-t iH Z om r—I rH © O'—* U >1 © iH 43 C O O O' © C 44 •H *^4 rH E TJ 14 C © © O* 43 U tS © 44 © © O' ^ © 44 »0 © C 0 ©a u C © •H » 1 © f-l © •H © c 0) o 10 x: 4J 4J (W c •H M-l O o^ t!o S « »0 *H ^ e u 5U-H .H « CO CO o CO C0,Q^ ><iH I—I >1 de O 0)« <0 S, 2O 0) (0 •H £ JC > o 0)U c c *H X) *0 o i»0 iH C C 9 O b 0) O CO 4J D 4J G) »H O »o •H U S > dM O Q *1 —1 5.?,’ o M O ? . 0, y .5 ^ 0* C I G) e -tJ 10 u CO *H V M CO 4J CO CO <0 "H Q a^j >1 e c >1 •H o (0 CQ PS < H H 2 < 2 C dXic G) (M > O U >1 G) • W4 &4 • U • C m d C m • b u l-l G) G) U a 04 G) 04 CO CO ro VO (N • • CM ^ 00 s ON CM OV ro CM </> </> + + + oo oo in <N CM </y in CM CM </> PQI cn 1-3 CQ I rH cn •< r—I Icn •-3 CQrH Icna <iH IEhcn rH Icn •-3 ro VO ON iH VO <T* rH rH iH rH rH rH rH CM CM CM CM CM CM ro m II rH 4-> II rH ^ CM O C O 9 in CM CM b b• • b b u u G) G) 04 a 4J •Hc• 9 b • t-i b G) O4 IM G) ^ 04t^ 5) • . ; • e • c • 9 b 9 b V4 l-l u u Gi O4 O4 O4 O4 b b ^ 00 Hj* rn ON 00 CM ON •H G) C U 9 O d c WI 9 G) U CU4J mrH4J«q*VOJJrHrH^<7N4-im O^-Hr'ON'HVOCM^rHrHOO • • c: • CM c in CM c • m rH 9 00 - 9 - «• 9 ON ^ CO rH CJN m m CM </> kj O </> VJ </> u </> G) Gl G> -I- + 04+ + 04+ + + + 04 + c 9 M HJ CM 00 O ON m • • 4J4J4J4J4J4JJ-IONr0^4J4J •H *H *H -r4 »H r-l «H • rH *rl *H CCCCSCCOCM iH c C 9999999HI' r 33 00 CM UUk4l-lt4UI>4</)'</)' UU g)G)G)G)Gig;g) G)G)ao4ao4ao404+ + + O4O4 00m O O VO O rH Oo m o oo in CM ON o cn >■ in in in po cn CM 00 ^ o o o PO P' rH 00 m m r- CM CM 00 CM CM rH </></V </> mom CM VO CM CM VO CM V> •‘CO- VO </> m CM O ON CM i/> ON ON Hj* r- p- VO ON cn CJN m VO m rH ^ O HP o CM rH VO O m CM VO </y 00 PO m VO CM ON CM <n-CM rH </> CM </yi/y vyvy cn- CMcn- O CM CM rH ON *. cn- ON cn- oc d m rH •Od <rH rH I I cn cn ij 1.3 D) 1 W4 > d O G) ON XlJ^tOcn u cn >1 'Ooo c 9 Q >1 4-1 C (0 9 UH o «H O 9 \ rH G) 0 rH d d *o co X) &4 ON rH rH I O 00 ON rH G) C•rl pu «o^8 u » d x: d o CJN c o *H •H cn H u w to d G) •H -H XJ m l-l u *H rH Q O rH •r4 •O G) G) -U d M 14 D 0 0 0 OS x: X3 Gl cn cn u >1 u4J x: x: d c -p -u > 9 u u d o o o z u 2 z djCM rH rH I I I O rH CM 00 00 00 ON ON ON rH rH iH Gl 9 C d> d: c l-l G) JC XI 1.4o Z dc •H •9 d2 I d d iJ| to d •H XI ONco 1.3 rH -rl XI D Oco 1.4o d wiu d> dz >1 d CM ffl rH 0 rH I CM 00 ON rH rH >1 d d XI ^(0 x: >1 ON k4 -n u a rH rH I I m cn CO CO ON C3N rH rH oo ooo cnm p- cn •4P CM O O 0 o«-- 1 I o o o o o o to dcn l-l d X3o cnm r-cn I o co •r4 XI o d Ccou cn •d' *o ui C d 9 ^ b d 0 O XI >1 14 X> d *rl XI TJ r4 d C u d u m ♦ c 0 1 O V. o o o o cn cn m m p- P^ cn cn I I cn cn o o rH CM coo (0 x: 4J (M c •H (W o o^ tJOo S »o ^^ -w *° S2cW ^ .H O ro S ” S Vi >1 T'U a, (0 •H x: j3 > 4J u o U c C q.*h O .r4 Jj »o O o u 2 ij o 4J •H iH »0e (0 e •H <deou Mo 4.; 00 o\ 1-5 e;: 0 to iJ S 01 nc •H IQ ^ <y 4J 4J >1»0 rH C C 9 O b O O CO 4J ®4. <D «H O »o •H 0) «M U (M U O ♦ to i8 fO to tS fO im CO VO• o m to ol C •f* OJ to to (1) (U *H 01 to X 00 to o ns os VOto 1 rH to 9 O •i-i > »0 > »D(D .H 0) *H u ns M ns Oi (K C4 Pu iH fO• mr* o iH iO- >1 rH to 9 O •H > 0) fHu ns (u cu I—Im ro o rH </y Co c 4J O •—I C .U 9 O \ iO »o eo CM O vy u •H »0 fO 0)w- to to V to tons O £ U) «rH ^ ns o 3 •” 2 ns c u O m ^ 2 00 Ov•m VO iH o> 00 OV• m VO f-H to- O 4J o CD ooo (1) »H W X 0^ 1ro l/S-u _r«-ro0 1 >1 >1 2 0 0«—» 0 0 H o 0 u 0) V4 to 0 0) UH •H rH ns rH to 9 rH to 9 rH to 9 rH 0 iH 0 _ 0) 0 •*;-rH 0) “ ‘'il 0 0 1 1cn cn n 01 xs jj Oj X 0)0 0 0 0 0 *r ns 44 ^ »o <0 in in M X •»-» Mf •H 01 •H •H •H ••CO O •U M fU 0) fS X IH > »o > »o > »o m in to c OS cn cn O4 ^•rH ns 0) *rH dJ >H (U •iH CM CM S 9 J'Di 1 1s ^0 <u C X u ns iH ns IH ns CM CM •2 0 M ««r in mu K ^ 0) •g-H e g, U 0) 04^ 0 to M L)pH cu pu cu 0) to cu (U vy X 9 </y 0) 'g ^ *H ns 0 c •a* ^ 0 0 cn Hji O S o UH ^ns Di 4J 0 M ,2 ^0 0)c tn u «S 0 •rH »TJ rH u •H Oh2 <y ^X o Jj w <U fH u X X 0 pa tJl 0 c to 9 »H-H ® 04 OS 95 0 l4 UH M •H 0 .H OrH^ «o c z C JJ ns \X X ns 0) e c 0 0 o ,n C X to to Di u X 0 0 0 0 u W Q\u ns 0)c \•H •rH <y 0 -H u 1 1 .H g •rH •rH z 01 O' fli Tl 0 »o 0 0 u to ^X 0 0 u C 0 0K><1>.H 4)IH n«■V'*(rH rH ns £ 0 9 OS 9 0 0SS2 0 •r-i •0 OS iH f!S ns 0 2 0) 0 ^ b 1 1 ^ u 0 0) 10 04 OU c vH •H •rH 0 c U OS cn mpaV cu r-H V4 0) 14 0 OS *0 4J X PQ c ^w 0 m in CQ ® e * P4 **-< m IH cu rH c c C ^ 0 ^X r» 4J W* rH M PU CQ 0)0)Ul 0*^ 0 >1 cn cn H O4 C 1 to HD »o OS ^ to ^ -rH IH X I 1 oa . c 0)ns ®Di cn Di •rH X 4J X a, u ns *rH cn cn *2 «E -U c c •D C to to ns 0 9 X «X *0 C to 0 0 •rH rH •rH 9*0*0 HJ ns u cn «•H r4 >to to »o ®X 0) X 1 Q «0 iJ Qi-P N (0 OS 0 ns £ e -rt C >1 C 4J •••••X 0 £ 3 <.H U ns 0 < n rH CM ro in Eh iH 0 to 0) o c ^ ^ (M O ^ O-H 1-1 c0 §s•H *3 fO JJ (0 “2?g s.® c “ > Ou >1 04 4J 5 '^'-< •H O Mu sw Mu H SBsu H < Pu Mu Mz D Z iJ •J < >i»0 fH C C 3 O fa 0) O 10 .U 0) <H o »o Mi4 1 C >1 CO CQ fa fa u 0)cu fa fa• • fa fa u 0)Ou u 0)cu 4JV04J^r-4J04J •H ro ^ C 3 ^ CM u in- O 04 + o ON c c • c • c 3 3 so 3 ^ 3 fH CM wi 14 <n- u io> u 0) 0) <1> 00 iH po• • m VO in CM CM VO PO iH in-in r' o • o CM CO- VO PO• cn PO r* i-H co- T3 (0 S >1 COa rH <0 4J CO >1 U U\ CM fH >1 iO JC cr» ••-4 &C z ij VO ON H r-C CO 4J c<u»o •H 0) CO CO cu CO Oix: U 0) u >1 14 > (0 0» > x: CO u z CM ^ I I Z X ^ ij ON o VO r- ON ON fH »H i—C CO 0 •r4 14 CU 1ou cu 14 U 3> CO Z o ON rH CO O O U4 .U ^ -H 4Jo e o iH U rH CM x: o cn CO (U H (U 14 > Q) O CU c O O x: jco ^ O CM 3 (U U (U U > (U O CU c CO cu U Q) 14 >0) o a c a ^0 *H 0 *H 0 • 3 • 4J • JJ • *3 C in 0 0 00 P 4->rH 3 CM 3 CM 0 *H P <0- a <o- 04<0- W 5 3 3 ai O4 + c + c + »3 \•rl •H 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 »3 0 OOO 0 0 3 •• • •• • rH 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 PO C PO m r»0 VO iH M <0-in-in-in in- in- o O o O JX C 3 C COs > CO facu 3 3 P 3 fa 0 P g 0 .P \ g P iH 0 iH CU 3 3 3 3fa3 0 fH 3 c arH 0 •• 3 CU •H 44 P 3 4J >H P 3 g P 3 P 0 i» -- iH 3 3 3 fa »3 13 Pi .p •He 14 X) V c fa 0) e cu 0) u CO *0cu CO CO CQ cu •H> fa c CO iH fa •ncoo 14 *3 fa P CO XIc I XIc 0)eoo CO fH CUcu u po cuz ^ U dP CU Ooo ^ rH lU ® 3 cn *3 CO 0) 0)3 3 (I) CO o .c rH ,2 ^ -c3 o a rH o p^ 04f3 JO *2 **^ . >,MH >1 O4 44 *3 \ 4J C O C g .H^ 3 (0 3 3 C -P -P C O CO W o 4J in w Jj 3 00 \ 3 3 ON O ^ W .H iH rH O 2 3 »P 3 • *3 3 14 -H > U o <0 4J 3 -p CQ iM ^ 4J P CD C *0 C 3 o </>• < -H O P 3 04 3 14 C o 3 ^ CU a J o PO• CM rH co •rl Xi O 3 *3 CO 3 O" O o o 0 1 POm PO I 3* O g 3 3 3 *P *r^ P“* JJ 44 44 3 10 C C *H >1*P fH 0 3 »H >(Q 4) ^ ^ 0^ 3 3 3 >4 fa 3 4.' U 3 3 2:W f4 C 3 3 fa C: > 3 rH iH <M c:>*r4 *3 cu O4 > iH fQ .H 3 3 3 1 M U1X3 3 fa fa Z CM CO 3 3 3 00 1 0 CO fa ON z rH 0 3 rH 3 c 3 >1 O4 g 0 C^ CO 3 3 ft P P 0 XI r-N 3 rH 3 0 >1 x: 3 fH iH D fH u •r4 3 CU P C XI XI 3 4J 0 3 c 0 P 3 0 3 ti C *3 -*-i •0 iH 0 C > f-» p 3 U 3 p 3 0 f-t rH 3 3 4J 3 3 CO fa y P 3 M 1 3 3 3 •H C Z fa 0 D 3 0 x: f4 3 Z 4J D 3 0 Cc < 3 3 C7» P 3x:u c 0*3 •H C Xi 3 U fa 3c o CXI ouxi •»4 p *3 3 3 44 It 3U *5- « o O I O O o PO in pf PO I CM pf O co 0) *H 4J U (0 0) U Vi •H •H 0)ano 04 o *0 U 1 M (0 CO to 0)o 0)c 44 CO rH 44 CO fH U W4 CO U <D U 0) (0 0) > 0) 0) Oi O 0) p4 O rH CO CO e DO C P o c 5o O r~ 0 ^ 44 rH • *H r-' ij ^UH IC5in44 flJ-»44^ e -H C CM O C CM O a U 0<0-Q)0i0-H 0) l0COe43Ol343C0 44.rJe>V4 0DH0D 0) CO 0) + CU 0) + CO u W 4, 0)o c o O rH O • • O C O VO 0) in + CO *0 fOo fH O o Z fH M ^ • ij ; M *n • ^ t *:1 oo• oo rH </> >t (0 0) rH (0 c o >H 44 •H *0cou CO 0)u •H • 3 44 01*H 0) 6 V4 ^ 0» <y O s? .r4 -H 3 0-° ij >M as. 043 0 44 < o 43 O CO cn *H 10 »u «J u .H 3 43 0)H 44 C rH X ^O 3 fH a M 10 CO <0 f->M 3 O O fQ >£ rH U 43 <0 O <yv fH (D ^ *H M 10 > CO O o ON O 44 04 44 0 rH C z o I o W u •H CO U rHrH M iH o E-t 04 6 j c —’Q •O O 04 V4 M U rtf fH rH rH Z <0 0)U 1 1 Ck 04 O 1 1 1 0) iH 3»o 0) 43o CQ *0u iC c. <CJ 44 cn o u O D• w m cj CQ <0 D m 00 as »H W 0) 04 M W >l44 U C ra 0) M C O <0ae B M 0) 0) H 04 m rH co <D >H iH JQ rj (d 0) O W •H iH 0) 04 »0 Oj O i i CO 4J •Heu Q)Ou O 0) •o o0-H o > M o •H ^ 4-> ?M iH O6 • O»o -o u c •H c *0 •Heu i2 •o 0)u •H Dcr 0)u •ul co •H 4-» S o Id O 0) 4J U •H U) 3 4J O’ O 0) 1 -M H iJ > 0^ 4Jo O Ido ig u Qj U CO 3 C CO >1 Wl Id CO CO 0)o ID G IM •i-l O Q> U4 D> C •H U Q> 0) d •.H O'c 0) "3 ID U •H 3 O’ 0) M 4J •Heu O 04 oo oo om in O'c •H >og oo oo oo oz oo iH O'co rH o in o in iH <0- I—I Id g ki oc in 4J ^ O rH 0) O »o Co ^u >iO - C <N Id C rH \ *rl j3 u x: o C7I 0) 4J 4J •H ^ *H £ o ^ I X Id 4J 0 0 g iH C >1 M 0 4-10) >1 kl -H *J I C O U U u o i w>1^ Id o • CO ^ CO z M CO I" Z O M ‘W Q J r» M 0) D 0) CO 0) o S rH “ = o c . Id (0 o C N c *H CO M 44 H o <y ^ ^ ^ w a o 0) CO 0) c c 0) c 0) -r4 UH 4C 44 C -H CO CO O ^ O'r— ‘H r CO c CO 44 O' •H 0) •'4 0) O C *0 C *0 C 0) ‘rl ^ -H I-l »H 04*0 •iH iH 'iH iH CO iH 3 3 C ‘rl i3 44 44 3O O X) >,iH iH iH 44 U Id MH O CO 04 CO *H CO •rl CO rH O O O I u c u 0) CO Id o *H o U 0) 0) Id M Id Ol O r-» 04 U 0) 0) Id O' > no > c O 3 O' Id .H e iH d ^ 44 o -n x: X *H iM O d > O' Id > a 3 •r4 no B 0»44 VO d O CO •fl iH *0 no Id »n iH >1 o iH -H C rH 3 Id • JQ 0) 0) X U-4 N • >1 O Id >lV-l .r4 ^iH udgHOco^id Id d W4 *H 0) xi > 44 o -H CO 0144 d o iH •r4 3 X3 U 0) »0 >1 o > d d o Id Id O' d iH V4 *H rH 0) 44 Id > Id O d CO •H »0 • u O' 3 C4 O *H rH iH u O d o d O' o *H d 44 w-H 0)*o •H CO i/y O' d •H »o *0 rH 0) •H 44 3 Id X3 O O iH rH Id 0) OU ki U 0) d jQ •H y o04 44 id\ o 0) O' >d o•n g 44 U4 O •H d^ -H d •n O •rl g O *ri »-4 jwJwwgjC —Sr-lw II I I U O' O4 0) -H -H U > 43 O O O ^- -H O (0 in M 44 0) iH O4 d O »o O O' 3 wi O' d ^rH o d O 44 d o O > d g IM •H >1 d d »o 0) 0)o X 0) 0) iH d o d o -H d Id S iH I d CO •r4 *0 Id O' O d rH •H 44 0) Id N c *H •H CO ^ o d d O O •H 14 44 O O 0) d Oi*H CO 43 d 44 1-1 -H 0) no O oo om iH</>vD rH ‘C fl) > CO o o g «H r4 V g in O O'* 44 CO O O d -HO no u Id O V4 0) •O CO go 44 w d 3 0 0 0 V4 C O'© O' o d d u O *n d *rH O ^ ro .H ro x: tt) iH x: iH o O' > *n 44 -H 44 •H o 3 - j d J3 g CQ ? W *H - 0) ^ in i4 Id r4 (U CQ &4 (X4 *H O (M •H rH 10 4J co (1) «H •H U (0 Oo cn •H r-l OJa»o a o 1 3 O u •f <0 .Q H* l4 0 •O 4J 0>a u *o aj-> •H O u 14 (0 o t-i 3 0) Ut >4 1 o iH •rla-u e u o 4o o u 0) 0) »4 »0 3 O rH u •H 10 44 £ o 14 IT) 3 t>j <n- O JS • . C 3 14 *H ‘iH (U g ga-^ oo• o CO 01c •Hco AJ N 44 CO U 3 O.c (0 (0 <1>c •H to 3 jQ a a 01 01 0) fH 44 3 *3 AJ J3 0) c; £ g 3 U IH 01 cn 01 a l4 o u 3 O ta 44 D oJ2 U O m O u tfP ^ 01 m Z </y 04 VO co •H AJ 0 01 a (0 01cn 14 to £u o o o o o • • o o o r> /h v> v> iH to I—I <0 3*o •rl > •rl •oc •H »0 co U *H 3 4J 01 O >i 01 c 14 <0 10 01 CO >1 co 14 •«-< 01 •-* a <0 to 3 4J <0 4Ji (0 X fO S(>u •H 14 n <0 14 ‘rl »0 C rH a N HJ &> >1 <0 0 14 *H M to i<14 to to M z f C *0 01 4J to 4J 01 C 01 C 44 SB o c o 0 c 0) cn AJ C *H 01 01 a*H g ns o Sc M 0*014 I044C'03 0 g 14 01 01 cn H Eh •H 01 3 C rH *H 14 o z •H 14 *H a cn CO a 44 14 (0aU4JrHtOOtOC»Om o 4J 01 a Eh 0) 0 (0 U o rH >H M 0 rH CO M c a ^M g f in 01 z a 01 <0 C H-* «H *H 1 c Eh 01 rH 01 §**H Cl iH rH o 01 cn a o 0 (0 cn4J 3 0 O > 01 <0 *»H a 44 ns C rH »o M a z to *r4OCOffl01-rl u 01 *o *rH >a a <0 (ts u >-M c C HJ >r4 >H 01 V AJ Eh u 0 u 01 a in x: nsuEhM 01 U rH 14 a£ o o a u u a M 4-1 Wl C71 iJ £Oia01t04H4401 a 01 o 0 0 0 01 AJ <oi^aaoic*rioa a 01 01 g c z 44 a 01 U4 14 •H M 44->-^t0«0Q*H5ZW 14 u g <0 M 14 cn g u •H c 01 c •rl ««H 0 rH z a 0zMucn H a M 2 a a o a a D so01aMDuacnaa do 0) *H rH ^ U (d p4 Jiicoe V4 0) 04 o o• m co •M o 0)Ou (1) W iH 5 C 3 (3 •H »0 .C 0) U u 0) u Uii/y 0) CO 0) 0) 0) 0) UH UH 4J 4J (d Ido o JQ UQ «« (« 04 04 •H •H iH iH CO CO + + o o o o • • o o o o m cN </> v> o o o o o o o o • • • • 04 CN rH O m rH o> </y </></> o3 M 4J o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o• • • ••• •• o o CN in in o in o in CN N CN ro rH m </></></></><0-</></> i/y cx> H (Ua >■ H -u' Eu 0) (U Hu M g» CO szs 0 M uH 04cnz M e1 EHzou o6 •H 4J 0) O rH Cm Ido fH Ido u 0) rHu 4H •iH »o 0) CT' V4 Id o 0) (1) CT'rH 0) U 'H C7I U C > d) U M Id O *r< c O 0) CO C (U Cm X (1) o *rl 0) »0 .rl > rH >1 3 4J (1) Id CO rH H O Oi c; *H JS U Q> *n jj d a c u 0) C M CO Id 0) CO O C rH rH 3 S M Oi u ucnzu 0 M «cz M 01 1-3< M CQ Iou 04 0)CO Cm ocId 0 u •H eo•H 04 C34 U CO 0 »o rH C c:rH Id M 0) Id Id 04 •rl »0 rH •H 04 xJ m U *H 4J •H 04 CO C IQ •H c: c 4J C O CO C C •H 0 Id ‘fH a -H 0 ^ ‘H 5 4J ea w-H 4-4 •• Ol'fH u -u 04 Id CO C*H C M 04 Id 1 Id <U CU^rH U O <U kJ; rH CO »0 X) «H Id 3 x: .c .dc o o o ^ c Id Id o Id 0) o c I • <14 04 4J Id Id <U fH I I Cl4 *rH .rl bO rH rH O C 04 CD O O 04o-n <x: ^ o W Id rH Id CO U Id 04 D *H 5 rH 04 COa c: 3ss-ss:o *3 04 0) Cm 04 4J Id rQ rH Id 3 C C< CQ COzuo M u •4 COz M U M 04 CQ CO u 04 04 ^ iH Id 3 k4 Id X3 Id ui rH 04 04a UH U 04 U4 COc Id u 04 -M I I CQ COz CQo M »4 o: CQ 1.3 D< X CQ < S<so eo E h 4J •i-i eu O (U acnz H U M Zo Ms OU B Os »o 0) 4J eu 0) P4 0)coz Hcnzuu M D Q U M J CQ D 0. oo oro Ucnz H U M cnoz M Q M D 0) u M s u E h O O• om u 0)*oc •H o Id 0) p H CQ^ o \ o 5 rH o o o o • • o o VO m (D (U (D 0) 4J CQ •Hc •He 3 4Jc 0)e 4J U Ida 0) Q cnc ••Hco O 0) 00 -U 0> 0) rH rH OUe c o Id U •H CQ. c O CQ O -H CQ > 0) 0) M»o \ O 5u CM rH p H Id I CUrH •Ho • a-H jqe c: u 0 3-^a s »o •H 3 C5 0)> •H CQ C 0) £a>u </></> </>•</></></></>■</> CQ (Q C C O CQ 0*H c >H CQ CQ O CQ 'H C .P^ -H > O CQ > UV. 0 -H 0) \ 5 • H > U ^ 4J 0) \ CQ M U $ 0) U 0\ 0) "O 0)cu 5 o ^ CM O O O4 1 U 10 iH ^ • JS^ o a>> u o ^ O c *H O O CQ *H »0 iH CO O C .Q Id ffl 0 3 3 lU CM N cn »C3 »0 iH ^ *H o OV > »H u 3 >1 >1*'^ <y 3 U p H p H »0 *0 rH vj x: c c c c: Id X 4J O O M *H O44J CQ •rl O O rH U O rH iH rH rH •m JD 3 (U CQ C^ C CQ Id 0) j:u o •H I U (U JSo Id 0) *0 oo o x> O O CQ • • O in CM P h CQ •cn-cA- < O jj p H Id 3c Id X CQ Co •H 4J Idu mH iH X2 3 CO C31 C .rl cc Id iH PO c u* •H CQ (U <«0 n Ou KP 9) (0 C X> S ..H •p H *0 cn >i<H 1 X» *H C -H 3o u ca St m o CM CM fO O• • • c m in in ou O c .H Wlo JJ O O O "H 0000• • • in o o iH iH CM O CQ in-in-in- iH Idco X) »p H »o *0 Id CQ 0> CQc: 0)u .H <0> •H XI Id Wl 4J CQ f-ic •H Bs iH Id W4 HIc 01 u 0) XI Wl Id 3 tp u 0) 04 0) CQ 0) C CQ 0) C O (1) .p H O w3 .pH x:o Id Cl o o• rH in tou O XI CQ 0) iH Idcn 0) XI XI 0)u Id C7» 0) rH V CQc o 'Ho o MH .H .H «H ►Q p H Id O p : c cn o OI mH o XI p H Di Id C XI ft fi rH O X) -H 6 rH •H id Ou o cn o XI a cr> rH co 0) fi •H ^ JQ U 10 O o cn •H H fl) CUT) QtO •H su 0) Pm 0) o M 0) 4J 0) Cm a» .u C iH c 0) 10 (0 u W »rM <n- 0) H s: fl) Q) tH CT. oo• o iH 3os <0 CO Q> 3 O' CN i-l VDro (0 JJ C 63 U O Q O> •H (0u 4J (0 •H c •H 6»o< iH (0 U 0)c (U 0) (0 >1 O -IJ •H u u •H iHn 3 C 04o •H U JJ o o CO U M-l - - g CO >irH U4 d> -H ^ 0» UQ> 04COO>63Cowoocoo <o*H «-l U O O C r-c *0 .HrHU-l<UP4U MC>JJ<»JC0OO O <UV4CO«*-<r5 X30^0 O'gCDM'O'O-iJ CO CC0W*H»O*H c <l)*HK •H CO CO > *H > *0 4J<y>,| I^UCOrHCU CO CO cu »o CilX: iJU •-4 CO o CO) C CO J CO O V4 e 3 eg 0 c •H -4 3 \ 0 c IQ O »0 ‘r^»0 —4 14 0 *3 C CD O O *H d) rH •H CO 04 N 44 >H 04 w to O *0 *H O 04 3 •p4 O CD CO 14 0 Q •H U D CJ CD CO a COc H C 0) 0) COu c •H 0) kJ U M-* r-l CO 3 IH C CO C 3 CO Cc O ffl <o Q CPu CPzau H CP CP CPzu CJ M •J CPzz CP co •H 4J COo rH 04< c o •H 4J COo •H rH 04 04 -= ^ •H ^ CO CO iH »H CO 4J O 3 C V4 C 0) 0) C *C3 gg W (0 o o U oi •ou x: HD' ■j CD • CO c • T*. -H Xi U >1-H c c >1 iH 0) •H CO u U u O4S Q> 0 Iw H H fll CO CO CO F 0 ^04 H w m ri 04 o 3 D 3 0 <« 3 •H *H 5.00 LO.OO/1.00 .25O' 6 0 _ 14 0 -4 44 CD 0 *3 CO in c 0 0 • *H <0 US -O ><P- O4 CO u 0 0 0 in a . in iH 0 0 a 0 in 0 0 • in CM > •-« •H »3 O' C 0 —4 »o 0 0 CD 44 CD <o-<P- <o-<p-Z<P- U IP 0 £</></>rH in-in-0) 0 J3 4J 4J c >1 CO 0 3 *HrHrH3g -oc 0 CO *3 1 j >1 O4 0 U If c ^ 0 CO M CO CO 14 3 0 Cm C 3 C'4 c 0 •H CO »3scM 0o 0) 14 iH CO 4J CO 0) CO >1 0> >1 »3 0 *H 44 0 •H 4J 0 3 c c CD —4 CO CO •H 0) JJ 0) C 44 0) *0 r-l •H 0) CO C0) c 14 *3 ^ CO iH cr> CO CO O 0) 3 Q Picc •• < IP oz o CM co <U «H fH JJ O 10 0) U Ui iH 0) 04 »0a o i/y </></>■</> I—I (0 3 x> < c 0 o VD •H O 0 X) o ro <0 •»1 —1 o o •*H 1 —1 •0 000000 0 f-H rH (0 (0 O4XJ 0 O4 0 0 0) 0) 0 0 \ 00 w 0 (U 00 • *00000 000 • iH o O o U J-> O 4J in <0- M O 3 CT ••■4 i3 O < o o o o o • •oo*******«oooooininoooinm mm •» •‘mcMr'OOocNrHiHtHm^r^ rHrHn i/yvyin-vyvyi/yi/yvx/yvyi/x/y r—I rg 0 <u•iH iH 44 JO 3 tos(0 cn 00>1 1 0u(0 44 Oi 44 iH >1to010 0)10^IQ C7»\3 C »0 >1H<D 0 0 44 «H ^touD>*0 *3 iH 0 Z >1^0 »DKVI(U to <0 \ 10 >1 c<0 e V4 W W 1 M -S *0 (0 0 0BuJZ<0 0)U 1 CO) iH ^ »0 ^ C0C4044cn c COO) 10 iH 0> C 0O44Jtnz 0 o-Hfao) 310 0)3 44 w IQ iH •H u •H44|t0 0) C3 •H H 0)M c u c X) <0 C C to c C E 440Wc0)iH S •H M 0 CODVOO) C0)<C VI .r4H<c JC Its M E J -H cr»*H *H 0 0) to —’ <! 0)0 EZU0)JJ E z 'O 44 •H 44 44*H440C —' 10 Oi VI0•H <•4;oi to 44t0(0»JC*H<U0) C 0Mc0 C7>t00)O> 0)^UiH0) 0)QiOiKto•<Q 4J D *H 0)>*HVlE -HlOiH^O 3H(1) 3 U 0)<1>U c 0»44 >C44oo)i4i3cn<OfH-^1 VIU10)>‘H30*C44CCU cn CQz00)IM 1 >1«li 0 <M-l 0 U-l (u Eh 44 0 s a H 1044 0)05 VIVI^CT’u u><0 0 0><0 0 VI M <D Z rH xjcoiHiH 00)0)0) *H <0 toE-»fO u-l »o <y •Q M (0 to lO(0'OrHiHOOtO»3 u u«Eh 4J c -o cn xi c TJ hCOC(0(003(Q04 0 0JJ<to 0 V4 iH to 0 V4 0 -H 0 Q>44 c344iotnm 3JD Qi QiU0 *H < V4 0*H to <tJ 0 MO*H 4403I ICMCM443 E EEW•H Q> JZ <S *H (U £Vi Vi •H Oi c C44 CC**OrH 0 0u M u 0) U9 PV4 W Eh ^M &4 w Eh Eh Eh K < iH 0 b3 M U H*0 OOfomcQCJ Eh Eh <■9 04 Cl <U 04 OQ co (U*H rH O (0o cn •H •H 0) 04*0ouo<u 9I (U 0) <N m ro ^ (N fv| o CM 0)c •H O (0e rH iH CM CM in CM O rH O iH in in •H • • 00 iH »o *0 o • u u • o\ o O VO 01 JS 3 O iH <0 CU <D O O O O O O o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o in O CM iH i/yvy o o O rH iH CO- CO- o in oro o fH in CM o iH in CM •*-1su iH fH (0 U rH iH Rl O 0) O'u (0 u JCo (0 0) 0 (0 01 o o oo oss o in o o iH co rn fH (0 O JSu RJ 0) o o o in iH co in iH 0 CO 0 U u SQ Pi Z EH 0 0 0 klHoz>i 0 0 0grHMU>1 >1 r> 0 CO >V4 0 *0 3 o C 0 3 3 0 4J RJ 3 *H M rH 0 0 fH p a Ui 3 c »o EH u 0 rH fH 0p•H a C C C M u U 0 0cuiC< M £Eh Pi \U U 0 •H z <K M CO 0 \0 <g a EH C4 £CO B 0 0 fH TJ u U M Pi s vQ cq u e B 0 <M 4-1 CP £0 >1 cq cq 0 u u IMHczKeq 0 fH Pi CO Pi iH 0 0 r-H k4U440 0 u H 0 3 3 cq 0 iH rH fH fH 0U0ca6 0 u Pi Eh Pi o O Q Pi 0 fH 0 0 0 0 H a 0 u M M < »o z <cq 0 fH 0 44 3 >1SE>«e M CO tH S » 0 .Q H K CO 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 44 >•r4 (1)1-3 «O 44 3 Pi <D rH 44 0 0 0 44 -H klgMufH c U u CO *H fH Pi Pi 0 O rH 44 fH 44 0§c R5 Q 43 *H U £Pi M e u £M-l 44 0 0 in -H *o <0 a 0 43 z U Q .H w n Pi U4 O (H rH *0 3 •H 0 H 44 O c CO CO rH Eh o <ro ro fH 1 »C3 0 SQ 4-1 a Z CO 0 Q CO CO ^iH b 1.3 1 r' 1 in H 0 fHHR1uK S <Pi £ 0 Q <44 fH fH 0 O 0 s U o K 3 U Eh 0 ^44 w 44 w 43 O X •t-l u »u u M u z < c Eh M cq U X X UMiH•H w 0 0 •-3 o u U 3 M £CO 0 0 0UCLfHD04 04 OQ Pi Pi Pi <£K Pi Z z pq H a 0 z ra M M hH cq <<1 04 2 Pi t-'Cm b Pi Pf co iH Jj SI o 10 0) O CO •H rM 0)a*o cuo o» i-i <0 Xi C L) O^ o •p z *0 ^ U Oi • »|H »*-4 iH x:x:J=x:x:x: 04 to o u o o o 04 c (0 (0 (0 10 (0 to 0)0)ID 0)0)0) N O •'H o in o o o in in O JJ O CM o o O CM CM • •H • •• •• •• o O rH ro o ro ro in o to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-ro CM 0)a Eh co •H 4J 10u •H iHa Q< o Q 0) O •H rH O 04 z Moi uoz M C m §o to o u »o q •H to 9 M ffl to OS rH to 0)«U to (U cq 0 Oj »H M O *H c CO 04 •H 04 eh CO C m ••H O4 0)a 0 z »0 O4O 6 O 1 0 u cq OS OS 0 C-)z o Q u 0 U M M rH M >M rH 10 Eh U 0 <0 U M a 0 10 M 5 C > Eh O Oi *H W OJ ^ to W *H M H3 .H »0 04 C m < O U C m O X 04 O U Oia C m O >H 04ou S Eh O 0 »H 01 ^ D m Wu *a 04 b < O U COzo M CO OScq 04 B»u M o 04 &4 »0 o 0) 05 9 W rM gg 0*H u 0) Z X M ^ <! 04 Oco ^ z 6 VO CO ON iH U 0) 4J U eo Do« »ou •H tpc •H C3c •Hov 0) 43 0)> •H 4J O 0) u-i IM M CO 0> (0 pii 0)u •H> Wl 0) CO > •H iH •H JJ D toCo 14 M U iH 0) 0> 0) <H jj JJ jj (0 u W| U OV (d (t5 (tJ 3 3 3 0 O* D* 0*0 O 14 U U ' Q) 0) 0)V, 04 O4 O4O OV m in o • rH C4 OV rH • ••</>■ iH 00 C^^ tn ^ 14 0) cn-co-w O4 4J »0to C rH CM •• •• JJ •H e 3 >i Si I u u CO cu Mu Mz DS ro (d •m 4J (d (d N 0) >1 wi Id< Z ♦ ID CM Id ^ ij Id O' 0) c u O < ij ID U 4J 0) Id »o « uo rH 43 4li 44 Id Id 0 < o rH 1 44 rH < 0 44 c o rH rH Id Q> U> *3 ••4 Pi rH 0) 4^ U U Id Id 0) > 14 Id < Z 0) 44 44 0,0 >iO Id o 44 rH eo V4 44 (0 >1 »o »o 0) in -H ^ 44 •H U 44 </> U O 44 iH CO CO 3 43 14 0) u 44 0) 10 44 ^ 5 »0 *H Idu (D 0) to 04c 3 14oc%o >1 44 14 0) 04o M 04 >1 43 »o 0) CO 3 Ido 0) cn Ide Id»o 44 •H CM 0 rH CJl 43 CJ»0) Ou c 0)0) 44 “ -s ® ID 0 af> 00 6 0) 44 Id >1 0 CJI Id ^44 u PS XI > 43 44 S 14 C Id 14 u c ^ Id m Id iH >i CO H 0) (0 CO >1 H ^ -C0 fi 04 0) rH 14 Eh 44 *0 44 w PS 3 0 14 >1 \0 «44 0) £C ?14 u z OS 0) >i44 0 0)c « •H ^ ID0) •H Id 44 44 ro ICS *4 >ti c 44 Qi C CO Eh Id p4 u ^ iH Id M C »*H 0 0 0 <CD CD iH 0 0 PS u 0 z 0) *3 to CJl (D tobi1 tc c e u 3 44 i3 c0 Id 44 0 0 m U 14 0)L) < <CO C3 <1^0/ M rS 3 3 44 Oip 0)iH pj rO tH CO 1 1 Mu C C >1 •H U d »3 <rt ^Id tn ^cr»44 14 V4 >1 to U CO M rH ID 0 ICS ” 0 .C 0) 0)2zrH 44 C3 CD ^ 00 u •fH 44 44 u WI J3 •H Id C 14 Id rH Id Id 0)Id Id £CQ Z D ^r4 CM Jj C r4 Z Z 44 ^ PM 3 <H ID (D 'H Id ffl CO- e Pu .0 Z H < S O oz M U >1u CO 00 OV iH 44o 14o 44 14 Id 3 »oc Oo 0) CO 0)> 44 o 0) 44 44 H « o o o o o o o in o o o o in o o o in o o in o CM O o o in n-o • •• ••• •• ••• ••• in n in tn in m m in o r* VO CM </>■ </>•<n vy i/y vyvy ifyvy i/y 10* <o-ify i/y •oo 4.- COo P4 (0 1 to »0 •H iH in <0 TD Q> »0 QJ rH ^ >1 iH Co m CM *o rc cn >1 0 0)(0 1 CO c c (0 •rl u C 0) •H •H 0 M <0 0 N U 44 •o 0 0) 0 •H in U 9 Z »o !>iZ 44 M 0)rH C3 3 •fH to to X (M o o (U U O O U 0) 0) U4 X o £VO O rH rH »o na flj ••(U 44 • •14 0 0 c c 2 ’ CM 0)U CM 0 z z 3 3 H 1 1—1 z >1 0) rH •H 0 o >1 (0 >c 0) 0)z zBin(0 Q>•o »o O 0)0)c c a *0 l-i c c U w rH •H •H )4 uSID•H 0 <0 0 0 (0 z z 0)0) Oj a:V4 U4 0) (/)(Q to ss C 44 to (0 CO to 44 z z M c (X4 0) (1) 0)COO)0) 0) 0) 0)0) 0)44 c 44 T3 Q S3 CQ iH iH 0 rH rH (0 N « rH rH rH rH 0)0)to C 1 1 u 3 0 O O 0 0 0)•H 0 0 O 0 z H CM CO u >iX K Z ' M 44 44 >,a; B3 1 z z o to CO c fP 43 (0 (0 •rl (0 •H 44 »o 44 Xi 0sin4J rH (U 0)(>l 0) 0)oi C) rH 0) 0)CQ 0) 0)Eh Wl 0)14 3 •rl o CP 0i C C rH C C 0i c c na c c 10 N <0 rH tosD>1 *H •H »H 0)M •H >H C *H C U •H u o CO o 10 c z z u Z Z 3 0 c z z 0) z z 0 14 0)u u 0)3*•rl •rl hi!CQ 144 0 rH 44 o H C OV4J »0 44 44 T3 O c 0'4J »o 0) 44 ro (0 rH 44 rH rH c 0 o» m c UH (0 C 0)G 0) CO C 0) to C 0)0 0 3 0 0 S CQ rH CM HC iH CM tn CQ rH CM Z rH CM z ID s Z ID u O O s o 0)u* c •H 10 •o 4J CO \ o o • in CO •H CO <0m 0) jp o 3a co JSo o oo to «o Msucn cnu M o< OU Dcn in t4ao U M CQ D P4 eo •f-i 4Jo 0)cn •H e u O P4 a-. G •f-4 0) £ OJ to I—I £ •H •H -i-» e CO U V O 0) CU*W o c S e<l) > </y o u 04e •H i—H <C5 •H 0 0) a CO 1 co •H o 0) CO o»c •H co N 0) 0)cn c o> •n CO^ 3 x: CO •H ^ ia 3 ^ 04 u 0) JO r-l *® 5 »w •c o CO ^ Jt£ 0) 0) iH <l) 3 5»o 0> 0) £ £ O 4J CO 0) 0) 4= ^ JJ I—I ONr^ c (0 £ CO CO iH C X) (0 C 'O0 CO 0) 0) O4 •t-l *0 •'H CO •0 to JJ 1 • V4 (0 O m 5? C•f>; JJ CO cn ON 0) ^ (U •Hcn CO c *-c Oi 0; C)»n ^ C o CO f4 JJ JJ ^ tn M 3 rH •*0 jojj iH JJ t4 iH 3 >1 u O U •-« 0) JZ s 10 OJ ^ »C3 C M C C JJ >1 V^'O u fl 0 *H >1 0 0)M >i*H OJ • (0 £<0 10 > cn M JJ OJ ^ (U M V 0) iH a* iH M 0 0) *o 5 z ^ (U (0 > 10 0)04 > C OJ 0 <0 M CO *H CO JJ e •.H M S5 JJ M 10 tD M Eh cn Q ^Eh D U 0) M x: cn jJ >1 (0 3 C «5 IM O >1 to*o x: JJ ON CO £ JJ oo oc o u o IM o >1 JJ fj u o £ JJ iw 0 1—4 .H oe 3 o u >1 JJ •H u o; x: JJ >1 X) »o 0) JJ . OlON O 00 •O ON 4! *H u O >1 10 s 0) X) (0 u o (0 e to n c CM Ehcnu H ui 0) i-J >1 JJ •H U c •H iH iH (0aa >1x: 4J 0 u O Q 12888.1 0^J)I11ANCE MOMBBR , SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines tha^ the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Suiiimary of Ordinance Number , Second Series," and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of che title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER SECOND SERIES , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1989 44 SECOND ORDINANCE NO. _ _ _ FEE SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO SERIES, 49 SECOND SERIES AND 49 SECOND SERIES. The following is the official summary of Ordinance Number _ _ _ , Second Series approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on January 9, 1989. The following sections have changes, additions and/or deletions: ZONING APPLICATIONS Conditional Use Permit w/variance Commercial Site Plan Renewal Subdivision Application CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION 1983 1989 new $ 50.00 each variance $150.00 $200.00+consultant fee new 1/2 of current fee FEES BUILDING PERMIT Normal Fee Plan Review Fee: Commercial Resilential per 1982 UBC/SBC per 1985 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule Standard Schedule per 1982 UBC/SBC per 1985 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule Standard Schedule 65% of Building 65% of Building Valuation Data Valuation Data Retaining WalVs (in excess of 42‘- also 30.00 luin multiple tiered walls that exceed 42" and not located in lakeshore pro‘-ec ted area' ..•ocks - Commercial new DEMOLITION PERMIT Principal Structure Accessory Structure PLUMBING PERMITS MECHANICAL PERMITS -furnace, boiler, unit heaters, and makeup air units -fuel storage (permanent or temporary) 30.00 25.00 4.00 2.00 same -r 1985 UBC/SJC Vc ^dard schedule 50.00 30.00 5.00/fixture 3.00/fixture reset 15.00 per 15.00 per 50,u00 30.000 btuh output output 15.00 30.00 MUNICIPAL CONNECTION PERMIT ' ,jether with area connect on charges) 5/8" meter including sales tax 95.00 114.48 3/4" meter including sales tax 130.00 57.94 1" meter including sales tax — el2.00 ALL COWNBCTION CHARGES (IP NOT PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED) BY DISTRICT - PROJECT CONSTRDCTIOH PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES Permit Type ALL SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed) ALL MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed) GRADING,EXCAVATIONr FILLING - 1-100 cubic yards (max. 10 loads) 1988 1989 Various Various cost of reflecting investment Various Various cost of reflecting investment 50.00 60.00 (staff (staff permit) permit) BUILDING MOVING OR LIFTING -Lifting principal buildings (no move across lot lines) (include pre-lift inspection fee) SPECIAL INSPECTION CHARGES Inspection surcharge for v;ork or application on Big Island or Deering Island CONTRACTUAL INSPECTION SERVICE Monthly Retainer Fee (Includes clerical time) Clerical Fee (only charged if clerical use is excessive) HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE Zoning Department Administered ZONING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS Municipal Code Book - Complete (Ch. 1-12 w/revisions) Municipal Code Book - Portions Ch 1 thru 9 (Book 1) w/revisions Ch 10 thru 12 (Book 2) w/revisions Ch 10 only (Zoning Code) w/revisions Ch 11 only (Subdiv. Code) w/revisions Other Individual Chapters Police Department Administered COPY OF DRIVER'S LICENSE RECORD 75.00 30.00+ 25.00 per month none 20.00 75.00 w/binder new new 25.00 15.00 new 1988 75.00 plus engineering fee if necessary 30.00 per trip + boat rental if transportation is not provided by owner same 15.00 per hour 30.00 (annual fee) 60.00 w/black binder 35.00 loose 35.00 loose 25.00 loose 15.00 loose .25 /page 3.00 each 1989 rPBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Utility Service Rates RECYCLING CHARGE GOLF COURSE CHARGES - Effective date 1988 Season Monday thru Friday (excluding Holidays) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon 1st Nine Holes 5.00 2nd Nine Holes 3.00 5.25 3.00 After 12 Noon and Weekend Rates 1st Nine Holes 5.50 2nd Nine Holes 3.00 League Rates Monday thru Friday 5.00 Senior Citizen (Over 60 years old) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon - Weekdays 1st Nine Holes 3.50 2nd Nine Holes 3.00 Season Ticket (Senior Citizens Only) 90.00 Golf Cart Rental Motorized 1st Nine Holes 7.00 2nd Nine Holes 6.50 Pull Carts - Per Round .75 5.75 3.25 5.25 3.75 3.00 100.00 10.00 8.00 1.00 A printed copy of the 1989 Fee Schedule Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours. 1989. This ordinance becomes effective the week of January 16, Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 9th day of January, 1989, by a vote of _ _ _ ayes and _ _ nays. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 122988.2 TOs FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council ^ / .... Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistratd|JQj^ ^ ^ December 29, 1988 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission - Joint Powers Agreement Amendment Attachment; A. Creighton Letter Dated 12/19/88 B. Proposed Resolution ISSUE - Determine if Council desires to amend the agreement to change the Board of Directors question. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A the Cable Commission desires to amend its quorum requirements. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt 2. Table for further discussion 3. Choose not to adopt - (Amendments require adoption by _ _ members before they are effective.) RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that^ that the attached resolution be adopted. seconded by to adoptPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ _ _ Resolution Number __ amending the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission's Joint Powers Agreement relating to the quorum requirements. Ayes __, Nays __. THOM^ O. CREIGHTON >612) 3^-1298 O’CONNOR & HANNAN attorneys at law 3800 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET INNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402*2254 (6121 341-3800 TELEX 29-0584 TELECOPIER 1612) 343-1256 INCLUDING THE FORMER FIRM KWCINTOSH & COMMERS memorandum WASMIPMTOtt. OjC. orncc 12021 a«7'i«00 DCMvca or»T«* on 'c uMiVto •AMU ctjiTea 1700 UNCOLN »T"f IT _ MAOnto errfccVCLAZOUCZ. t<NAomo I, thiiH 63I-3I-00 rcLCK lAso ■u 'mNSVILLC. MIHMCaOTA »«»37 ■«i2i a»« oji«« TO; FROM; DATE; RE; Member Cities of the Lake Minhetonka Cable Conununications Commission Thomas D. Creighton Legal Counsel ion . / / December 19, 1988 Amendments to Joint Powers Agreement „ you toou, i. li|M ments which required not -t-q = maiority of all the author-to conduct regular business but also a majority ized votes of the Commission present. While the Commission ^ "°i“°g^^because^all^citie^ present from at least seven Me <1^ meet the quorum have two directors, it has authorized votes of the Commission, requirement of a majority of the bfrepresented, Si^Co^itsion^iL^Xtefa^resol^^ ^eirSed?*'°nirthe - it rllates to authorized votes . Please find enclosed a proposed Amendment to Article VII, Section 5 and Article VIII, Section 2(h) of the Joint Powers Agreement which provides for a quorum requirement of at least seven Member Cities present to conduct regular business of the Commissionr and (for ordinance amendments) a requirement of two-thirds of the votes of the directors present and voting representing not less than ten members. This will permit the Commission to effectively conduct regular business with cities remaining adequately represented, while requiring ten of the fourteen cities to be present for ordinance eunendments (the same requirement as before). The Commission requests that you approve the attached Amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement. After your action, please execute and forward the attached resolution to my attention at the above address. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. TDC/be Attachment -2- 122988.3 AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is included in an approved cable service territory in the major metropolitan suburban area, and WHEREAS, the City has duly adopted the Joint and Cooperative Agreement creating the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission, and WHEREAS, the City wishes to modify said Agreement as relating to the quorum requirements for the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Orono City Council as follows: 1. That Article VII, Section 5. shall be amended as follows: Section 5. Voting^Quorurn. No business shall be performed unless a majority of the votes of the directors present and voting at a Commission meeting vote in the affirmative, or unless a majority of the Executive Committee vote in the affirmative at its meeting. A ma^oeity of the votes of the eommission repaeaenting at least The presence of seven (7) member's shall constitute a quorum of the Commission and a majority of those appointed shall consititue a quorum for a meeting of the Executive Committee, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time. 2. That Article VIII, Section 2(h). shall be amended as follows: The Commission may review and amend franchise ordinance in accordance with theh. Amendment, the procedures set forth in this agreement and the rules of the MCCB and FCC upon the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the authosised votes of the eommission dj.rector present and_yqti^ representing not less than ”ten””TrOj members. The Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before it amends a franchise ordinance or establishes rates therein. At least ten (10) days prior to that public hearing, it shall publish in the official newspapers of the members a notice of that public hearing. An amendment to the franchise ordinance shall be signed by the Chair and attested by the Secretary. An amendment to the franchise ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the members within fifteen (15) days after adoption by the Commission, and any amendment shall take effect upon publication or at such later date as is fixed therein. The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly made by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _— and seconded by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ “PO" ''°te being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said Resoltuion was passed this 9th day of January, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City ClerK DATE: November 2S, 1988 TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police t • ^ • SUBJECT: Salary Adjustment " ' • Officer Mark Tomczyk will complete his 8th year on November 11, 1988 With this completion, he is due to be forwarded to the next step of longevity which is 5% additional to base rate TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson. City AdministratoIA Based on the rates set forth in the labor agreement it is recommended that Officer Tomczyk's salary be raised from $16,163 per hour to $16,477 per hour, effective November 17, 1988. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to increase Officer Tomczyk's salary from $16,163 per hour to $16,477 per hour effective November 17, 1988. Ayes _, Nays _. o • • • 4. . i» ■ <* u DATE: January 4, 1989 TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Permission to hire part time secretary ‘ This department, with permission of the Council, placed an ad in the paper for part time help. Ten people responded. Lt. Cheswick, Sue Bobzien and Carol Hansing interviewed the ten applicants as well as conducting a typing test on December 29, of that group, three were interviewed by myself. Out of the three, Sally Lynn Christianson is forwarded to you as our person to be hired. Sally lives at 2380 Island Drive in Spring Park, works now for the Carlson Companies as a data entry group leader and has experience in transcribingf word processing and data entry. I would request permission to hire her at a salary of $6.00 an hour with no benefits, with employment to commence on January 10, 1989 or as soon thereafter as possible. O TO: FROM; Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval for use at the same rate used for this police part time clerical position previously. This is estimated to^be a maximum 16 hours per week and therefore does not accrue benefits. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , the authorizes the employment of Sally Lynn Christianson position of part time clerical in the police department at $6.00 per hour commencing January 10, 1989. Ayes —, Nays —. 121288.1 3o TO; FROM: DATS: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director. January 5, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING • • • • . #. ^ _ vk. v;{ - J K .pj SUBJECT: Adopt Assessment Roll for Hazardous Building Actions - 1988-2 - 200 Hollander Road Attachments:A. Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll B. Proposed Assessment Roll C. Memo Dated 11/21/88 to Set Public Hearing Date D. Written Appeal of Assessment from John Hollander Dated 12/29/88 E. Agreement Between City and John Hollander and Roger Hollander Regarding Removal of Hazard and Payment of Assessment, Dated 1/27/88 F. Court Order and Judgement and Decree - Re: 200 Hollander Road DISCUSSION - The attached proposed re-^olution and assessment roll is derived from the Court approved c' sts as noted in the memo for setting the public hearing on the hazardous building actions. As also noted the costs are to be collected in one year at an interest rate of 8%, as provided in Minnesota State Statutes. It is recommended that Council adopt the resolution and assessemnt roll as presented. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. Despite the present appeal, Mr. Hollander had previously agreed to waive appeal rights. Additionally this has been ordered by the Court. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Resolution #__ adopting the assessment roll for Building Actions - 1988-2. Ayes _, Nays _. to adopt Hazardous 112288.2 Pf A RBSOLOTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR HAZARDOOS BUILDING ACTIONS - 1988-2 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper legal notice given as reguired by law, the City Council has on January 9, 1989, held a public hearing on the proposed assessment of costs incurred in removal of hazardous buildings located on properties as named and described on the attached assessment roll; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County District Court has on October 5, 1988 approved and ordered collection of the amounts described on the attached assessment roll as reimbursement to the City for expenses incurred in these hazardous building proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: 1. The Assessment Roll is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against each tract of land as named and attached hereto. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in one installment and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from January 9, 1989. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may pay the entire amount of the assessment as follows: a. ) If the assessment is paid within 30 days (through February 10, 1989) after the Council adopts the assessment there is no interest added; b. ) If the assessment is paid after February 10, 1989 but before any certification to the County Auditor (which certification can occur at any time after this resolution is passed but no later than October 10, 1989) accrued interest is added through the date of payment; c. ) If the assessment is paid after certification to the County Auditor, through November 15, 1989, interest must be paid as accrued through December 31, 1989; d. ) If the assessment remains unpaid as of November 15, 1989 the City cannot accept payment and the assessment plus interest through December 31, 1990 will be collected by the County Auditor. 4. The City Clerk shall transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, regular meeting held January 9, 1989. Minnesota ,at a ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk I—U1 HC 1210 (1-79) • '? Jt municipality _ MUNIC CODE _ _^ LEVY NUMBER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATE CARD ADD CHANGE DELETE Qrono DOCUMENT # AUTH, BY _ 11389_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATE PROJECT NUMBER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LEVY DESCRIPTION Hazardous Building Actions - 1988-2 TOTAL PROJECT ASSESSMENT $3,581.50 SERVICE CHARGE _ _ $.05 per parcel LUMPED/SPREAD CODE _ _ _ _ INTEREST RATE _ _ _8.00% COST PER UNIT Variable NO. YEARS PAYABLE One FIRST YEAR PAYABLE 1990 MO. INT. FIRST YEAR FIXED CHARGE _ _ _ _ PERM. SPEC. CODE 00 0} Xi 10 « 4-> 0) 0) M « 4Je M O II W II M II Z II \ II U II GO GO CN •-4 CM I—I 00 00 9\ COz O M u < uz Ma ij H Dn CO ! z CO hJ ijo Z zo M uM tki M !-•m H U z H Z CO CO M CO CO < IJ >< M Ou CO wz D 1 s ss CO H CO CO •J <s lOo OS V4 0) 'Oc (0 tH 1 —4oz caca CM ca in • GO in m </> m VO ta ta II II II II II II•IIoIIzII II in •II saIIC9•II Z M II t II Qt II II•n cnzOIICM cn Z II 1 II GO •II 1 —4 IIoII 1 •z II inwozIICM z II N H II HOIIIIotItuoIIzIIuII as M n GOz>II m D M n rH Z iJ II f-t 112188.3 TOs Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director DATS: November 21, 1988 - - - - - - - SUBJECT; Set Public Hearing Date for Hazardous Building Assessments Attachment; A. Public Hearing Notice The City has finalized costs incurred for three buildings on one property under the hazardous buildingr proceedings. The City Attorney has obtained Court hearing dates and presented the costs to the Court for approval and has obtained an Order and Judgement and Decree from the Court. The City must now set a public hearing date to consider adoption of the proposed special assessment roll for the affected property. The property and costs approved for assessment are: 200 Hollander Road $3,581.50 The assessment are to be collected in one year at an interest rate of 8%, as provided in Minnesota State Statute. I have attached a copy of the public hearing notice for your information. TO; Mayor and City Council FROM; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to set a public hearing for Janaury 9, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers to consider the special assessment roll for the 1988-2 hazardous buildings. Ayes _, Nays _. (^OCU^' '/SlX. D • •• ——'•* —— •—“ - —/ 'X -------------------- » ^ 1 ------------------- --------------------------------—-_: AGREEMENT The City of Orono (hereinafter called the ”City”) and John Hollander and Roger Hollander acting in their capacity as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Hildur Hollander and acting on behalf of the Estate (hereinafter called the "Estate”) agree to the following terras related to the reraoval of the barn located on the property known as 200 Hollander Road which has been the subject of that certain hazardous building proceeding in the District Court of Minnesota^ Fourth District, Court File No. 87- 7351 . In consideration of the Estate agreeing to reraove the barn in accordance with this Agreement with their own contractor, and the City's agreement to delay commencement of removal of the barn, which the City may summarily remove pursuant to the Order of the Court, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City has awarded on January 25, 1988, to LeRoy Dressel Excavating, a contract for the removal of the barn pursu ant to a bid submitted in the amount of $5,650. Should the Estate not commence demolition by February 16, 1988, or not fully com plete removal by February 29, 1988, the City's contractor will commence work following such failure, but only upon such failure. 2. The Estate will direct their contractor to remove the barn and all its footings and foundations and fill in as appropriate to make the. land at a safe grade. 3. The Estate agrees not to contest payment of the special assessment of all costs incurred by the City in connection with the hazardous building proceeding since the Council adoption of the Hazardous Building Order, which costs are approximately $2,750 as of the date hereof, including attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City. The City agrees that the amount of the assessment against the property will not substantially exceed such amount; provided, however, that if the Estate fails to remove the barn according to the schedule provided in this Agreement, the costs of removal shall be added to the assessment. In such event, the City agrees to use reasonable efforts to ensure LeRoy Dressel Excavating completes the removal in conformity with the bid sub mitted to the City. 4. The Estate agrees to undertake no work without the appropriate demolition and grading permits. The City agrees to provide the necessary permits in an expeditious manner. 5. If not commenced by February 16, 1988, or if not fully removed by the Estate's contractor by February 29, 1988, the Estate will not undertake legal or other actions to further delay the City's contractor from removing or completing removal of the buildings, its footings and foundation and using fill as appropri ate to make the land at a safe grade. 6. This Agreement is not valid if not signed by all parties and signed copies to each by January 29, 1988. These terms are agreed to by the undersigned parties as of January 27, 1988. >. 0 ardson. City Manager ESTATE OF HILDUR HOLLANDER By;M> vohn Hollander, apersonal r^resentative (Rbger Hollander, a personal representative - 2 - STATE OF MINNESOTA F f L E D COUNTY OF HENNEPIITO8 OCT "6 AM IQ: 08 DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8Y * Case Type: Hazardous Building CofeifACrtK‘;iltRlua In the Matter of Hazardous Buildings, Being a Certain Garage and Two Barns Located on Property Known as 200 Hollander Road, City of Orono, and and Situated upon Premises Legally Described as Outlet B, Holly Acres, Hennepin County, According to the Plat on File and of Record in the Office of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota Court File No. 87-7351 ORDER The Court, having received the report of the action of the City of Orono in the enforcement of the District Court Order to raze and remove the hazardous structures upon the property described above, and having examined the statement of monies received and expenses incurred by the City, now makes the following Order in the above-entitled matter. IT IS ORDERED, that the expenses incurred by the City of Orono in its enforcement of the District Court Order for removal of the hazardous structures located at 200 Hollander Road in the City of Orono, and situated upon premises legally described as Outlet B, Holly Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota, are approved and allowed in the amount of ^3,581.50 and the same shall be certified by the City Clerk for collection by assessment as provided by Minnesota Statute, section 463.21. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN In the Matter of Hazardous ) Buildings, Being a Certain ) Garage and Two Barns Located on ) Property Known as 200 Hollander ) Road, City of Orono, and ) and Situated upon Premises ) Legally Described as Outlet B, ) Holly Acres, Hennepin County, ) According to the Plat on File ) and of Record in the Office of ) Registrar of Titles, Hennepin ) County, Minnesota ) ) DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Hazardous Building Court File No. 87-7351 JUDGMENT AND DECREE Pursuant to the Order of the District Court on file herein, and on the motion of Thomas J. Barrett. City Attorney for the City of Orono, and IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. That the expenses incurred by the City of Orono in the enforcement of the Order of the District Court dated July 7, 1987, for the razing and removal of the hazardous structures located upon 200 Hollander Road in the City of Orono. and situated upon the premises legally described as Outlot B, Holly Acres in Hennepin County, Minnesota, is hereby approved and allowed in the amount of S3.581.50, and the same shall be certified to the City Clerk for collection by assessment at provided by Minnesota Statute, Section 463.21. Dated: 8265H to: Fron:• • • • . # • ^ » ^ { ** J i« V J Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members COUNCIL MEETING Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^^^J^ Date: January 4, 1989 ...... , ^ L.J Subject: Inspection Services Contract Attachaent - A. Revised Building Services Memo Dated 1/3/89 Issue - Renewal of contracts for building inspections with the Cities of Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach. Alternatives - 1. Adopt as presented (fees are included in the 1989 Fee Ordinance). 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Request further negotiations. 4. Table for further discussion. Recommendation - It is recommended that the contracts be approved as presented as they are the format that was reviewed and upgraded when the City contracted with Wayzata. Proposed Motion - Moved by _ _, seconded by > that the Orono City Council approve renewal of contracts with the Cities of Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach at the rates and in tha forriiat outlined in Attachment A. Ayes ___, nays ___. ^2 Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: January 3, 1989 Subject: Revised Building Services/Inspection Contract with Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park have agreed to the request of the City of Orono to amend the current fee schedule as follows: Monthly Retainer Hourly Rate Inspection Rate Current Fee $ 25.00 20.00 10.00* Proposed Fee $ 25.00 25.00 15.00** 1st inspection of day (remaining inspections per day are pro-rated at 15 min. increments on the basis of $20/hr). ** Per inspection. Plan review fees will continue to be billed monthly by the City of Orono based upon Orono*s current fee schedule. Both cities agree that there is a need to bring the current agreement UP to the level of actual services rendered to each city. The amendments to the contract have also established a more that contact cities. The new format also provides greater ISlv^be if there is a fee change proposed for the year, the appendix need only aunended to the contract. The new contracts were hand dJlivered to the city 29 1988 with letters explaining some of the changes. w.taff will plan me;t wl?h each of the cilrks upon request to "rn/snrlnoto review once again the amended fees. Minnetonka Beach and will exlcu?e the contracts at the first meeting of their council within the mon-i-h nf Tanuarv and it is hoped that by the Council meeting of January 23, 1989, that we will have the executed contracts for final action by Orono Council. A sample of the amended contract has been enclosed for your review. CITY ’ OF QRawo CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 29r 1988 HAND DELIVERED Pat Osmonson City Administrator Spring Park City Hall Box 452 Spring Park, IfN 55384 Dear Pat: I have enclosed the amended Building Services/Inspection Contract as promised. Note with the new format that if a fee is to be amended, there would no longer be the need to amend the agreement between the Cities. The amended agreement now defines a procedure for the Cit. t Spring Park to request the use of Orono personnel for services not related to building inspection activities. Note that such use would require approval of either the City Administrator or Building and Zoning Administrator. In our attempt to bring our inspection/servicuas responsibilities into greater uniformity between our contract cities, note that we now have recommended that the City of Orono issue Certificates of Occupancy. If this is a problem for Spring Park, please let me know. In any event, I would like you to review the current format of the amended contract and meet with me to discuss any revisions that you deem necessary. I will be available after Tuesday, January 3, 1989. Sincerely Jeanne A. Mabusth Bldg. & Zoning Admin. JAM/ls Attachment BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 CITY OF ORONQ CITYof ORONO Post Office Box G6*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 29r 1988 HAND DBLIVBRBD Ms. Barbara Bedell City Clerk City of Minnetonka Beach 2945 Westwood Road Minnetonka Beach , MN 55361 Dear Barb: I have enclosed the amended Building Services/Inspection Contract as promised. Note that the new format will no longer necessitate the complete amendment of an agreement to reflect a rate change. If there is to be a rate change, then the appendix need only be aunended and agreed to. I would like to meet with you sometime after January 3, 1989, to discuss the amended contract and to determine when this may be presented for your Council's review and execution. ^incerely, Ci. lJ\cdjLUJsiA Jeanne A. Mabusth Bldg. & Zoning Admin. M. JAH/la Attachment BUILDING a ZONING - 473*7357 assessing ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES This agreement is made and entered into this — 19 - by and between the City of Orono, Minnesota and, Dy ana Detwetsu ----- Ts made under and by virtue of Minnesota Statuesthe City of_ _ _ _ _ _— 1971, Chai^ter 561, Section 16.861. Witnesseth: HTisnicAq cltv of is desirous of contracting with the City of Orono for the performance of the hereinafter specified building inspection services within the City of--------------; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono is agreeable to render such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, an agreement such as this is authorized virtue of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 16.861, Subdivisions 1 and 2. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Orono agrees that it building inspection services for the City of - - - - - - subject to t following terms and conditions; 1 Definition of Building_Code. The "BuiIding_ Code" adminrstered and enforced under the terms of this agreement the current edition of the Minnesota State Building Code as Minnesota Statutes Sections 16.83 to 16.867 including the ^ rules and codes adopted by reference therein; and including revised or Updated editions of said rules and codes as may from time to time be duly adopted by the State: A) 1985 Edition of the State Building Code ("SBC") rules identified as 2 MCAR i.OlOl throught 2 MCAR 1.18901, including SBC Appendix "A", Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters, and SBC Appendix "B", variations in Snow Loads; B) 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, C|UBC") as adopted by the State of Minnesota, including Appendix Chapters 32, reroofing; 35, Sound Transmission Control; 49, Patio Covers; 55, Membrane Structures; and 70, Excavation and Grading; C) 1981 Edition of the National Electric code, identified as "NEC"; D) 1978 American National Standard Safety Code Dumbwaiters, Escalators and Moving Walks, identified as ANSI A17.1-1978 and Supplement ANSI al7.la-1979; S) 1979 Minnesota Plumbing Code, identified extracted from Minnesota Rules 1983 including amendments adopted January 7, 1985; Page 1 of 7 F) "Flood Proofing Regulations", June, 1972, Office of the Chief Engineers, U.S. Army; G) Minnesota Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Rules Chapter 1345 Extracted from Minnesota Rules 1983 as in effect July 31, 1986; H) -Design and Evaluation Criteria for Energy Conservation in New Building, Additions and Remodeled Elements of Buildings and Standards fVr Certain Existing Public Buildings", 2MCAR Section 1.16001 through 2MCAR 1.16006. (SBC 6001 6006), I) State of Minnesota Mobile Home Installations Standards 1982, identified as 2MCAR 1.90103; and T) ^^-Andards of Performance for Solar Energy Systems and Subsystems Applied to Energy Need Edition, identified as 2MCAR 1.16101 through 2 MCAR 1.16108. K) 1985 Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal's Office. 9 AHrmi-ion of Buildina Code. The City of__________adopt by ordinance the Minnesota Stkte Building Code to keep such adoption current as new model code editions a subsequently adopt^ed by the State. The City of —-----------a kw?he stSrd fee^^schedile or any alternate "^^edule as provided by 2MCAR 1 10111 (UBC 304 a). The City of Orono shall inform the City of CAR ^*^°^^Uenever the ordinances of the City of--------------must be reviied to^nclude a new or revised code edition. 3. T.evel of Building Official Services (hereinafter level of services rendered for the City of - - - - Q.rvlces Building Official shall be essentially the Thein the Citv of Orono, except as hereinafter stated. Tne bas^c services shall include preconstruction plan °”a^ construction inspection as required for Of the Building Code as defined above. Specifically services relating to general construction, plumbing, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration work. excluded ale any services relating to administration .®,"f®f®®”®f the National Electrical Code which is under the jurisdiction c4-a4-A Roa-rri of Electricitv. The services shall be performed by a certified Building Of of the State of Minnesota, or by a qualified building inspector working under the direct supervision the Orono Building Official. 4- Administrative Procedures^ This section is ®®\procedures the responsibilities of eabli Participant atd to establ^ procedures for issuing permits and performing inspectional service. A) Responsibility of Permittee (Owner or Contractor): Page 2 of 7 1. Provide pre-permit confirmation of all Building Code requirements with sufficient site and construction design information as may be required by the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ and/or the Orono Building Official. 2. Perform all construction in compliance with all Building Code requirements. 3. Pay all required license, plan review, permit and inspection fees. 4. Call the City of Orono for all required inspections with sufficient notice for proper scheduling (24 hour notice). B) Responsibility of the City of_ _ _ _ _ _ _•_ 1. Administer and enforce all zoning requirements including approval of site plan, building size, location and use, and general performance standards. 2. Administer all contractor licensing requirements. 3. Issue all permits and collect local permit fees and state cr regional charges including Metropolitan Waste Control SAC charges and State Building Code Surcharges. The City of shall send copies of all building permits to the City of Orono on a regular basis. 4. Maintain permanent records. 5. Complete all periodic reports and governmental surveys. 6. Prosecute all violations. m Responsibility of the City of Orono. 1. Perform all preconstruction building plan reviews. 2. Perform all construction inspections required for Building Code enforcement. 3. Provide inspection reports and other information for the peonnanent records kept by the City of_ _ _ _ _ _. 4. Assist in all Building Code violation prosecutions with the Orono Building Official's time, records, and expert information. 5. Provide general Building Code information to the citizens of the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ on the same basis as provided the citizens of the City of Orono. Page 3 of 7 6. Provide other inspection services or technical recommendations related to building code matters as may from time to time be requested by the City of -------------The Building Official of Orono will work with ------ Marshal on all pre-construction , construction and violations at tart of the regular service in addition ir .Erectional services such as hazardous building trc^ceedings. These services shall be billed at the noraal inspection rate set forth in Appendix A of this agreement. 7. The City of Orono shall issue Certificates of Occupancy. D) Procedure for Building Code Adminstration. 1. The City of _________shall review all pertinent zoning requirements and site plan including and use and certifies same to the Orono Building Official as meeting the City of _________*s approval. 2. The Orono Building Official shall review the building construction plans for conformance with the Building Code and approve, modify or reject same. ^ xi*« _r upon approval of the plan by the Orono Building Official and consistent with all local3. The City of requirements, issues the Building Permit, collects the local and regional fees and on a rfc7ular schedule shall send copies of all building permits to the City of Orono. 4. The Permittee commences construction and calls for all required inspections (24 hour notice is requested). 5. The Orono Building Official.performs all required inspections and notifies the City of _ _ __ _ _of monthly progress, any violations, and final completion. 6. The City of Orono, upon final approval by the Orono Building Official, and consistent with all local requirements of the City of _ _ _ _ _ _# issues the Certificate of Occupancy. Page 4 of 7 5. ^ Administrative Responsibility. The daily administration of the building inspection services rendererd to the City of__________shall be under the sole direction of the City of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance and other matters relating to regulations and policies shall remain under the control of the City of Orono. Headquarters for the services rendered to the City of__________ under this agreement shall be located at the City offices of the city of Orono. The City of Orono Building Official shall submit to the City of___________a monthly report of services rendered and charges due, in such form and detail as the City of___________may reasonably require, as well as periodic suggestions regarding other matters relating to the inspectional service. 6. Communications, Equipment and Supplies. The City of Orono shall provide the necessary supplies, equipment and vehicles to the Orono Building Official, except the City of ___________ shall provide any necessary supplies which must be specially printed for the City of __________ such as permits, forms, etc. 7. Personnel, Employees of the City of Orono. Personnel assigned to perform the building inspection services for the City of shall be employees of the City of Orono which latter City shall assume all obligations arising out of the employment relationship, including but not limited to salary, workmen's compensation, P.E.R.A., withholding tax and health insurance with respect to such personnel. The City of___________shall not be required to furnish any fringe benefits or compensation whatsoever. 8. All Personnel to be officers of the City of_______________^ The Orono Building Official assigned to duty within the City of __________ shall be provided specific authority to administer and enforce the Building Code as provided by this agreement. Such authority shall be granted by proper action of the City Ciouncil of the City of__________ through adoption of an ordinance specifying such authority. 9. Enforcement. Enforcement policies within the City of Orono shall prevail as the enforcement policies within the City of___________. Orono personnel assigned to duty in the City of _____ _____ shall enforce the Building Code regulations for the City of ____. The Orono personnel will not enforce any other local, state or federal regulations, including the sections of the Minnesota State Building Code not included in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, zoning or other ordinance or statute within the City of __________ unless such enforce ment is otherwise specifically provided for by written contract. Violations and Penalties.All violations occurring within the shall be charged in accordance with the ordinances 10. _ City of ____ ____ of that city and shall be subject to the penalities provided therein. Prosecution of such violation shall be by the Prosecuting Attorney of the City of _____ _____. All costs and expenses incurred by said prosecution shall be paid by the City of__________. Page 5 of 7 11. Cooperation and Assistance, llie City of shall provide full cooperation and assistance to the City 'f Orono, its officers, agents and employees in the rendering of the Building inspection services, and the City of Orono Building Official shall fully cooperate with all officers, agents and employees of the City of _ _ Any problem resulting from the performance of these building services by the Orono staff shall be referred to the Orono Building and Zoning Administrator who must respond to the _ _ _ _ _ City Administrator within five days of such notice. If the Building & Zoning Administrator fails to respond within the specified time, the entire matter shall be referred to the Orono City Administrator for immediate action. 12. Cost to the City of_ _ _ _ _ _ _For and in consideration of the rendition of the services described herein, the City of _ _ _ _ _ _ shall pay the City of Orono as specified in Appendix A, attached. 13. Effective Date of Service. be on the day of The effective date of service shall , ^98 . 14. Hold Harmless and Indemnification A iiment. The City of _ _ _ _ _ shall indemnify and hold harmless the Ciiy, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City of Orono from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and employees of the City may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of the Orono Building Department in the enforcement and administration of the Building Code per the directive of the City of_ _ _ _. 15. Termination of Agreement. This agreement shall remain in force and effect from the effective date of service until cancelled by either party. Any such termination shall also conform to other applicable provisions in this agreement, and shall be subject to the City of_ _ _ _ _ _paying any and all charges due for services rendered prior to the termination, including the full amount of the retainer fee for the final month of service. A) Cancellation by the City of _ _ written notice to the City of Orono. shall require 30 days B) Cancellation by the City of Orono shall require 60 days written notice to the City of_ _ _ _ _ _• The City of agrees to pay to the City of Orono any expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by the City of Orono in enforcing the terms of this agreement. Page 6 of 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOFf the parties have executed this agreement in duplicate this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _# 19_• CITY OF ORONO CITY OF Mayor Mayor City Clerk City Clerk Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX A OF AGREEMENT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORONO AND THE CITY OF _ _ _ _ _ _ The following Appendix outlines the services available and the costs for those services as of January 1st, 1989: 1. A Monthly Retainer Pee for reimbursement of general City of Orono office overhead expenses attributable to providing service to the City of_ _ _ _ _ _, which amount shall be $25.00 per month. 2. An Inspection Charge for time spent by the Orono Building Official or his authorized inspector in the performance of the building inspection services described herein at a charge of $15.00 per inspection. 3. An Hourly Service Charge for time spent by the Orono Building Official, his authorized inspector or another authorized agent of the City of Orono at meetings with officials or employees of the City of , and any time spent in preparation for or appearance in court, pujjilc hearings. Planning Commission or City Council meetings, travel to and from such meetings and for other services not specifically defined in this agreement. (The City of_ _ _ _ _ _must first obtain approval from the Building & Zoning Administrator of Orono and in his or her absence, the City Administrator of the City of Orono, before an authorized agent of the City of Orono can perform an additional service not defined in this agreement.) The amount of the hourly charge shall be $25.00 per hour. The hourly rate may be pro rated on the basis of 15 minutes increments. 4. Plan Review Fees shall be paid to the City of _ _ _ _ directly by each building permit applicant in accordance with the then current City of Orono fee schedule. The City of Or.ono shall charge the City of_ _ _ _ _ _for any time spent in such plan reviews as part of the monthly billing. 5. Future Adjustment in Charges. It is specifically agreed that the City of Orono may annually review and increase or decrease the amounts charged for the monthly retainer fee, hourly service charge and/or inspection charge based upon changes in the cost of providing employees and/or equipment for such services. The amount charged in any given year shall be as established in the current City of Orono Fee Schedule. The City of Orono shall notify the City of_ _ _ _ _ _at least 45 days prior to the effective date of any change in the rates charged. Such changes in dollar amount charged may be made without voiding this agreement, but shall be exerc j «;ed with the amendment of Appendix A of this agreement. The City of Orono s . .bill the City of __ _ on or before the 15th day of each month for the retainer fee. 6. Payment Schedule. plan review, hourly and inspection charges incurred in providing services during the previous month, and the City of __________shall remit payment thereon on or before the 1st day of the next month. COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson JAH -3^33 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdmlnisS?fatbr-!.0 Date: January 5, 1989 Subject: 1988 Marina Licenses The City of Orono has required an annual license for marina operations within the City since the early 1960s. This process was temporarily suspended in 1986 pending an anticipated code revision which would make marinas a conditional use. This code revision has never reached fruition. No license fees were collected for license years 1986 and 1987. In 1988, because the code revision process was bogged down with little apparent chance of completion, license applications and fees were again collected. Due to staff time constraints, processing of those applications, including a zoning and site condition review of each marina never occurred during 1988. It is staff's intent to complete a thorough site review of each marina operation during 1989, however, staff also feels it is appropriate to issue 1988 licenses before sending out license applications for the 1989 licenses. There are seven marina operations historically licensed in Orono including: • Windward Marine Minnetonka Boat Works Smith's Bay Marina (formerly Sailor's World, formerly Paul's Landing) North Shore Drive Marina Maxwell Bay Marina (formerly Chaska Marine, formerly North Star Marina) Gayle's Marina Crystal Bay Service (gas dock operation) A number of marina operations are in the process of renovation at this time. There are also some situations where marina operations have failed to resolve conflicts with City codes and requirements, which has resulted in withholding of past licenses. It is staff's intent at this time to issue 1988 licenses to those marinas which are generally in compliance with City requirements as documented in previous licenses, and to recommend denial of licenses where continuing unresolved problems exist. 39^ COUNCIL MEETING To: From: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson JAH -3*^23 Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdmilTlfsSfFatbr-l.O January 5, 1989 Subject: 1988 Marina Licenses The City of Orono has required an annual license for marina operations within the City since the early 1960s. This process was temporarily suspended in 1986 pending an anticipated code revision which would make marinas a conditional use. This code revision has never reached fruition. No license fees were collected for license years 1986 and 1987. In 1988, because the code revision process was bogged down with little apparent chance of completion, license applications and fees were again collected. Due to staff time constraints, processing of those applications, including a zoning and site condition review of each marina never occurred during 1988. It is staff's intent to complete a thorough site review of each marina operation during 1989, however, staff also feels it is appropriate to issue 1988 licenses before sending out license applications for the 1989 licenses. There are seven marina operations historically licensed in Orono including: Windward Marine Minnetonka Boat Works Smith's Bay Marina (formerly Sailor's World, formerly Paul's Landing) North Shore Drive Marina Maxwell Bay Marina (formerly Chaska Marine, formerly North Star Marina ) Gayle's Marina Crystal Bay Service (gas dock operation) A number of marina operations are in the process of renovation at this time. There are also some situations where marina operations have failed to resolve conflicts with City codes and requirements, which has resulted in withholding of past licenses. It is staff's intent at this time to issue 1988 licenses to those marinas which are generally in compliance with City requirements as documented in previous licenses, and to recommend denial of licenses where continuing unresolved problems exist. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 2 of 7 A brief overview of each marina operation follows: A) Windward Marina Windward Marina is in the midst of a major renovation program, involving replacement of a large corrugated steel storage structure with a much smaller gazebo and added parking area, along County Road 15. The second phase of the renovation will include an expansion of the commercial space on the Tanager Lake side of County Road 15, which was the subject of variances and conditional use permits which received Council approval. There have been no complaints regarding Windward Marina's operation during 1988, and the marina remains in general compliance with standards previously approved by the City Council. Windward Marina has historically been licensed for 40 slips on Tanager Lake, 78 slips on Brown's Bay, and 24 other boats on the property for sales or service for a total of 142 boats. Staff recommends approval of a 1988 license for Windward Marina, per the attached resolution. Windward Marina's 1988 license fee was $436.00. B) Minnetonka Boat Works The Minnetonka Boat Works facility on Brown's Bay and Tanager Lake is primarily a boat slip rental operation, with no-retail space and little if any service work on the premises. Recent activity at the Boat Works included an upgrade of the signage on the property, and widening of the boat lift area. The Minnetonka Boat Works operation has historically been allowed 41 slips on Brown's Bay and 25 slips on Tanager Lake with 4 additional boats on land for a total of 70 boats. There have been no complaints regarding the Minnetonka Boat Works operation. The 1988 license fee paid by Minnetonka Boat Works is $334.00. Staff would recommend approval of the 1988 license for Minnetonka Boat Works. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 3 of 7 C) Smith Bay Nari.na & Yacht Club Inc. This is the second marina in Orono that is undergoing major renovation work approved by the City Council. Except for a garage/office area, the buildings on this property have been removed, a new dock system constructed, a new sea wall constructed, and utilities have been placed in preparation for construction of a new main marina building. The recent Council approval included provisions for landscape areas near the lake, with the main building being located centrally on the property. The property owner has indicated to staff that the main building construction is expected to commence in spring 1989. Staff received no complaints about the Smith Bay Marina operation during 1988. The marina has historically been approved for 63 slips and 20^ off-shore buoys for a total of 83 boats in the water, plus 11 on land. The Paul's Landing fishing boat rental operation no longer exists at the site. Sailor's World paid a license application fee of $362.00 for the 1988 license year. Staff would recommend approval of the 1988 marina license for Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club Inc. : /983 Z-fMCb roec£X> CF 2-0 - ajcuo D) Crystal Bay Service 79 l2o^ rwrj ©fto/oor M-iirondtc Crystal Bay Service is the service station at the corner of Tonkawa Road and North Shore Drive. The operation consists of a gas dock on the Crystal Bay side of the road, and the operation has historically been granted 2 transient slips and 1 company slip on that dock. There have been no complaints regarding the Crystal Bay Service operation. The license fee paid by Crystal Bay Service for 1988 is $206.00. Staff recommends approval of a 1988 commercial marina license for Crystal Bay Service. Marina Operations with Unresolved Issues The remaining 3 marinas, including North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Marina, and Gayle's Marina, were not issued licenses in 1985 due to a number of unresolved issues regarding both lemd use and dock use. At this time staff is recommending that 1988 licenses not be issued for these marinas until the remaining issues are resolved. Note that all three of these marinas have continued their daily operation absent the required license. x 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 4 of 7 A) North Shore Drive Marina North Shore Drive Marina was last issued a marina license for the 1984 season. The 1985 license was denied pending resolution of a dock use issue. Mr. Hork, owner of the marina, persisted in docking his personal boat on the east side of the main dock extension, which is an encroachment into the dock use area setback. The neighboring dock use areas converge due to a concave shoreline configuration, hence use of the east side of the marina docks has a significant effect on dock use areas of neighboring properties. Mr. Hork's claim was that the boat had to be docked at this location because it was his personal boat and his handicapped wife and brother could not use the boat if it was in any other location. The L.M.C.D. considered this setback encroachment as a violation in 1986, note the attached memo of May 20, 1986. In 1987, Hork apparently either purchased or gained some control over the adjacent Millard property to the east and was using it for boat storage, as noted in the L.M.C.D. letter of November 6, 1987. Also in 1987, staff was at issue with the marina regarding construction of a deck for the house at 3250 North Shore Drive (part of the marina property). That permit was finally issued in April 1988. Also, in 1987 or 1988, Hork removed the blue privacy fence along North Shore Drive, which had been a source of complaints from neighboring property owners and passersby for many years. However, in planting land scaping as a replacement to the fence, Hork also placed landscape rock over the entire area between the road and the dry-stack units. Staff has not verified whether the landscape rock is underlaid by plastic or fabric, however, this may constitute an increase in hardcover on a property that is already greatly exceeding the hardcover limitations (as are all seven of our commercial marina operations). As was intended in 1988, staff for 1989 intends to make a complete site inspection of this marina in order to determine what specific land use or dock use area violations persist, and require the appropriate applications for Council review as necessary. This ro-.-ina paid a 1988 license fee of $396.00. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 5 of 7 B) Maxwell Bay Marina Maxwell Bay Marina was formerly known as Chaska Marine and before that North Star Marina. The marina was last issued a license for the 1983 season. In 1984 and 1985, the marina was the subject of a number of complaints from neighboring property owners to the immediate west of the property, regarding commercial use of marina owned properties interspersed between privately owned and residentially used property in this B-2 zone. In June 1984, the Council voted to conceptually approve a 1984 marina license subject to resolution of a fence issue, however as late as 1986 that fence and the employee's use of the private adjacent properties was still an issue. In 1985, the marina was required to file land use applications for the two disconnected marina properties, in order to gain a measure of compliance with code requirements and to finally determine what specific uses would be allowed for those properties. The zoning application that was filed was never completed and a 1985 license was never issued. In a May 29, 1986 letter to the then marina owner James Dunn, staff noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of area and width variances to the two acre standard for commercial use in the B-2 zone, and had made other recommendations regarding the use of those parcels, but requested additional information which also was never adequately submitted. Staff has received no formal complaints regarding the Maxwell Bay Marina operation since it was purchased by Mr. Toberman in 1987. However, a number of issues regarding use of the detached parcels remain unresolved, hence staff is likewise recommending that no 1988 license be issued to Maxwell Bay Marina until staff has the opportunity to discuss the issues with the property owner and attempt to resolve the outstanding problems. This marina paid a 1988 license fee of $354.00. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 6 of 7 C) Gayle's Marina Gayle's Marina was last approved for a commercial dock license for the 1981 season. Licenses for 1982 through 1985 were withheld subject to compliance with a number of conditions which have never been fully met. The issues which remain unresolved are as follows: 1. As part of the rip-rapping project (which commenced after years of discussion in 1988), the marina was required by the City to provide either a 10* landscape buffer, a berm system, or a filtration system in place with that rip-rapping, which the property owner adamantly opposed doing. The DNR was apprised of the City's concerns, however utimately they did issue a rip-rapping permit as well as a dredging permit to Gayle's Marina and to staff's knowledge the required long term water quality protection measures were not installed. 2. There is a long standing question of whether or not the 9 service slips at the shoreline adjacent to the ramp area are allowed. The City has contended that those 9 slips were considered an expansion of the marina use, and the property owner claims that they were always intended to be in place when previous licenses had been granted in the 1970s. 3. Although the property owner has apparently tried to replace plantings over the years, the landscaping and plant materials that were to be in place more than 5 years ago have not thrived very well, and the property still remains relatively unscreened, appearing as a flat, gravel parking lot reaching virtually from the street pavement to the water's edge. As is the case with Maxwell Bay Marina and North Shore Drive Marina, staff intends in 1989 to make a thorough inspection of the Gayle's Marina site and determine what issues remain unresolved, and attempt to resolve them. Staff recommends that no 1988 license be issued to Gayle s Marina until the questions are resolved. This marina paid a 1988 license fee of $486.00. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 7 of 7 Staff ReconBiendation Per the attached proposed resolutions and 1988 license applications, staff recommends approval for commercial marina licenses to Windward Marina, Minnetonka Boat Works, Smith's Bay Marina, and Crystal Bay Service. Staff recommends withholding of 1988 and previous unissued licenses to North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Marina, and Gayle's Marina pending further in-depth review of those sites and operations. 1989 Marina License Applications will be mailed to each of the seven marinas within the next two weeks. Council may wish to consider whether a Marina Committee consisting of a combination of Council and Planning Commission Members should be re-established. RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE TO WINDWARD NARINE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1988 TO DBCEMBl^. 31, 1988 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and^^has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statute 4’2, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, within the City there exist several commercial inarinas, hereinafter "marinas" engaged in business activities including but not limited to the following: 1. The sale of new and/or used boats, boating equipment, boat accessorie . and recreation equipment. 2. The storage, sale, rental, lease, repairing and/or servicing of boats and boat equipment. 3. The sale of gasoline, bait and fishing supplies. 4. The construction and maintenance of docks, bt.it lifts and ^uoys on the public waters for purposes of operating the above activities and for rental or lease of such space to a limited number of the general public for storage of individually owned boats. AND WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that if unregulated, such commercial activity on or near the public within the City may be detrimental to the public welfare and is therefore subject to reasonable regulations by the City, WHEREAS, it is the overriding concern of the ^ity to eliminate the unique problems presented by increasing boat ' traffic density, storm water runoff and noise or other public nuisances i the area of the various marinas; and Page 1 of 4 WHERBASr because of the geographical location of the marinas and their proximity to heavy population^ and the access to marinas by county and city roads, and the general use of the bays of Lake Minnetonka for recreation by way of swimming, boating, fishing and water sports by the citizens of Orono, the City regulates both the on-land activites of marinas and the extensions of docks and mooring areas into Lake Minnetonka in the interest of public order and to protect the life, safety and welfare of the community. The City through its regulations is not licensing boats but is only licensing the marinas to the extent the marina operations affect the general public and the adjacent properties within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulatioj i. the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the Sta■LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and to suppress the clashing of public and private interests and resulting public disorder; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to single family residential owners and the commercial marina owners, to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining that property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or single family residential owners; and WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally. The marinas have no exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that the marina or any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable aeptn of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian ov;ners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the purblic generally includes the recreational benefits t the Lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian marina has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, as the population has increased around Lake Minnetonka, and in the Twin City Area generally, it is clear that more and more people have used the lake for sailing, rowing, fishing, boating, bathing, and other public purposes which cannot be now fully enumerated or even anticipated; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of such a way aj to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights, and WHERFAS, the marina as a commercial riparian owner only has limited riparian rights incident to the ownership of real estate bordering upon Lake Minnetonka, The marina operator has a limited right build and niintain one suitable landing or dock, on and in front of extend the same therefrom into Lake Minnetonka to a point of navigability, but, under no circumstances may he encroach into Lake Minnetonka to a point where he impairs the water's navigability for other public purposes or where he unreasonably interferes with the surface water rights of all riparians and members of the public generally; and WHEREAS, it is fundamental that a riparian owner's rights are measured by the necessities and character of his use. The marinas, for private commercial gain wish to temporarily nd, the use of the surface water in Lake Minnetonxa. Certain sect lake, once a source of excellent fishing, have been in the future will continue to be converted, into a all to the detriment of c.her riparian owners and the ^jj® present operations and contemplated operations far exceed a reasonable use of their limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the most genera) public use of the water P®^®“°V"? and should take priority over excessive riparian use for commerci purposes of the lake by the marinas; and WHEREAS, the marinas have separated and disassociated from the normal riparian rights in many sections of the public waters on Lake Minnetonka*^ by having extended their docks out into ^®’'f “4""to°StLrl^who the point of navigability and have transferred those r^^hts to others who do not have riparian rights and who are not meters \*'® 5®"®ff^ who obtain access and use of Lake Minnetonka by use of <'*'®®“°!®“ points along Lake Minnetonka. Such coamercial transfers of the riparian rights of Lake Minnetonka have resulted in an abuse f®®®°"®gi®,fi|| access to L'k,! Minnetonka. Such abuses must, be qualified, restricted and subordinated to the paramount rights of the public to the public wate Lake Minnetonka; and Page 3 of 4 WHBRBAS, as a condition to the issuance of the 1975 commercial met ina licenses, each commercial marina operator agreed with the City in writing to an Operations Agreement outlining a three-year phased improvement program established to replace natural vegetation previously removed, to provide for adequate stormwater runoff controls, to provide for open space and vegetation buffers between the marina properties and adjoining residential properties, to provide for adequate parking and traffic control and to provide for reasonable performance standards relating to the non-conforming placement and use of docks and mooring spaces upon the public waters; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the 1975 Operations Agreement are reasonable exercises of the normal police powers of the City of Orono intended to correct the previous abuses and overuses of public waters and the congested commercial marina sites, to correct for the public harm caused by such abuses and to prevent future abuse of the land or the public waters; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of Section 5,42 of the Oorno Municipal Code regulating commercial marina operations. Section 10.41 of the Orono Zoning Code regulating the use of lakeshore business district property and the 1975 Operations Agreement are in full conformity with the applicable regulations and intents and purpose of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District*s regulations for commercial marinas and the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources' regulations for protection of public waters; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and.concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Commercial Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Commercial Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 9th day of January, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 4 of 4 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE Windward Marine Address 1444 Shoreline Drive License Period - January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 II. BOAT DEwSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Summer Density per attached plan: Bay Tanaaer Transient Slips 0 Rental Slips Company Slips o Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Q Maximum Boats in Water 40 Browns 118 SSSSSSS 118 Ury stacked slip for use in lake Maximum Boats in water per prior license Other Boats (for sale/service, etc^) 24 142MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY ON LAND AND/OR IN WATER =*==«= Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Authorized Number of Winter Stored Boats 41 Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 III. IV. V. VI. DOCK LAYOUT (reference Exhibits B and C attached) Maximum authorized length of main dock 200 feet. Docks extending beyond 200 feet and docks encroaching into required side yard setbacks are hereby specifically declared to be illegal non- conforming structures which are not permitted under this license. The application does not contain such illegal structures. All such violations are subject to prosecution under Sections 5.42 and 10.41 of the Orono Municipal Code. Marina is not authorized for FUEL SALES subject to compliance with the State Fire Code. Required number of OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES No. 2442. per Resolution SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinances of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. Dock length variance (LMCD Ordinance 3.02 Subdivision (2) (a) - Brown Bay Docks. Rec[uired * 100' Existing - 200' Variance - 100' 2. Side setback variance for dock structure on north property line on Browns Bay (LMCD Ordinance 3.02 Subdivision (2) (b) - Refer to Exhibit B.50' - 100' required = 30' existing - 20' variance = 10' 100' - 200' required * 40', existing variance 3. Side setback variance for dock structure on south property line on Tanager Lake (LMCD Ordinance 3.02 Subdivision (2) (b) - Refer to Exhibit C. . 0 - 50' - required 20', existing * 0*, variance 20 50' - 100' - required 20', existing = 2* variance 18' 100' - 200' - required 20', existing = .8', variance 19.2' 4. Side setback variance for dock structure on north property line on Tanager Lake (LMCD Ordinance 3.02 Subdivision (2) (b) - Refer to Exhibit C. .0 - 50' required « 60', existing * O', variance = 60' 50' - 100' required = 60', existing * O' with 4' overhang, variance =60' , 100' - 200' required = 60', existing = .3', variance - 59.7 Exhibit A Resolution No, _ _ _ _ _ _ Page 3 5. Per Exhibit D attached, off-street parking variance to Orono Zoning Code Section 10.41 Subdivision 5 per Resolution No. 2442: Required « 77 spaces Proposed ■ 73 spaces Variance * 4 spaces - 47 stalls to be provided on Tanager Lake side - 26 stalls to be provided on Brown's Bay side 6. Variances to landscape requirements, structure setbacks, hardcover, and accessory structure separated from principal structure by a road way, per variance approval Resolution No. 2442. VII. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public Interest. SLIP iAWl/T- -/Seiatu-T'iP'^ Bmiejr c. AJo, - i „L-^^:-^i —4^----------■ lJ___ 1 ^mi :> -'?-vl m (IQ^i CITYof Ollil^NIIDlsseB itOrnce Bux G6 • Crystal Bay, Telephone 473-7357 sola 5532.*! * LICENSE YEAR Date application aent to Marina _______________ Date aoplication returned to City f ~ - a a Fee Received $ ‘*y 'C^C) By ~7 ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 Sec. 5.42 Subd. 2 License Required It is unlawful for any person to engage or participate in the "business of docking, mooring, or storing boats or (operating) a commercial boat dock business" without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. Vjy GF Ufsuu F w. . BUSINESS INFORMATION 2. 1. BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME M^ Street Address _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mailing Address _ _ _ _^ V/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Marina Phone Office Phone PROPERTY INFORMATION Date Property Acquired _ Marina Controls Property by:fee ownership other (explain) List every occupant, other than this Marina, opcupying this property: /»V.3 /a,y PAGE 1 OF 5 E/hiait- D ^-i/tTTOAJ AJo, iAVOUT p^<a«ii>L.4r^VV2. • ; 3. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West)_ _ _ _ (NaTOe + Address) (South/East)_ _ _/U (Name + Address) Other Property Owners that may be affected by Marina's operation; (Name + Address) (Attach sheet if necessary) BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership ____ partnership corporation List the name of each partr^r or corporate officer and their title: /7h^ /&, List name(s) of the marina manager(s) responsible for daily operation: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ List the minimum number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during the boating season; _ _ dock attendants _ _ repair or service personnel / others available for sales/public information, etc. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (check services oTffered) : ^''^^lip rental (moorage) _ _ repair parts and service _ _ buoy rental (moorage) _ _ fuel sales _ _ bait and tackle sales •'trailer sales dry storage (moorage) boat launching (day-use ramp) 6. BUSINESS SCHEDULE (check appropriate items); ^ open all year _ _ open during boating season only List proposed hours of operation: dock access _ _ _ AM to _ retail sales - & service _ _^AM to PM Page 2 of 5 . 7. MARINA bECURITY is provided by: - - - - - - -—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ DOCK INFORMATION NOTE: 10. 11 The LMCD defined DOCK USE AREA must be shown on the dock plan submitted with this application. Maximum dock length equals 200 ft. from 929.4 shoreline. Minimum side setbacks from property line extension are: . ^ ^ r0-50 ft. ^'•nm shore = 10 ft. minimum setback 50-100 ^ .-rrn shore = 15 ft. minimum setback 100-200 fu, shore = 20 ft. minimum setback 8. SHORELINE WIDTH;feet. 9. WATER DEPTH: at shore ft.; at 50 ft. out ft. at 100 ft. out ft.; at 200 ft. out ft. ACTUAL MAXIMUM DOCK LENGTH from shoreline:ft. DOCK CONSTRUCTION (permanent, seasonal, etc.) _ _ _ permanent piling with seasonal decking ^ permanent piling and decking _ _ _ wooden piling _ _ _ metal or concrete piling wooden decking _ _ _ metal decking canopies are installed by: _ _ marina _ _ customer not allowed SLIPS AND BOAT UNITS List the maximum number of boats in each category-. Each slip, slide, lift, mooring or other space actually used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock plan submitted with this application. company Service Rental Boats Rental Slip/Space Total Bf. 12 . Boats Stored in the Water a) At dock slips b) At docks, other than slips c) At slides d) At Ixfts e) At moorings f) Other boats in warer Total Boats in Water ilL irt Page 3 of 5 company Service Boats13. Boats Dry-Stacked for Lake Use a) Inside Buildings __ b) Outside on Racks __ c) Outside - other means __ Total Boats Dry-Stacked __ 14. Total Watercraft Availability Units (Add 12 & 13) 15. Other Boati on Premises a) Transient Boats (repair/service) b) New boats for sale (inventory) c) Used boats for sale (inventory) Total 16. Winter Storage on Premises a) Transient boats (repair/service) b) Contract storage (customer' s boats) c) Inventory (new & used boats) Total OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 17 Summer Parking Rental Boats Rental Sllp/Space Total Boats /JJL Inside Building Outside Storage Inside Building Outside Storage 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800s.f. over 1,000 s.f.) =X cars b)Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 Availability Units (.6 X _(line 14)) =7^. / cars c)Launching ramp customers 10 spaces minimum per ramp =cars Total Space Winter Parking m Minimum 2 spaces, or retail spaces per line 16a above =cars LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Ordinances require establishment and maintenance of minimum green areas and natural screening along all Marina property lines: 10 ft. front yard, 10 ft. side yard and a lakeshore yard of 10% of the lot depth, not less than 10 ft. and not more than 75 ft. 19. Describe in detail the lags (trees, shrubs, grass, vines, flowers, etc.) and other improvemev roposed to be installed this coming license year: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pace 4 of 5 ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY (per LMCD requirements) indicating boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. 2. A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN for all setback areas showing existing and proposed location and sizes of all trees, shrubbery, grass areas and other foliage or landscaping features. 3. A copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. 4. A COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APi'LICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 Renewal Application @ $200.00 Each Boat Unit (Line 12 ) @ $2.00 each Each Boat Unit (Line 13 ) @ $1.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION 5. LATE FEES - Renewals - Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February 1st of the new license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after February 1st unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $150.00. ‘ REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, this information will be referred to the Marina Committee for review. The City Council will review the Marina Committee recommendation and will thereafter pass upon the application. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY N APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby recuests the Orono City Council tc review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's designated employees or ents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonable time to perfoi.it safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Date /-/S'- Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A COMMKRCIAIj DOCK LICENSE TO MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OP JAHDAR/ 1, 1988 TO DECEMBER 31, 1988 HHEREAS the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal members of the public within the City; and HnsREAS within the City there exist several commercial marinas, hereinaft” "m“ inas- ^ in^usiness activities including but not limited to the following: 1. The sale of new and/or used boats, boating equipment, beat accessories and recreation equipment. 2. The storage, sale, rental, lease, repairing servicing of boats and boat equipment. 3. The sale of gasoline, bait and l^ishing supplies. 4. The construction and maintenance of business of the general public for storage cf individual!'' ■ wned boats. asm HinntFas the City Council has determined that if unregulated, th- c.xtiS of the varioi".? . irias? and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, because of the geographical location of the marinas and their proximity to heavy population, and the access to marinas by county and city roads, and the general use of the bays of Lake Minnetonka for recreatio-> by way of swimming, boating, fishing and water sports by the citizens of Orono, the City regv.lates both the on-land activites of marinas and the extensions of docks and mooring areas into Lake Minnetonka in the interest of public order and to protect the life, safety and welfare of the community. The City through its regula ions is not licensing boats but is only licensing the marinas to the extent the marina operations affect the general public '4,nd the adjacent properties within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exerci^o of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and to suppress the clashing of public and private interests and resulting public disorder; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Oron, regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to single family residential owners and the commercial marina owners, to the extent prohibiting any int‘ ference with the public* waters adjoining that property. The < and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the pub att^vS b\ protecting against interference by anyone, including thoc . assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whethfsr or not they be lercial marinas or single family residential owners; anc WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoymeut exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally. The marinas have no exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that the marina or any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Mi«> ''tonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian ow^ s. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the rig* to each riparian owner. This mutual right of enjo^'^ent which is shared by riparian owners :?nd the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the Lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian marina has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS* as the populaticn has increased around Lake Minnetonka, and in the Twin City Area generally, it is cfear nT’^^akatina*have used the lake for sailing, rowing, fishing, boating, bathing, skating, and other public purposes which cannot be now fully enumerated or even anticipated; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of ®/frarifS^rilhtt”such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights, and NHBRBAS, the marina as a commercial riparian owner limited riparian rights incident to the buil^indupon Lake Minnetonka. The marina operator has a limited right to build and maintain one suitable landing or dock, on and in front of hi^s land, and to extend the same therefrom into Lake Minnetonka to a point of but, under no circumstances may he encroach into Lake Minnetonka to » where he impairs the water's navigability for other of all where he unreasonably interferes with the surface water rights of all riparians and members of the public generally; and WHEREAS, it is fundamental that a riparian measured by the necessities and character of his use. The marinas, fo private commercial gain wish to temporarily and, in ^^ct, permanently alter the use of the surface water in Lake Minnetonka. . f lake, once a source of excellent fishing, have been converted in the future will continue to be converted, mto a all to the detriment of other riparian owners and the ^® present operations and contemplated operations far exceed a reasona of their limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the most general public use of the and should take priority over excessive riparian use for commerci purposes of the lake by the marinas; and WHEREAS, the marinas have separated and disassociatec normal riparian rights in many sections of the public waters on Lake Minnetonka by havinf extended their docks out ^"^0 Lake Minnetonk^^ the point of navigability and have transferreddo not have riparian rights and »ho are not meters of the general public who obtain access and use of Lake Minnetonka by use of the public access points along Lake Minnetonka. Such commercial transfers of the ^ rights of Lake Minnetonka have resulted in an abuse of reasonable ripa access to Lake Minnetonka. Such abuses must be qualified, subordinated to the paramount rights of the public to the public wate Lake Minnetonka; and Page 3 of 4 WHBRBASr as a condition to the issuance of the 1975 commercial marina licenses, each commercial marina operator agreed with the City xn writing to an Operations Agreement outlining a three-year phased improvement program established to replace natural vegetation previously removed, to provide for adequate stormwater runoff controls, to provide for open space and vegetation buffers between the marina properties and adjoining residential properties, to provide for adequate parking and traffic control and to provide for reasonable performance standards relating to the non-conforming placement and use of docks and mooring spaces upon the public waters; and WHBRBASf all of the requirements of the 1975 Operations Agreement are reasonable exercises of the normal police powers of the City of Orono intended to correct the previous abuses and overuses of public waters and the congested commercial marina sites, to correct for the public harm caused by such abuses and to prevent future abuse of the land or the public waters; and WHBRBAS, all of the requirements of Section J.42 of the ^orno Municipal Code regulating commercial marina operations. Section 10.41 o the Orono Zoning Code regulating the use of lakeshore business district property and the 1975 Operations Agreement are in full conformity with the applicable regulations and intents and purpose of the Conservation District's regulations for commercial marinas and the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources' regulations for protection of public waters; and WHBRBAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special as they relate to an application for an annual Commercial Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. NOW. THBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Commercial Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Or^r.o at their meeting on the 9th day of January, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 4 of 4 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RBSOLDTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE Minnetonka Boat Works. Inc.^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address 1449 Shoreline Drive License Period - January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Summer Density per attached plan: Bay Browns Tanaqer Transient Slips 1 0 Rental Slips 40 25 Company Slips 0 0 Sub-Total: Slips at Dock 41 25 Offshore Buoys 0 0 Maximum Boats in Water 41 • 25 Dry stacked slip for use in lake 0 Maximum Boats in water per prior license 66 Other Boats (for sale/service, etc.)4 MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY ON LAND AND/OR IN WATER =*===* Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Authorized Number of Winter Stored Boats 55 Exhibit A Resolution No._ _ _ _ Page 2 III. DOCK LAYOUT (reference E hibit B attached) Maximum authorized length of main dock 135 feet. Docks extending beyond 200 feet and docks encroaching into required side yard setbacks are hereby specifically declared to be illegal non- conforming structures which are not permitted under this license. The application does not contain such illegal structures. All such violations are subject to prosecution under Sections 5.42 and 10.41 of the Orono Municipal Code. IV. Marina is not authorized for FUEL SALES subject to compliance with the State Fire Code. V. Required number of OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES 40 . VI.SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinances of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. "None" VII. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. o o J F5^Aj4/N<k Lp^o<^ 5 1^2. s.<“Ace4 c. je,f20C«ATlOAi ,^. f. :-zSatiBmm CITY of OROIVO I’oKl Office iiux U6* Crystal Bay, Minnesota S532.‘I Telephone 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR Date application sent to Marina _ Data application returned to City Fee Received $ 3^^ By -2-S~-ge> ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 Sec. 5.42 Subd. 2 License Required It is unlawful for any person to engage or participate in the "business of docking, moorirj, or storing boats or (operating) a commercial boat dock business" without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. . j PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. BUSINESS INFORMATION 1. 2. BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME MINNETONKA BOAT IMORKS Street Address 294 EAST GROVE LANE -r t t wl t i i<r'L t. !" “ LLil Mailing Address P.O. BOX 549 Marina Phone 473-7305 .. vV PROPERTY INFORMATION Date Property Acquired _ _ _ Marina Controls Property by: Office Phone 473-730^^;^ ::)ri C-1/35/S 1955 fee ov» ship lease from other (explain) List every ojcupant, other than this Marina, occupying this property: ED UDOVICH - CARETAKER PAGE 1 OF 5 3. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West) WINDWARD MARINE, C.R. 15, WAYZATA, MN 55391 (Name + Address) (South/East)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (Name + Address) Other Property Owners that may be affected by Marina's operation: (Name + Address) (Attach sheet if necessary) BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership _ _ _ partnership _ corporation List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title BYRON HE I MARK - PRESIDENT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ List name(s) of the marina manager(s) responsible for daily operation: BYRON HFIMARK - PRFSIDFMT- - - -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - DENNIS KFATINO - OPFRATION^ MANAnFP List the minimum number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during the boating season: T dock attendants _repair or service personnel others available for sales/public information, etc. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (check services offered): _X slip rental (moorage) _ repair parts and service _ _ _ buoy rental (moorage) _ fuel sales _ _ _ dry storage (moorage) _ _ _ _ boat launching (day-use ramp) _ bait and tackle sales trailer sales BUSINESS SCHEDULE (check appropriate items): open all year X_ open during boating season only dock access AM to PM retail sales & service AM to PM Page 2 of 5 7. MARINA t.ECURITY is provided by; PINKERTON SECURITY DOCK INFORMATION NOTE: The LMCD defined DOCK USE AREA must be shown on the dock plan submitted with this application. Maximum dock length equals 200 ft. from 929.4 shoreline. Minimum side setbacks from property line extension are; from shore = 10 ft. minimum setback 50-100 ft. from shore = 15 ft. minimum setback 100-200 ft. from shore = 20 ft. minimum setback 8. SHORELINE WIDTH:600 feet. 3. WATER DEPTH; at shore 10. 11 ft.; at 50 ft. out ft. at 100 ft. out _ _ _ ft.; at 200 ft. out ACTUAL MAXIMUM DOCK ^ENGTH from shoreline; 100 ft. ft. DOCK CONSTRUCTION (permanent, seasonal, etc.) FLOAT 1NG _ _ _ permanent piling with seasonal decking _ _ _ permanent piling and decking _ _ _ wooden piling _ _ _ metal or concrete piling X wooden decking _ _ _ metal decking canopies are installed by; _ _ marina _customer X not allowed SLIPS AND BOAT UNITS List the maximum number of boats in each category. Each slip, slide, lift, mooring or other space actually used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock plan submitted with this application. 12 . Boats Stored in the Water a) At dock slips b) At docks, other than slips c) At slides d) At lifts e) At moorings f) Other boats in water Total Boats in Water company Service Rental Boats Rental Slip/Space Total Boats Boats Page 3 of 5 13. Boats Dry-Stacked for Lake Use co»p.ny^service a) Inside Buildings ____ b) Outside on Racks ____ c) Outside - other means ____ Total Boats Dry-Stacked ____ 14. Total Watercraft Availability Units (Add 12 & 13) 15. Other Boats on Premises a) Transient Boats (repair/service) b) New boats for sale (inventory) c) Used boats for sale (inventory) Total 16. Winter Storage on Premises a) Transient boats (repair/service) b) Contract storage (customer ' s boats) c) Inventory (new & used boats) Total Rental Boata Rental Slip/Space Total Boat* Inside Building Outside Storage 2 Inside Building Outside Stora^f 10 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 17. Summer Parking a) Retail sa],es/service customers 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800s.f. over 1,000 s.f.) b) Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 Availability Units (.6 X __(line 14)) = c) Launching ramp customers 10 spaces minimum per ramp = Total Spaces 18. Winter Parking Minimum 2 spaces, or retail spaces per line 16a above = cars cars cars cars LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Ordinances require establishment and maintenance of minimum green areas and natural screening along all -ina property lines: 10 ft. front yard, 10 ft. side yard and a lakeshore *d of 10% of the lot depth, not less than 10 ft. and not more than 75 ft. 19. Describe in detail plantings (trees, shrubs, grass, vines, flov/ers, etc.) and other improve. s proposed to be installed this coming license year: on nniNH TRFF TRIMining and MAINTANENCE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. 2. 3. 4. A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY (per LMCD requirements) indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the locatic of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN for all setback area*? showing existing and proposed location and sizes of all trees, shrub: 2ry, grass areas and other foliage or landscaping features. A copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. A COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 Renewal Application 0 $200.00 Each Boat Unit (Line 12 ) 0 $2.00 each Each Boat Unit (Line 13 ) 0 $1.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION 200.00 134.00 334.00 5. LATE FEES - Renewals - Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February :st of the new license Year. The Ci^ shall not accept renewal license applications recei ^ed aft^ 1 unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $150.00. • REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, this information will be referred to the Marina Committee for rev.«w. The City Council will revit ^he Marina Committee recommendation and will thereafter pass upon ne application. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.41 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby reouests the Orono City Council to review this Marina Li=e"se application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City s designated employees or agents to enter upon the marina pr&.-.erty at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Date Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE TO SMITH BAY MARINA ___ SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1988 TO DECEMBER 31 r 1988 WHEREAS, the City of Crono, hereinafter - inicipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State o nnesota and has the authority and responsibility catutes. State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. jotect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, within the City there exist several oommer .ial iMrinas, hereinafter "marinas" engaged in business activities including but not limited to the following: 1. The sale of new and/or used boats, boating equip-nent, boat accessories and recreation equipment. 2. The storage, sale, rental, lease, repairing and/or servicing of boats and boat equipment. 3. "?he sale of gasoline, bait and fishing surplies. 4. The construction and maintenance of dochw , boat lifts and buoys on the public waters for purposes of operating the a.ove noted buxine activities and for rental or lease of such space to a limited number of the general public for storage of individually owned boats. ADD WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that if “"'’'l^ulated, such commercial activity on or near the public ^ within the City may be detrimental to the public health, s®^®t>^nd general welfare and is^ therefore subject to reasonable regulations by the City, ^nd fiiTKRBAS it is the erriding concern of t'^e City to eliminate the unique “r“l'em\" presented by increasing traffic density, storm water runoff and noise or other public misanv-es in the area of the various marinas; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, because of the geographical location of the marinas and their proximity to heavy population, and the access to marinas by county and city roads, and the general use of the bays of Lake Minnetonka for recreation by way of swimming, boating, fishing and water sports by the citizens of Orono, the City regulates both the on-land actiyites of marinas and the extensions of docks and mooring areas into Lake Minnetonka in the interest of public order and to protect the life, safety and welfare of the community. The City through its regulations is not licensing boats but is only licensing the marinas to the extent the marina operations affect the general public and the adjacent properties within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and to suppress the clashing of public and private interests and resulting public disorder; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to single family residential owners and the commercial maxina owners, to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining that property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or single family residential owners; and WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally. The marinas have no exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that the marina or any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the Lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian marina has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, as the population has increased around Lake Minnetonka, and in the Twin City Area generally, it is clear that more and more people have used the lake for sailing, rowing, fishing, boating, bathing, skating, and other public purposes which cannot be now fully enumerated or even anticipated; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the Lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the marina as a commercial riparian owner only has limited riparian rights incident to the ownership of real estate bordering upon Lake Minnetonka. The marina operator has a limited right to build and maintain one suitable landing or dock, on and in front of his land, and to extend the same therefrom into Lake Minnetonka to a point of navigability; but, under no circumstances may he encroach into Lake Minnetonka to a point where he impairs the water's navigability fcr other public purposes or where he unreasonably interferes with the surface water rights of all riparians and members of the public generally; and WHEREAS, it is fundamental that a riparian owner's rights are measured by the necessities and character of his use. The marinas, for private commercial gain wish to temporarily and, in fact, permanently alter the use of the surface water in Lake Minnetonka.- Certain sections of the lake, once a source of excellent fishing, have been converted and, in fact, in the future will continue to be converted, into a commercial enterprise all to the detriment of other riparian owners and the public. The marinas present operations and contemplated operations far exceed a reasonable use of their limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the most general public use of the water is paramount and should take priority over excessive riparian use for commercial purposes of the lake by the marinas; and WHEREAS, the marinas have separated and disassociated from the normal riparian rights in many sections of the public waters on Lake Minnetonka by having extended their docks out into Lake Minnetonka beyond the point of navigability and have transferred those rights to others who do not have riparian rights and who are not members of the g-^neral public who obtain access and use of Lake Minnetonka by use of the public access points along Lake Minnetonka. Such commercial transfers of the riparian rights of Lake Minnetonka have resulted in an abuse of reasonable riparian access to Lake Minnetonka. Such abuses must be qualified, restricted and subordinated to the parcunount rights of the public to the public waters of Lake Minnetonka; and Page 3 of 4 WHBRBAS, as a condition to the issuance of the 1975 commercial marina licenses, each commercial marina operator agreed with the City in writing to an Operations Agreement outlining a three-year phased improvement progreun established to replace natural vegetation previously removed, to provide for adequate storm water runoff controls, to provide for open space and vegetation buffers between the marina properties and adjoining residential properties, to provide for adequate parking and traffic control and to provide for reasonable performance standards relating to the non-conforming placement and use of docks and mooring spaces upon the public waters; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the 1975 Operations Agreement are reasonable exercises of the normal police powers of the City of Orono intended to correct the previous abuses and overuses of public waters and the congested commercial marina sites, to correct for the public harm caused by such abuses and to prevent future abuse of the land or the public waters; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of Section 5.42 of the Oorno Municipal Code regulating commercial marina operations. Section 10.41 of the Orono Zoning Code regulating the use of lakeshore business district property and the 1975 Operations Agreement are in full conformity with the applicable regulations and intents and purpose of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s regulations for commercial marinas and the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources* regulations for protection of public waters; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Commercial Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Commercial Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 9th day of January, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerx Page 4 of 4 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE Smith Bay Marina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address 1955 Shoreline Drive License Period - January 1, 1988 to December 31r 1988 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Summer Density per attached plan; Bay _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Transient Slips _ _ _ Rental Slips _ _ _ Company Slips _ _ _ Sub-Total: Slips at Dock _ _ _ Offshore Buoys _ _ _ Maximum Boats in Water _ _ _ Smith * s Dry stacked slip for use in lake Q Maximum Boats in water per prior license Other Boats (for sale/service, etc.) 0 79MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY ON LAND AND/OR IN WATER ====== Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Authorized Number of Winter Stored Boats 61 (per prior license, but limited to requirements of Section 5.42, Subd 4) Exhibit A Resolution No._ _ _ _ Page 2 III. DOCK LAYOUT (reference Exhibit B attached) IV. 200 feet.Maximum authorized length of main dock Docks extending beyond 200 feet and docks encroaching into required side yard setbacks are hereby specifically declared to be illegal non- conforming structures which are not permitted under this license. The application does not contain such illegal structures. All such violations are subject to prosecution under Sections 5.42 and 10.41 of the Orono Municipal Code. Marina is authorized for FUEL SALES subject to compliance with the State Fire Code. V. Required number of OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES 48 (see below) VI. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinances of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. A) Council grants a parking variance of 6 stalls, allowing operation with only 42 stalls per the findings and conditions of Resolution No. 2194. B) All parking spaces identified on Exl'bit B shall remain open during all hours of operation. The licensee shall be responsible for keeping patrons from parking on the public right-of-way of Shoreline Drive. C) Council will continue to approve for the 1988 license year the temporary use of a portable toilet facility to serve all needs for the marina during the summer months until the marina building is constructed. D) The City Council will continue to allow operation under the Orders and Conditions of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dated April 27, 1988, attached hereto as Exhibit D. E) Subject to variances conditionally approved for parking setbacks, structural setbacks, and hardcover in Resolution No. 2194 of the City Council. VII. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. ^esauA.'r:*'^ AJo $t^ps fi^fittJ>\ie^ potz^l^&Q> £ !v DisneioT" AriS^A . ^8Hoys'> ^/>W//VATB^ p^oi/rr if 2. -■>-^--..t'f\ ^t^T70/0 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RE: APPLICATION OF SMITH*S BAY MARINA FINDINGS The matter of the application for variances for Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club was the subject of a public hearing on December 10, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. at the Tonka Bay Village Hall. . John Vogt appeared on behalf of the Applicant, which at that time was Sailor's World. Applicant owns and operates a commercial marina at Its property In LMCD area 26 on Smith's Bay. The Applicant was seeking approval of a setback variance on the east side of the property to provide 12 slips and a lot-line adjustment and setback variance on the west side to provide 8 slips, all to replace 20 mooring spaces. Mr. Vogt presented letters of agreement from the abutting owners, the City of Orono on the west and Alan Nettles on the east. The grounds stated for the request are converging lot lines and discontinuance of a district mooring area. The Board finds that it Is In the best interest of the public and of the protection and preservation of the Lake that the ,20 space district mooring area of Sailor's World be discontinued. The discontinuance of the district mooring area will Impose some hardship on the Applicant as Is more fully described In the attached memorandum which Is made a part of this Order. The n Board further finds that the converging lot lines of the applicant's authorized dock use area constitutes a hardship within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 3.04. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED: That variances, some of which are temporary, for construction In the setback area and beyond 100 feet from the shoreline of a dock as shown on the 4. attached Exhibit A, which la hereby made a part hereof, are granted subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1. The 20 district mooring area Is to be discontinued prior to the 1988 boating season. 2. A setback variance Is granted on the north side of the dock use area for construction of ten slips, all of which fall In whole or In part within the 100-foot contour. This variance applies to slip numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5# 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on Exhibit A. The dock construction shall not extend beyond the north extended lot line of Applicant’s property. 3. A setback variance on the south of the dock use area Is granted for construction of four slips (numbered 66 through 69 on Exhibit A) each of which falls all or partly within the 100-foot contour. Said slips within the setback area on the south side of the Applicant’s property are to be seasonally removed from the Lake and shall not extend beyond the south extended lot line of Applicant’s property. A temporary setback variance Is granted within the 100- to 200-foot contour on the north side of the Applicant's dock use area for six slips (numbers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 on Exhibit A). All of these slips are to be removed after the 1997 boating season. 5. A temporary setback variance Is granted within the 100- to 200-foot contour on the south side of the Applicant’s dock use area for four slips (numbered 51, 52, 53 and 54 on Exhibit A), all of which are to be removed after the 1997 boating season. 6. A total of 79 slips are authorized at the Applicant’s facility for 1988. 7. Applicant shall provide the District with an as-bullt survey within 90 days of completion of reconstruction of the docks. The variances Issued hereby shall grant no vested rights to the use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to ensure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the Lake. By Order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District this 27th day of April_ _ _ _ _» 1988. Mlxa,'Executlvy^ Director w iV<« CITY of ORONO I’nMl Office Uox 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 5532.') Telephone 473-7357 - LICENSE YEAR Date application a*nt to Marina _ Date application returned to City Fee Received $________________ By ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 U Ul Sec. 5.42 Subd. 2 Licens<^ Required It is unlawful for anv person tfo engage or participate in the "business of docking, mooring, or storing boats or (operating) a commercial boat dock business" without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. CITY OF DROl^lO FI^YiRCE OFFICE vJOii.» vv bus";ness information 1. 2. SMITH BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC. 13H30QOOO 01 CEIi CHE':K TL 362.00 RECEIPT-mm YOU ::05zOBO cool ROi TIU 02/01/BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME Street Address 1955 SHORELINE DR. WAYZATA. MN 55391______________________ Mailing Address 1460 INTERCHANGE TOWER 600 S. CTY RD. 18 MPLS. MN 55426 Marina Phone 473-7525 Office Phone CORP # 542-1189__ PROPERTY INFORMATION Date Property Acquired _ _ _ Marina Controls Property by DEC 1986 fee ownership lease from other (explain) List every occupant, other than this Marina, occupying this property: PAGE 1 OF 5 3. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West) PUBLIC LAUNCH (South/East) (Name + Address) UNKNOWN (Name + Address) Other Property Owners that may be affected by Marina's operation: (Name + Address) (Attach sheet if necessary) BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership _ _ partnership _^corporation List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title: GERALD F. TOBKBMAN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ List name(s) of the marina manager(s) responsible for daily operation List the minimum number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during the boating season: 1-2 dock attendants _ _ repair or service personnel 1-2 others available for sales/public information, etc. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (check services offered): X slip rental (moorage) _ _ _ buoy rental (moorage) _> _ _ dry storage (moorage) _ _ _ boat launching (day-use ramp) _ repair parts and service fuel sales bait and tackle sales trailer sales BUSINESS SCHEDULE (check appropriate items): open all year x open during boating season only List proposed hours of operation:dock access AM to PM retail sales & service AM to PM Page 2 of 5 l/ MARINA SECURITY is provided by: PRIVATE PARTY ____________ DOCK IJFORMATION NOTE; The LMCD defined DOCK USE AREA must be shown on the dock plan submitted with this application. Maximum dock length equals 200 ft. from 929.4 shoreline. Minimum side setbacks from property line extension are: o-50 ft. from shore = 10 ft. minimum setback 50-100 ft. from shore = 15 ft. minimum setback 100-200 ft. from shore = 20 ft. minimum setback 8. SHORELINE WIDTH: 10. 11 260 feet. 9. WATER DEPTH; at shore 3-5 at 100 ft. out ft.; at 50 ft. out 10 12 ft.; at 200 ft. out ft. 15 ft. ACTUAL MAXIMUM DOCK LENGTH from shoreline:200 ft. DOCK CONSTRUCTION (permanent, seasonal, etc.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ permanent piling with seasonal decking X permanent piling and decking X wooden piling _ _ _ _ metal or concrete piling X wooden decking _ _ _ _ metal decki:>g canopies are installed by: _ _ marina _ _ customer x not allowed SLIPS AND BOAT UNITS List the maximum number of boats in each category.. Each slip, slide, lift, mooring or other space actually used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock plan submitted with this application. company Service Boets Rental Boats Rental Slip/Space Total Boats 12 . Boats Stored in the Water a) At dock slips b) At docks, other than slips c) At slides d) At lifts e) At moorings f) Other boats in water Total Boats in Water Page 3 of 5 Boats Dry-Stacked for Lake Use a) Inside Buildings b) Outside on Racks c) Outside - other means company Service Boats Rental Boats Rental Slip/Space Total Boats Total Boats Dry-Stacked 14. Total Watercraft Availability Units (Add 12 & 13) 15. Other Boats on Premises a) Transient Boats (repair/service) b) New boats for sale (inventory) c) Used boats for sale (inventory) Total 16. Winter Storage on Premises a) Transient boats (repair/service) b) Contract storage (customer ' s bo4.ts) c) Inventory (new & used boats) Total Inside Building Outside Storage Inside Building Outside Storage N/A OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 17. Summer Parking a) Reta:;! sales/service customers b) Boating customers c) Launching ramp customers 10 spaces minimum per ramp 1,000 f.) =cars (line 14)) =42cars cars Total Spaces 18. Winter Parking Minimum 2 spaces, or retail spaces per line 16a above cars LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Ordinances require establishment and maintenance of minimum green areas and natural screening along all Marina property lines; 10 ft. front yard, 10 ft. siu ' yard and a lakeshore yard of 10% of the lot depth, not less than 10 ft. and not more than 75 ft. 19. Describe in detail the plantings (trees, shrubs, grass, vines, flowers, etc.) and other improvements proposed to be installed this coming license year;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pnar> 4_nF_ ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY (per LMCD requirements) indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. 2. A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN for all setback areas showing existing and proposed location and sizes of all trees, shrubbery, grass areas and other foliage or landscaping features. 3. A copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. 4. A COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 Renewal Application @ $200.00 Each Boat Unit (Line 12 ) 9 $2.00 each Each Boat Unit (Line 13 ) @ $1.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $200.00 $162.00 $362.00 5. LATE FEES - Renewals - Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February 1st of the new lice se year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after February 1st unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $150.00. ^ REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, this information will be referred to the Marina Committee for review. The City Council will review the Marina Committee recommendation and will thereafter pass upon the application. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City’s designated employees or agents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. S jqned a Date I- Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A COMMERCIAL DOCK LICBh>:E TO CRYSTAL BAY SERVICE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1988 TO DECEMBER 31, 1988 muRBAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation orgcinized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, within the City there exist several commercial marinas, hereinafter "marinas" engaged in business activities including but not limited to the following; 1. The sale of new and/or used boats, boating equipment, boat accessories and recreation equipment. 2. The storage, sale, rental, lease, repairing and/or servicing of boats and boat equipment. 3. The sale of gasoline, bait and fishing supplies. 4. The construction and maintenance of docks, boat lifts and buoys on the publir* waters for purposes of operating the above noted business activities and for rental or lease of such space to a limited number of the general public for storage ^f individually owned boats. AMD WHEREAS, the City Council has determined thar if unregulated, such commercial activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare and is therefore subject to reasonable regulations by the City; and WHEREAS, it is the overriding concern of the City to eliminate the unique problems presented by increasing boat density, hardcover, traffic density, storm water runoff and noise or other public nuisances in the area of the various marinas; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREASf because of the geographical location of the marinas and their proximity to heavy population, and the access to marinas by county and city roads, and the general use of the bays of Lake Minnetonka for recreation by way of swimming, boating, fishing and water sports by the citizens of Orono, the City regulates both the on-land activites of marinas and the extensions of docks and mooring areas into Lake Minnetonka in the interest of public order and to protect the life, safety and welfare community. The City through its regulations is not licensing boats but is only licensing the marinas to the extent the marina operations affect the general public and the adjacent properties within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and to suppress the clashing of public and private interests and resulting public disorder; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to single family residential owners and the commercial marina owners, to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining that property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or single family residential owners; and WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the Public generally. The marinas have no exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that the marina or any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to of the public waters. There can be no dispute but generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for common with all other riparian owners. This right is a members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the Lake and fishing therein; the riparian marina has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and ^ ^Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, as the population has increased around Lake Minnetonka, and in the Twin City Area generally, it is clear that more and more people have used the lake for sailing, rowing, fishing, boating, bathing, skating, and other public purposes which cannot be now fully enumerated or even anticipated; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the Lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the marina as a commercial riparian owner only has limited riparian rights incident to the ownership of real estate bordering upon Lake Minnetonka. The marina operator has a limited right to build and maintain one suitable landing or dock, on and in front of his land, and to extend the same therefrom into Lake Minnetonka to a point of navigability; but, under no circumstances may he encroach into Lake Minnetonka to a point where he impairs the water's navigability for other public purposes or where he unreasonably interferes with the surface water rights of all riparians and members of the public generally; and WHEREAS, it is fundamental that a riparian owner's rights are measured by the necessities and character of his use. The marinas, for private commercial gain wish to temporarily and,.in fact, permanently alter the use of the surface water in Lake Minnetonka. Certain sections of the lake, once a source of excellent fishing, have been converted and, in fact, in the future will continue to be converted, into a commercial enterprise all to the detriment of other riparian owners and the public. The marinas present operations and contemplated operations far exceed a reasonable use of their limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the most general public use of the water is paramount and should take priority over excessive riparian use for commercial purposes of the lake by the marinas; and WHEREAS, the marinas have separated and disassociated from the normal riparian rights in many sections of the public waters on Lake Minnetonka by having extended their docks out into Lake Minnetonka beyond the point of navigability and have transferred those rights to others who do not have riparian rights and who are not members of the general public who obtain access and use of Lake Minnetonka by use of the public access points along Lake Minnetonka. Such commercial transfers of the riparian rights of Lake Minnetonka have resulted in an abuse of reasonable riparian access to Lake Minnetonka. Such abuses must be qualified, restricted and subordinated to the paramount rights of the public to the public waters of Lake Minnetonka; and Page 3 of 4 WHEREAS, as a condition to the issuance of the 1975 commercial marina licenses, each commercial marina operator agreed with the City in writing to an Operations Agreement outlining a three-year phased improvement program established to replace natural vegetation previously removed, to provide for adequate storm water runoff controls, to provide for open space and vegetation buffers between the marina properties and adjoining residential properties, to provide for adequate parking and control and to provide for reasonable performance standards relating to the non-conforming placement and use of docks and mooring spaces upon the public waters; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the 1975 Operations Agreement are reasonable exercises of the normal police powers of the City of Orono Intended to correct the previous abuses and overuses of public waters and the congested commercial marina sites, to correct for the public harm caused by such abuses and to prevent future abuse of the land or the public waters; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of Section 5.42 of the Oorno Municipal Code regulating commercial marina operations. Section 10.41 of the Orono Zoning Code regulating the use of lakeshore business district property and the 1975 Operations Agreement are in full conformity with the applicable regulations and intents and purpose of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's regulations for commercial marinas and the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources' regulations for protection of public waters; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Commercial Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Commercial Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the Ci^y Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 9th day of aary, 1989. ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 4 of 4 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RBSOLDTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE Crystal Bay Service_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address 3398 North Shore Drive, Wayzata MN 55391_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ License Period - January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Summer Density per attached plan: Bay _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Transient Slips Rental Slips _ _ _ Company Slips _ _ _ Sub-Total: Slips at Dock _ _ _ Offshore Buoys _ _ _ Maximum Boats in Water _ _ _ Crystal Bay 3 sssass Dry stacked slip for use in lake _ _I_ Maximum Boats in water per prior license _ _I_ Other Boats (for sale/service, etc.) _ _2— 3 MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY ON LAND AND/OR IN WATER =*==«* Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Authorized Number of Winter Stored Boats 0 Exhibit A Resolution No._ _ _ _ Page 2 III. DOCK LAYOUT (reference Exhibit B attached) Maximum authorized length of main dock 99 IV. feet. Docks extending beyond 200 feet and docks encroaching into required side yard setbacks are hereby specifically declared to be illegal non- conforming structures which are not permitted under this license. The application does not contain such illegal structures. All such violations are subject to prosecution under Sections 5.42 and 10.41 of the Orono Municipal Code. Marina is not authorized for FUEL SALES subject to compliance with the State Fire Code. V. VI. Required number of OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinances of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. The three slips provided at the dock are approved for use as follows: a) 1 slip to store the company boat b) 2 service slips, boats docked at these slips may not be stored overnight • 2. The company boat is licensed to the current owners of Crystal Bay Service - license no. MN 8816EE, VII. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. exHie^t r s. CITY of ORONO Post Office Dux U6* Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5532.*! Telephone 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR Date application aant to Marina __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date application returned to City I ^ Fee Received $________________ By _______ ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 Sec. 5.42 Subd. 2 License Required It is unlawful for any person to engage or participate in the "business of docking, mooring, or storing boats or (operating) a commercial boat dock business" without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. rrj-y nr FlhimE OFFICE i Tf ilnnAM 01 206.00 CHECK 71 206.00 ITr?"■ r_ yni i^00^20 toorm to.-i BUSINESS INFORMATION 2. 1. BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME Sb(Prv}\cO Street Address 8 |Mor\Vv O P \ V ^ Mailing Address S<^rt\ g_________ 02/01/r Marina Phone ^ 0 1 O I S ROPERTY INFORMATION Date Property Acquired _ _ _ Office Phone I O I S ^ Marina Controls Property by:fee ownership lease from other (explain) List every occupant, other than this Marina, occupying this property: PAGE 1 OF 5 3. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West)\_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(Name + Address) (South/East) 0.A_ _ _ _\ 9^^ ^ ^ 1 (Name + Address) Other Property Owners that may be affected by Marina's operation: (Name + Address) (Attach sheet if necessary) BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership_ _partnership _ _ List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title: corporation List name(s) of the marina manager(s) responsible for daily operation: MgV\f\-er_ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ List the minimum number of employees on duty when t’:e marina is open to the public during the boating season: __J_ dock attendants J_ repair or service personnel ^ others available for sales/public information, etc. 5. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (check services o'ffered) : slip rental (moorage) buoy rental (moorage) dry storage (moorage) boat launching (day-use ramp) repair parts and service fuel sales bait and tackle sales trailer sales BUSINESS SCHEDULE (check appropriate items): \/ open all year _ _ open during boating season only List proposed hours of operation: dock access *7 AM to _^ retail sales ^ . & service AM to PM PM Page 2 of 5 7. MARINA t>ECURITY is provided by: DOCK INFORMATION NOTE: The LMCD defined DOCK USE AREA -nust be shown on the dock plan submitted with this application. Maximum dock length equals 200 ft. from 929.4 shoreline. Minimum side setbacks from property line extension are: q-50 ft. from shore = 10 ft. minimum setback 50-100 ft. from shore = 15 ft. minimum setback 100-200 ft. from shore = 20 ft. minimum setback 8. SHORELINE WIDTH: \L(b feet. 9. WATER DEPTH: at shore 10. 11 ft.; at 50 ft. out ft. at 100 ft. out ft.; at 200 ft. out ft. ACTUAL MAXIMUM DOCK LENGTH from shoreline:ft. DOCK CONSTRUCTION (permanent, seasonal, etc.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ permanent piling with seasonal decking permanent piling and decking _ _ _ wooden piling _ _ _ metal or concrete piling _ _ _ wooden decking _ _ _ metal decking canopies are installed by: _ _ marina _ _ customer not allowed SLIPS AND BOAT UNITS List the maximum number of boats in each category. Each slip, slide, lift, mooring or other space actually used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock plan submitted with this application. Company Service Rental Boats Rental Slip/Space Total Boats Boats 12 . Boats Stored in the Water a) At dock slips b) At docks, other than slips c) At slides 6) At lifts e) At moorings f) Other boats in water Total Boats in Water Page 3 of 5 13. Boats Dry-Stacked for Lake Use Company Service Boats Rental Boats Rental Slip/Space Total Boats a) Inside Buildings b) Outside on Racks c) Outside - other means Total Boats Dry* Stacked Total Watercraft Availability Units (Add 12 & 13) 15. Other Boats or ?Tses Inside Building Outside Storage a) Transient Boats (repair/service) b) New boats for sale (inventory) c) Used boats for sale (inventory) Total Winter Storage on Premises a) Transient boats (repair/service) b) Contract storage (customer' s boats) Inside Building Outside Storage Inventory (new & used boats) Total OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 17. Summer Parking a) Retail sales/service customers 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800s.f. over 1,000 s.f.)cars b) Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 Availability Units (.6 X __(line 14)) =cars c) Launching ramp customers 10 spaces minimum per ramp cars Total Spaces 18. Winter Parking Minimum 2 spaces, or retail spaces per line 16a above cars LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Ordinances require establishment and maintenance of minimum green areas and natural screening along all Marina property lines: 10 ft. front yard, 10 ft. side yard and a lakeshore yard of 10% of the lot depth, not less than 10 ft. and not more than 75 ft. 19. Describe in detail the plantings (trees, shrubs, grass, vines, flowers, etc.) and other improvements proposed to be installed this coming license year; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ P r;r> . _o P ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY (per LMCD requirements) indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. 2. A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN for all setback areas showing existing and proposed location and sizes of all trees, shrubbery, grass areas and other foliage or landscaping features. 3. A copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. •a 4. A COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Renewal Application @ $200.00 _ Each Boat Unit (Line 12 ) @ $2.00 each _ Each Boat Unit (Line 13 ) @ $1.00 each 2 00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION 5. LATE FEES - Renewals - Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February 1st of the new license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after February 1st unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $150.00. ^ REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, this information will be referred to the Marina Committee fo* review. The City Council will review the Marina Committee recommendation and will thereafter pass upon the application. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's designated employees or agents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed v-il no ^ ^ ^Tf\ 0 A mg A ■ Date Page 5 of 5 1689.1 53 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk DATS: "ary 6, 1989 SUBJECT: .liquor License - Wayzata Country Club council MEETING iTV hV- Attached is a copy of Wayzata Country Club's 1989 liquor license. Chief Kilbo has checked his files and found no violations as noted by his signature on the application. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ma..k E. Bemhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _/ seconded by _/ to approve the 1989 liquor license for the Wayzata Country Club. Ayes _, Nays MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION 333 SIBLEY • ST. PAUL, MN 55101 PHONE (612) 296-6159 _____ APPLICATION FOR CLUB ON SALE RETAIL LIQUOkllCkiVSb This application shall b« completed by an officer of the club seeking a license. The application must be filed with the City Clerk or the County Auditor together with the Bond Forms and the Proof of Liquor Liability Insurance as required by statute. To qualify for a license a club must have at least fifty mem bers, been In continuous existence for at least three years, have an elected governing board and limit sales to members and bona fide guests only. The annual license fee Is set by statute (M.S. 340A.408). Granting of a license by the city or county is discretionary. If this is a first application, attach a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or Charter. TYPE OR PRINT_________________________________________________ Corporation Nama WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB Club Trade Nama or DBA WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB Ucensa Location iStraat Addresa) 200 WAYZATA BLVD Ucenae Period From ro ^2-31 Business Phone (612) 473 8846 Municipality WAYZATA County HENNEPIN State MN Zip Coda 55391 Building Ownar's Nama ' WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB Building Owner's Address 200 WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA, MN. 55391 Are there any delinquent „ ^ ^^0 taxes on the property? ^ Club Manager's Name JOHN A. DOWNEY Name of Member of Managing Board Address • ■ SEE ATTACHED LISTING Name of Member of Managing Board Address g Name of Member of Managing Board Address Nama of Member of Managing Board Address V Cl Bonding Company STATE SURETY COMPANY ...... Amount of Bond 3,000 Name of Liquor Liability Company ST PAUL'COMPANIES ‘ . .........--------------- --------------...- • - Amount of Insurance 500,000 Give Date of Club Charter if Veterans or Fraternal Organization ________ Number of Years in f Current Quarters Data of Incorporation JULY 30, 1956 Number of Club Memoers ' 513 Number of Years of Continuous Existence 3 2 of the Club_____________ Will the Club be Issued a Charitable □ Yes 12 No Gambling License?_____________ PS90inil.87l Pif ~~~ iHtii Are any m^bers, officers, agents or employees paid profits from the sale of beverages to club Hi!;; ni^ets? fif4, JjO------------------ j Arft ^ny employees paid salaries?--------------YES—------------------ Uf^Qthjgfjrltih nr anv^amolovee been convicted of a violation of Federal or State law or local ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages?------MO —--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If so, give names, dates and violations 4. Does any wholesaler or manufacturer of alcoholic beverages own or have any interest in furniture, fixtures or equipment for the licensed premises?--------tio----------------------------—----------------------— If so, give details------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ■ 5. During the past license year has a Summons been issued under the Liquor Civil Liability Law (Dram Shop) M.S. 340A.802? □ Yes CS^Wo If yes, attach a copy of the Summons. I certify that I h^e tad above questions and that the answers are true and correct of my own knowledge. 89 Signa^/A of Applicant Data IF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE COUNTY BOARD; REPORT OF COUNTY ATTORNEY I certify that to the best of my knowledge the applicants named above are eligible to be licensed. □ Yes □ No If no, state reason Signature County Attorney County Data REPORT BY POLICE DEPARTMENT OR SHERIFF'S OFFICE to Intoxicating Liquor, except as follows. Police Department or ^anff's Name license APPROVAL OM DENIAL LicenseJanuary 9, ----------1989_ uceijseExpires DecembeiL^19 89 License Denied City Clerk^TBunty Auditor' 1589.4 3^ TOs FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra January 5, 1989 • • • ( V « k • .t I • . J SUBJECT: Police Facilities Lease Agreement uTy 6? Attachment: A. Police Facilities Lease Amendment Dated 12/6/88 B. Proposed 1989 Contract INTAODUCTIon - The Long Lake Council has authorized a renewal of the contract for 1 year with no minimum cancellation. As this does not present a problem for 1989 it is recommended to be approved. The rental increase of 25% is the first one in 5 years and is about $1,000 over the amount budgeted for 1989. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City concur with the agreement for 1989. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to approve the Police facilites 1989 lease agreement with the City of Long Lake. Ayes _, Nays _. m: 12788.3 / TTWiAW<.eTJT‘\ TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator'^' December 6, 1988 subject: Police Facilities Lease Agreement - Otono/Long Lake Attachments:A. Orono/Long Lake Police Facilities Lease Agreement Dated 1/1/83 ISSUE - Apprising Council of the current status of the lease. INTRODUCTION - Last summer Chief Kilbo had fPProached the C^ty of ?nd%7i°n"ite’iy! '’?he‘’c®hfeYVat%ontinued to pursufthe Usue o^ the expectations of the City of Long Lake in regard to the f?=i^ty month to month basis. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Negotitate an entire new lease. 2. Request minor amendment regarding notice cancellation. 3. Seek a new facility. 4. Table for further discussion. Chief and the City of Long Lake on this item. Oe Chief and the City of Long Lake on this matter. Aye — Nays _. LCASE THIS LEASE, padc and entered into this Elr^r. day of January_* 1983 by and between the City of Long Lake, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter called lessor) and the City of Orono, also a municipal corporation under the l«iws of Minnesota (hereinafter called tenant), ’ WIjriESSLTII, THAT: Lessor does hereby lease to tenant the leased premises, being that area located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as: The South 99 feet of the East 1C5 feet of that part of the Southeast quarter of the northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 110 north. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying North of a line drawn West and parallel with the South line of said Southeast quarter.of said Northeast quarter from a point on the East line of said Southeast quarter of said Northeast quarter distant 292.01 feet North from the Southeast corner of said Southeast quarter of said Northeast quarter, except the Cast 33 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The said leased premises are commonly known as W Willow Drive, Long Lake, Minnesota and include therewith that certain.one and one half story frame structure 32 feet by 60 feet constructed as an.office/storage • and shop area. The leased premises specifically do not include the 24 foot by 24 foot detached double garage located behind and to the west of the leased premises. • " The lease term shall commence on the first day of January, 1903 and shall terminate midnight, December 31, 1900 unless Sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. 1. Reservation. Lessor hereby reserves the unrestricted right of ingress and egress over and across any and all driveways and parking areas located on the leased premises during the terra of this lease. 2. Base Rent. The tenant shall pay as “base rent" for the demised premises,"vTithoutTany set-off or deduction therefrom, the sum of $605.66 per month payable on the first day of each and every calendar month during the term hereof. If lessor shall at any time or times accept said base rent after it shall become due and payable, such acceptance sliall not excuse delay upon subsequent occassions, or unconstitute, or be construed as, a waiver of any or all of lessor’s rights hereunder. 3. Ooeratinn Costs. Tenant shall for the entire term of this lease, and without any set off or deduction therefrom, pay all costs of operating the leased premises including real estate taxes, if any, public and , utilities, liability/fire and extended coverage insurance premiums attributioie to the leased premises, assessments, security, janitoriiil and cleaning service, salaries, wages and other personnel costs, maintenance costs (to include an costs of maintaining and/or repairing the leased premises whether ordinary or extraordinary which services (or costs therefrom were ordered by tenant. Tenant shall promptly pay to the lessor, upon request an amount equal to any cost incurred by the lessor in repairing or maintaining the leased premises where such repairs or maintenance were made necessary due to tne negligence of. or misuse by, the tenant, its agents, employees, or invitees and which have not been effected by tenant within 60 days after the need for the same has arisen. Tenant shall replace all building materials with the same quality as that broken in the event that repairs become necessary. A. Casualty Damage. If the building on the leased premises is damaged or destroyed by fTre or other casualty either party shall have the right to terminate this lease provided that written notice thereof is given to the other party within 90 days after such damage or destruction. If only a portion of the leased premises is damaged by fire, or other casualty, and this lease is not thereby terminated, the lessor shall, at its expense, restore the leased premises to as near the condition which existed immedi ately prior to such damage or destruction as is reasonably possible. Any rent shall equitably abate during such period of time as the leased premises are untenantable. It is understood and agreed that tenant s property in the leased premises is there at tenant’s sole risk and that tenant shall secure its own insurance on such property and its lease hold improvements in addition to fire and extended coverage insurance for the leased premises. Lessor shall be named as a loss pay^e on the fire and extended coverage policy attributable to the leased premises. 5. Possession and Occupancy of Premises. Tenant may take possession and occupancy of the leased premises prior to January 1, 1983, for the purpose of effecting leasehold improvements, moving in and beginning operations therefrom. Tenant shall have no responsibility to pay base rent to lessor during any period of possession and occupancy prior to January 1, 1983, although tenant shall be responsible for all operating costs as of the actual date of possession and occupancy. Tenant warrants that the leased premises shall be used for the sole purpose of o^^’cing and housing the Orono Police Department and conducting any and all police fire and general public safety activities reasonably incident and necessary in connection with the Orono Police Department. m 6. Lessor's Responsibility for Certain Costs. Motwithstanding • any of the abov^,’lessor warrants that prior to January 1, 1983, it will at its sole expense make certain improvements of the leased premises to include felling and removal of trees and other visual obstructions located next to Willow Drive and the construction of additional parking area on the east side of the building .of the leased premises and a driveway on the north side of the building which will intersect with the driveway and parking area on the south and west sides of the building. All said parking and driveway areas shall be graded and covered with red gravel of sufficient grade and size to handle normal automobile traffic and maintenance vehicle traffic. It.shall be the responsibility of lessor to maintain all parking areas and driveways at its expense in a proper and timely fashion including all snow plowing and removal. 7. Holding Over. Should tenant continue to occupy the leased premises, or any part thereof, after the expiration or termination of the lease term, whether with or against the consent of lessor, such tenancy shall be from month to month. 0. Defaul_t. If tenant shall default in the payment of any installment of rent, or in the observance or performance of any of tenant's other covenants, agreements or obligations hereunder, in any such event, lessor, without process, may re-enter immediately into the leased premises and remove all persons and property therefrom, and at its option, annul and cancel this lease as to tenant, and have, regain, and re-possess and enjoy the leased premises and anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, and tenant hereby expressly waives the service of any notice in writing of intention to re-enter as aforesaid, and also all right or restoration to possession of the leased premises after re-enter or after judgment for possession thereof. In case of any such termination, tenant will indemnify lessor against all loss of rents and other damages which it may incur by reason of such termination during the residue of the lease term, and also against all attorneys fees and expenses incurred in enforcing the terms of this lease. Ho remedy herein or elsewhere in this lease or otherwise conferred upon or reserved shall be considered exclusive of any other remedy but shall be cumulative and in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. 9. Leasehold Improvements. It is understood and agreed that tenant intends to* make leert'aiV* leaiehold improvements to the leased premises. All such leasehold improvements shall be at the sole expense of the tenant and lessor reserves the right to approve any leasehold improvements proposed by tenant during the term hereof. Lessor may not arbitrarily deny the right to construct leasehold improvements consistent with tenant s intended use of the premises. in. Assignment and Subletting. Tenant shall not have the right to assign orTublet all or any part of the leased premises without lessor s prior written consent. 11. Lessor's Right to Enter Premises. Lessor, or its authorized agents or attorney, may at any reasonlfFIe time enter the leased premises to inspect, make repairs, improvements and/or changes in the leased premises or other oremises in the building or adjacent premises as lessor may deem proper, and there shall be no decrease of rent or liability on the part of lessor by reason of Inconvenience or annoyance. « 12. Indemnity. Lessor shall not be liable to tenant or those claiming through, under or against tenant, for injury, death, or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises and tenant shall indemnify lessor and hold it harmless from any claim or damage arising out of any injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises unless the same shall have been caused by the act or omission of lessor's agents, employees^ or invitees. Without limiting the foregoing, tenant agrees to procure and maintain a policy or policies of liability insurance at its own cost and expense, insuring lessor and tenant from all claims, demands or actions for injury or death arising out of any single incident of not less than $1,000,000.00 and for property damage in an amount of not less than $100,000.00. Tenant shall not be liable to lessor or those claiming through, under or against lessor for injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises and arising out of the act or omission of any of lessor's agents, employees or invitees. Lessor^ shall indemnify tenant and hold it harmless from any claim or damage arising out of any such injury, death or property damage. 13. Lessee to Surrender Premises in Good Condition. Upon the expiration or terminati^*^ the lease term, tenant shall, at its expense remove tenant s goods and effects and those of all persons claiming under tenant; quit and deliver up the leased premises to lessor, peacably and quietly, m as good order and condition as the same were on the date the lease term conrienced or were thereafter placed in by lessor, reasonable v/ear and tear excepted. ^ suis.“-signed and executed this agreenent City of Long Lake By. ^iHiniyC^erir LEASE ^V^ation urrd _.* f3erTHIS LEASE, made and entered Into this / ' day of .yr_ 1988. by and between the City of Long Lake, a municipal corp^tion the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter called lessor) and the City of Orono. also a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter called tenant), WITNESSETH, THAT: Lessor does hereby lease to tenant the leased premises, being that area located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as: The South 99 feet of the East 165 feet of that part of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying North of a line drawn West and parallel with the South line of said Southeast quarter of said Northeast quarter from a point on the East line of said Southeast quarter of said Northeast quarter distant 292.01 feet North from the Southeast corner of said Southeast quarter of said Northeast quarter, except the East 33 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Flinnesota. The said leased premises are commonly known as 445 Willow Drive, Long Lake, Minnesota and include therewith that certain one and one half story frame structure 32 feet by 60 feet constructed as an and shop area. The leased premises specifically do not include the 24 foot by 24 foot detached double garage located behind and to the west of the leased premises. The lease term shall commence on the first day of January, 1989 and shall terminate midnight, December 31, 1989 unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. 1. Reservation. Lessor hereby reserves the unrestricted right of ingress and egress over and across any and all driveways and parking areas located on the leased premises during the term of this lease. 2. Base Rent. The tenant shall pay as "base rent" for the demised premises, without any set-off or deduction therefrom, the sum of $844,80 per month payable on the first day of each and every calendar month during the term hereof. If lessor shall at any time or times accept said base rent after it shall become due and payable, such acceptance shall not . _ excuse delay upon subsequent occassions, or unconstitute, or be construed as, a waiver of any or all of lessor's rights hereunder. 3. Ooeratinq Costs. Tenant shall for the entire term of this lease, and without any set off or deduction therefrom, pay all costs of operating the leased premises including real estate taxes, if any, public and Pfivate utilities, liability/fire and extended coverage insurance premiums attributible to the leased premises, assessments, security, janitorial and cleaning service, salaries, wages and other personnel costs, maintenance costs (to include all costs of maintaining and/or repairing the leased premises whether ordinary or extraordinary which services (or costs therefrom were ordered by tenant. Tenant shall promptly pay to the lessor, upon request an amount equal to any cost incurred by the lessor in repairing or ma^taining the leased premises where such repairs or maintenance were made necessary due to the negligence of, or misuse by, the tenant, its agents, employees, or invitees and which have not been effected by tenant within 60 days after the need for the same has arisen. Tenant shall replace all building materials with the same quality as that broken in the event that repairs become necessary. A. Casualty Damage. If the building on the leased premises is damaged or destroyed by tire or other casualty either party shall have the right to terminate this lease provided that written notice thereof is given to the other party within 90 days after such damage or destruction. If only a portion of the leased premises is damaged by fire, or other casualty , and this lease is not thereby terminated, the lessor shall, at its expense, restore the leased premises to as near the condition which existed immedi ately prior to such damage or destruction as is reasonably possible. Any rent shall equitably abate during such period of time as the leased premise are untenantable. It is understood and agreed that tenant s property in the leased premises is there at tenant's sole risk and that tenant shal^ secure its own insurance on such property and its lease hold improvements in addition to fire and extended coverage insurance for the leased premises Lessor shall be named as a loss payee on the fire and extended coverage policy attributable to the leased premises. 5. Possession and Occupancy of Premises . Tenant nay take possession and occupancy of the leased premises prior to January 1, 1983, for the purpose of effecting leasehold improvements, moving in and beginning operations therefrom. Tenant shall have no responsibility to pay base rent to lessor during any period of possession and occupancy prior to January 1, 1983, although tenant shall be responsible for all operating costs as of the actual date of possession and occupancy. Tenant warrants that the leased premises shall be used for the sole purpose of officing and housing the Orono Police Department and conducting any and all police fire and general public safety activities reasonably incident and necessary in connection with the Orono Police Department. Lessor's Res ponsibility for Certain Cos ts. Notwithstanding any of the abov^, le’ssof^warrants tnat prior td’ Jitnuary 1, 1983, it will at its sole expense make certain improvements of the leased premises to include felling and removal of trees and other visual obstructions located next to Willow Drive and the construction of additional parking area on the east side cf the building of the leased premises and a driveway on the north side of the building which will intersect with the driveway.and parking area on the south and west sides of the building. All said parking and driveway areas shall be graded and covered v/ith red gravel of sufficient grade and size to handle normal automobile traffic and maintenance vehicle traffic. It shall be the responsibility of lessor to maintain all parking areas and driveways at its expense in a proper and timely fashion including all snow plowing and removal. 7. Holding Over . Should tenant continue to occupy the leased premises, or any part thereof, after the expiration or termination of the lease term, whether with or against the consent of lessor, such tenancy shall be from month to month. 0. Default. If tenant shall default in the payment of any installment 'of rent, or in the observance or performance of any of tenant's other covenants, agreements or obligations hereunder, in any such event, lessor, without process, may re-enter immediately into the leased premises and remove all persons and property therefrom, and at its option, this lease as to tenant, and have, regain, and re-possess and enjoy the leased premises and anything herein to the "9. and tenant hereby expressly waives the service of any notice in of intention to re-enter as aforesaid, and also all right or * Dosspssion of the leased premises after re-enter or after judgment for possession thereof. In case of any such termination, tenant will indemnify lessor against all loss of rents and ^Snd'^alsoreason of such termination during the residue of *I against all attorneys fees and expenses incurred f ‘^® of this lease. No remedy herein or elsewhere .n this lease ®^J®^“’*® conferred upon or reserved shall be considered exclusive of any other remedy but shall bo cumulative and in addition to every other r^ody given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. 9. Leasehold Improvements. It is understood and agreed that tenant intends to male certauTIeasehold improvements to the leased PJ®!"’*®*: . All such leasehold improvements shall be at the sole expense ^the tenant and lessor reserves the right to approve any leasehold . proposed by tenant during the term hereof. Lessor may not deny the right to construct leasehold improvements consistent with tenant s Intended use of the premises; 10. Assignment and Subletting. Tenant shall not have assign orlublet all or*lny part of the leased premises without lessor s prior written consent. 11. Lessor's Right to Enter Premises. Lessor, or its authorized agents or attorney, may at any fcasonlble time enter the leased premises to Inspect, make repairs, improvements and/or changes in the leased premises or other premises in the building or adjacent premises as lessor may deem proper, and there shall be no decrease of rent or liability on the part of lessor by reason.of inconvenience or'annoyance. 12. Indemnity. Lessor shall not be liable to tenant or those claiming through, under or against tenant, for injury, death, or property damage occurring in, on 6r about the leased premises and tenant shall indemnify lessor and hold it harmless from any claim or damage arising out of any injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises unless the same shall have been caused by the act or omission of lessor's agents, employees, or invitees. Without limiting tenant agrees to procure and maintain a policy or policies of liability insurance at its own cost and expense, insuring lessor and tenant from all claims, demands or actions for injury or death arising out of any single incident of not less than $1,000,000.00 and for property damage in an anwunt of not less than $100,000.00. Tenant shall not be liable to lessor or those claiming through, under or against lessor for injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises and arising out of the act or omission of any of lessor's agents, employees or invitees. Lessor shall indemnify tenant and hold it harmless from any claim or damage arising out of any such injury, death or property damage. 13. Lessee to Surrender Premises in Good Condition. Upon the expiration or'termination of the lease term, tenant shall, at its expense remove tenant s '-goods and effects and those of all persons claiming under tenant; quit and deliver up the leased premises to lessor, peacably and quietly, in as good order and condition as the same were on the date the lease term commenced or were thereafter placed in by lessor, reasonable wear and tear excepted. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and executed this agreement the day and year first above written. City of Long Lake By: Its Maylayor :s Uity CTer^ City of Orono By: • Its Mayor By: Its City Clerk INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: December 1, 1988 TO: Mark Bernhardson - Tom Kuehn FROM: Mel Kilbo RE: Purchase of Automotive Equipment COUNCIL MEETING J.'u'i "O •-'-‘3 Wi 0? Because of traffic enforcement requirements imposed on us by Coxinty Road 15 construction as well as 394/12. The Department is requesting permission to purchase a rear antenna for our Trooper radar units. This antenna allows the squad to clock the offender through the rear window, they can continue behind the vehicles for the stop, rather than having to turn around to pursue the violator. Cost of this equipment is $595.00. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommendina anproval. This was not budgeted in either 1988 or 1989 but there should be sufficient capital outlay available in the 1989 budget to make the procurement possible. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by the Orono City Council authorizes purchase of rear antemna for radar units in the amount of $595.00. Ayes _, Nays _. 1489.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: January 4, 1989 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information 3^ COUNCIL MEETING C5TY OF MINNETRISTA/HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE LAWSUIT - As you may have seen in the newspaper the lawsuit was decided against the City of Minnetrista. To date the City has not received a copy that decision. You may have also noted that there is the possibility that this may be appealed to the Court Appeals, by either the City of Minnetrista, the property owners or both. The City will stay abreast of it to see what, if any, input the City should have to the process. LUCE LINE - LEASH ENFORCEMENT - As you may have noted in the paper a fevT weeks ago the Police department because of probleicr that we have had with unleashed dogs on the Luce Line hav indicated that the City will be enforcing the leash law on the Luce Line on a complaint only basis. MCWD OPERATIONS POLICY - As you will note in the attached letter from MCWD to the Department of Natural Resources that comments have been rece> ved from some of the cities around the lake and that they would be taking these into consideration at their January 19, 1989 meeting. It is expected that the City will receive a response to it's comments following that meeting. 1950 SHORELINE - The property owner to the two rear cabins, but the City the hazardous buildings proceedings The Attorne* for the property owner not to requx_e the hook-up when it This is not the way the Attorney or and will be pursuing this further. has done some minor repairs continues to push forward on regarding the sewer hook-up. contends that the City chose settled for only two units, the Administrator recall it. DEBORAH DRIVE - Attached please find a copy of a letter that was sent to the property owners on Deborah Drive. They had requested that their private road be cul-de-saced but as noted in the letter, they were advised that we would ieny this on a staff basis as it exceeded City standards and that they would need to undertake the appropriate variance through the Planning Commission and Council if they desired to pursue it. NAVARRE REDEVELOPMENT - The staff had a meeting with the planning consultants regarding the base information and initial concepts on redevelopment. It is anticipated that the staff will work to set up a meeting with the Council and the consultant in an informal manner to discuss this information and the range of alternatives that may be available. It is anticipated that this 'informal discussion would be in advance of undertaking a more public process. SHORELAND POLICY - LMCD - As you may be aware Jeanne Mabusth of ' the staff has been working on a sub-committee regarding land use which is a component of the Lake Minnecvi.Lka Conservation District's Comprehensive Plan. Some of the initial directions and issues have been driven by proposed DNR shoreland regulations. The primary issue regarding land use is^ the extent LMCD would regulate any land use under the Comprehensive Plan or if it could set model ordinances or local control for these. To date this has not been answered and it will be raised as a discussion issue for Council within the next month. Presently the staff is taking the position that the City of Orono does not want LMCD to regulate any land use beyond the shoreline. POLICE LIEUTENANT POSITION - The police staff is currently going through a selection process of individuals within the Police department for filling the vacancy that currently exists in the Lieutenant's position. It is anticipated that the staff will be bringing forward a recommendation in the latter part of January or in February for selection to this position. Additionally staff is reviewing a possible request for a third Lieutenant's position but will review any such request with the Council prior to proposing any individual selection for a third position. NAVARRE SUPER VALU ROBBERY - As you may recall within the last year and a half the Super Valu, in Navarre, has been robbed twice. Recently the prime suspects, of this and several other grocery store robberies, have been apprehended. They have confessed to 12 robberies in Hennepin County but will probably be charged and sentenced to a robbery in Rogers with an attempted murder. They have been connected to a total of 23 robberies statewide. RECYCLING - On December 12, 1988 the Orono Council awarded the recycling contract to Polka Dot Recycling of Buffalo, *^N. The start date of the program is tentatively set for February 1, 1989 dependent on a signed contract and container delivery. Please be advised the’ a container will be placed in the Counil Chambers for disposal of Council packet paper that is not of a confidential nature. GOAL SETTING lee attached. *5^ !lh, MIIUIMEHAHA CREBC DEC 3 0 1988 WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 December 29, 1988 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Region Headquarters Division oi .Waters 1200 Warnet Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Attention: Judy Boudreau Re- Request for Renewal of Existing Management Policy and Operating Procedures for Gray's Bay Headwaters Control Structure DNR Permit No. 76-6240 Dear Boudreau: Under Section IV.2 of the "Headwaters Control Structure Management .*>olicy and Operating Procedures" for the period March 1, 1986 to March 1, 1989, the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District hereby requests the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to renew the existing Management Policy for the Gray's Bay Headwaters Control Structure without modification for the three-year period commencing March 1, 1989. Pursuant to Section IV.2, the Board on November 17, 1988 municipalities and other interested agencies and parties within the boundaries of the District that the District intended to request the DNR to ^^new the existing policy without modification. The Managers also requested comments from any municipality which desired to comment or suggest edifications ^he present policy. Written comments have been received from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Mr. Clarkson Lindley and the cities of Independence, Mound, and Orono. Copies of the comments are enclosed for your review. While no policy changes are requested by the District for the March 1989 to March 1992 period, the removal of the twin culverts and subsequent bridge construction under CSAH 73 in Hopkins have altered the location of the cjeekside municipal monitoring station listed in Section III.B.l on page J f existing plan. The city of Hopkins is now monitoring flow for the District at the Blake Road crossing further downstream. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources December 29, 1988 Page Two The District requests Section III.B.l of the Operating Plan be changed to reflect the actual monitoring location. Comments on the Management Policy and Operating Procedures «”]be submitted to the Board of Managers for their consideration at the next regular meeting scheduled for January 19, 1989. Please contact me at 473-4224 if you or other DNR staff members require additional information. Sincerely, E. A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES r • c in.A Division of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Engineers for the District tU4 J^nes J. ^hady ^strict/Engineer cc: Board of Managers Louis Smith Orono Mound Independence LMCD C. Lindley LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MCMBCflS Robert Raecop, Chairman Shore^wood JoEllen Hurr. Vice Chairman Orono Carl H. Weisser, Secretary Excelsior Mark Westiund. Treasurer Wayzata Marvin BJorlin Tonka Bay Jan Boswinkal Minnetonka Beach David Cochran Graonwood Albert O. Foster Deephaven Ron Kraemer Spring Park John Lewman Minnetrista John G. Malinka Victoria Robert K. Pillsbury Minnetonka Thomas W. Reese Mound Robert E. Slocum Woodland December 8, 1988 beceived DEC ! 2 1988 E.A. Hickok 8'. Associates James R. Spensley, Chair M.C.W.D. P. 0. Box 387 Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Spensley; The Board of Managers' advice concerning the renewal of the existing Management Policy and Operating Procedures for Gray s Bay Headwaters Control Structure for the period 3-1-86 to 3-1-89 is appreciated. The policy and procedures have been reviewed by the LMCD Board and executive staff. We have every reason to believe the three recent years have represented responsible adherence to them. We do note with concern as a result of the present low-water conditions, Management Goal 4, "To provide discharges, during and/or following dry periods, comparable to discharges that occurred historically under similar lake level conditions such that the detrimental effects of creek flow stagnation are not aggravated as a result of operating procedures. It would be our expectation that extra precautions and consid erations be given to this goal in light of and for the duration of the current and potentially future low-water conditions. We trust the 928.6 elevation protects any discharge from occuring during the low-water periods. The balance of the goals and procedures speak to a well- conceived plan performing to the greatest advantage of all in the watershed district. A further concern brought on by the extensive presence of Eurasian Water Milfoil in Lake Minnetonka prompts our Task Force on this issue to alert the Board of Managers regarding its potential to spread downstream. An addition to the Manage ment Policy and Operating Procedures is recommended to imple ment appropriate controls at the Headwaters Control Structure, or in the immediate downstream area, to stop and retain weed fragments which are known to cause the rapid spread of Eurasian Water Milfoil. Not only is Minnehaha Creek at risk, but (more) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT James R. Spensley, Chair 2 December 8, 1988 the Mississippi River in turn could become burdened by this prolific and noxious aquatic weed. We look forward to your early response in anticipation of the 1989 season which will be influenced by this weed. Thank you for taking these suggestions into account. wishes as you continue the conscientious management of the watershed district. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT (Z.JoEllen L. Hurr Chair C lahkson Lindley Lawyer 807 Twelve Oaks C enter 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata . Minnesota 55391 Telephone ; (612) 473-0848 received ~■ 2 S ^928 E.A. H- ' A-icciatss December 19, 1988 Mr. James Spensely Minnehaha Creek Watershed District P. O. Box 387 Wayzata, MN 53391 Dear Mr. Spensely: I've noted with interest the enclosed three stories, one relating to the City of Minneapolis' plans for flood control and improvements and second, the Army Corp of Engineers' plans to more closely monitor drawdown the Leech Lake and Lake Winnibigoshish, resevoirs, and the third, on drought, rain and runoff. Given that it appears we are now in a dry cycle and that it is most unlikely that there will need to be any release of water from Lake Minnetonka in the fall of '89, I would hope that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Board would direct its engineers to study the possibility of modifying the operating plan for the control structure so as not to so prone to letting water out in the fall. The increasing urbanization of the District Watershed, drainage and runoff patterns with the inclusion of storm drains, may all have changed. When combined with such downstream improvements as the planned improvements in the south Minneapolis area, the Board could consider modifying the operating plan so as to retain more water in Lake Minnetonka with the obvious benefits. I'm aware that in the past lake residents have complained about high water levels and that attitudes may have temporarily shifted because of the recent dry years. I urge the Board not seek routine renewal of the present operating policy, but rather direct the engineers to study whether some modification could be instituted to hold more water in the lake if and when the levels do return to normal. Sincerely, Clarkson Lindley' Lawyer CL/mp Enclosures Star Tribune/Saturday/December 17/1988 Minneapolis OKs funds for flood control, parks The Minneapolis City Council ap proved a $S2 million capital budget for 1989 that includes $4 million for flood-control projects in south Min neapolis and $1 million for improve ments in neighborhood parks. Among the three major flood-control projects is the construction of a storm-water holding pond in the Sib ley Park neighborhood. A man in that neighborhood died when his basement wail collapsed during a heavy rainstorm in July 1987, The funds allocated in the 1989 capi tal budget will go toward the pur chases of houses there, while money for the actual construction of the pond will be allocated in the 1990 capital budget, said Council Member Steve Cramer, who represents that area. The Tershing-Field area of southwest Minneapolis will receive flood-con trol improvements with the construc tion of a storm drain, and design work on improvements for Minneha ha Creek, which will begin next year. The Minneapolis Park and Recrea tion Board will get sli^tly more than $1 million, which will be used for improvements in several neighbor- ho^*parks. The largest chunk of money will go to Powderhom Park, which will re ceive $390,000. Other parks that will receive renovation funds are Be- thune, $253,200; Franklin Steele Square, $210,000; Hi View, $195,000; and Bassett Creek. $126,000. Star Tribune/Wednesday/November 30/1968 7B« v’*ate, metro officials and only Chicago complies with the carbon monoxide standard. The association said the MPCA had 'lone blemish” in its effort to con trol air pollution: Of the nine urban areas, only the Twin Cities lacks a program to inspect motor vehicles and require that their pollution-con trol and emissions systems are oper ating properly. However, the 1988 Minnesota Legislature passed a law that requires such a mandatory in spection program in the scven-coun- ty Twin Cities area. That prograihi to bepn in 1991, should reduce vehicle emisst /ns of carbon monoxide by 25 percent to 30 perceni in the area, said Michael Valentine, MPCA air-qualib ty director. • That will require inspection of about 1.5 million motor vehicles registered m the counties of Anol^ Carvw j Ramsey, Scott and Washington. Most area motor ists will have to pay up to $10 annu ally to have their vehicles inspected... Climatologist: Rain helping alleviate drought in state Associated Press Near-normal rainfall this fall has helped alleviate drought in most of Minnesota, according to Greg Spo- den. an assistant state ciimatologisL “Agriculturally, our soil moisture sit uation looks reasonable going into the spring of 1989,“ Spoden said. Some especially parched areas need above-normal rainfall to break the drought Spoden said nonhwestem Minnesota remains dry and there are pockets around the state where mois ture IS on the short side. They are mainly in central and west-central Minnesota, he said. According to bi. ien, statewide pre- cipitation returned to normal from Sept I through the third week in November. He said moisture totals from Sept I to the winter freeze generally ranged from 3 inches in northwestern Minnesota to 8 Inches in the extreme southeast of the state. Now the trick will be to replenish soil moisture shortages in the hardest-hit ai^s. Despite the fail rains, a spot check of Minnesota weather stations shows that annual moisture totals through Sunday ranged from 7.36 inchCT below normal at Sl Cloud and Rochester to 1.55 inches below nor mal at Hibbing. Rochester has 19.94 inches of moisture, St. Qoud 19 re corded inches and Hibbing had 26.87 I'h inches, Spoden said. . The Twin Cities received 18.4 inches or moisture through Sunday, or 7 inches below normal. In northwestern Minnesota, Crodir- ston recorded only 13.75 inches, or 5.7 inches below normal. In the southwestern part of the sute, Wor thington had 21.52 inches, or 3.59 inches below normal. The moisture totals include some snow in November. ^ Gary McDcvitt, hydrologist at the National Weather Service olTicc in Minneapolis, said it generally takes about 10 inches of snow to produce.! inch of moisture. The Twin Cities received 15.7 Inches of snow in November, more than double the average of 6.9 inches for that month. Spring rains will be the key to ending the drought in the fields that still lack moisture. “Very little of the oVer- winier p^piution will go toward replenishing the soil moisture reser voirs,” Spoden said. “In a typical year, perhaps only 10 percent will go into the soil because the ground is frozen and it runs off or evaporates.” SlafT writer Sharon Schmickle ron- tributed to this report. Official: Fteservoirs Assotl.te<lP«« »d mS 11^"=“ &SaSs ““ B“‘T"r"*u!;‘^rrs"rc:i uol^ter levels mth. Twin ernes. J“V^“Siifnece«ary. bigoshish. may cteale ProW'™* ^ ..,.j be in front of the public cause of ice damage now store- j[« ,^3,, ^ on the high line erosion problems "de rather than on the low side, ?™yffl^^n^nS‘Rem^ Ruyak told the Grea- —h toke I on tne low siuc. Greater Leech Lake r„^-.,r>-„.-.h.,a/i9B8/SlsfTtll)iitt« CITY OF MAYOR—Marvin D. Johnson CLERK/TREAS.—Mary L. Leintz HENNEPIN COUNTY November 23, 1988 received NOV 2 V1988 E.A.H!CVok8-Associates COUNCIL MEMBERS Kay Gabriel Marilyn Hamilton John F. Kuntz Tom J. Young E.Ae Hlckok & Associates 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, MN 55391 Gentlemen:Re: Gray’s Bay Headwaters Control Structure At the Council meeting of November 22, the City Council of the City of Independence concurred with the existing management policy and operating procedures for the Gray’s Bay Headwaters Control Structure. Yours truly. Mary L. Leintz Clerk-Treasurer 1790 COUNTY ROAD 90, MAPLE PLAIN, MINNESOTA 55359 — PHONE (612) 479*2773 DATE : TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM December 16, 1988 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District City of Mound, Park Commission RECEIVED DEC 2 0 1988 E.A. HiCkCk A?£0Ci3t23 Response to November 17, 1988 Memorandum on Operation Procedures for Grays Bay Headwaters Control Structure At the December 8, 1988 meeting of the City of Mound, Park Com mission meeting, the Watershed District material on the Head waters Control Structure was discussed. The Mound City Dock Inspector (a long time lake resident) spoke on the condition of the lake regarding lake levels over the last five or six years. The last two boating seasons on Lake Min netonka iiave been very hazardous because of the extreme low water levels. 1938, of course, was a drought year, but the lowering of the lake .just prior to the 1987 year certainly aggravated this condition. The three or so years prior to 198 7 and 1988 caused much shoreline erosion problems because of the high water. He felt that the high and low levels have been aggravated because the new dam at Grays Bay is now able to control the lake levels to extremes over what the old wooden weir dam would allow. The even crest, established in 1979 by the new structure was 930.0 NGVD. He urged that t Park Commission recommend that no water be released through tr.o new control structure until the 929.4 level is exceeded. This is the Ordinary High Water Level mark established by the Commissioner of Natural Resources in 1976. The Park Commission agreed with this recommendation and passed it along to the Mound City Council and Planning Commission for their consideration. These two bodies had no objections to the Novem ber 17, 1988 Watershed District Memorandum as presented in its report. The Park Commission hopes that more consideration will be given to the Lake Minnetonka water levels, both in high and low water periods, in order to avoid the extremes it has seen in the last five years. An •nual opoorlunily E'nployer Ih.il do*;s fioi cliscriminnie on trii- ti.iriis ol rnc».*. color n.ilion.il oriqin or handicapptHj status m aUmissioii or access to. Oi treaimenl ui umploymenl m its pri>qr;ifns .ino .icnviii»;s CITY of ORONO CITY OF ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices receivedOn the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 23r 1988 ? 8 1988 E.A. H.'cJ-'ck * .Asscciat^s Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Jim Mahady P.O. Box 387 Wayzata, MN 55391 Subject: MCWD/Grays Bay Headwaters Operating Policy Dear MCWD Managers, The following represents the initial conunents of the City of Orono City Council to the renewal of the Headwaters °P«”ting Policy. Part of these comments are based on a review that had been done by Mr. Arthur Finkelstein, who is a resident in the community, through the cooperation of Jim Mahady. A. Winter Storage - The City would appreciate a review and response to the'^ssibility of a higher winter storage. As you will note on the attached memo, the City does appreciate the fact that heavy winter/spring run off and/or rains could cause a problem for lakeshore owners together with downstream people if the lake level in the winter time is raised, however a review of this would be appreciated. B. Public Information Policy - While the MCWD has made some effort to publicize lake level information, an on-going public information prograun both on the policy operation and the lake levels and factors influencing the lake level would be greatly appreciated. C. Review of the Policy - The policy for review was tran"i5ilttid to the City on November 28, 1988 with a request that any response be made by December 21, 1988. For publi bodies, this is somewhat of a short response and a lonpr review period would be appreciated. An additional review period should not be detrimental to the operation as the lake level is extremely low. As such it may be an appropriate time to further open it up for comments and alternatives as the headquarters structure will probably not be needed during the next several months. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Mahady December 23, 1988 Page 2 of 2 your consideration together with the <=°°Pe«tion shown Mr. Finkelstein earlier this year by Mr. Mahady is greatly appreciatede cc: Mayer & Council Members JoEllen Hurr Eugene Stromman tspsmi'imm CITY of OBONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minneso*^ 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 6f 1988 Thomas Betz 415 Deborah Drive Maple Plain, MN 55359 Dear Mr. Betz: This letter is in response to your letter of November 7, 1988 reauesting to "Dead End" Deborah Drive. Seo.ion 11.33f Sub^viliofrdoes not allow for a cul-de-sac on a road that e“ceedri°0 0 0 feet in length, therefore your request is hereby denied. h^-c/cas”e^®your «quest''would'’b“ sutaittef?^® the^ pYa^ning their action. The fee for the variance application is $150.00. If you wish more information in regards to the variance, please contact Jeanne Mabusth. Zoning Administrator. Sincerely, «/->c John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/tln BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 November 4, 1988 City of Orono JL'os 66 C" ^tal Bay, MN 55323 rhe Council, We, the Homeowners Association of HcCulley Farm respectfully re*iuest your attention to the proposal of converting the private road of Deborah Drive into a black topped dead end or cul-de-sac. At the present time, Deborah Drive is a gravel road which connects McCulley Road with County Road 6. Even though i: is clearly marked with "Private Road" signs it is frequently used as a short cut for local and none local traffic. One resident has had his fence driven through three times with the most recent incident resulting in a DWI arrest and three hospitalized people. This occurred at the exact location the residents children wait i'or the school bus. In conjunction with creating a cul-de-sac which would include a bus tum-around, our desire is to black top Deborah Drive to Orono*s specifications, at our expense. This is not a petition to make Deborah Dri.3j;a public road maintained by the City of Orot'd - ^i^iy to improve it in a manner consistent with the quality irono's standards insuring the safety of the 'elopments residents. .f t IS obvious with the already reckless abandon this r^'sd experiwi^es, the black topping would make the situation a pot ntially lethal or.3 without the creation of a cul-de-s I, or a representative of our association would meet and discuss any sp0-;ri£ics of this proposed plan ' *' h Sincerely, Thomas Betz 415 Deborah Drive Oron'f MN 55359 s I I § s s ss s s s s s s 0^«^00»0in0"0?fij---------------------- ------------------------ » o“a? d Sd 8si I U § .§d ft] S sI B:n> di8 00 00I s § !o B 5 ^ ? 8tu ,.,i -sss Um % |Ss|Se|« 1 Is-s 00CO s irTS os § g s is s I s 4J £ I §! ^ §§ St)*® §»iS uco C\ CD O 00 GQagsa I §i S S3 04 ‘w ik 00 I§ s 4J I s immm s 2-3 I 5>s a as. •f-i ?8^ I i 1*« J£ 0« U d) 00 31 is.^1 Ilf Ifii s rf «J >8 S r^S Ih ' I § I if SJ•H 8•m II Ulirv 3« ,s|limi s II 5 I 00 00 s I IH s I I a I m |ss a & a gg r- « 00 « as00 a I s s I I 8 flPiif 3l |B r IM >r4 . .0 > M l| IIIllgl miMS>«^ssg B fl d8S (0s n w tM ■§> S«ssf iPfelif ■ PlSllSsI£S ^3 A PilJi ||S:§5a8 "‘islas""rr'PiPlP I I I ss B 3^ H •g.8. B ^8 |8 H h 5I ^ B •fl i4 § I aft 3 6 1 a t I 3 « iN. > s Mil &s5&„;:1-B|-;^ SU-sSb^ |Sa>l§1§ n o 01 CL **'^368lllliap gugoi04««aca 3 I I I s|s 00 a 00 00 a> 00§ g I P< IB g§ r^ « 00 00 3 iii 00 o\ 00 00 00 2I Is figJss I in ill i r^ 00 o\ I 00 00 00 a9* ti 5•s 31 JBs. g| H h ®s 2 o33 3;^s<«8 8§f •r-i -■ - eeo 4J-^Q4«oda 3» ^8 sb§" s $0\ ON 00 00 Sf > s t; ti 2l I I h 8 I !s 1 1 HI I I 8 ••r< •O I I 0000 •g I I 3 •H !; I8 I >a “ >o K i? I I t Is I sr§ sis s fssfa IsISif \i8 «|3fia s 00 ^ 00 N L<ogw 00 ^iS§iH rt t-< s S gj s^ s I SSslfS5S.Im s 3 3 3 &I ij 5 o ■ij 8 *H 4J E I 44 •iiis 10 c -8 a ^•O m•s « 5 I I I I I B §U iJ di 1 I 00o s I f-l nu? P4 5! 4J RJ 'w 3S I I s >11 (O I•;4 1-48Ik4 P gg S ■& b § gg ra 3 1 S1 « B 2 I B Eii? g 8.5 0 fi ^ ii is'll IIP I I 4J I s & M40 1 57 COUNCIL MEETING LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL JAN FOR HEETIHG OF January 9, 1989 Qjjy Qp ONONO K..».l lien.. - • Wayzata, MN Septic System Installer - Volkernant & Sons, Tnc. ^ 1030 County Road 83 Maple Plain, MN 55359-. .. — . V, ■ V ' Owner: • : ,x- U-*C»U« KENNEL LICENOT APPLICATION /Eff^cy.ve March ly^I to February4f.r Property Address; (include city and zip) - - - '• . . - . ^ ^ . .. .» -X . ^.<r v; .* *►-• r • Mailing Address (if different): Phone* ' \YLaa&V^7S~^‘'/^^ ' ~ ^ RBSIDBHTXAL Kennel License Informations $25.00/year . (payment must accompany application) . ■- ■ ■ • ..i—. k'.. .- . • • ■ - ' .—.. *-::uo:: :i.viv:ciqou7 vr::: Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:^ -- -(over 6 months of age) ' ^,. .i': : JL.«. Principal Breed:________ PiiJ^ose for more than 2 . # ^ Dogs normally kept: \/^inside dogs ; .................: j /> kennel structure CITY OF OFFICE ■ UirSOOOOO ■• 01 OEi 25.00 ~x^.£EElK./..JL 25.00 —-----T^tuET^-iHAHK YOU Business Activities: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ /'(example: boarding, breeding, veterinary ^care, retail, etc.) COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $150/year -.(payment .must accompany application) _ " " Name of Business:_;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 12/22/t Normal Business Hours:. After Hours Contact: (name)_ . . .. (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are: . . '.i- - V- '- .?• J.i1 i /tin: inside outside :iu ”-both license duration; and the undersigned agrees, to abide by...the of Mimicipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conations imposed by the-City Council as part of any kennel license approvalr- -"^ - . .J J/.5 . . ■ .• . :. . T* .* • - . - - • • . ... . ^plicant Pate For City Use Only //I ^ (t^ Kennel inspected by C\2(J7 lJJL DKennel inspected by Recommends Approval ate /-S’^S'9 I Denial CITYof ORONO CITY USE ONLY Cry«Ul Bay. Minne*»to 55323 BUILDING 4 ZONING - 473-7357 assessing SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICENSE APPLICATION All questions must ^^=e"tlffca4ioror H^me^SewIgeof insurance, and evidence of MPCA Treatment Workshop attendence must aooroval period.All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval perioa. em J /*1. 2. 3. 4. Business or trade name Business address /0% i//i l/^- Business phone Residence phone ____________ Name of applicant^ coi^any Mp^senta^e holding MPCA certification ------------------------ ^ installer _ Pumper)' a" Certifica^^^i 5. Type of certification held;:£ prior to the current construction season. ^ 7. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? Most recent year —£J— 8. Have you ever had a license revoked? When? - - - - Where ? Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? — No_ :k M w TI4:: /22/t SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: t- ;• »-i« ««0.0.0.0.. ^ " obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will t^ot be accepted. 3 $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. 4* CoDV of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence ‘ at^L-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop h^d prior to current construction season. fZ.7 licenses will not be PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons othe’r than applicant who ate authorized by you to apply for permits under your license - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - The undersigned hereby makes application to the City °f Srono ^innSota, for license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out rit^ofof the State of Minnesota and the Ordinance of the city or Orono• Date y^^-2-zc- Applj-cant^ signature Staff recommendation yApprovaj^. Reason for denial; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City Council Action Date license mailed iDenial Date Date Approved Denied G e \ o o S '••v4J- o 44L L O CITY OF ORONO P A Y R TfSffE"DZV Y-T-D CRO&g CROSS EXP/ALLOU R > ACKERHANN AJ 13 195.25 0.00 : jiiHCiL Mi■0 1 ANDERSON BL 31 38436.89 1936.05 ^ VfVIWIh IVIIi s t ANDERSON PM 13 97.50 0.00 JAii -DeANDERSONUF1392.50 0.00 7 : BER6 VJ 13 170.00 0.00 a ' BERNHAROSO ME 12 53060.92 2044.08 CITf OF OiaBOBZZENSA3121938.13 856.80 10 BOSHA JL 12 12305.25 453.06 11 ; BOYLAN SO 93 3673.92 0.00 • ■ ^ ... 12 ! BRINKHAUS JF 42 37485.24 1263.92 13 BUTLER mC 13 165.00 0.00 14 CARLSON MB 35 966.85 40.60 ■ ■ CARRUTHERS C 13 203.50 0.00 7«CHESUICK CB 31 35433.49 1418.00 17 CORNICK JL 31 33687.16 1165.14 la DESCHLER MJ 13 182.50 0.00 : la dickey NJ 13 181.50 0.00 20 EXSriNCER RD 13 100.00 0.00 V.J- ’ • < .r 21 EKEBERC EJ 13 175.00 0.00 22j ENGLISH II IH 31 34927.71 1291.45 23 ERICKSON BE 13 160.00 0.00 i • ' ■ 24 ERICKSON DJ 93 1354.53 0.00 29 ERICKSON KR 3l 35086.99 1318.16 26 FARR PS 33 2621.00 0.00 FERRIL EL 13 162.50 0.00 id FISCHENICH DT 31 32571.05 1286.74 20 FRITZLER JM 31 37U44.38 1318.16 30 6AFFR0N MP 33 29693.66 1213.60 31 GARCIA B 13 91 .50 0.00 32 CASCH MF 13 200.75 0.00 33 CERHAROSON JR 42 41546.96 1636.08 . . . 34 GREGORY JD 42 28685.64 1068.41 ^ 33 HALL TN DM 12 25997.58 1289.56 30 HANSEN 8C 42 25141.84 960.27 HANSING HILLSTROM HOFFMAN Ci 31 L« 13 RH 13 1B173.52 54.00 181.50 514.55 0.00 0.00 JACOBS JOHNSON JOHNSON TJ 33 29693.65 1213.60 BP 31 35100.52 1293.04 JH 13 176.50 0.00 ^HNSON KILBO KIRNYCZUK HI i3 189.75 crroiT HH 31 43946.79 176 ' f-0 n 31 6096.06 KUEHN LAUER lindstrom HABUSTH HADDEN MARQUARliPf MEYER TM 15 40678.45 1646.64 DA 13 147.50 0.00 DJ 93 291.14 OVOO JA 33 36357.70 1640.45 RM 13 92.50 0.00 'BTT3 MA 35 89.2T 283.05 0.0(T 0.00 o r O ^ w- -r-r- c; ' •.-• ‘7": • ■c L 49 30 !!i SK-1 • \ \55 56 CITY OF ORONO P A Y R Y-T-D * - - - - - - - ^ •rl na HE DIV CROSS CROSS EXP/ALLCKT 2 9 HIKELSON RA 15 81654.36 868.64 ■ * 4 HILLS JR WH 93 8847.75 0.00 t ■■■■r - • —■ * C 9 HORAN HF 31 38655.58 1510.35 •HOROUCZYNS J 31 37635.01 1511.84 7 nORROU J8 31 10377.3S 485.10caNAABTL1817610.14 656.81 ‘ . ■ ■■■ ■ N1CH0LL8 E 13 178.50 0.00 ♦f ‘ 0A8 DO 93 961.69 0.00rftOBRIENRL989405.00 687.50 12 OLSON BJ 13 175.00 0.00 13 OMAN LE 33 84517.86 1017.60 r •14 PALHER PB 31 505.00 0.00 15 PEASLEY C 13 188.50 0.00 1 1 10 PETERSON RW 93 0.00 0.00 ! ■'■■■17 POUELL L 13 90.00 0.00 19 QUAST WA 98 88136.78 1013.98 19 RATHBUN BJ 98 9941.8?904.64 20 RAUSCHENDO D 13 178.50 0.00 ' ■ ■ •*. \l’ , 1 R08S JA 93 688.00 0.00 ^ 8A88 JJ 48 85317.19 959.80 1 23 ' SCHAUS8 CR 31 86865.70 1051.40 . . .. 1 S4 1 SCHEFFLER LK 18 6348.91 499.59 1 25! " SKREEN DS 48 ■W1S8TY4"965.66 1 2»|; STEFFENHAC RE 93 86607.49 1078.80 1 STEVENS BC 93 3405.00 0.00 26 STUBBS C 13 85.00 A.00 ■29 STUBBS L 13 98.50 0.00 \30<! THOMTON MR 31 89435.58 1136.90 31 tOHCHECK LF 31 30610.98 1193.39 32 T0HC2YK MW 31 34714.81 1318.16 i 1 TOWARD H 13 98.50 0.00 TURNHAh K 13 178.50 0.00 i 35i 3.! 1 WALSH 1 1 KL 35 1479.00 155.55 \ ( 37 COUNT 'AND 46,782.45 c vf . ■38 39 PAID 00042 ■ W TOTAL 00084 TOTAL total FICA tax CROSS' S 23,488.74 EflPLOYERS FlO CROUP HEALTH B - PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN C • BLUE CR088/BLUE SHIeLO .V.;, ;.^v^ D « MEDICAL CENTER PLAN E - PRUDEN^'TAL ~CUORO. H ealth care MINNESOTA HMO » a TPAMC-AHCP TPA mr J-'i « -j..- f^y\ L-Jll CITY OF ORONO • •; ... V . i- ,• . : • r.’n;"T AT*. :• . n O i -i:i r'c, 112 ;c 15 iij •If i20 !2i; ;C7 ■ •-•-'■•• i NAME lOeJUr/f-f' P A Y R DIV _ Y- CR08S T-D •--------- - ■ - CROSS EXP/ALLOVi ANDERSON . 6ERNHARDS0 BOBZIEN JBO_SMA ___ _ BOYLAN BRINKHAUS CARLSON__ CHESUZCK CORNICK '^"^CLISH II ICkSON -CKSON R» ; iSCHENlCH FRIT2LER CAFFRON BL 31_39977.49 ME 12 55105.00 SA 31 22794.93 JL 12_12746.79 SD 93 3873.92 42 38875.55 35___1007.25 31 36851.49 31 34816.99 3L 36226.22 93 1354.53 31 36407.15 33_2821.00 31 33959.79 1540.60 2044.06 656.80 441.54 !• CERHARDSON GREGORY HALLIN_ _ HANSEN HANSINC JACOBS JOHNSON KILBO KNUTSON ^UEHN LINDSTROM MABUSYH MARQUARDT ME'*ER M'XiLSON JF _MB GB JL IH DJ KR PS DT JM MP JR JD DM SC CJ TJ BP MH CA TM DJ JA BJ MA RA 0.00 1390.31 _20.40. 1418.00 1129.83 1298.51 0.00 1316.16 _ _0^.00 31 33 42 42 36491.06 30907.46 43165.04 29754.04 .j2_27068,7A 42 26101.04 31 12614.57 33_ 30907.45 31 36417.80 31 45706,79 15 19017.89 15 42325.09 93 291.14 33 37611.78 1388.74 1446.68 1213.60L 1636.08 1068.40 1071.20 959.20 441.05 1213.60 1317.28 1760.00 _685.44 1646.64 0.00 1454.08 93 35 15 89.26 0.00 283.05 0.00 22523 ._00_.e68L..64. MILLS JR UH 93 2247.75 0.00 'is:..MORAN MF 31 40023.86 1368.34 M0R0WC2YNS J 31 38928.05 1293.04 •i7'MORROW JS 31 10713.35 336.00 ■ L '•.NAAB TL 12 18466.95 656.81 !3o:CAS DO 93 96J ,89 0_,00 . • .'D OBRirrt RL 92 10205.00 800 00 OMAN LE 33 25534.86 101/ :-s2’PALMER PB 31 5^5.00 0.00 PETERSON RU 93 0.00 0.00 QUAST UA 92 29252.09 1115.31 *r.RATHBUN BJ 92 10722.55 781 ?'■ lAt ROSS JA 93 882.00 C''!SASS JJ 42 26276.39 959. i.w Un!SCHAUSS CR 31 27414.39 1148.69 SCHEFFLER LK 12 6648.51 499.60 ^ e:SKREEN DS 42 26121.17 962.43 ir. •STEFFENHAG RE 93 27660.29 1072.60 STEVENS BC 93 3495.00 0.00 THOMTON MR 31 30579.55 1143.97 z *. —-- -- . - V I ' r o. • -.-ix. — ir — •• «t.t t ■ CITY OF ORONO PAY Y-T-D * ---------------- ;rr 2 ' NAHE DIV GROSS GROSS EXP/ALLO I 3 I n'»| TOWCHECK. TOMCZYK UALSH LF_3I_31.940. 76_U 29.04. HU 31 36032.37 1318.16 KL 35 1632.00 153.00 '■'V. oi: B ' ■Jni COUNT P A I D_ 0 0042. TOTAL 00054 GRAND 45,584.93 TOTAL I '>2nr TOTAL FICA TAX GROSS - 23,011.61 EHPLOYERS FII _ _ _ _^A J5_ group: HEALTH_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ V. " • i*-V .*.«• I 't-' ' { ti.c ■34 ■7' r- ■ :c:- i I40- : ( I i « 4Z ..3 •t*,u I4C i i O’®' » isr G'V- ; 56 ■f B - PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN C~V blue” CROSS/BLUE SHIELD D « MEDICAL CENTER.PLAN_ _ PRUDENTIAL F G H "coord, health CARE MINNESOTA HMO . TRANS-AMERICA OCC. "I~i“BANKERS LIFE J - MUTUAL SERVICES. K - MUTUAL OF OMAHA L M EMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT AETNA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NICOLLET EITEL 1^'LEACUE OF CITIES P ■ METROPOLITAN HEALTH-PLAN Q - SHARE Z - HEALTH CARE MAINT ACCT. MISSING_HOSP CODE FOR„SOME EMPL'S •• • ^■ »*v .••• wyit^tCPt-r' *CiV «•» -.•.- o o o n CITY OF ORONO Cl I T ur i/Rwnw ^ C^M n^c/1 <f9<Py_ NA«rk DIV fe P A Y R 0 L_y-T-D »_rLj:L-r - ROSS GROSS EXP/ALLOW F ^CALLAHAN. 60ETTEN CRABEK EJ-Jll J 11 J 11 E4J-*6J:_a41-..6TL :-w— t.*:*'* -'i“ J4EmEfi____^»ILJX PETER80N BA 11 E41.67 241.67 300.00 300.00 241.67 241.6.7- COUNT.GRAND 241.67 241.67 _ _ _ _ _1^266.6€L |,o! r^in, " !i2' V , PAID 00005 Il5 -V’. lie TOTAL 00005 TOTAU-FICA. A |1»;B. .21 _____ C. . ■ 1123.D 12A E . ____F . G _ H ■" yZ- ■•■.33._ I '•3- V35'J 2- k O:- ; ■ —L. TOTAL .00 . EMPLOYERS FICA Cili GROUP HEALTH BLUE CROSS/BLUE„SHIELD. MEDICAL CENTER PLAN PI COORD. HEALTH CARE MINNESOTA HMO TRANS-AMERICA OCC. M MUTUAL SERVICES I I-5P 0:-’i EMPLOYEE * S BENEF I T. AETNA ■ At o; ir- 4.1 u: N - NICOLLET ElTEL _0_-_ LEAGUE OF CITIES^ ^nul, i kj)‘ '.At P - METROPOLITAN HEALTH PLAN Q; 41r r •:zt Q - SHARE Z -.HEALTH CARE MAINT_.ACCT_ I ij'-:: ■ MISSING HOSP CODE FOR SOME EMPL'S U I tx. Ill Hco 1-4o 111 9t ■SCu 111 Xu o> *“ i/i in CD CD «o «o o,01 r- 0-, 0 O 0| — — 01 1 I I' • I I 0 0 0.000 o- ^ «r. O' o- 0-1 n n n.n n n, o- o- 0-, o- o- o-t I I I I I I ! o o o o o o t» U C» 1» o o'z z z z z z f-l CD «> ID ID CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 111 111 111 111 III 111 u o o a o (jo o o o o o oc ae ac ec a: oi, ■t ■ 3 V I'- r- — — — — n n I I 11 I O' O' O' O' o. o»iiu 01 © Oj— — I I' I I O' O' (T> O' O- ’»> O' n Min n V O' ♦ O' I I) I I o o o o 111 ui lU 111 <<<<<< <<<<<< Q Q Q O a Q _l -I -I -I < < < < '-I ►H Z O' fl£ Ko o o o 1- H I- H Z Z z z < < < < OJ *- H H I I O' O jo. ♦ IflJ CO 1 1 I I'D «0 •O OIn n ill iO o 0. O’o n _i n 111 —> • 111 a j III o. K a. < lU O' CD OC o; < HI > 00 < 111 z oc 1 H H H H 111,u az z z z z z z z z z 1 UJ 111 111 111 111 111 111 z zz z 3 3 i >UJ 1 CD CD 0> CD CO ID U O (» o o o -1 J ac UI CD, >->->->->->-Q Q a Q a a Ci.1 CD 0> CD CD CD CD -I _l -I _l ac «|CD ?l1CO m ID flo < <CDo o o o o o -1 -I'-l -1 z X CD o U. UL U. U. It. 11.CD CD lUI oz z z z z z < <,< <!'ZM M z z • t-t 5 OLH H H 1- 1- h1 u u.u u oc oc oc oc 111 111 oc ac CD '3 111 111 111 111 t* (»a»UJz z z z _i _i z.z z z z X X ‘00 zo o o o < < ,UJ {< OC < < < 00 <D iD <D n n.oi 01 'T O O’ OI r- O' in O' 'o• (U CD n in O' o o o o o o in in cu 01 I O' O' O' O' O' O' 1 CD CD 00 CD CD (D I >N -V N N V V^ ♦ <r! o o o o o o : N N X N N. V O' O' O' O' CO CD CO 00 XXXV ♦ 4T ^ 'T o o o o X X X X O' O' CD CD X X ^ ♦ o o X X o o o o o o • :o o o o o o •^ ^ r. r-••1 n •in •o •1 H r- N •O’ O’ * 1 n n n n n n »n n n n •in in •■ O’•O'••O' CD O'«o o# 1 o o o o o o »—. w>^ V*••cu •cu •n ••n n n #O’ O’• in n n n n n •n n n n •n n •,n •n •n •, n n n #n n»«o <o «o «o <o •o »'ll lO «o «o »>o «o •' «o ••o ••D ••O >0 40 #«o <o#n n n n n n 1 •n n n n ,•n n •n •n •n •nn n •n n . V ?::■f f Z £ Z CO CD CO< < «' z z z o o o XXX IIIz z z XXX 111 111 111 in in(U 01 H r- 00 00 •D tO 00 00 r- ^ »m O >- H CD n — O’ O’ o. X! I o o o CD CD t CD CD' i X X ;1 X X0 1 CJ1 ! V i11»1 *1 1»*•••i 1 ! : 1 1 •« cu i i cu 1 in n CU n o! 1 1 1 CD —1 T 1 •“- n O' 1 1 1 O' O’ O'O' 1 O'1 O’-1 •o O'n !>o r- >0 CUinooo — in — O’,1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1O’—-i ®cu Oln.1 O’(0 00 00 cu o*^cu 1 1 —n n n n n !'*■O’O’O’ O’ O’O’ O’, 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 •n w -----n — O’r o o o o r-o cu Q UJ ' in Q >- -1 ! r ia.(U j 1<Ol i 1 3 CD i 1 1 1 UI H o u u 1 LP Z cu i jUlUJ UJ (» o<;’■ —|a o o z zz<!1 1 4-4 >-l<Z cu !ui UJ ui X Xo«—,c* o o CD CD CD i < < <*-• M 0.O < <. _J _J 111 111 X X I-1- O CM!' O’ n,H • '1 • O’ 00 cu cu (u in i| I i: UJ t- a o a< (j bl X h-i •- Ti?o* a* c» :« a: ee o o I- I- »-t *-4z z < < bl bi CJ o M M > > tr at bJ hi <0 m -I J < < —* »-* a a z z 3 3 CO «0 ?' f. . 01« ui — n ^ (u - 01 M n •- MiM n ▼ O' o* O',®* I' I I til I I I I III O'O'O'O'^'IOO'O'O' o o n in »i) oi r- r- 't 'O o' o»0 o o .-1— <- 01 in in in in I' I I ill I I I I II0,0 o o o o o o o o n 01 01 OI 01 01 01 Ol OJ (U 01 01Mnnnnnnnnnn ^ » 'T I I I I I I I I I I I — '- — oin'T^ o o o o o o o r> t'- |w o blblblbiuiblbiiiibiui*^ zzzzzzzzz z'co OOOOOOOOOOM XXXXZXZZZ XI- a.a.a.aLO.a.a.a.a.a.« biblblblblUlbJUlbiiiJlil biuiujhiblbibibJhiuia I- Hl< ZZZZZZZZZ z z 333333303 3 3zzzzzzzzcxcZZZZZEZZZ c zooooooooooo CJUOUOUUUU 0,0 ^1. . . II—l—H'l—I—I—I—I—I— I—I— COCOCOCOCOCOCOIOCOCOCO blblblbiuiuibiuiuiuiiil33333333333 COCOCOCOCOCOCOIOCOCOCO 33,--------------------- iCO iv ol — — O O' O' I I I o O' O' o T *0 0 in in II I n n n r-'i- f- 01|CU Ol T T 7 01 01 01 h- I— 1- CO CO CO o: z K bl ui lu I- I- I- Ul 111 bl Z,Z E at at at bl hi lu I- I- I- < < < 3 3 3 o o o o o o CO 10 CO I- »- I- o o o 3 3 3 a o o o o o a: at at a. a. CL at at at bl bl bJ »- >- ►- < < < 3 3 3 O' O' 00 CO N. N. o o I in in r- r- n n 'O nO n n I CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ^D CD CD 'VN.NV.N'''.N.N,VN>' ooooooooooo S.VN.V'SN.N.NNNS, oooooooooo ininin:nininininininin CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CDnnnnnnnnnnn •O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O Mr'IfOf'lfOI'lMni'lMM I O' O' O' CO CO CD N. V. N 'T O- ♦ o o o X N N o o o ’T ♦ » CD CO CO n n n 'O <o to n n n lO' 11 f inIin ■o n 'T (U l'- co bl z 1 ; *■ j ** 1o <o >o o CD n n 00 1 •1 o o o «o n |w mI 1 r- <0 *0 o> «o in ro 111 «o r'® I'- «o *o f- in — — in — O' O' — (U 01 vO «0 01 01 I : 1 1 ' 1 1 i. ^ : 4 5 I o: in' z bl X| »-l X, «1 ii O O CO, CO ■■ { ? ! : I o ! b. IZ Q >3 z a o z ,> 3 Z Z •-* !o b. b. < ;> I- • z ;bl z c* (» bl z bl z Z z E O Oblhll-1- z > > < < bl 3 O O Z Z CO Z z z bl bl z Z Z Z & 3 < II II to Z Z Z I bl E in bl bl z Z Z CO I- 3 J : bl bl »• < bl o C* Z — 3 CO O o o o o o o I- I- t- Kil- I- — in cu n ^ o. w cu f-i?- h- Q a a a o o z z z z z z 333333 Z Z Z Z.Z Z ! I » o o *1 o o • 1 o o >o O' o o> (u inO O 01 cu o o in «o n n O' — CD 00 cu cu in i/i;CO O' r- — V- 'T <U (U cu cu r-ooinn — 1 (U M CO 01 n O' o cu •o ni cu 6 M tl 1 « • 6 s 5 } Z. O CO 111a z' 111»- znoz< inr.li ] ^I, ?.!« k .. - .j ^::;r ^ S s V 3 v r. “ ? ^ I. ? si « ., ;■ s il;, j J , i I ;* «09 I N01 I 01 i t o z 1-z 3 Ouu< — —, ^nn»no* I |i I I II I I e o e » ^ M ^ lA I r I I I I I I MMOIMMMinOI I I I I I I I I o o o e e e e ^• T; o* 5.? s !;i «m (0 tnzzZlz u o u u1111••••••••• j 1 1 1 • i i 1 1 ! i i ' • i » 1 r f '0*0 ,o o ' I I 'o o iin in !?T« 9* O 0» n n ▼ O’ I I in m M- ^ 01 ^ o «i .O’ ▼ O' r- o o I I I I I I 'O o o O h- o 0 o o o •- «D .01 01 01 o o in 1 I I I I I o in in in in in o o o o o o n n n n n n 0 o o o o o 1 I I I I I ----on o o o o 01 - n 7 Vi •* o 01 r- T 7o o M M ir z o M»-a. M K U CO 111 o zu H Z Ul h- 0) M u 111 K Zu 111X u K O o z u> 0 = u u u u u 111 I-I ■ 1 1-00000 1 cowwnioiozco < ^i 1 u HIUIIHII1WII13UI X . 1 : 1 O (i to to tt COz z z z zIKm — m — m _l J ; 0.0.0.0.0.0.Z0.1 z ! :>- >•UJI-l-l-h-1-0. 0.f?ZOLaZZZKZ -•H o o Z J J J J J a. a.J- 33333333 <bl bl z 3 3 — 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 IOCOMIOIOMI1.CO X Ul z —< <0 CO to CO to CO CO < u.o <in w 1- z z z z z z UlUlbllUIUklUU ►-' I X Ul o o o o o Ul Ul uuuuuuuu III 1-a.Ul w z u u u u u U U 0* 1 111 z UJ o u u i-i — ll.lLlLb.ZU.ll.li;K u -1 a < »c <0 CO to (0 to to z z 2zzzzzzzz1 1-u Ul a. a.z z z z z z z z O OOOOOOOO co <h-aa V) to Ul bl Ul III Ul Ul o o Ul <<■<<<<< oior-or^r-too — or^r*>coKh>-oo inooinoooft*r- 01 — •*0»—!— *0 1*11^ ' - ^ n lU < a J o z z'u Ul Xu COIOCOOCOCOQICO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO NXXVVSSS (UOIoioiojiMMoj NSSNVSNS OlAIOtOiniOlQlOl — — — — —I — — — sO ^ ^ %0 10 10 ^ ^ OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO Ai<U(U(U(U(U<UOI|0^«0^^|0«0^ nnnnnnnn c:X •* CO CO 1 z z z z z z>-u u 'CO CO CO to W CO u CO u *” •" 1 <<<<<<>• >-z z 1-'Z CO « <X X CJ u Z i M M 1 llj III III III Ul z z z 1 3 1 o CO o u u z z z z z z < <o<a <CO o o Ul Ul bl Ul Ul Ul 1 a; oe Ul o CO (0 (0 CO CO CO (0 to to to ( o z >-«0 i (0 10 <o o o o o o 1 o o •u CO a.Ul X 1 < <z z z z z z H 1-1 u :-l X z t o o 1 «z _i _1 o « 1 1 o o o o o o X X !!!z III 3 Z Z 'ae oe oe oe ee ae ' o X h-1-o '. < <CO CO z 1 co u z i X X CO CO CO (0 CO CO X X o _1 •0 u ' z z 1 III 111 111 Ul Ul Ul u u i Ul z ' a.<! < < 1 z z z z z z < <0 u _l z H J ,O o 1 o o o o o o -J -J <<<<<“l®“ 1 n n 0 n B n 0 0 u o o o o o o f*- h- n n in in O 'O o* o> ioi 01 •o «o (0 (0 01 01 o o o o in in «o «o eo 5 5^:5 1 * I • oi •o f! r>, CO (0 CO CO S X 01 01 s V 01 01 o o t*-0 o 01 01 u> «o n n it r ? 0 e n o CO in o «e I o - e CO 01 in c* o r> CO o» «o o e tr n 01 n o« in — n ’T , «o 01 CO 7- i" •! in o in ! m0 cr* ^0 0 0*0 I 0 T n 0 ' n CO fl> CO CO <0 (O CO CO CO CO J> CO I "S N. N . S X V. M M oi (U (U 01 V N. N S S X 01 01 01 01 01 01 I ♦ ♦ ^ ^r-r-f'-r-r-r-0 o o o o o 01 01 01 01 01 01 vO vO vO >0 vO vOn n n n n nI :T *. 0 CO eo CO CO oi oiN N 01 01 — • — —CD CO0 o 01 01 •o «a n n 00 00 V W i w «m uic o .. •> 1 ' - . ;i - •• •!* «0 10 m •»z z z ^ iuuuo ' 1 1 1 1 1•••« • ■••*• ! 1 1 • i 1 • 1 i X ;; H r • S .'t;‘,'.! n n I I «a •* 01 01 7 7 01 01 in M I I zo , a. M K U :; «0 1 tn tn UI 1 z za z I III U UI ' u. u. n aO (0 tn z z M M 111 III u. u. •-t t-4 -I -I < < H4 M z z o o o oCJ u in «o — oj n to •0^0 CO CO CO CO V s M (U N N 01 (U o r» n ^ (U *o «o n 1*1 •I n 1 1 r> r e f >. H Z O. (0 III K< K n M 01 01 t*i n U9 «0 :i s , s t; i; s P: i"' ^; t 2|o r- n i7Tlo« o 0 w1 In n ▼ »n n ■ ■» *• IS? • ^ I- »-z z M M < < z c tt (» Q a -J Jm a o* •* ’T ♦ Oi in I I 01 01 n n 01 01*r TI I «- 01 e l» tn m ►- ►- K K < < O. 0. O. 0. 9-t M 3 3e a u UI 01 - r- n I I 0» 9> 9* 01 01 <- I I «o «a0 in n n ▼ ▼ 1 I 0 e UI m r- N n n n n 01 oJ e o o non u) in on ♦ UI UI « CO • T « 01 I- 01 o o e ^ ▼ - UIn n o e o e 01 01 ▼ ^ UI o UI o ♦ ♦ o ♦ CO e> N U» N CO CO CO n N S S MN N 01 01 • I o o • ! UI in• ^ * 01 w * <a >0* , n n !} ;.i:i n • 01 • I »- • OJ • 01 • «a * n CO CO CD a N Ss sN S 01 01 iF- »- «0 «0 UI m OJ 01 01 OJ vO <0 n n CO CO CO CO N S S MN S, 01 OJ Ok 9> vO «0 OJ OJ 01 01 kO <o n n o- ♦ kO kO n n Ok o* e e e 01 ;0 1 j UI t 1 !i z , 1 J Z 'o.i o 1 o. .M!S 'Z 3oMOjJ 1- 1 UI n 1 « !utno ';01 UI «J*•, J ,z»--1 *-4 ►4 1- o ■ I I H J z o Z ►4 k-k I o 'M»-o u o « 3 1 n CO 3 Z 1 •-11 Ol X a > >a<m o • K K UI o o o III UI b.o !c*o u 3 CO CO U.tn Z 1 z UI 1 UI UI tn CO -1 a c»u z _i f 01 **z z z UI<0! 1 01 oe at z M M M X0)i UI < <*-•z z CO!z CL a CO>0. ’z z a « <UI >•u 3 .< <01 III u o « K >HeeaU t»0)z z o 1- 1-•1 u1M M 1 UI > 3 zz> ,J J ae 3 3 z H 1-a zz0. 'J -1 :0. 1 z z UI > >^ !zoo 1 3 3 X UI UI J O O < !1 UIuuCJ U jUI O tt (»tt u X X ,n n lUI UI ;; 1 ;}U :{ s s s(•s r.’’? ; '5 3 ^ 5 ’? s ;-'r‘ r f ’ '' t» 5 ) ^ V. w w « t' 0 Ulu< (0 <0 III X s Vi :! «- • i o *! X 3 O Uu oeu tn lU a X III H- ac III H «)Oi O a z Ul>: h' z 3 O X< O Z Oo: o u.o >- H Si •» ne 5r I CO 80 ■s (U N «l » e •: n » n » Al » «o » n «« n 0 10 CD n ♦ 1 e a.aeou I ' ^i X1 ae I ui I ^ 1 5 co CO *0 lO CO CO !kUl !£ o o o e in in •o <o i*I M 1•« (U I M n (U CO CO N (G N (U » in» in» n » Al • <o • n ae Ul H H< a < n Ul H< l- 0) ae Ul I- z in in o* a* in in CO flOou< ►l X o I- ®* D* <o <o ♦ ♦ C W' V' ;; 4 V 5 ^ ^ ii:;;.' r :'|U sf ? tn h-ae<a. to n 0. m tn -j -I « -I -IU III 3 Ul Ul 3 3 0 3 3 h. Ul Ul U. U. >•>•>•>->- -I J -I _J J 0. X X X X X X X X X 3 3 3 3 3 CO CO 0> CO (0 O O O O O t-l-l-l-H 3 3 3 3 3< « < < < CO CO CO to (0 z z z z z X X Z X X o o o o o e o e CO Al e CO «0 Al Al CO Al o« in r- Al in n n ♦ I CO CO CO 00 CO ICO CO CO CO CO 'n S X V s M M (G N -r- i n n n n n ; Al Al Al At Al I ^ m ^ «o ;n n n nn I COu z 0 ae H U Ul '-I Ul 1 'X I O !| Al Al CO CO Al Al 'I y 3: 9- * 5: ! t' :•; r r, ^ M Al - Al 1 Mn < < *• ••1*^1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 9> a* 0» a* a*•*0^ Al < < < «lAl - Al Al in in 1 ^(U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O Al o o Al M Al Al n Al Al •<M Al Al Al Al Al n < < ♦ r <1 1 1 1 1 1 j I ^ ^ Al n 1e o e A- r» 'o o CO z -1u>-u Ul K ae Ul X< Ul X I- n n •* o» r 5 (G N. AJ AiM^nin^nin;;-n - -- j- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I Io>a*a>^o*a*^a*9»^a*a*a* n»oAir“«oAiA-<«Aif-jj'r oo»«-o^^o«>^ininin I I I I I I I I I I I I IeooeAiAiAiinininoAiin ^•^♦♦ininininininjgin nnnnnnnnnnnnn m i. i i i 11 i w Al w eeeoooeooe^^N X _l K ^ Ul < Ul < S5 K>>> ►;> 8S SSiS»>ii> S|!!.i!zz>iii|!!zS Ul M l-l MeXKOKXXUUUKXO Mc-zinaQQOooHOO I^zm^<<<kkkz<x xoxx xxxp o. X u X X to CO to ^ *^ *•* ^ )_|.HI-COatOI-HI-HUO-ZZZZOOO<<<ZO<KKKKJj^aoaxja oeeeoeooeoeeonnnnnnnnnnnnn lUUIUUIUIUIUIUlUIIUIUIUUI till I I I I COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOtOCOCOCO cototototoiocototocotototoooooooooooooo eeeo^r-A-inn<0OO»<o ooinoo*^<«oh-noin — nAionAir-«oconAiincoo AininAio*o*<i^®o»-®‘r»^ 1 •-♦^Aiin«on cococooo®®®®®®®® 4)0>A>a)CO®®O®®®®®VNwSNVNNXSNVNN MAIcGAiAiAlAlAIAlAIAlAlAI N.XNXN'vN'sSN'SNN AIAIAIAIAIAJAIAIAIAIAIAIAI I 'inininininininuuninininin AIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAI«o«o*0«o«o«o«o*o«o'o>o'a«onnnnnnnnnnnnn r; * D tt 01 I 01 • \ 01 < to CO 01 *=l d ■r’. !. CO :£ iVI* o CO >c u I o 0. w w. q 2 ;;;! 5 ? 1! ^ i‘ I •** II •! • I • I oz »-z 9 O t;a< 01 01 01 I I I 9* O* 0* «o «o <o in in in I I I 0 01 Ml Y Ml HIn n n ♦ ▼ T 1 I I n n nr- H oe z > a. 01 o ►H »- Z Z oe U K Z U CO 1-0 0 01 z « za o ou U 0)z -*< 01 I- c» I-»- z o < ►« z u a 9 on 01 Hco u at zuu X CJ e o o 0 o o n n n 01 01 01 H »- H M M 9 9 9 CO CO CO I I I « o 0 z 01 > CO CO CO M M <0 C5 C*o o o u -I ^ o <0 n in O CO 01 *0 I in in - cu ^ o* 1 n-t-z 9 O z< ozo ato u.o CO CO o* a o z z!u Ulzu CO CO CD CO CO CO V N N (U 01 01 V N N 01 OJ 01 ^ — in in in n n n ♦ ▼ a- OJ OJ 01 •O «0 «0n n n n IIO' 01 I • >: 1 * i • CO COs OJ N OJw o K 9< I- Z < Z •o •o OJzz<><z nz ▼ ▼ r- a o h* !>- z zo M h- u OJ&mz o e o o o o OJ OJ ao N W Xw o* vO 'T Of t*l <- M M Mn n n a- I I I I O' O' t» *• Z M W m ” 7 I M «*n w «u M M n o- ♦ T Jill o e e o Io> O' 0 1-rz n ■O' I n I O' M 7e Mn o- I O' O' O' O O' ' «0 lO <0 w n w M M in — - - w n ■O' O' o o r- r- o o in in e e o o z a o CO «o o o to N N N N Z (U M M V V s V. z z z z in in in in to O o z O' O' O' O'z z z z «0 'O «o <o n n n n <o CO X z Xz » O O O' » O'» z• z» n «a N Z N Z » o * O»! in•! z »| *0 o n tn I O' ,h* 7e On O' J ] z n m < 1- p- p-t .a. ae ae ae n 1 *< < < z U * s X& a. ol n p-l-at z a. a.i-t 1 at z M — t-< J J ! W a 9 9 9 ►I o c a O O H P-<z Z U W 9 9 ‘ a.c >aezto o o o o i j 'i u u u u < &to z z z zzz z z z o ' O l» l> 15 u £>->•>->-to 5 5 3 X X K K <o O O O O ts u -« X X X X X X X c o o j e o o o Ul Ul * ! - • lUI• |z » I yo • ! n z » z O' O' O' II I O' O' O' O O <0z m w III o o o n PI n0 o o 1 I I <- Z PI O p. p- o o o H I- P- 9 9 9< < < H P- P*z z z M M M < < < z c z Z K K M M < < c z z z III u lU « K Z O O O P- H I- 9 9 9< < < III z z z z z z z z < < < > > > < < < z z z to e e z o z ® O' o p- o z ^ p- to « a o o o N S N z z z N S Sz z z z z z o o o z z z z z z z «a «o PI PI PI P- •• PI Z P- *- z— PI PI O «- O' 0* I I I I I I IO' O' O O' O' O' O' O' Z P- o O' o « 0 «• - z e z z 1 I I I I I I^ Z z z PI O z PI PI PI PI O PI PI Z Z Z Z PI z z 0 o o o o o o 1 I I I I I IZ PI e e e o e p- p> z z z < z »-i-p-»-p*r»-z z z z z z •>•<«< M z < < z z z < >- z X z zz z z zto M M M u J M 0 9 9 9 0 1-19 -J a a o u p- a Q U Z Z Z 9 Z z z z z z z z oc oe oe oe ac ae te <<<<<<< 3 3 3 3 9 3 3o o o o o o o ae ae ae ae ae ae ae«<<<<<< X X X X Z XX III III III z z z zae ae ae ae ae at aeae ae ae ae ae ae ae<<<<<<< !>>>>>>> !<<<<<<< X Z Z Z X Z X OZZOP*Z — z P*ZOPIPIZ«-PI ZP-OOM—, MP- Pl -PI PI - to « z o z o a z z z « o a. o X N X X N X, S Z W M M M W W X X X X X X Xz z z z z z z to z <oi o z o o o o o o o o o Ul Ul Ul Z Ul Ul zz z z z z z z Z Z Z Z z z z n n n PI PI PiPi O' Q r.r II O' oil •> • I o ^o >C o CO bi 00 X O' u CO Xu II•>» •l . .1 ! !• ; o s 01 (Ur- r- CO u 'I- ' M O' O'e e » Oi» <o» in• cu • 'O • n e «- 0 n 1 I e O' o 01 0 — 1 I Y 01n in n — n I I o o mm hJ 0)u z X 111 111 a 11. IL •-> oe -i z z CO CO CO CO« < H H 111 U oe ae a. 0. r z 111 ui a CO 3 3 O. O. IS CO e CO r- o r- co CO 00 CO A1 01 N N 01 01 O' O' in in 01 01 vO 'll n n (0x> CJ I i'» <o to n n CO CO i. i •• 3 •; ? o o 0 o 1 I o o o o 0 e 1 I «0 «o 01 01 I I III IIIz z -1 J o o CO (0< < U CO o o o o o o 10 COz z H< M .J J -I Jo o oe oe 01 CO o «o n o e «■ in CD 01 o N N in - - n CO CD 00 CO N V 01 01 N N 01 01 in in r- r- vO vO 01 01 «0 'll n n 3 3 !’ o e CO CO M n 01 01 ,o o -1 -I U III CO 10 111 kl M M a Q o o u u l-l M o o ;>- >- u u < < ce oe IH K le O' «» iO «o «a ' O O' O' n O' i'- « 01 0) CO o CO CO N S 01 01 s s 01 01 O' O' I'- r- !'• r- 01 01 <0 «a n M in in01 (U cu (U • 01* I o** r- • lOl • ' '0 • |n ; r :. i co' X :i ,01 n .o !n ^ O' t o '1 III 1 1 1 iO'.O' o «0 I O'* 01 i !♦ O' •01 >01 ' 01 in •O 1 II 1 1 1 01 o o o ^' n 01 01 o 01 01 01 01 UI 01-o 'M- <•O’ j O' 1 1 1- O’O'«• o O N z I u* t-t M z 3, o o CO CD in in n n CO' 9 • M) • O' • 1^• <u • «0o n 3 r; 'r; r '3 ; 3 3 ? i. 5 * <- 01 Ml <- n't O' I I I I O' O' O' O' 01 Y «o o- «• 01 o in I I I I0 e in in01 01 in Ml n n n n o- ♦ O’ O' till *- - - 01 e a e a a55 CO 0) 0) 01 111 UI III UI u uz z o o o o z « Z X O. 0.o. o.UI u « < _l -1 1- H UI UI < < I- H o a z z z z 3 3 3 3z z zz_____z z z z o o o o u o u u cn CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 01 o 01 r>O' u) r- UI o O' e <0 O’ »- ,0l •- 0 CO CO CO CO CO CD CO 01 01 01 01 Si X •V N 01 01 01 01 in UI in in CO CO CO CO 01 (U 01 OI 'll 'll «0 <0n n n n • • , j# >z M o» I•»«• in I in inn Inr- eeu cn 111o zoaz 111> <0 r- co in Y «1 «l (U o z o K in o I-c li. ao I >• o H Z u z Cl CO 111 CO z o* o i e e o e CO CO in in n n 0 0r; -i fi ft K ,•IJ:OCOOO ^ 00 0■:I ; '4 5 I ? ? 5 ? ti;; s: 5 7. S sis S SI 8 5 a 3 ? ? li ? ? j'r 5f i: I e p*' e •*, 1 I: e •« o w0 m 1 I n n r- ♦ M n - ♦ M N r- I- w u > z z « Z KHI HI I- ►- tol < Z 3 at H lU z I-< < 3 C uz CO IIIH, o o u u 10 w H H U LI 3 3 a Q o o. at K: ■•••l at K ill u K I- < < 3 3 o o «o « CO CO •o K n in n n ♦ • »- — h> »' B e o man ^ ^ «o « n n CO (U !? (U M N S, (U N I « I- a • » in • n » CO » cu • «o • n ♦ » CO B lU lU <o « n n B Zu I : o o n n in in ♦w to i cu «o n 01 01 |0-01In0*1*^n 11 1 ;7 11 1 ' 1 1 11 lO*tt o>10*0*o*0*o-in 01 <e «Ml |0I 01 *r r-CO Ml Ml |0 l«.«»01T1! 1 1 1 , 1 1«a «M e 01 •o e 'e 01 Ml Ml n n Ml o*<01 ,n n 01 01 lOI n n n ;▼0-■*r 'B ■B ♦ i 1 1 1 1nn: e N n O 'O O e . O '>• I- I CO ! Z e o e o o e e e e e e e in in in in e e in Ml lU M ♦ ♦ p- - W 01 !:1 I! 7 •: e o Ml Ml Ml Ml •* •*e e e o B B 01 01 0 e n n 01 01 e o o o * q ;ii;. 3 :.'7 s s s ; ft 5 * 3 i; 4 •- 1 ; 5'i- rr i -!*-m -a. .« I - - Ml Ml > 01 01 BO* 01 01 B O*n n o* ; 01 «o n I e o <o «• 01 01 n n ft =. 7 7 ft t r,•^*1 in f» o *1 o St o «P Ul«0 XO' u O' 0 1<»o, Ion lLk.lL o e o o o o o o e e o !“■ < < Z (» .J -I M o o z I- I- > Z Z M O O O k. k. < k. .j w u a S5 5 « Z z JL3 H M M e O O •» kl »- H z ki k. >< < ki p < O K K m IL « u oe III ki «L a. k. 3 .J kl o z o o o< > z u zoo K K w K -I Z kl kl iL Z Z ^ K »- 3 J ill Z 3 ki < kl O Hl-I-I-I-I-I- O O O O O O O « in <- ^ 01 -o n e n • V !J tJ r * i -r A i:. k u u i r» .• I.r w f| o V .n « I. 'I H n Ul II t4 3 8_S|^ S, r: f' r\‘. 2 R s,u R Si3 ; ? ■-! i 5'S 5 ‘5 'r ? a R 5 s r. i Ulo<a CO CO Ie n I lUl < Mi !^! 0 z »-z 3' 01 Ulu< ;i •; .’ •) .. !. I j ^ j| _i .j J -I____<<<<<<<<< zzzzzzzzzzz <<<<<<<<<<< c c zzzzzzzzz ,'.n ^^ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<' ^ nn|nnnn<*«o>o«o> I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I II I I o« Qt o« •» ihi«* •a<iAO>oo>Q>o n M O* •- •>.<u 01 r»!co -o o* < m o< 0 oio «• -i<- - -!- 01 Ol ut Ul li) 1 I' I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I OJ 01 01 01 Ol'oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ▼ *r <<<<<<<< TTTTtItTT till!. ^ ^ ^ ^ ooooooooooor-r-h- § SSSS8S8SSS3S3S M oeooooeooooooo ►-] n n n n n n n n^n n n n M n M o o o o o o oooooooog —-----------— (0 lUUiUllillllUIUIUIUIIilUIUIIllUI 111 OL a iL a. Ol o Id. o.:iL Q. a 0-CL a. o (L aio. a. iL o. Or |L|& o. o. 0. a. Q. S UUUUUUUMUUUUUU. t-i U.I^U.lLlt.U.U.U.lLU.U.b.U.U.1 oeUlI-co!-• utilec zuU!Xu MCOOIMMCOMmCOOICOMMO) UllillilllJllllllllllliUlUIUIIilUIUI xxxzzzzzzzzxxz < < < < < < Z X X X Z X X XX X X X X X zzzzzzzzzzzzzz <<<<<<<<<<<<<< 00 a CD 01 od 00 00 oo^oo a CD a a a M CO M M W M M M m M M M M M z poz< rt o z o ac o Ul O Ul»-<o o Zi x'u Ul ZCJ OOCOSOOCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCOCOOD C0MC0C0OC0 40 C0, cococococooo "s VN V N'N V VX N. N N. V Nnwwnnnnnnnnnnn ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ »-i NNXNNSNSNXXXXX: 01 Ol 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)ooco«eococ)coeocoeoco uuuuuuuuuuuuuu XZXZZZZX,ZZXZXX eo-0 ’0*o<U)h-MO*MO>ooicoeo M r«i o 00 <1/* •oo»|oKo*ui-^<n •a M V (U •- I'! —I V- 01 o O* Oh o* n *-1 •- c o* CO CO X :ii X cu n-nu»-noi---oi — n — — nn<nn — o* I I I Ml I III I MlOOtOO*0*<O*9*O*OO* voj<*ooir»<oioioiM o O O — — OJ — — O Ul I I I I I I I I I Ml O 01 — — — — — — -01- — n (u (u 01 01 oi *r co oo oi oioinnnnnnnnn<<<<<<<<<< 1*1 f*i I< l- T*• Ul 1*1 II o — — — - — nnt*ir*ir*i<Mo*o*o*| I I MI I Ml I I I I I I I I I9* O 9* O* 9» — Ul — M<(h00*a*0| n<in:«oo* —oioir-<o*<Mo*' oee.oe-----OIOiUlUiUli II I I 1 1 I I j. jL j. i j.| << <j< <<<<<<<<<< <j iiiiiiiiiinin e o OjO oooooooo (A 1 Ki -J 0. (0 a.a. H O X P tc 1- uu> ->•>->-I- I- H H. . . . . . . . uuuuuuuuouu OIOlOO*0OO9*U)O*on onuiMuir^oioir-nnui <01 - n, n '•ar 1< < 01 5 I O O lo O |0 O Ul Ul nnnnnnwnnnnnMnn oooeooeoooooooo < <KKKZXttZXKVKXZCex; UIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI 'UlUIUIUIUI: o. Or a. iL CL a. o. o. Or La.o.o.aL| I I < < < < < < < <<<<<<<<iKKticetecoteeoteeteeecerzoeec UiuiUlUlUiUlblUIUIUIUIUIl'IUlUl a. OL o.|o. CL CL 0. a. a. a o. o. il & o., -It 5i X . ! < pz< X - tl OOOOCDCOCOCOCOCOOOCOCO flOCOCOQICOCOCOCDCOCOCO XXX XX X X X X X X nnnnnnnnn n,n XXX x'x X X X X X X 01 01 01 01 01 Ol 01.01 01 01 01 i OlOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOICUnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn cooooocDcoooooeoooooouuuuuuuouuoxzxxxxxzxxx ICO |x‘n XOl COCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCDCOCOCOCD CD CO CO^O CO CO CO CO CD 00 CO CO CO M O n n n n n n,f*i n ro n n m n n n ix X x!x X X'X X X X X XiX X x' |oi 01 01 CU 01 01 01 01 (U Ol 01 01 01 01 M < < < < < < < <<<<<<<<nnnnnnt'innnnpinnn rinnnnnr*it*ir*inr*ir*innn OOOOCOCOCOCOODCOCOOOOOCDOOalOOuuouuuuuuuuuuuu XIXXXXXXXXX XX X X I I I 01 o 9*'c0 — < Ch — —V 01 h- Ch ?*• Ul o* CD *a o 01 < 0 9* —i«a r- —.00 o Ul 01 couiolo — r“0*a — »a — r*i r*i o oi oi <u-oj*ouiouir*ii*icoo*uio < *a 01 01 ; Ul CO co X n Ul ni M CDu X i I e o o o o'o Ul Ul e: l*li X,e 9* I*: CO xl 2 vO n n CO u X. nin n Win ^ «-!•- 01 oi'r* ▼ o* ^ 'O o* < 3 Z<Z ^ Ol OJ Ul 10 ut J.IJ, j. JL'i i. i. i. JL j.! h| S n n n n n n n w n n n n n; M O o o o o o o oo o o o o o oe: ». ^i—^I*- M III in 'iu til til III 111 bl Ul Ul til Ul lil 111u! o! £ o. o. 0. o. a o. & o. a o. a o. a. o.a ~~--------------------------- r ssisssssssssssM. o.aaaaaaaaaaaaa (9 111 oe u 111 Xo i<< <<<^ ^ _____< < < < < < < < <(KKKKacoeaaoeiKKOfaK lllUIUlUlllllllllllllUllllUllllUlllla a a a a a a a,a a a a a a ^ ^ <0 CO n n <-Ul o lA n 3,O '« '0^ 01 01 ozo«o II' eococococooeocococococococo CD CO,CD CO CO,CO CO CO CO O CO O 0 O n n‘ n n n,n n rijn m n'n n n N \'n V N S N N N. N n. N % N OlOIOIOiOIOIOiOIOICUOIOIOlOl ao CO COo* o n n n n n n r» n n n n w n n 111 M n n n n n M n n n n n n MX COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCO U UUUUUUUUUUCJUUU X XX X X|X xxxxxxxx, o»r-ui«ooio<^oi'^oin«o'rino» <ti ■♦•‘I/I •- 01 U) o> r“|iA n »0 r- V u> o ^ (li >o ♦* noir>'^«oo*cooir^ nnCOu X zo I-ro X, <<<<<<<<<S5S< zzzzzzzzzzzzzz<<<<<<<<<<<<S5zrzzzzczcczzcz Ul Ul 01 01 00 CO Nn I oininr- — — — — ninw — *-oin ^^^.i-nnnnnn<<o>9'7 I I I I I I I I ii I I I I I Ichoo»o* — I0•“•oi<ln•*<>•*®*® oooo^»-«-i--<uoimiAui I I I 1 II I I ' I I I • » • •fUOJOIOIOIOIOICUIUOIOJAIOIOIM <■ < < < < < < < < T T T T I I 1 I I I : I I I 11 I I 11 > I > 00000|0 00|0 00 0r-f-|^ nnnnnnnnnnnnnn^> VNNVVNVNNN-sN.N>»>. oooooooooooopoo nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 52SS55S5 ’5S55S55 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa mmtnvimmtnmmmmmintnm W W W U W Ul W U lU W Ul u <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<_JJ_J_J_IJ-l-I.J-l,-l-i*J>l-> wMcococomraMM®®®®®® <<<<<<<S33339333zzzzzzzz <<<<5555zzzzzzzz 01'- *• w i*»I_ MM««0O>O*O* 'I 0 01 0 101 . ♦■<♦•'<<<<<■oioioioioioiniMnnnnnnnn 1 I I I 1 I !i I ^^*-^«-oin< o o o ,o o r- f“ r- Io* M 0 1 0 <• n < 1 r cocotococoMmco tiiiiittlUlblUllillil MMMi-ii-ti-ii-ti-a CO <0 Uluo«a 33333333 OO UlX<_l IlllllHllllill aaaaaaaacocototocococecozzzzzzzz o o ch o*SP.SRSaSSSSifSRSSS «>r-nuiifio«nu>® < Ul r- n CO ♦•io* n *o •rnuiuinnui^woi-wjojno r- ri 01 •" < "* *o oj 01 < ui o* co o* ^ M 0- 01»- r- *•!- 01 rn Ul ^ CO < Ul n ,01 01 >- CO CO ® ® ® '® » ® ® ® ® ® 2 2® CO CO CO ® ® ® ® ® ® 00 CO ® ® ® ® V V N NNN'sSNNVNN'sNn n n n n n 10 n n n ro n n n n 'CDCOCOCO®®®® COOCO®®®®® In. S N. N >. N. V 's In n n to n n n to ® ® Nn •NNNXNSNNNNNN'n N'N In N X N N. N N N !® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® oeeoooooeoooooo iiiiiiiliiiiiii I®®®®®®®® ntonnronnn ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® uucjuuuua xxxxxxxx ro<n ®o X 3 ; •I n n • I- ^ V. ; b 9 9« On I w. 52 9 (A, 111 S - • 0z I- 1oou< i; r o z o « o u. o ---> 3 3 3 3 3z z z z z < << << z r.z z z in «> n cu — —,n n '* I I I I I o» ot O* o> ui *o 01 r- ▼ O 0|^ 01 I I I I IO 9 0 O O ^ •» nn M n n I l' I I I•.!«. «. ^ o o o o e 9 9999 Z Z Z Z Z) M M M M 9 9999 9 9 9 9 9 III III U: UI 111 U UO O U « K oe « oc Q. iL.a a a < << < < <<<<<! o a a o o s I CO CO 0> CP CO' CO o) CO CO CO S. N •>. N Vl n n,n nn| V S S N S, oi 01 CM 01 oi; n r» n M n ^ ▼ trM n m M n CO CO CO CO CO u o u u u: ZZZ XX Hi3l3 3 < < z z - - 01 n o* o» i'll O' o* o* 01 ^ *o -iin lA III I »^ 01 01 01 n n n o h- I I01 n 9 s> at UI UI UI Hh h ►<1 j _iu M' •-« H'K H 3 3 3 n n o n n in ▼ ^ in ^ ^1*0 o* o» oi e* o* o* »• *“ n »-|0i CO CO CO CO , 00 00 N N Nn n n NNV (U 01 cu ^ *r ^ ▼ T Tn n n CO CO COo u u XXX . j • r e |.. 3 3 3 ZZZ < < < 01 - -o — n,n III O' O' in n Oi r- o ^ ^ III0 o o 01 01 01 n n n ■a 'rjf III III 111 UI ZZZo o o XXX a a a III UI UI -I -ij UI UI UI o o o u u u 0> CO CO< < < CO <f (0 uuu ZZZ *r' •* n •«' in CO CO cu I ’ n oi crl •O I*-' <<<<<<<<<<<33333333333zzzzzzzzzzz <<<<<<<<<<< zzzzzzzz zz z i (u<in — n<oi — cunn I— — — n n n < O' O' o* o* 11 I I I I I I I I I I o'O'O'O'O-ino'O'O'oo nin'Ooir-r-T'T'OO'O' O O O - •> - 01 U) U> UI U) : I I II I II I II Ioooooooooon OlOIOIOIOJOIOICUOIOlOlnnnnnnnnnnn I I II I II I II I — — — — — oj n < •o ,o o 0,0 o o o r*> r- r> r- < •*- o UI *0 01 n I i g UlllllllUllllllllllllllllUI>-«zzzzzzzzzzcoOOOOOOOOOO*'^XXXXXXXXXXHaaaaaaaaaaKUI III III 111 III i‘i III im III lu HI J>l-U-I-J-I-I-I_l>uluiuiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiuia l-l-HI-»“»->-l-l-l-< •9 9999999999 UiuiUlblUlUllilllllillillJl |3 3 3^3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 cocococoincocococococo 13 3 3,3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 u)u)n-«outoiu)0i<<o — — u) 00 — O' ^ CO r«-,o'»o'0'<u)u) ^ (<<CU^<*0< <-oo CD 00 CO 'CO OOCOCOCOCDOOCOCOCOCOCO 00 CD cO cococOcococococococO XNN InVNNS N N N N N X nnn nnnnnnnnnnn N N' N N N N N N NS N N S N OlOJOl CUOiOlOJOIOIOlCUOlOlOl ininin so v0vo*o>ovo«0'0<0'nvo nnn nnnnnnnnnnn 00 CO CO .CO COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO UUU 'UUUUUUUOOOUXXX xxxxxxxxxxx 1 1 - 1 • r ; u -I J -I J< < < < < 3 3 3 3 3 z z z z z n j. z z z z z e o e 0 o o 1 I i I 0 0,0 0 o'o 0 0:0 1 I t I <U O 01 cu O 01 01 UI 01cu n ,oi I I i I - - 01 o o o o 0 o 1 I o o o o 0 o 1 I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 I I 01 < r- r- o u u u u o o o o o X X*X X X < < < < < ■ H K O) CO 0) CO CO UI UI UI UI UI -IJ J _l J < < < < < CO CO CO CO CO X X X X X< < < < < h* l-ll- I- I- 9 9 9 9 9 UI UI UI UI UI J u -I J J< < < < < CO CO CO CO 9 > > > > > III UI UI III ui : a K K a K CO CO CO CO ID CO CO CO CO CO N NS N Nn n n n n N n's N S (U (U 01 (U (U r- r- n-1*- r^i <<<<<! n n n n n' CO CO CO CO CO ^ a o u a u X X X X Xi <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<iiiiiiiiiiiiiii 01 n TiT Ul 1*- 7 7 ; V :■r- 0* o in O' O' n < u) <o O' 0,0 o o o I i I I III •-<^»-»“noi^»-oin nnnnnl'O'ue'e'O' I I I I III I I I I «-«0<,O>OO'O'O oioir«<0'<'00' '-^'-CUCUUIUIUI I I I I I I I I — ui I I ill I I |i o o o o e -l-l-»-»-H»-H ^ ^ ^ ' ' ' n n nnnnnnnnnnnnnNSNNNNNNNNSNNNNooooooooooooooo < < <<<<<<<<<<<<< KKaaKaKaaaaKaaa UI III UI UI 111 111 III III 111 UI UI III III ui III z z z z z O CO o o u u,u u u o o o o o oo OjO o o o o r*. tn ut CO n— - oj r- aKaaKaaaaaKttaaa UllUUIUlUlllllllllllllllllllllllllUIUIaaaa.aaaaaaaaaaa 0* UI - r>-'ouinf'-conr>«>n eo cu cu,< *0 o 01 in < < n - cu! n u> — — CO n < cu inoo'^nnn'O UI» *0jCo CD n < n in< *0 01 01 o U) COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOOO CO (O CO CO (D COcocoiDococococococDcDcOcO, cOcON N N N N N S N N N'N N N'n Nn n n n n n n n n n,n n n n n nIn n n'n N n!n n nIn n n'n n cu 01 <U 01 (U cu cu'cu cu (U (U z oz zz>o u u< oeu 0) UJ o. zu u X u i o z o« o o: Z| I <0zuI »» ■; V 2 !'i; n r"? :•;. r< < t < <\< <<<<<<<<<<<' zzzzzzzzzzzzzz < <i< <<<<<<<<<<<, Z Z C Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zi II R Huf! oo in in •r ^ CO CO Ni OI U Z| o' CO u CO Xo» u i 333333333 ZZZZZZZZZ<<<<<<<<<zzzzzzzcc -I< 3z<z cu in r- — — — n in cu — — cu n| nr*........................I I I 1 1 ; 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 <h ot'et ^in»*e^in<roo«9»o n *o o* ^ — ,cu 01 r- CO ^ o* ^ *o 0*1 0 o 1 IOJ 01 oo<-U---.-(uoiininin I I I ' I I I I I 1 I I I OIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOJOIOI T ^ 'T 0-1 I I I I I it I o o' ^ ^ ^ O’ I I I <1 I I M n o »iO o o n Ai ?! I, CO CD CD CDCOCDCOCOCDCOCOCDCOCD CDCOCOCDCOCOCDCDCOCOCOCOCDCO V V Noooooooeoooooo n nn nnnnnnnnnnn.•s N K N N N "S N > X N S N. V uiuiuiuiuiuibiuiuibJiuiiiiiiiiiz z z UJz z z CD<< < <Hu u u cooz z z z o)<o«)0)(no>(oo>o><o(oco(00> UUIUIIUliJIliUJUIIliUillilllllJIllzzzzzzzzzzzzzz<<<<<<<<<<<<<< z z'z zzzzzzzzzzz z z z zzzzzzzzzzz <<<<<<<<<<<<<< coco(0(oo)coo>o)co<oo>cocoo> 01 r- o in o^o r- — oi in o « cd m o •o ioi«0 CD 01 r* O|0« o» o «n oi m.ai-in’:":--, ’.r;’:' - " (ur»i«.r»t0noj — niooioo'Aio m OJ — O’o r-n n o’m o o o*,o» *- OJ N- OJ CD COiCD CD CD CO COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO CO CO,CO CO COiCD CO CD'CO CO CD CD CO COi N N X X X X X X X X X X X xl n njn nnnnnnnnnnn X XiX X X X X X*X X X X X X OJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJQJOJOJOJOJOln' nnnnnnnnnnnnnn mmmmmmininininminmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnn^ COCDCOCOCOCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOoooouoooooouoo XXXXXXXX X.X X X « UJ H (0<z H (0 o O. xi AJ < 3z<z I? i : i ooiin*-- o i«- •- n n Ml I III o o« o* o o« o n UI Oi ,AJ 0,0 o — r» m in m m m min m n AJ ;» M n o I II I O' m o m r- o o « •> Aijm m I I I I <0 n o o Mil o;o o e o 0 o 1 I 0 o 1- - w n o o >. r- o 0 1 o o I•> D* 01 n n I ciuuuuouuu UJUIUJUIlllUllJllJU a a a o a Q o,a o <0 w CO CO (0 M m'lo m z z z z z z z:z z COCOCOCOCOIOiOIOlO o o o o o o o o o xxxxxxxxz a a z z z « N 3 3 1- Z Z <n CD CD S^ i 1 z z z|o M I-) O 5 *1 O 1- H 1I z < < uj;O 1 ' 3 oe « co'CO 1 1 Z UI UI «(1 Z Z 3, a I CD _l O O O t-t Z 1 < o, < 11 1 oe K K {z H UJ UI UI zUIUlZ 1- 3 J K UI UJ < UI o Z z CD 3 CO CD < < < < H- I- H I- o o o o I- H I- I- U.o u.o - 01 n o o r- f- r» a & a a a A. z.o. zX X X X X X XX X ol a a. a. a. Cl a,iz z o o AJ AI 2: K K *2 1 S !2 5 «co.m m *0|O m njO o n- o O o o o o o o O' o» AJ AJ m m «o UI o O' o> o CO n m inmcoomoocoAjAi! r- o in — n in m n AJ, CO CO CO CO CD (0 CO CO O CO CO CD cD CO n CO X X X X X X X n n n n n n n CO CO X X n n CO CO Xn X*X X XIX X XlX X QJAIOIOIAIAJAJAJAJ uiinuimmmmmm inintnininmminm nnnnnnnnn cococococococococo ciouuuuuiou X.X X X X X X X X u>mnCOuX 9CDXn r-innCOuX < CD m m o UI UI r- <0 n r> o — AJ - — AJ I? 3 n(U MARGARET D. ROSSING 130 Cygnet Place Long Lake, MN 55356 475-1516 January 9, 1989 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attention: Mayor and Councllmembers Ladies and Gentlemen: To quote:..."I affirm your right as property owners to improve your pro perty as you see fit, as it does not Interfere with your neighbor's property. You should not have to fight with your own city to make simple improvements on your home. *' P3ease be advised that I received the attached two letters from the City of Orono. When I received the first letter I went to City Hall to request a permit zr.t *.*as advised they would make an inspection. I nn^T^ed those per sons that repairing the deck had exhausted my funds and that I would like to do what was necessary as cheaply as possible. I am a single person and do not have unlimited funds. I sold some property earlier this year and spent all of that money to fix the deck. Now I am looking at a cost of close to $1000.00 to get a permit and variance and any other incidentals that might be thought up. is almost more than it cost to fix the deck. I did indeed renovate and remodel the deck that existed on my house when I purchased it. I have pictures of the old deck and of the new deck. I added approximately 120 square feet, which I will remove if you so order, however, I believe tM.s deck should be grandfathered, so all I should have to get is a permit. My lot is irregularly shaped,, however, the deck as it stands today is no closer to the lot line than the old deck was. Please refer to Option ifl in letter dated December 29, 1988: which I believe is not an option at all, because it would be very unsafe to have steps from my patio door down to the deck. Also, to lower the deck would cause the deck to cover the windows and door on the lower level. The reason I repaired the deck was to make it safe and sound. It is not completed, as my family is doing the work and cold weather set in before we finished it. Option #2 would create a serious financial hardship for me. I would hate to have to sell my home to finance a permit to repair my deck. I would appreciate your reviewing this matter. CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5532.1 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 6, 1988 Marge Rossing 130 Cygnet Place Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Deck construction without a building permit at 130 Cygnet Place Dear Ms. Rossing: It has come to the attention of this department constructed a deck at the above referenced property without the require building permit. This letter is to notify you that a building permit is required for deck construction in the City If th?s^ detLine with the necessary submittals or if is not met the City dea’^se ‘'eel free to contact me atyou have a problem meeting this deacm-ine, please ^ee my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman, Field Inspector LO/tln cc°^°Jefnne L'™abusth, Building s ?°"^2^,*^"^"^Admfni^trator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector . ... i . • •*r* . • ■ ■ • ' A ' ;;v . , _ * ......w-- •-.« .• ................................. ■ . ' 'iVv .V ■' ..... ^ JSU. . BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing ADMINISTRAT10N4F.NANCE-473.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 •/./ /tal Fee: $. CITY OP ORONO - BOILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONDate Received_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Approved_ _ _ _ _ _ Permit I:_ _ _ _ Project#:. Building be filled out completely and signed - ^ nn elans to include the following.2.|“ttfs"?/crslru!:riorrians tr^ndude the following: a) Floor plans; b) Footing and foundation plan; c) Elevations (of all sides); d) Wall sections and cross sections; r*^^"^cde■o^/u“ve"y wTth*?lTcatfrof"lasting and proposed structures including hardcover calculations and grading and drainage plans as required. 4. Energy calculations - form provided. 3. the applicant I^ (circle one) (; OWNER or CONTRACTOR . t / '■JOB SITE ADDRESS:. /ZIP: ./ (work) NAME OF OWNER i »V. r y\ r J J • » mailing ADDRESS: / ^ x /-n v r / ./•;/ /V CITY CONTRACTOR:_______ PHONE: (home ) ZIP:5:^ C' ■/ TA ^PHCNZ; MAILING ADDRESS _ _ _ _ _ _ ARCHITECT:_ _ _■ ' / ^ ^ - CITY:ZIP: PHONE MAILING ADDRESS:,CITY:ZIP: TYPE 0^ WCFJC: Demo_ _ Accessory Structure_ _ Move. Ri;5diI/Alteration^ Renovate^ Land Alteration,New Addition. PROPOSED DSZ (describe in detail):./\( r k HO. OF BEDROOMS:GARAGE STALLS: ATT.____ DET. ESTIMATED COHSTROCTIOM VALUATION (excluding land): $----LS££1 -------------------------------------- - . . 1.4 I haraby apply lie a buildiny w’i’irVa^ln CMlaraanca with aba “;r;a‘b’aar.'ai* Vala"? *»;'«a ,clby “^1 “ .““b"": “«d Sfrt-.V".;lp?ill ‘i' JJ'i; .'S?.‘Ab‘c"/."S“'. "»aa.ad ,1... ____ DATE: APPLICANT'S SIGNA^:^ lor f j j* ^y^Aj£7’ /i-<^ c€ f/^r i ■j b ii . X; ' -v > • 3 ■ - '*I v' .t'.'>'«•■ fM 1’^ I V ; \ ■. X -.t ■/' •' *s J' ' ■ • i\i 1 i m pr ■ ' ■ *rf-. •, \ a,! ;-■/'■ 1^wwwmM iudS- ••‘■'>j:—■ ^ -ri M»lil CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66«Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5532.1 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 29, 1988 Margaret Rossing 130 Cygnet Place Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Deck Dear Ms. Rossing: We have reviewed your deck construction in relation to the required setbacks from property lines etc., as well as a review of our files on your property, in order to verify under what conditions the house was built. When the subdivision "Swan L-ke" was platted in 1959, the minimum lot size standard was 25,000 s.f. area and 120' width at the building line. This lot apparently met the standards in effect at that time. Later in 1959, the minimum lot size requirement was changed to require one acre in area (43,560 s.f.) and 140' width. This is the standard under which your house was built in 1969. It appears that houses built on lots in your subdivision prior to 1975 were not required to go througn a strict variance process. The setback standards at that t^me were 30' rear, 35' front, and 10’ on the side. It appears from air photos on file at the City, that your house may in fact be 30' from the rear lot line. City permit records do not contain a floor plan, a survey, or any indication that the deck was constructed under the authority of a building permit. In 1975, your property and most of rural Oirono was rezoned to require a minimum two acre lot size, with front and rear setbacks of 50' and side setbacks of 30'. All new houses and all existing houses which are being remodeled are subject to the current standards, hence any room additions, changes to decks, etc. would have to meet the current code requirements. Your deck platform is at a height of 5* above grade or higher at some points, and being attached to the house, is subject to the 50* rear house setback requirement. If you were to re-construct this deck to a height no more than 4* above grade, it would be considered as a deck extending from the main floor level of the house. However, to be consistent with past practice in similar situations, the City would require that the deck as it exists, be the subject of a rear setback variance application. You have two options: ^ 1. Lower the deck so that no portion of the platform is more than 4* above grade level. This would require you to drop it about 18 from its present location. BUILDING A ZONING - 473-735 / ASSESSING administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Margaret Rossing December 29, 1988 Page 2 of 2 2 Acclv for a setback variance. The application fee is $150.00. A copy of 4e application form and the list of additional items needing to^be submitted is attached. This ’ould require a full survey of the property, showing the location of the existing house in relation to the property boundaries. Tf vou choose Option 1, and wish to lower the deck, we will still need surveyor^^s ve??l!cation that the deck is at least 10- from the property line. Given the nature of this after-the-fact situation, we feel that it is fair to give you until -Tanuarv 15, 1989 to decide whether you will fpplica\Yon\" is Friday, January 27, ’l989. We will be looking forward to hla^d^g from you with a decision by January 15, 1989. contact me or Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357 to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, I Michael P. Saffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/tlii Enclosure - Variance Application cc; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector m rmimi COUNCIL MErriNC JAN -3:SS3 CITY OF 0R0«C »' , It's lurking beneath the waves... '. srruSKraw. 9 SYNOPSIS OF THE lAREJVUNNETOTnj^^ WINTER RULES Hermeoin Co. Sheriffs Water Patrol Division. Do " Sheriff ^ ' Box 18^ Spring Park Minnpsota 55J84 • f ’o ' ' 8528 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Vu /,■)<.. i-i iiriMii//. II (.'..I Sik/i f .i/ir.i >/i. •jj'- l.iX‘ 'UitW' • 'III' ’ '•'ihr:ir:'• ' !'■ X'ihll' il'tli it\ "" Mri'ii tii’ll il .tMmm "* 'v *• . . * ’ !4. >» ^rnmimm^'V'. ■;; «3# kWa Remember! Ice is Never Considered Safe! Notify the Water Patrol of Any Hazardous Areas on the Lake Call 471-8528 - ■V ■; V . > ' : ■;' ■ ■/'■ ■; ' :'S ' • - *. *’* BOARD MEMBERS DATE: JoEllen L. Hurr. Chair Orono TO:Thomas Reesa. Vies Chair Mound Jan Boswinkal. Sacreiary Minnetonka Beach Mark Westiund. TVaasurer Wayzata FROM:Marvin BJorlln Ibnka Bay David Cochran Greenwood Albert O. Foster Oeephaven James N. Gralhwol YourExcelsior Ron Kraemer Spring Park John Lawman Minnelrista John O. Malinka Victoria Robert K. Pillsbury Minnetonka Robert Rascop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR % 'jU n CII ivtt&iiiijtj JAN -3 :S33 City of omo December 30, 1988 City Mayors City Council Members City Administrators Chairperson Tom Reese, General Mills, 540-2583 meetings is invited to hear about and comment on the man agement plan and control measures for Eurasian Water Milfoil. The weed’s rapid spread since it was first identified in Lake Minnetonka two seasons ago convinced us that immediate action is necessary if we are to contain its spread and growth. The enclosed brochure highlights the problem and characteristics of this weed. We are seeking substantial financing to launch a control program this summer. The major response in^ tally appears that it must come from private sources. ater public funding from federal, state, county, ana we trust, municipal sources will sustain this long-term lake weed management obligation. Please plan to join us at one of the two public panel pre sentations set for Saturday, January 7: 10;00 a.m. - Minnetonka City Council Chambers 1:30 p.m. - Mom.i-Westonka High School Little Theatre THANK YOU! c: LMCD Board members enc: Eurasian Water Milfoil brochure LMCD Winter Rules, included for your general infor mation D 3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT NEWS RELEASE December 2» 1988 Contact: Gene Strommen Executive Director 473-7033 i SUBJECT: Save the Lake Fund Assists Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol Recognizing some unmet needs in the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol equipment for the 1989 boating season, the Lake Minnetonka Conser vation District Board of Directors approved an expenditure of $3,890 from its "Save the Lake" fund, according to Chairperson JoEllen Hurr, Orono. The gift came in response to a review by Water Patrol Sergeant Bill Chandler who coordinates the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) winter and summer use activities with the LMCD. The equipment which will be provided from the funds will be: * Tools and tool kits for the four Lake Minnetonka patrol boats. * Additional fire hose, nozzles and appliances. * A 9.9 hp outboard motor. * A Lowrance sonar depth finder for emergency rescues. Bob Pillsbury, Minnetonka, who chairs the LMCD Lake Use Committee, listened with empathy as Sgt. Chandler explained some of the priorities the Water Patrol felt were still essential to their daily operations. Pillsbury recommended the purchase which was unanimously approved by the LMCD Board at its regular November Board of Directors meeting. The "Save the Lake" fund has also been directed by Pillsbury over most of its existence, seeking contributions annually from private citizens, small to large businesses and foundations. An average $30,000 is raised annually. The funds are used for educational and safety programs as well as meeting concerns for the over-all lake environment. Persons interested in assisting the "Save the Lake" fund may contact the LMCD headquarters in Wayzata, by calling 473-7033. They thank you for your interest. m LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 o I • ! I L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE December 1988 Thursday 12- 8-88 Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Shoreland Protection 8:00 a.m. Wayzata City Hall Friday 12-16-88 Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Fis?»Ar>s 1:30 p.m. DNR Headquarters, 500 Lafayette Road, 6th floor. North Conference Room Saturday 12-17-88 7:30 a.m.. Lake Use Committee 8:30 a.m.. Public Hearing: New Dock License and Density Permit, Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Approximately 9:00 a.m., to follow public hearing: Water Structures & Environment Committee Tonka Bay Village Hall Wednesday 12-28-88 Regular Meeting, Board of Directors 6:00 p.m.. Tonka Bay Village Hall The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was called to order by Chair JoEllen Hurr at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 30, 1988, Tonka Bay Village Hall. Present. Chair JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Vice Chair Tom Reese, Mound; Secretary Jan Boswinkel, Minntonka Beach; immediate Past Chair Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Jim Grathwol, Excelsior; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; John Lewman, Minnetrista; Ron Kraemer, Spring Park; Marv Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Robert Slocum, Woodland; Attorney Charles LeFevere; Executive Director Eugene Strommen. Absent. Wayzata. Dave Cochran, Greenwood; John Malinka, Victoria; Mark Westlund, APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Upon presentation by Chair Hurr, Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded that the minutes of October 26, 1988 be approved as mailed. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Jack Dennis, Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, called the Board's attention to a new detailed dock plan and Special Density Permit appli~ cation following the Water Structures/Environment Committee meeting of 11-19-88. Dennis understood that their application was not being considered at this meeting, but he asked the board's consideration for an early review in December. Chair Hurr noted that a Water Structures/Environment Committee to be held jointly with the Lake Use Committee was on the Agenda for consider ation to be held December 10. Rascop pointed out that the need for a public hearing would make the December 10 meeting too early. Recognizing the time constraints, it was the Board's consensus that the Water Structures/Environment Committee and Lake Use Committee be held on Saturday, December 17, with a public hearing to precede the Water Structures/Environment Committee meeting. Times were recommended as 7:30 a.m. for the Lake Use Committee; 8:30 a.m. public hearing, the Water Structures/Environment Committee to meet immediately following the public hearing. Appropriate notices will be prepared for the public hearing to include notification of adjoining property owners. COMMUNICATIONS. No formal written communications were presented. Chair Hurr introduced State Senator and Hennepin County Commissioner-Elect Tad Jude who was present. Jude commented that he looks forward to working with LMCD to bring it and the county together to address and serve mutual needs. He noted that he had been recently introduced to the Eurasian Water Milfoil project by Director Tom Reese and Executive Director Gene Strommen. Chair Hurr also introduced Greg Withers, City Manager for the City of Excelsior who was present to observe the proceedings. Appreciation was expressed for their attendance as well as those additional people present in the audience. REPORTS: A. CHAIR HURR REPORT. 1. December Meeting Schedule. In addition to the December 17 Water Struc- LMCD Board Minutes November 30, 1988 Tom Reese Dave Cochran Bob Pillsbury Bert Foster Co-Chairpersons John Lewraan and Jan Boswinkel Bob Pillsbury tures/Environment Committee and Lake Use Committee combined meeting, the Board was requested to participate in a Wednesday, December 28 meeting to accomplish year-end financial and other Lake business. An early meeting was recommended for 6 p.m. Hurr added that she would like to have the Board members and a guest as her guests to participate in an informal buffet supper following the Board meeting at her home. A poll of the Board indicated the date would allow nearly full Board attendance. Upon the consensus. Chair Hurr agreed to call the meeting for December 28. 2. Committee Chairperson Appointments. The following committee chair persons were recommended: Advisory Water Structures/Environment Lake Use Fee Study Public Relations & Education Save the Lake Annual Campaign Reese moved, Kraemer seconded that che committee chairperson appoint ments be approved as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. 3 CoMittee Service Policy and Coimnlttee Assignment Designation. A pro posed committee service policy outline was presented for the Board s consideration. This policy proposed directors designate their intended active committee participation as voting members of a particular com mittee. All directors would be eligible to attend any co^ittee meeting but their votes would be recorded only as they were registered members of that committee. Regular attendance, continuity, and per spective of the ongoing business was the rationale for limiting vote to designated members. All directors would vote on committee recommen dations as they are brought to the Board. Members of committees need not be members of the Board, but all committees shall have at least one member of the Board. Generally the directors felt that each should attend as many committee meetings as possible, thereby retaining voting interest in the committees. It was recognized Chat this is not prac deal for all directors. It was concluded that Che directors shoul have the opportunity to think the proposal through “ at the next Board meeting. Chair Hurr agreed to hold the proposal for the December meeting. A roster listing the current I^CD co^ittees was circulated among Che directors asking them to erences for active committee service. Directors absent from committees for which they are not designated to partici pate. The committee sign-up results will be published. 4. Re-Scheduling of February Banquet. Upon the Public Relations 6. Educat<rn Committee meeting of November 3, and taking into consideration a very ambitious administrative schedule for January and February in conjunction with the Committee meetings and Subcommittee meetings. Chair Hurr recommen the February banquet be held in mid-April to coincide approximately with the traditional ice-out time for the Lake. It was the Board LMCD Board Minutes November 30, 1988 consensus that this would be an appropriate re**scheduling of that event. B. TREASURER'S REPORT The financial condition as of 10-31-88 was presented by the Executive Director on behalf of Treasurer Westlund. Cash disbursements exceeded receipts by approximately $15,000 for the month. Total fund balances were reported at $183,594. Bills for approval were presented as itemized on the financial condition report. Two significant items in the bills for approval were Arndorfer Associates for $7,829.34 which was accompanied by an itemized bill summary, and $5,000 to the Metropolitan Council, second loan installment on a three-year, $15,000 loan for the Lake Management Scope Study. Total bills for approval was $19,333.58. Boswinkel moved, Reese seconded that the financial condition report of 10-31-88 and bills for approval be approved as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. C. STANDING COMMITTEES 1. Water Structures & Environment a) Approval of Action Report of 11-19-88. Lewman and Reese reviewed the committee minutes on behalf of Chairperson Dave Cochran. Reese moved, Foster seconded that the minutes of the Water Structures and Environment Committee of 11-19-88 be approved as mailed. The motion carried unanimously. b) St. Alban's Bay Marina Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Responsibility. Upon the advice of the DNR and EQB, the new dock plan and Special Density application of St. Alban's Bay Marina will require an EAW as a result of its planned dock expansion. The Executive Director advised that an exchange between the City of Excelsior and LMCD concluded that the EAW relating to the water use of the marina would be the likely responsibility of LMCD. Strommen concurred in that conclusion. Lewman moved, Boswinkel seconded that LMCD accept the responsibility as the responsible governmental unit in working with the marina on the EAW, cost to be borne by the applicant. The motion carried unanimously. c) Dock License Renewal Applications. Of the 24 dock license appli cations submitted to the committee on 11-18-88, three are city applications, namely, Deephaven, Minnetonka Beach, and Tonka Bay. The balance will be submitted to their respective cities for review and comment for compliance with applicable zoning and ot..er city requirements. In addition to the dock licenses, the City of Deep- haven and the Minnetonka Yacht Club submitted renewal applications for their District Mooring Areas. Rascop moved, Bjorlln seconded that the dock license applications for the Cities of Deephaven, Minnetonka Beach, and Tonka Bay, plus the District Mooring Area permits for the City of Deephaven and the Minnetonka Yacht Club be approved as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. d) DNR Dredging Permit Comment. Four dredging permits were reviewed by the committee with committee recommendations still under con- LMCD Board Minutes November 30, 1988 sideration, namely, Ortenblad, Spring Park; Lost Lake Channel, Mound; Cortland Smith, Shorewood; and St. Alban's Bay Channel Drive Homeowners Association, Greenwood; further responses from LMCD Directors for each of these communities are still pending. e) Moratorium on Shoreland Alterations. In Cochran's absence, the subject was deferred for consideration next month. f) Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Progress. Chairperson Tom Reese addressed the Board on the current progress the task force has been making. At its most recent meeting of Monday, November 21, the task force reviewed the Eurasian Water Milfoil Management Pro gram which contained the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Eurasian Water Milfoil description, history, and effects. Occurrence of Eurasian Water Milfoil in Lake Minnetonka Effect of Eurasian Water Milfoil on Lake Pappakeechee, Indiana Analysis of financial affect of mature milfoil beds on property values and tax revenues for Lake Minnetonka Threat to other recreational lakes Proposed plan for control of Eurasian Water Milfoil on Lake Minnetonka Funding sources Reese then reviewed the entire plan using overhead projector illus trations which were prepared to show to public audiences as a means of communicating the plan. A complete copy jf the plan will be maincained in the LMCD Board minutes file. The potential financial impacts were among the key report highlights. The capital cost estimate for the aquatr.c weed control program was reviewed with year-one investments intended to be purchased through private fund raising totalling $554,500. This would in volve purchasing three harvesters at $98,000, two transport barges at $47,000, and other assorted support equipment. Two trucks at $15,000 may be replaced by truck service provided by Hennepin County Public Works. An aqua rake at $75,000 may also be recon sidered. That would bring the basic capital equipment needs to the $400,000 range. Reese pointed out that these costs are approx imate, give-or-take 257.. Operating costs were reviewed based upon two weed harvesting shifts per day, total operating costs estimated at $236,000. Funding sources for the summer of 1989 were of necessity to come from private sources, Reese emphasized. While there is expected to be reasonable public support, it appears that the affected units of government will not be able to respond until the 1990 season, with the exception of possible in-kind assistance in the area of equipment operation, and labor. In response to the private fund-raising requirements, use of Save the Lake account as discussed as depository for the funds. It was not being suggested at this time that existing Save the Lake LMCD Board Minutes November 30, 1988 funds be dedicated to the Eurasian Water Milfoil program, that being a future determination of the Board. Reese noted that the $10,000 approved to date from the Save the Lake fund has been sig nificant in getting the management study started. In response to the Save the Lake fund involvement, Reese moved, Bjorlin seconded that the existing Save the Lake funds be held without designation, to be spent at the direction of the Board, and that all new funds raised as well as those presently appropriated for the Eurasian Water Milfoil for 1988 be used on behalf of the Eurasian Water Milfoil program. The motion carried, Pillsbury voting Nay. Upon further discussion of the Eurasian Water Milfoil program, Reese moved, Bjorlin seconded that the Executive Director be authorized to draft a resolution to support the Eurasian Water Milfoil weed management plan as presented, with fund raising to be implemented immediately to support the capital equipment pro posed for the first year of operation, funds to raised to be con tributed to the Save the Lake account of LMCD. The motion carried unanimously. Reese went on to announce that a public meeting is tentatively planned for Saturday, January 7, at the City of Minnetonka Com munity Room. A final meeting announcement will be made as details are confirmed. C. 2. Lake Use Committee Approval of Action Report of 11-28-88. Upon review of the minutes, Pillsbury moved, Boswinkel seconded that the minutes of 11-18-88 be approved as distributed. The motion carried unanimously. Winter Rules Adoption. Winter rules, mailed in advance, were pre sented for final discussion and adoption. A statement advising that the rules are to serve as guides and the nved to comply specifically with the ordinances and other laws was recommended by LeFevere. Minor adjustments on use of lights and alcohol con sumption were made. Pillsbury moved, Hurr seconded the adoption of the winter rules. The motion carried unanimously. Hater Patrol Report. Chairperson Bob Pillsbury recognized newly appointed Sergeant, Bill Chandler, inviting him to present his Water Patrol Report. Chandler reviewed the change in buoy markers, bringing the buoys in conformance with national standards, utilizing the horizontal orange strip above and below the bold diamond danger emblem. It was the Board's unanimous consensus to agree with the committee recommendation that these changes be approved. Chandler then reviewed the Water Patrol budget for the 1989 fiscal vear. The following items were eliminated from the budget: LMCD Board Minutes November 30, 1988 1) Tools and tool kits for the four LM boats $ 290 2) Additional fire equipment 1,500 3) 9.9 outboard motor (back-up use) 1,100 4) Lowrance sonar depth finder 1,000 5) Boat canopies 2,539 6) Two four-wheel drive. All Terrain Vehicles (ATV) 4,100 7) boat lift station 5,639 Total $16,168 Reviewing the overall equipment shortages that were not provided in the 1989 budget, Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded that the following four items from the list be purchased from the Shve the Lake funds: Sonar depth finder Tools and tool kits Fire fighting equipment 9.9 outboard backup motor Total cost $1,000 290 1,500 1,100 $3,890 There being no further discussion the motion was approved unanimously. Chair Hurr noted that she, immediate past Chair Bob Rascop, and Executive Director Gene Stroramen would be attending the annual Water Patrol recognition banquet Friday, December 2, at which time the funding just approved could be presented personally to Hennepin County Sheriff Don Omodt. Sgt. Chandler expressed his great appreciation for the generosity and thought fulness of the Board's action on this item. D. SPECIAL COMMITTEES 1. Advisory Coamittee. The highlights of Amdorfer's presentation are contined in the Advisory Committee minutes of 11-16-88. Arndorfer did emphasize that the update on the winter experimental design and its draft will be reviewed by the Advisory Committee in January. He also noted that the Shoreland Protection Subcommittee will be meeting Thursday, December 8, the first of the series of meetings to be con ducted starting this month through the end of 1989. Fisheries will be the next subcommittee, meeting at the DNR headquarters in St. Paul on December 16. The Board expressed an interest in being kept advised of all the subcommittee meetings as to dates, times and places so they may from time-to-tirae take an active roll in participating. Arndorfer indicated that that schedule would be communicated to the Board members. Reese noted that he and the Executive Director are maintain ing the oversight and supervision of Amdorfer's progress. Hard-copy results and interim reports are being presented regularly to the Advisory Committee. Chair Hurr called attention to the very positive report that the Met Council's System Committee made in its October 19 meeting, at which the quarterly report was made to the Syc;ems Committee. Hurr was very pleased with the reception that was provided LMCD during that report. Copy of the Systems Committee report was included with the Advisory Committee minutes. E. Executive Director's Report 1. Bookkeeper Resignation and Replacement Recommendation. Strommen re- LMCD Board Minutes November 30, 1988 ported that Sheila Laughlin, Bookkeeper since February 1988, elected to change positions, expressing a desire to take a position in private industry. Upon her notification November 1, a search was begun immedi ately. Strommen noted that he conferred with LMCD's auditor, Du Wayne Schibilla, to discuss the combining of LMCD's Clerk/Typist and Book keeping positions to one staff position. Schibilla agreed this would be a reasonable solution to the office staffing needs providing that the separation of duties would be divided-up between the Administrative Secretary and Executive Director. That process has begun, Strommen noted, with the Administrative Secretary recording the daily income and preparing the deposits. Executive Director is doing the bank reconciliations monthly to serve as a check on the over-all financial operation. As a result the search for a replacement involved a Clerk/ Typist/Bookkeeper combination. Four candidates were interviewed, and a highly recommended candidate was located. Proposed for the position is Diana White, a resident of Minnetonka. She would be hired on the basis of a 20-hour per week part time basis, working four partial days of five hours per day, providing additional office backup on a more continuous basis throughout the week. Starting rate is proposed at $8 per hour. Lewman moved, Reese seconded that the Clerk/Typist/Book keeper Diana White be approved as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. Telephone Service Improvement, Seconde Line and Phone Equipment. Recognizing the continuing pressures on a single line telephone service to the office, Strommen advised the Board of the need to add a second line to the telephone system which would also require replacing the three telephone instruments since they are only single line capacity at the present time. Strommen indicated the equipment purchase would be kept likely within $800-$!,000 maximum purchase plus the cost of the installation of the new line. The second line will cost an average additional $55 per month. Pillsbury moved, Bjorlin seconded that a second phone line and equipment purchase budgeted for the 1988 fiscal year be approved as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. 3) News Letter Proposal. Strommen reported the recommendations of the meeting on Public Information and Education held with Lewman and Bos- winkel, concurring that a quarterly newsletter would be appropriate for the LMCD to get under way, starting in January. The Executive Director would have the primary writing and editing responsibility, utilizing input from LMCD officers. Directors, and other sources as the newsletter develops. It was estimated that the quarter production cost would be kept within a $600 to $1,000 - **ximum per issue basis. These funds are provided for within the Public Information budget for 1989. Hurr moved, Rascop seconded that the newsletter on a quarterly basis be approved as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. 4) Priority Meetings and Exchanges. Strommen circulated his monthly report showing community business and government contacts made daring the past month. Chair Hurr expressed appreciation for this continuing information report to the Board. LMCD Board Minutes November 30, 1988 UNFINISHED BUSINESS. M.C.W.D. Headwater Structure Management Policy and Opera ting Procedures letter proposal. Strommen presented a draft letter in response to the invitation from the MCWD for public comment to its three-year operating outline. This covers March 1, 1989 to March 1, 1992. Rascop moved, Reese seconded that the proposed letter be submitted on the Chair's signature as recommended. The motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS A.Bass Federation Report. Howard Tripp brought the Board's attention to the Number One complaint that his organization has observed over the past seven years, namely, wakes from larger boats interfering with fishing and sailboat activity on the Lake. Tripp suggested that LMCD needs a strong educational program dealing with boat wakes. The Board's consensus was strongly in favor of activating a study this winter to assist in that problem for the 1989 boating season. Foster moved, seconded by Pillsbury that the LMCD develop a motor boat "wake" program to inform and enforce the notion that a "boat is responsible for its wake." Such program is to include but not be limited to: a) Publicity and education b) Ordinance review c) Water Patrol enforcement d) Public comment and that this program be on the Agenda continuously at the Lake Use Com mittee until completed and removed by the full Board. The motion carried unanimously. B. Sewer Main Break. Chair Hurr reviewed a recent experience this past week involving a sanitary sewer break being repaired at Highway 101 and McGinty Road in Wayzata. She noted that she was contacted by the Waste Control Commission as a Commission member in this area to review concerns as to sewage disposal and its potential for being intentionally or unintention ally run into the Lake. For a time it looked as though some sewage may have to be ponded near the Lake in order to complete the sewer repairs. Fortunately that was not necessary. A member of the audience commented that it was apparent to him that some raw sewage had actually drained from the broken lines through residential areas and into the Lake. Hurr was relieved that care and attention was given to the break, recognizing that LMCD stands as the responsible organization for protecting Lake Minnetonka, The Waste Control Commission was prompt in notifying LMCD of the problem. ADJOURNMENT. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. Submitted by: Jan Boswinkel, Secretary Approved by:_ JoEllen L. Hurr, Chair f/.' DEC 2 81988 JL:_______1/ MEMO TO: Board o*f Managers, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District FROM: E. A. Hickok and Associates DATE: December IS, 1988 RE: Lake Level, Flow and Precipitation Summary for November, 1988 Lake levels in Lake Minnetonka have stabilized through November as illustrated by the attached graph and Lake elevations. There has not been any discharge from Lake Minnetonka to Minnehaha Creek since November 17, 1986. Creek flow at the Browndale Ave. dam in Edina is as shown below. The 30 year average precipitation for November at the National Weather Service station in Maple Plain is 1.46 inches. The actual precipitation recorded in Wayzata for November was 2.23 inches. A summary of precipitation foilows. PRECIPITATION SUMMARY November, 1988 Actual Maple Plain Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Wayzata 2.86 2.23 30 Year Ave. 1.46 1.29 MONTHLY FLOW SUMMARY Grays Bay (cfs) Browndale Ave. Dam (cfs) November 2 November 9 November 16 November 23 Q O O O 5.93 9.2 O O LAKE MINNETONKA Water Levels 1987-1988 O Z % z 01 06-Apr-87 30-Jul-87 12-0ct-87 04-Apr-83 20--Jun-88 18-Aug-88 22-Nov-B8 DATE IDO lUtar Eltvationi - Laka Ninnatonka Data Clavatton FIom Date Elavation noM Data Elavation Fiw Data Elavation noR Data Elavation FIon \0-Sar67 928.32 0.00 17-Fab-88 927.94 0.00 03-Jun<8B 927.80 0.00 oe-Air68 924.90 0.00 03-4tov-a8 924.00 0.00 M-Sap-87 ra8.4l 0.00 23-Fa4-88 927.94 0.00 04-Juv48 927.74 0.00 lo-Airoo 924.88 0.00 924.02 0.00 IB-SarB7 928.33 0.00 07-ltar'88 927.94 0.00 09-Jun-88 927.64 0.00 I2H4I9-08 924.84 0.00 13 tHbv-08 924.04 0.00 2I-Sap*fl7 928.47 0.00 13-HV-88 928.00 0.00 U >Ji«-8B 927.38 0.00 l4-i4i«-68 924.84 0.00 22-Nav-88 924.04 00 29-Sap-87 928.44 0.00 24H1V-88 928.04 0.00 14-Jwi^927.32 0.00 IO-A19-8O 924.76 0.00 26-Mn«>68 924.02 V.00 28-Sap-«7 928.42 0.00 30H1V-88 928.06 0.00 20-JW-88 927.44 0.00 22-teg-68 924.46 0.00 07-Dac-68 924.04 0.00 05Hkt-«7 928.32 0.00 04W^-88 <28.14 0.00 24-JW-88 927.40 0.00 24-A4<86 924.46 0.00 lSH)ac-88 924.04 0.00 l2Hkt-«7 928.13 0.00 04-Apr*88 928.14 0.00 27-Jun^927.28 0.00 24H4ig-00 924.42 0.00 IHkt-<7 928.14 0.00 ll-4pr<48 928.14 0.00 30-3w)-8B 927.18 0.00 30-*ir>924.34 0.00 2(Hkt-«7 928.13 0.00 13<«pr-88 928.14 0.00 05-Jul-88 927.06 0.00 04-8ar68 924.U 0.00 2Hkt-f7 928.12 0.00 lOWlpr-88 928.20 0.00 07-Jul-88 927.04 0.00 I2-Sar68 924.38 0.00 02Htav-t7 928.04 0.00 23-Apr-88 928.04 0.00 ll-Jul<88 924.96 0.00 l3-Sap-86 924.30 0.00 ft»-ltov-a7 928.04 0.00 28-4pr-88 928.08 0.00 13-Jul-88 927.04 0.00 19-Sap-88 926..^0.00 16-ltov>B7 928.04 0.00 03-flar88 928.00 0.00 13-Jul-88 924.96 0.00 2»-Sap-68 924.4a 0.00 24-%>r87 928.00 0.00 04-flarB8 928.00 0.00 lO-Jul-88 924.90 0.00 24-5ap-88 924.34 0.00 0I-Sac’fl7 928.10 0.00 09^r«928.14 0.00 21-Jul-88 924.94 0.00 30^-88 924.36 0.00 O7-O8C-07 928.04 0.00 l3Hfar08 928.04 0.00 23-Jul-88 924.88 0.00 OS-Oct-88 924.24 0.00 l4-0ac-87 929.08 0.00 17-flay-88 928.00 0.00 29-Jul-88 924.80 0.00 lO-Oct-88 924.24 0.00 OS-Jan-Se 927.84 0.00 19-«ar88 927.94 0.00 Ol-Aig-88 924.72 0.00 17-Oct-86 924.14 0.00 I9-Jan-S8 927.88 0.00 24H1ar«927.90 0.00 03H4it-88 924.74 0.00 20-6tt-66 924.14 0.00 03-Fab-fl8 927.94 0.00 31-flar98 927.84 0.00 04-Auf-88 924.94 0.00 3l-Oct-66 924.04 0.00 SIX MONTH PRECIPITATION RECORDED V) Ul I i- £ I JUN. 88 y V 0\ z % z / JUL 88 C7~71 MAPLE PLAIN AVE. AUG. 88 SEPT. 88 MONTH OCT. 88 rVM WAYZATA ACTUAL Z NOV. 88 PRECIPITATION SUMi^AR'. MPLS. AIRPORT MPLS. AIRPORT MAPLE PLAIN WAYZATA AVERAGE ACTUAL AVERAGE ACTUAL OCT.87 1.85 0.60 2.06 0.84 NOV.87 1.29 2.0 7 1.46 2.37 DEC.87 0.87 1.1:5 0.86 0.79 JAN.88 0.82 1.37 0.84 0.96 FEB.88 0.85 0.30 0. 78 0. 19 MAR.88 1. 17 1.33 1.52 1.51 APR.88 2.05 1.58 2.35 0.95 MAY 88 3.20 1.70 3.93 1.46 JUN.88 4.07 0.22 4.83 0. 10 JUL.88 3.51 1. 17 4.65 2.34 AUG.88 3.64 4.29 4.09 3.75 SEPT.88 2.50 2.79 2.83 3.04 OCT.88 1.85 0.80 2.06 0.88 NOV.88 1.29 2.86 1.46 2.23 Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • (612)474-5539 \ Date: To: from: Re: December 5» 1988 City of (5rono<^^|“^ Holly Hansen 1989 I^CCC Appointments • i '‘y I !•DEC - g 1988 JUL The Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission (LMCCC) requests that you review and renew your appointments to the Commission for 1989. Per our Joint Agreement, each city council should appoint two directors to the LMCCC. At least one director shall be a member of the city council; the other director may be a qualified voter residing in the city. If desired, the city council may also appoint a third person to be an alternate director. Directors are expected to attend four meeting annually; alternates only need to attend a meeting when one of the regular directors is unable to attend, Please make your appointments and notify the LMCCC in writing by January 30, 1989. The full Commission will meet Tuesday, February 21st for the first time in 1989 and this meeting should Le attended by your 1989 representative. For your information, listed below are the directors your city appointed for 1988, and their attendance records. If your appointed director had poor attendance records this year, it would be in your city’s best Interest to appoint someone else to represent your city for 1989. DIRECTOR APPOINTED // MEETINGS if ATTENDED Barbara Peterson Tim Adams J. Diann Goetten (alternate) 1/88 1/88 1/88 4 n/a HH/mb 3TT Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission Date: To: From: Re:Monthly Update Enclosed please find the minutes from our November meeting and a copy of Ordinance # 3 which was approved at that meeting. I would like to thank all of you who attended that meeting for creating a much needed quorum In order to approve Ordinance //3 and the transfer of ownership from Dowden Cable Partners to Trlax Cablevlslon. Also enclosed for your Information Is a copy of the revised policy position on cable that was recently proposed by the NLC (National League of Cities) Steering committee. Strikeouea Indicate deletions and underlined words Indicate additions. I will keep you up-to-date on any Information I receive regarding NLC*s consideration of this revised policy. Please note that the proposed language Is considerably stronger than what Is currently In effect, which should make for an Interesting session In the next Congress. The next full commission meeting will be February 21st, so please make a note on your 1989 alendar. In the meantime, I wish you all a happy holiday season and a happy new year. HH/mb Enclosures 4 A MINUTES LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COI'IMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FULL COMMISSION MEETING EXCELSIOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Haggerty called the November 15 meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. 1988 full commission Others Present Holly Hansen - Admin. Mary Smith - Triax Tom Creighton - Attorney Shelly Quaas - Recorder ROLL CALL Directors Present Ruth Sherman - Tonka Bay Jim Olds - Excelsior Ann Hofkin - Medina Carol Deaner - Victoria Jerry Schmieg - Victoria Don Dill - Spring Park Barb Brancel - Shorewood Lois C. Johnson - Minnetonka Beach Barb Peterson - Orono Peter Berzins - Minnetrista Tim Adams - Orono David Stahr - ExcelsJor Dennis Haggerty - Deephaven Tom Anderson - Medina Peggy Nelson - Deephaven Jim Hillis - Greenwood Lesley Hughes-Seamans - Tonka Bay Bob Clifford - St. Bonifacius II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION 11.15.88.1: Anderson moved, seconded by Olds, to approve the Minutes of October 18, 1988 as written. Motion carried unanimously. III. REPORTS A. TREASURER MOTION 11.15.88.2: JUST CLAIMS: Olds moved, seconded by Stahr, to approve the Just Claims as written on Appendix A. Motion carried unanimously. B. ADMINISTRATIVE Administrator Hansen updated the Commission on the financial review. Dowden's financial statement (audited or unaudited) for the period January 1, 1988 - May 31, 1988 has not been received. January 27 - 28 is the MACTA 6th Annual Conference, Hansen encourages Commission members to attend this informative local conference. Hansen would like to purchase five chairs for studio/cffice use. The total cost of the chairs is approximately $600.00; there is not enough money left in the 1988 office supply budget, but extra dollar amounts are remaining in other 1988 budget areas that will not be spent. Jim Olds feels that the chairs will be budgeted for 19 89 if they are not purchased in 19 88, and that the money could be allocated out of the insurance or the conference/school budget areas. LMCCC MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1988 - PAGE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT - CONTINUED MOTION 11.15.88.3: Brancel moved, seconded by Nelson, to purchase the five chairs for $600.00, and the money to be allocated out of the 1988 Insurance budget. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson asked Hansen if Dowden had presented the reports and Financial Statements for the audit. Hansen has received some of the materials but is waiting for the Financial Statement. Tom Creighton, Legal Counsel, feels that LMCCC may have sufficient information for W.F. Denny to complete the audit, he suggests that Hcinsen speak with W.F. Denny and ask if there is enough information to complete an audit. IV. C. TRIAX Mary Smith of Triax reviewed the third quarter report for Triax. Basic Penetration is at 45%. Basic growth from 1/1/88-10/31/88 is 12.42% and Pay to Basic is at 73%. Smith would like to see the Pay to Basic at 100%. Victoria's cable service was interrupted several times due to a sewer and water construction project, Shorewood also had an outage due to power surges. D. LEGAL COUNSEL Tom Creighton reported to the Commission that in California, U.S. District Judge Eugene Lynch held unconstitutional nearly all of the city-imposed financial requirements in the Palo Alto cable franchise. The October 12 decision held that cable operators are entitled to First Amendment protections more akin to newspapers than to broadcast media, and on that basis invalidated the granting of single monopoly franchises, as well as franchise requirements of access channels, universal service, and state-of-the-art technology. Judge Lynch, the strongest supporter of cable operators' among the federal district judges, also struck down franchise fees and requirements of construction and performance bonds. This and other California court cases do not have a direct bearing on Minnesota caddie franchises, and in our District Court in Norwest vs. City of St. Paul, the franchising process was upheld this summer. Creighton said the LMCCC should feel secure in its cable franchise. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Chairman Haggerty opened the Public Hearing at 5:45 p.m. to amend the Ordinance for the Transfer of Ownership. The recommendation is to approve the Ordinance. After no public comment Chairman Haggerty closed the Public Hearing at 5:46 p.m. MOTION 11.15.88.4; Anderson moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the amendments and have the changes made on the Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 11.15.88.5; Anderson moved, seconded by Olds, to approve the Ordinance as amended for the Transfer of Ownership. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Haggerty feels that cable regulation is important and would like to see more participation from the cities. LKCCC MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1988 - PAGE 3 V. ELECTIONS Hansen reported to the Commission that Lois Johnson has volunteered to be on the Executive Committee, MOTION 11,15.88,6; Anderson moved, seconded by Sherman, to nominate Lois Johnson for the Executive Committee. MOTION 11,15.88.7; Anderson moved, seconded by Olds, to close the nominations and elect Lois Johnson for the Executive Committee Motion carried unanimously, MOTION 11,15,88,8; Haggerty moved, seconded by Anderson, to nominate Jim Olds for Treasurer. MOTION 11,15.88,9; Anderson moved,, seconded by Adams, to close nominations and elect Jim Olds as Treasurer for LMCCC. Motion carried unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS Tom Creighton feels that the Commission needs to update the quorum requirement for LMCCC Quarterly meetings. In the past six years there has been one split vote, other than that the . Commission has been uniform. Creighton recommends to require at least 10 cities to be present to conduct business and discard of the authorized votes. Current quorum requirements for a meeting are a majority of votes representing seven cities for a franchise ordinance amendment, at least ten cities and 2/3 of the authorized votes are required. At meetings the LMCCC does not have a problem with the number of cities in attendance, but does have a problem in getting enough authorized votes in attendance to meet the quorum requirements. MOTION 11.15.88.10; Brancel moved, seconded by Stahr, to have staff amend the Joint Powers Agreement to allow 10 cities to comprise a quorum. Motion was discussed. Anderson feels the Commission should require 2/3 of the votes present and to include 10 cities to be present for an amendment, and 7 cities to be present for other business. Anderson amended the motion to include 2/3 of the votes present and to include 10 cities to be present for an ordinance amendment and 7 cities to be present for other business; staff to cunend the Joint Powers Agreement. Nelson seconded the amended motion. Motion carried unanimously on the amendment, VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION 11,15.88.11; Nelson moved, seconded by Berzins, to adjourn the November 15, 1988 meeting at 6:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SHELLY QUAAS LMCCC JUST CLAIMS 10/18/88 - 11/15/88 BANK EXCELSIOR Beginning Balance Claims Service Charges Deposit - classes Interest Adj. ENDING BALANCE $32,‘•79.03 { 4,702.81) ( 14.24) 70.00 134.97 .05 $27,967.00 CHECK If DATE PAYABLE AMOUNT ACCOUNT 1770 10/18 Convention Tapes Int'l.$ 8.50 Conferences 1771 10/18 Hoily Hansen 350.00 Video Equipment 10117 10/31 Holly Hansen 737.3A Payroi1 10118 10/31 Monique Basart 189.15 Payrol1 10119 10/31 William Strohm 237.52 Payroii 1772 10/31 P.E.R.A.85.9l»P.E.R.A. 1773 10/31 U.S. West Communications 57.91 Telephone 1774 10/31 Gross Office Supply AO. 53 Office Suppiies 1775 10/31 Radio Shack 1A6.20 Misc. Video 1776 10/31 Petty Cash 80.08 Various 10120 11/15 Hoi ly Hansen 728.3A PayroiI 10121 11/15 Monique Basart 167.82 PayroiI 10122 11/15 Wi 1ilam Strohm 2A1.29 Payroii 1777 11/15 P.E.R.A.85.9A P.E.R.A. 1778 11/15 P.E.R.A.9.00 P.E.R.A. Life 1779 11/15 Bank Excelsior 659.32 9AI Taxes 1780 •11/15 Commissioner of Revenue 128.91 MN Payroll Taxes 1781 11/15 Paychex 32.30 Sect'!. Svcs. 1782 11/15 Gross Office Supply 19.86 Office Supplies 1783 11/15 O'Connor & Hannan 100.50 Transfer 178A 11/15 Tonka Printing 3.00 Office Suppiies 1785 11/15 Shelly Quaas 60.00 Sect'i. Svcs. 1786 11/15 Excelsior Rotary Club 92.50 Dues & Subs. 1787 11/15 Mel Anderson 163.15 Misc. Video 1788 11/15 Leader Publications 155.00 Dues & Subs. 1789 11/15 U.S. Postmaster 35.00 Postage 1790 11/15 Monique Basart 9.3A Mileage 1791 11/15 Hoily Hansen 61.78 Mileage 1792 11/15 Wi1Iiam Strohm 16.59 Mileage TOTAL $A.702.81 u 1/ STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION Balance* $ 6,438.5^ *Does not Include kth qtr. interest C.D.'s $ 7,000.00 e 7.5^ due 1/10/89 26,000.00 @ 8.5^ due i|/10/89 ORDINANCE NO. 3 THE LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; ORDINANCE NO. 2 OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. ARTICLE I, Section 2(H) is amended as follows; H. "Grantee" is Triax Midwest Associates, L.P., its agents and employees. 2. ARTICLE I, Section 2(0) is amended as follows: 0. "Offering of Grantee" or "Offering" means that certain document dated July 7, 1983, entitled "Application for Cable Television Franchise" and signed by Grantee's predecessor, as amended from time to time by mutual written agreement between Grantee and City or its delegatee, imd that certain document entitled "Dowden Communications, Inc. Response to Questions on the Lake Minnetonka Proposal", and related documents and written information and documentation or response to the "Request For Information" as part of the transfer of the Franchise to Grantee's predecessor, and related documents and written information and documentation or response to the "Request for Information" as part of the transfer of the Franchise to Grantee, which documents are on file with the City Clerk. 3. ARTICLE II, Section 8 is amended as follows; All notices, reports or demands that are required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer or Grantee or Commission's Administrator of this Franchise or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice is being given, as follows; If to commission: If to grantee; With a copy to; Thomas D. Creighton O'Connor & Hannan 3800 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2254 Triax Cablevision 2381 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 ATTN; System Manager Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. 100 E. Fillmore, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80206 Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this section. Passed and adopted this ATTEST; day of 1988 LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Secretary Chair This Franchise, as amended, is accepted, and we agree to be bound by all its terms and conditions. TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. By_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date;Date: REPORT TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE S. lall Lfn« AbandonNMntt Congrats should OMsnd ths roll lino sbondonmont provUfont of ths Stsogtrt UU Act of 1980 to that thsy provida bsttsr protsetlon to coswiunltlst pottntfally advartsly affscted by ths abandontentt. ahould bsttsr asturs that ths Interests of n^ttonal- atats and local oovsrnmsnta In preserving earrfdora for alternative oublfe utst are protected In eorrldora which ara abandoned for current rail mii-Boooa. Specifically, Congrett ahould take (four) five steps to laiprove the abandonaent process. a. Congress should specify hou the ICC should weigh the lapact upon the shippers and the cooMinlty of losing rati service against the burden upon the railroad of continuing rail servlca. b. Congress should require railroads to provide specific Inforisatlon concerning traffic trends, profitability, and rail lino conditions to rail users, state and local governaMnts six Months prior to the filing of the abandorvaent application. (et Qongreaa •-ohouW • *con^^nu♦ • to-• requl re-*a raf troad-to- notify ♦l-eetod -offfcfat* -and the-eltlsens- ^n-on-affected eoawunl-»r -of f to - Intent- -to -abandon - a- ro-l-l- -l-l-no -prfor to - •-l-to - --f H-lttg-- - an-- - appl I eat I on---f or abandonsMnt - - with- - -tbo - - ICCs- • Upon- • -the requeo-t* •••of--- oiacted- • - af-f i-cl-al-a - - -or protestanta,-- th^ - ICC- -abould - provide- -on opportunfty - for- -on - orai- -hearing - in- -the eossBunf ty -affected -by -the -abondonaent*) e. Conoress should reoulre a railroad to notify eteeted officials and local eftlsene of all ahandonisents. Including Insufficient time for local officials and eltliens to exerelae all remedies before the Icc to g£jjji|r|vj_jL_CJLLL— nubile uses. Including recreation, public Currently^ ICC and railroads nrovlde essentially no notice In half or wore of rail abandonntfnt proceedings._ A wlnlwuw of 4a, Congress ahould require a railroad to to a state of local HtntYi *** * Qualified private oroonlsatlon. for alternative piialle use. Including recreation, public transit and utility corridor.at the constitutional 49^4. for continued f or-orof11 organizations.Public agencies and niiKifr Intoroat organizations should not be afforded worse treatment than orlvate corridor has been aoeroved for ICC. Public Interest wavs rail Congress should place a two year noratorluw on abandonwents after a specific abandonnent application Is denied by the ICC unless a railroad can show a subatantlal change In clrcuastance relevant tn the abandonwents The railroad eowpany should be required to continue rail servlca for two years frow the date the application la denied. During the two year period, the railroad eowpany should be required to negotiate In good faith with the Involved parties for the long-terw continuation of roll service. The railroad should also bo required to wake an effort to resolve the problew which originally warranted the abandonsMnt of the- rail line. Upon expiration of the woratorluw, the ICC should be required to evaluate the railroad's and Involved parties' efforts to resolve the situation In deterwlnlng whether to reconsider the abandonwent application. F. The use of our notion's waterways as an energy efficient wode of transportation should be encouraged by national policy In a wanner cowparable with other wodes. A systew of waterway user-fees should be Initiated In order to generate revenues to finance water IwprovesMnta and to rewedy the Iwbalanee In federal subsidies to Intercity wodes. S.04 CoawunIeatIons A. CowwunlcatIons Problews and Coals Tnforwation - -distribution - -systews,- - -os - -the - -wa/or vehieie- for--rapid-dissesrlnation-- - of--inforwationj are - e- -key - eowponent- -of - the- iecei- -inf rastructuret For - -cities;- - the- - eveiieWii-ty* - -of* * -bip*» * -quaiity teie»>hone,- - «eW»v- - and- •coiwaunieatHme - services- -at affordable • rataa- Maaana • iroatar- ‘offfe fancy • 'tha d I a•^p f btrt I en ••• ad-•••♦ nfo«ca» ♦ an*,-fne raaeed appartvnf tf aa • • -far • • -aaonaafa - • -davafapwant,* - • -and anhanead • • accaaa* • *aa • • f nf ariMt f an- • -fa** • -eoanunf »y raa fdantaj- - - Ac- *tba -fapaptanca *af • tha- ccwmaiicatfans fnfraatpuafupa- •baeo«aa • - fncpcaafnafy **apparant--to ef t faa,- - a- nuabar- -changaa • ara *tablfir piaea * in • tha fagaf - - *and - - aapvl-atonr - • f raawaork* • -ahi eh- • eoufd advaraa fy - of feet • tha-■ayaH-abH-i-tr *af - eoNMuntcati ena oarvfeaa - Hn* *aaanunft faa - aneh *ff«f t • tha- -ragufatapy author fty-of -aftfea/- Cowaunleationa avataiiia ara tha walor vehiete for rapid dfaaoiifnation of fnfenaatten. and can sarva ta aehfava iiaportant aeonaaite davatapaiant. traffic panaaaaigrn^ aoata. Coaiunicationa avataata ara a vital part ef tha iocal Infraatruetura. like tronaeartatien. aauar^ and water avataiaa. Far toeat eeaaaunitias. tha aaiatanea of an afferdabia and aiodarn eeaaaunieatiena infraatruetura laaana efficient accaaa to inferaatien. ineraaaad productivity, and now aeanemie davalepaiant eppartunitiaa. •r- Qoafa itional coaMunicationa policy ahouldTha goala a fnefuda anaur^fng tha proviaion of coaaaunicationa aarvicaa which aarva waat local naada and intaraata and tha availability of a---wfda--*ranga**-af divarsa coaMunieatIona aarvicaa at affordable rataa. To aaaura tha attainoMnt of thaaa abiactfvaa aoaIa. atata and local regulation ef intraatata tolaeonaHinicationa aarvicaa ahould be praaarvad to tha maxiiwma extant poaaibla. deregulation ahould be raatri'Ctad eonf inad to fully eoaipatitiva talacommunicationa narkata, and eancantratfan*<of aunarahfp monopoliatie and antieomoatitiva pricing and raiatad praetieaa ahould be ffafted alininated. 0 i. Cabla The - -raoaano - -for - -taunfefpat * -ragufat fan - -of • -eabfa tafavfafan - inciuda- *tb» -nanapaly- poa^t-ion* -of -cab la ayataott - In- iioat- co—unitiaa,- -the - cable -oyataM*a • woo af - -the - -public - -right-of-way,- - -and - -tha • -leportant eaaaHinleatIona -aarvicaa- proyidad- ever -cabla* -oyatena In * ardor - to- keep -cab la - raspena i vc - ta - tha -particular naada - - and- - ■chapactarlatfo’ - -af - - each - -eoa«aunltyi Hunieipal raaulation of cable talevision is far tha orotaetion of tha eotwm>nitv'a eable-ralatad naada and intaraata. Tha Cabla CoaMWinicationa Policy Act of 19«4, while H l«paalnt--aa«a raatrletlona-- -an ---local - *-ragulatlen; generally raeognixaa eitiaa aa tha franchiaora and primary ragulatora ef cable talaviaion. haa been eonatruad bv tha Federal Cowtunjeationa Cowmiation (FCC^ and tha eourta aa impoaino waior raatrietiona on local r££y,ijlXi,on_.^n^_£ran£hJjLlGfl>>BL££lJL£S£* 1. first Amandwiant 9avaral--l«partant Tha central unanswarad legal quaationa -raiaaln-ta* be- anawarad- dtr -tho -walfa -af -tha anaetpant-af--tha-Cabla--Aet,-*ineluding whether tha firat Aiaandiaant inpoaea lipitationa an tha authority ef eitiaa to franchiaa and/or regulate cabla talaviaion - -and - tha- - a*tent* -af - the- • federal Oananini ea t i ana — Coaaai aa-i an' a- * - - • -ragulatory authority. The_courts should develop cable* specific first Amendment standards which recognize its monopoly characteristics and its use of the public riaht-of-wav. promote the first Amendment interests ef viewers and listeners, and preserve local regulation, further.. to the extent that its cable-related actions are otherwise lawful under state and local law or th<t Cable Act. a city should be immune from liability for monetary damages in essential for several reasons;m to prevent cable's abuse of its monopoly position;(2’i to regulate cable >s use of the valuable and limited public right-of-wav;fST to protect consumer interests; f4)t?foster public.. educational, and ooverrmient use of the system; and (S) to provide first Amendment lawsuits. 2. federal/Local Jurisdiction Ta-tha-pow^iauar aatant-paealbla,- £itiea should have primary ra.tpanalblllty-*far--*tbr--ragwlatian* - of authority over local and ether intrastate matters^ and federal Jurisdiction should be limited to areas of lenastandina national concern such as erossewnarship policies and--aub'jact---to-*-ful-l /ud Ida I-rev feu. It bocal-Regulatory-Authority Tha-CaMa-Act- racognitaa -that Municipal franchising I authorities have should be raspanaibi^lllty for ouch local matters such as: tha-datarminatian ef whether tha cabla syatem ahould--be ij^ municipally or privately owned; t2T tha astablishment of raquiraaianta for cabla system facilities and aquipaMnt and for cabla and ether I communications aarvicaa; and (3) tha establishment of raquiramants for public, educational, and government accassr. .-Other* * - areas- - * of - * - loco I rasponalbf llty - -Inci-udr - sped fyi ng - -quai-i-H-cet-i-ons; f4> tha establishment ef requirements. for ownership, hiring, and contraetifng-services; iS). tha anforecsMnt and administration of franchises; C6) consumer protection; SJX tha-award-and-renewal of franchises issuance, renewal, revocation, and fll prior »aaroyl of dt««eorovtl Of. (9’l r«sulatlon of tho eoootruetion and oporaclon of eablo oyotoM^ and U21 th»-oott<nfof poto• Kochmnt fooo for tho moo of ouoicipally ownad M1> tho oatabl fahmont of rwufrawants *tjr aoual awotoviont oDoortunltv; (12> tht •atabHohoont of unfvoraal sarvfea rtouiramonlsr mnd f13^ tho datarnlnatfon of tho U8Q of fraochlso faa ravamioo. r»dTol Turladfetfon ahould bo liwltad to thoio Mttara aaoraaalv and un—bfouaualv doalanatad by «ftuta aa fadaral oattara. Ml Otiiar oattaro ahould ba loft to atata and local control, and tho Fce ahaulrf ba barrod fron raoulatlno or oraatiPtlng In an> ar#a whara not aaprasslv dfraetad to act by atatuta. Furthop- atata oovarnwant ihould bo harrad fro« aafhtlahfna Ifwltatlona on local raoulitlon ah I eh ara nora raatrletfva than tha Hwltatlona of fadaral law. 2 I, tata Ragulatfon Tha Caola Act authorlzao a *f ranch I atng-authority • to tha raaulatlono boalc oarvica rataa ff fn toy riT~TI]1tn*TT tho eablo ayotaa to fomd to ba not aubjoet to -affaetlvo eoaipotltfon* undar guidollnaa aatablUhad by tho FCC. On tha baaia of this nrovlafon. tha FCC haa orohlbitad tha raoulatlon of haale aarvfea rataa fn virtually avarr eeaimciltv In tha nation. A• eoblo--oyatan-ahouid--ganaratly• bo daf fnad • aa- -nat • aubi^it- -to • ♦f-faetl va- -eoapatft fon; aaeapt • ^n• -thoaa • f au- -eaaaa • ahara- -eon- ba* -ahoan that - tha- fuii- Tanga -of -aarvleaa- provided* -ovar -tha teea t - -oabta - -ayatan - -fa • -avaf fabfa - -at - -eenparabfa prfeaa • f ran- an- *altamaalva -aourea - In- tha -comuiI ty* A eabla Franehlaino authority ahould ba authorized aueh aa fnatallatlon and eonvartar rantal faaa unlaaa thara fa dfraet eonoatftlon fron another eabla avataai or other eeawarabla provider of aultfchannel aarvlea tfncludlna aceaaa ehaonala^ loeal_^fgfjfj^^<{_yta^lona. and fatalUti_iarvlcat). Additionally, fn order to anaura tha availability of a level of aarvlea to loa-lncowa Q2r2sni,A_£lUiLiii5fi9£l£fill2—USSUiilSSl-JU orovlda 11 feline aarvlea at regulated rataa. 4. Renewala Tha Cable Act aatablUhaa eowelax and awbiguout renewal orovlalona which favor the Incumbent cable operator and ara not eonalstent with normal city franehlaino oractlcea. Theae provisions will be vary difficult for eltlaa to Implement In a wanner which protects eowwiunitv needs and Interests baeauaa of tha frequent tradino of cable svstent and the consequent Inability to hold tha renewal anal leant fully accountable for tha actions of orevloua oporatora In renewal proeaadlnos. Tho renewal nroeasa should ba real sad to provide citita with broadened authority la.a.. eenslderatlon of tha eabla ooarator*a rata history) and to limit admlnlstratWa cotiwlaaltlas and tudlelal reylew^ 5. Transfers In eoniunetlon with tha eonsoHdatlen of tha eabla Industry, eabla svstaiaa ara baino bought and sold at Ineraaalnaly higher prices, frequently without tha prior approval of tha franchising authority or without a eosaal tiaant to cowplv ulth existing f ranch Isa r*? -♦Ions._ _ _ _ _Caola franchising authorities -« authorlied to disapprove a nrooosad trana. ^ n a findina of oast failure to eoawily with tha franchise, a refusal bv the transferee to aaraa to eoaiolv with tha tanas of tha franchise In tha future, or a finding cf aconowlc non-ylablnifty fas reflected In tha purchase price and tha aconoiale liaoaet of these acquisition costt on tha eoiMBunltyi. Further. antl-trafflcRlno rules alollar to those which fortaerly applied to radio and talavlslon broadcast licenses should be established hv the federal goyermaent. 3 Franchise faaa The Cable Act eatsbl-fshes Inc I (idea on ircrecedented llialtatlon on franchise *ees of a five percent tfiaftstfon of the aross reyenues derived frow the operation of the cable svsteta. In lloht of the estraordinarv nature of this restriction on rental oaviaenta for the use of the public rloht-of-way, on f ranch fae • - fees - - and* - norrowiy - daf Inao - -tho - -terw Frenchfso - • ■f-ea*,* • - thereby- • -eaemptfng • • oany other financial and In-kind payiaents^ and--franchise nss^^_fjjj_jnj|_^H^es should be eseopt froo tha five percent cap and the states should be barred froai liaposlno further restrictions on franchise fees. French Fee - reqoireioents Any iu£]i oavtaent. fee, or tas should be regarded as valid eand -tha- franch!so- fee- provisiona- cf- -tbc -Oabl-c -Act fnappFfcabla) and esesipt froia these franchise fee lliaitatlons unless the - - -frencbicc - - reguirecant clearly and unaaibigueusly Fa F Fa-within*-the-Cable Aet‘a-daFFnf»Fon-of defined at a franchise fee. 4 I. Technical Stanoards The -€abl e- Act; - by- euthcrieing- -the -ectabl-Febiaene -of requirements - - -For - - -FacFFFtfes,- - - -equipment,- - - -and aervlces - -Fn - -tbc - franchise-,- -clearly- -eontempFates FoeaF - regulation- cf* -teehnFeoF - standards* - - -T-hc -F^C should - - be - - preeIuded- - -From - - preempting- - -FoeaF«^y ostabFFshed - technical - performence ctendar ds-cr-from der og*i Fa t Fng - -technical- - at andordss The FCC h££ arohibtfd virtually ill local rgqutatfaw of t>g^j auaHtv avn though atonal ouaHtv !• ona of tha factara which eitfai if authcrfzad to cpnsldar tn ronowi oroc»o«<tno«. Cabto fronchftlnq withorftfot toehnieoi afndardi. and F2C tnvotvwiont should bt Hot tad to such watttra as tha aatabi ishisont of ■intimns tachnteal standards fwhfeh wav ba exctadad bv taehnfeai standards astabUshad bv frsnchtsina authorftias) and tha anforeaaant of technicst standards at tha raouast of a franchftinfl authority. 5 ft. Must‘Carry RoqufrasMnts paeanttv invaUdatad tha FCC*S J_2£S£lH2ftii!S_SSiiil,1 **v ruias on first Awandwant arounda. yodorat*aat*t*carry ‘roqu4rss«ntS ‘Sheu(d ‘bo aatabt»ohod«iihieh»-Thoss rules raqufraft the esbis earriago of local public broadcast stations and coawarelal stations by •• cablo “‘systa*s. Tha obiaetfyao - • -of • - aust'carry • • rao«l rasiants-* -shouM Inetuda Tha ourposaa of the se rules inetudad; (1) protecting the public broadcasting systeai which fs fntsndod’to MOti, local noods for educational and other public sorvlcooj^ and (2> preserving the nation's systen of toeotty-orfented-eoaewrciot free over*the*air broadcast statfons sarvica . Maw fadaral nust'carry ru I as however j‘shookd (titich do net raqufro el lew for the uso of chemals set aside under “fronch^ SOS for public, educational, or govarnswnt accasa ehannafrs for the • •eorriog* * of pubfrfc “broadcast--stations oust-carry purposasl should ba enacted into law . 9. Channel Placement and Wumbarina narkats). but does not restrict concentration of aunarahin or vertical inteeration. To prevent the anticenoetitiva orsot ices associated with eoneentratien of ownership, the Federal Covernnent should Halt the crossownership of cable systcna by ether awdla Interests, and eotabkfsh linitati-ons*on the -nwl 11 pi a- ownersh-ip* -of -eabke -syeteso- -In- order - to prevent ‘cencentration- of- ownershfp’ ■efr -the -natfonal and-regionei--kevets the percentage of households K,. • r*hle eomeanv and its affiliates to no percent of the nation's cable To eliminate the unfair competitive vniiM dlsraunts and other discriminatory pricing and packaeJno practices should be barred. 11. Telephone Company Ownership eomolex regulations snd other restrictions.telephone companies are effectively entering the cable business. As a result, their‘ ability to introduce new technology and services is limited, snd consumers are denied the benefits of eowoetition. Telephone companies should be allowed to own snd operate cable systems in Older to increase eowoetition and facilitate innovation. subject to appropriate reoulitory conditions and safeouerds. If the telephone company's cable system is not inteerated with its telephone facilities, but-most be - •eubfoct' - to- - the - Tequiremente - snd- -restrfet fona whfeh-apply to-’cebl'T-operators the system must be franchised and reoulated in the same manner as a conventiensI cable system. To prevent and -must•be preekuded* from cross - subs idies.<fnf, the telephone company should be reouireo to set up s separate cable operators have realigned service offerings bv ensure the development of competitive alternatives placing services in different tiering arrangements to the exiatino cable industry, telephone conoanies should net be allowed to acouire existing cable result of these developaients. consumers have svsteais encountered unnecessary difficulties in locating services.particularly access channels, on the With respect to an integrated svstos which provides system.To provide better protection for and telephone services, the cable consumers.cable franchising authorities should be franchising authority* ‘* the city in most states-- authorited to regulate the placement and numbering should bg authorixed to regulate through the of access channels. 6 1ft as consumer protection, customer service, public, Vertical Integration and Concentration of educational, and oovernaient access, and minimum Ownership requi eou r . AdftUl: Jl ^0'*cable system facilities and •nd to levy a franchise fee. result of the ongoing consolidation of the ■woiys the.telephone company must provide industry. cable system ownership has grown inereasinolv concentrated and cable industry oo#rationa have becosie vertically integrated. The Federal Covernment restricts the crossownership of cable systems and certain media (primarily in local access unaffiliated providers at nondiscriminatorv tariffed rates, offer switching and related services on a tariffed and unbundled basis, be prohibited by regulation from discriminating in favor of its own service affTlno*- and «iia«nd and upqradt ttl facfUtfW M d*wnd fnertMts.- 0. troadcast Talaviaion 1. Lom Powar Talaviaion Low powar talavfafon ..LPTV) can aarva-ta Incraaaa aeeaaa to talavfoion In undaraarvad araat, anhanca eoapatitfon, and axpand aadia ownarahfp opportunitlaa for woaan, ■inoritlaa, and omU bualnaasaa. Tha•^oa^a•af-natfonal LPTV policy should fnetuda proaMtffnf local and public sarvico prograaailng, aneouragtfng dlvarsity In progr«alna, ■axlalsifnt local coaipatitlon asnng LPTV stations, and aneouragtfng ownarship by wosMn and alnoHtloo. Raatrfetlona on trafflekina should ba aatabllshad to nraaarva Minority, faaala. snail busfnass. and local ownarship^ 2. Pairnass Ooetrina Tha FaI mass Doetrina. racantlv alfminated bv tha FCC. and-tha-Equal«TlMa-ra^raa»nta*bava*-baan was originalIv aatabllshad for--tha*•purpoaaa•-of £2 fostarfng unfnhfbftad* and * span dabata on public Issuas and ansurtfng tha*prasantatlorfta tha fxiilic airing of diffarant points of vlaw on controvarslal Issuas. Tha«Falrnasa*taatrlna H (and anv raiatad doetrina such as tha Equal Tina raquIrsaNncs to tha astant naeassarv) should ba ratafnad anacted Into law and strangthanad by requiring full and affactiva FCC anforeanant. E. Talaphona 1, Oanara^-RagufatoryPoHev Problatus and Goals Raeant • • *>udfcfal‘ • • and* • -ragwlatory • -davalopnants; fna lud * tha* break-up* ^ • tha -Eal I* systaar 'Ift *>984 and*t lha rcc's ptan for daclslon to shifting costs froai long d'stanca conpanlas to local custoMers, raprasantg, a lona*tafw threat to tha universal availability of talaphona service at affordsbla rates. Tha break-up of tna Bail svataa In 1984 has raaulted In tha Iwooaltlon of restrictions on tha tvaaa of sarvlcas which can ba offered bv tha Bell operating comoanlas which araatlv reduce thair aeonowle Incentive to upgrade their plant and. In turn, limit tha availability of Innovative services to tha Aiwarlcan consuwar. Tha**ob|aetlvas**of **n l{,atlonal telephone policy should Include ansur^lng tha provision of high quality basic telephone eoiwwunlcatlons service at affordable rates to consmaars^ throughout•*tha natlon*and prasarv^lng state and local authority to ragulata Intrastate ta(<ophana-***aarv<lca ancouraga technological Innovation and tha Iwolewiantatlon of new sarvlcas. and anabla the knmrV'an tel acowmini cat Ions Industry to cowpata In tha global Market. 2. Access Charges Long distance cellars users should ba required to pay a substantial portion of tha nonrecurring coats of local talaphona plant to compensate for tha use of local plant and to ensure affordable local rates and tha universal availability of local service. 3. High Cost Areas Tha costs of providing telephone service In sparsely populated areas where telephone conpany costs ora substantially •In-exeess* of* average*-corts dlsprooorHonatelv high should ba partially supported*-through financed bv payments from a Universal Service Fund In*-order to ensure tha availability-of universal service In rural Anerica. 4. Lifeline Service Lifeline prograias should ba established and adainistered at tha state or local level to assure access to telephone basic communications service at affordable rates for low Income cons'jmers. 5. Information Services Tha information services industry is expected to ba tha high-growth area of the American economy _for the foreseeable future. The 4T4T divest' *-ire decree bars the tell operating companies ^rom providing Information services. in order to stimulate technological innovation and tha development of new services, this restriction should not eoplv to a telephone company whic.^ provides an Integrated communlcatfsns system and _^9 i^* facilities on sn element-bv-element ba-*i at nondlscrlminatorv and tariffed rates and ' jarred bv regulation from discriminating In fa jf Its own services. F. Radio CooMRinlcatlens 1. Public Safety Radio he Federal Government should allocate sufficient radio spectrum to cities for public safety use In order to enhance coordination of communications among public safety agencies and to ensure the ability of cities to meet their public saf«ity responsibilities. 2.•■Ittfons Th« F«d*r«l Covrrwitnt shoutd r»i th« authority of ototo ond local fovornoont* to rofulato radio froquoney radiation oaitslont. C. Satalllta C icatlona 1. Satalllta focilltios Tho Fadaral Covornawnt should not pracapt or rofltrlet soninq and other local laus or roquiraawnta uhlch ropulata or raatrlct tho location, placaaMnt, also, or iltlng of satalllta facllltlaa such ar satalllta dlshas, radio towars, ■Icrouava facllltlas and slnllar facllltlaa. MIUDTBS OF THE PLANHING CONMISSIOH MEETIK6 NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.N. The Orono Planninq Commission met on the above date with the following members presents Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission members Bel.' cws, Cohen, Hanson, Brown and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Public Works Director Gerhardson, City Engineer Cook and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative, Alan Nettles, attended, and Councilmember Goetten was also pressent. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1349 LAUREN 8 JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELllfS DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:25 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that it was far more efficient to address the drainage and utility easements together with the lot line rearrangement. Chairman Kelley summarized that the purpose of the three Born applications was to acquire more land and add on to their existing home. Mabusth asked if the Born*s would proceed with lot line rearrangement should the Planning Commission recommend denial of their- variance request? Mr. Born replied that th'' would not be able to obtain the ad je . ent property i^ ^he tance was not approved. Mr. Born provided a survey ng -he areas they were acquiring and hardcover they were ing. Mabusth seated that the curvature of the lakeshore ci ad the necessity for an additional 17* setback from the lakeshore. The existing front line of the house is 45*. Kelley Inquired as to whether there was any concern that the lot line rearrangement created a substandard lot. The Helper property would be reduced to 1.88 acres dry. Planning Commission member Hanson inquired as to the soils located within the 1.88 acre. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron responded that clay soils were predominant hroughout that entire area. However, that would not have any '' ects on the septic as there is a primary and alternate sept- site location on the Helper property. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded MIWUTES OF THE PIANH11M3 COMMISSIOH MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1349 - BORN CONTINUED by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes*5, Bro%#n, Nay, based on the creation of the substandard lot. Motion passed. #1349 LAUREN & JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE VACATION OF EASEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to recommend approval of this application, per staff recommendations. Motion, Ayes*5, Brown, Nay, based on the creation of the substandard lot. Motion passed. #1350 LAUREN A JOYCE BORN 1420/1432 SHORELINE DRIVE PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. m The applicants were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth indicated on a sketch where the new driveway would be installed and what the Borns were proposing to remove. She added that the crushed rock landscape area with plastic underlining could remain as there was no excessive hardcover within the 75*-250* setback area. She asked the Planning Commission for their input as to the 17* setback from the 929.4 elevation and the 24.8* side setback from the newly created lot line. Planning Commission member Hanson expressed his concerns regarding the 17* lakeshore setback. He suggested that the Borns redesign the addition to gain a further setback. Mabusth asked for a minimum setback figure to give the Borns some direction. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked the Planning Commission as to whether it was appropriate to grant the Borns the side setback variance at the time a lot line rearrangement is under consideration by the City? Chairman Kelley suggested gerrymandering the lot line. MIHUTBS OF THE PIANNIMG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE «1350-BORN CONTINUED Planning Commission member Bellows inquired as to the square footage of the existing house. Mr. Born replied that it was 709 s.f. total. Bellows observed that because of this application being unique, there would be little or no possibility of precedent setting. Kelley concurred. Bellows went on to say that she would not see a problem with approving the side setback, but in terms of the 17* setback, she agreed with Hanson. She suggested pushing the addition back another 8*. Mr. Born stated that moving the addition 8* more from the lake would create a problem because of the need to expand existing rooms on the first floor. To move the addition 8 feet would prohibit the desired expansion. Mabusth pointed out the fact that moving the house forward would create the need for a street setback variance. The house is only 53* from the roadway. Kelley stated that he would rather have the house adhere to the street setback, than the lakeshore setback because of the safety factor as no one knows the future expansion plans of the County. Bellows agreed with Kelley, adding that she would withdraw her objections to the lakeshore setback variance and noted for the record the major reduction of hardcover within the 0-75* setback area. 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 Commission member Moos, to recommend approval of this application. The hardships involved in this matter are the small lot, maintaining the 50* setback from County Road 15, and the curvature of the lakeshore. Kelley commended the Borns for acquiring additional property and working with the hardcover on the property. Planning Commission member Brown stated that he objected to the side yard setback variance due to the fact that the subdivision was new. Kelley stated that the lot line could be gerrymandered to address that concern. Mabusth interjected that filing the division at the County may cause problems when dealing with a metes and bounds division. Kelley said that the proposed 24* was an improvement over the existing 12* from the house to the lot line. Hanson stated that the Borns had done everything possible, with the exception of buying the entire neighboring parcel, to work with the City and add on to his house. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1352 CHARLES SCHOEN 2430/2460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:07 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE «1352>SCHOEN CONTINUED explained that Mr. Jacobs was purchasing 1.39 acres of land, of which 98% is dry.. 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 Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes»6, Nay»0, Motion passed. #1354 ROBERT NERKOff 8 JOHN CHARLTON 2340/2380 ABINGDON flAT SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:08 P.M. - 8:09 P M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the purpose of the lot line rearrangement was to expand the Merkow's front yard and allow their driveway to be located further west. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to approve this application, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays*C/ Motion passed. #1351 ALFRED HARRISON 1410 SHORELINE DRIVE VACATION '^P BASEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.M. - 8:27 P.M. Mr. Harrison was not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffror explained that the applicants were requesting to vacate a portion of a drainage easement that was no longer needed due to pond reconstruction in 1985. The drainage easement was granted in 1982, based upon a pre-existing pond. Since that time, regrading of the pond occurred, and the drainage easement is no longer necessary. Chairman Kelley asked when the Harrison's would be moving into the house? Gaffron replied that he knew of no specific date, but work on the house had been going on for the last 6 months. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. NIHUTBS OF THE PLANNIIiG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE #1351-HARRlSON CONTINUED It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1357 O. LARRT LEE VACATION OP PORTIONS OP GARDEN LANE AND HIGHVIEW LANE PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that Mr. Krautkremer was unable to attend the meeting. There were concerned parties present and Mabusth briefly explained the location of the alley. Mr. Kost was asked by the City to vacate the alley, because the City only wanted a 50*, rather than a 60* right-of-way. She further informed them that there would be a meeting, Tuesday, November 22, at 7:00 p.m. that would specifically deal with this subdivision. There would be no action taken at that meeting, it would be a questior and answer session. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to table this item. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1358 TED PEIG 6 TIM JOHNSON 627/629 NORTH PERNDALE ROAD RENEMAL OF SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved a renewal and revision of the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement approved originally in 1987, but which was never filed . The parties revised the lot line so as to better conform with the existing driveway and backyard areas. There were no comments from the publxc regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1302 CITY OF ORONO CRYSTAL BAT ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT THIRD REVIEW City Engineer Cook indicated that following a meeting of the City and Crystal Bay Road residents, there were still areas of disagreement. He reported that there were two options for MUIDTES of the PIAMHING commission meeting NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED repairing the bank: Option 1 would involve replacing only damaged areas where the bank slid. This would be done by building a retaining wall and backfilling from the wall to the top of the road. The only way that sloping could be achieved would be to place fabric or other material to keep the soil from eroding away. The property owners would have to be involved with this option by taking responsibility for the repairs to the bank. The City would install posts and sheathing and backfill with sand. Minimal excavation of the road would be done, along with patching the edge of the road. Chairman Kelley asked why the City could not pay for the fill needed for the bank? Cook said that was another option, but the City may not wish to do so. Planning Commission member Bellows asked how much of the property in question was owned by the City? Public Works Director Gerhardson replied that the City's prescriptive easement would only be over the actual road and gravel ditch area. Cook added that there was additional language that stated the City owned the road to whatever point was necessary to maintain drainage. Option 2 would allow for a portion of retaining wall to be exposed and would be located approximately 3 feet into the private property lines. In the other areas, there would be bushes and other vegetation, so a wall would be installed as in option 1, but would only exist for the purpose of retaining the bank. However, there are cracks in the road which could a 1 low water to seep in and cause the bank to shift. Chairman Kelley asked Engineer Cook as to which option would be best? Cook responded that either option would sufficiently remedy the problem. Kelley then asked which option the residents of Crystal Bay Road would prefer? Mr. Schibilla expressed the desire of the residents to proceed with option 2. Mr. Bill Wolfe stated that he had no problem with option 2, and commended Public Works Director Gerhardson and City Engineer Cook for their efforts. He added that the residents had just reviewed option 2 that evening. They wanted time to discuss and receive input from a landscape architect to achieve the most aesthetically pleasing effect as possible. Chairman Kelley inquired as to when the City would begin work. Gerhardson replied it would be in the Spring. Planning Commission member Bellows expressed her concern over the residents who chose not to replace the fill. Mr. Lee Erger explained that he owned the property where the most wall exposure would be; he would have difficulty attaining a 2:1 slope. He MIHUTBS OF THE PIAHNIHG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1302-CITT OF ORONO CONTINUED proposed to leave the wall exposed and plant vegetation on the other side to provide screening. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that there should not be any controversy with this matter. The simple fact is that the City has* a duty to repair a dangerous situation. She further stated that since the City did not own the property beyond the road and proposed retaining walls, and the City did not cause the problem but was attempting to correct it, that the property owners, individually, should be responsible for restoration of their property. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether there would be a 1:1 slope on Mr. Erger*s property. City Engineer Cook confirmed that, and added that the only way to do that would be to put fabric or some type of wall. Kelley asked how much wall would be exposed if there was a 3:1 slope? Cook replied 5* to 6*. Kelley asked what supported the bank before it was washed away? Cook answered that natural vegetation held it. Planning Commission member Brown inquired about the workability of a 2:1 slope. Cook said that would work and would reduce the wall by a couple of feet. Ms. Connie Schibilla stated that despite the several meetings with City, she had nothing on paper indicating what exactly was being proposed. Chairman Kelley stated that he would have no problem recommending the 2:1 slope. Planning Commission member Cohen concurred. Bellows stated that easements necessary for construction of the wall was a technical issue that still needed to be addressed. She said that the Planning Commission should set a guideline as to how much wall can be exposed. The Planning Commission concurred that 5' maximum would be allowed. Mr. Erger then asked how much of a shoulder would be required from the road so that a guardrail would not be necessary. The residents concurred that they did not want a guardrail. Kelley asked what w"^ needed to make the area safe? Cook said that there was no s. . guideline, but in a normal situation, a guardrail would be required. Anything over 30" would require a guardrail. Cohen explained to the residents the City's problem with liability should someone fall over the edge. Rich Anderson interjected that that was the controversey. Bellows said it was a matter of a guardrail or keeping the drop-off below 30". She said that legally the City could Install a guardrail into the pavement because of the drop-off currently being more than 30". Cohen concurred. Mr. Erger suggested placing the posts 1* or 2* off of the shoulder so that they could prevent anything from going off of the edge. The Planning Commission as a whole agreed that would not meet the City's safety standards. Mr. Wolfe asked how the City could place a guardrail on MINUTBS OP THE PIANNING COMMISSIOH MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE «1302~CITT OF ORONO CONTINUED private property without due compensation? Chairman Kelley advised the residents that they would have to deal with the City Council and City Attorney on those issues. Mr. Schupp said that he did not see how the City could interfere with his access to the lake. Kelley reiterated his position that the Planning Commission could not resolve that issue. He added that as far as the City's health, safety and welfare was concerned, the Planning Commission would recommend installation of a guardrail. The issue of any compensation to the property owners would have to be addressed by the City. Mr. Schupp asked what the height requirement was for a guardrail. Kelley informed him that any drop of 30” required a guardrail. Kelley reiterated his suggestion of taking the guardrail issue to the City Council, because the Planning Commission did not have the authority to resolve that issu^i. Planning Commission member Hanson interjected that for 18 months this public road has existed in an unsafe state. Kelley continued to say that the Planning Commission can only act on the City Ordinances. The residerts were asking for a variance to the ordinance requiring a railing for a 5* drop. Kelley avowed himself to be a volunteer to his community and said that he could not consciously allow that kind of a drcp-off without a guardrail. Mr. Erger said that he would not object to the "curb" going up if it was located at the very edge of the lot line, or even extending 3* or 4* if the City could determine how much slope would be involved. Kelley suggested that the City could protect itself and take more private property and have more road on the other side. Mr. Wolfe reiterated his desire to consult with a landscape architect. m Mr. Erger asked if the City would allow the bank to be 1:1? City Engineer Cook said that it could be 1:1, but that may be very costly. A better solution may be to keep the bank at 30" or less. Mr. Schupp asked if proceeding with option 1 would alleviate the need for a guardrail? City Engineer ->k said that may or may not be the case. Rich Anderson suggesc'^o putting the bank back as it was so that a guardrail would not be necessary. Kelley and Cohen explained that it would be the property owner's financial obligation if they proceeded in that manner. Rich Anderson wanted the City to finance the project. Kelley again suggested taking these various proposals to the City Council. Mr. Erger asked about having 2' of shoulder from the blacktop to the gt'-rdrail and screening the guardrail from the front with plantx. gs. Bellows and Kelley pointed out the fact that snow plows may destroy the shrubs. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to table this matter. K'»lley suggested that the property owners keep the City apprised of how they would like to proceed. Mr. Greg Long asked for a definition of guardrail. Kelley said that the City would provide the residents MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1302-CITy OF ORONO CONTINUED with that information. Once the residents have the guardrail information, it would be their responsibility to contact the City. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1337 ROBERT PAIGE 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCES SECOND REVIEW Mr. Paige was present for this second review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. Mr. Paige had previously received direction from the Planning Commission to revise the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Paige was now planning on replacing the existing garage structure with a larger garage and would require a 5* side yard setback variance. Gaffron explained that if the garage is moved back, as Mr. Paige agreed to do, then there would not be a need for a variance to the 30' street setback requirement for garage doors facing the street. Planning Commission member Hanson asked how Mr. Paige would access the proposed garage. Mr. Paige responded that he would access off of Navarre Avenue. Planning Commission member asked how far from Navarre Avenue the new garage would be located. Mr. Paige indicated that it would be 30*. It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application, provided that the garage be located at least 30' from the west lot line and 5* from the south lot line. Mr. Paige inquired as to whether the 30' was frogi the foundation or roof? Gaffron clarified that it would be from the foundation and that the overhang could be a maximum of 1-1/2 feet. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays^O, Motion passed. #1346 BINAR HAGBBRG 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE Mr. Hagberg was present for this matter. As explained by Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, this matter was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council. The Council was concerned about the discovery of a sewer line that would be located 5* from the proposed storage garage. Public Works Director Gerhardson had indicated that the line would just be used for flushing downstream systems so the 5' setback would be sufficient. Mr. Hagberg had provided a list of items that required storage. Gaffron suggested that the lack of storage and the need for storage might be construed as a hardship. Mr. Hagberg's present garage is located in such a way that adding to it would not be practical due to the topography of his land. NIHUTBS OP THE PIANNIII6 COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1346-HRGBBRG CONTINUED Chairman Kelley asked if hardships were required, in light of the fact that Mr. Hagberg was reducing the hardcover? Gaffron explained that the Council was concerned about the lack of a hardship. Planning Commission member Brown inquired about the amount of hardcover. Gaffron replied that without removals, there would be an increase in the 75* to 250* zone, as well as a slight increase in the 250* to 500* zone. Mr. Hagberg had indicated that he would remove a tin shed that is 101 s.f and remove 120 s.f. and 473 s.f. of rockbeds and plastic. Hardcover within the 0-75* zone would reduce from 18.6% to 17.7%. There would also be a significant reduction in hardcover within the 75- 250* zone. Kelley inquired as to the need to indicate hardships when hardcover is being reduced. Gaffron reiterated that the Planning Commission had not provided any recommendation to the Council that hardcover be reduced. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application based upo’^ the removal of hardcover as indicated. The hardships in chis application are the lack of storage, and the topography of Mr. Hagberg*s lot. In addition, Mr. Hagberg will reduce the amount of hardcover on his property. Motion, A:as=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1353 JOHN L. FIEBBLKORN 2730 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - 8:05 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Fiebelkorn were present, as was Mr. Larry Berg, an Attorney for the Fiebelkorns. In addition, Pat Anderson, a Landscape Architect, and Ken ftdolph, an Engineer with Srhoell & Madson, Inc., were present. Mr. Berg began by admitting that there were serious problems involved with this application, but assured the Planning Commission that the Fiebelkorns did not intentionally disregard Orono*s ordinances. He said that the Fiebelkorns were new lakeshore homeowners and unaware of the required setbacks. A vinyl pool kit was purchased and installed primarily by Mr. Fiebelkorn. The pool was installed without permits and entirely withing the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone. They are now requesting after-the-fact variances to *. Ilow it to remain. Mr. Berg stated that a plan had been developed that he believed would solve pre-existing drainage problems and reduce hardcover. Mr. Berg explained that a portion of the Fiebelkorn*s property was dredged, creating a lagoon. Planning Commission member Bellows asked when this dredging occurred. Mr. Berg replied that it occurred in the 1950*s. It was his belief that this land alteration was the hardship in this case. He reported that a neighboring property owner had a boathouse on the shoreline that was more obtrusive than the Fiebelkorn*s pool. Mr. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE #1353-PIEBISLKORN CONTINUED Berg stated that the Fiebelkorns had spent $30,000.00 on the pool alone and would be willing to do whatever it would take so the pool could remain. Planning Commission member Hanson asked Mr. Fiebelkorn who he hired to install the pool. Mr. Fiebelkorn explained tha^\ he subcontracted for the installation of the pool. Bellows asked at what point the landscape architect was hired. Mr. Anderson replied that it was after the pool had been installed. Mr. Fiebelkorn stated that a co-worker had sold him the pool kit and had hired someone unknown to Mr. Fiebelkorn to dig the hole. Planning Commission member Cohen expressed that in his opinion it was inconceivable that the Fiebelkorns were unaware of the need for a permit to install the pool. Mrs. Fiebelkorn commented that they thought a concrete pool would require a permit, but the type of pool they had purchased would not. Mr. Berg reiterated the fact that a plan had been devised that would maybe allow the City to take a more positive look at the pool because of the existing problems it would alleviate. Chairman Kelley interjected that the pool itself was the only concern of the Planning Commission. Mr. Berg expressed his understanding of how the City viewed certain accessory structures and that lakeshore averaging was often used. Mr. Berg asked that he be given the opportunity to explain the proposal developed^ by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adolph before the Planning Commission determined that the pool be removed. Planning Commission member Bellows voiced her opinion that there was nothing that could be done to justify the major excavating and the gross violation of the hardcover and setback requirements. She added that the dredging that was done in the 1950*s did not constitute a hardship for the Fiebelkorns. She felt that it was the Fiebelkorns* responsibility to investigate the City's ordinances and rules pertaining to building. Cohen concurred that he would not be able to justify allowing such a structure to remain in the 0-75* zone. Planning Commission member Hanson informed Mr. Berg that the Planning Commission wa an advisory body. It would be much more effects i to present their proposals to the City Council. Kelley concurred with Hanson's suggestion. Mr. Berg was p-^rsistent in asking that the Planning Commission hear their pres ation. Kelley conceded, but asked that the presentation be b Mr. Adolph explained that the Fiebelkorns would remove hardcover from the driveway *‘^d patio areas. The pool would be used as a detention basin f.. he runoff. An absorption system would be installed to handlv s,he drainage. The pool would be large enough to handle the 100 year storn capacity. The runoff would be filtered so that only clean water would run into the soil and Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Anderson explained that landscaping would be used to aesthetically enhance the area NmUTBS OP THE PLAHHIHG COMNISSIOM MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE «1353>FIEBELKORH CONTINUED surrounding the pool. There would be a need for a small retaining wall on the lakeside edge of the pool patio. The retaining wall would also be utilized for the plantings.^ Mr. Anderson showed pictures of the pool from the lagoon to indicate that the pool was invisible from that point. Vegetation would also be used to screen the pool from view in those areas where it would be easily seen. Mrs. Piebelkorn added that there was a possibility that 3/lOths of an acre be acquired from a sighbor. By so doing, it would alleviate the problem concerning i:he pool equipment storage shed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission member Hanson asked when the Fiebelkorns moved to Orono. Mrs. Piebelkorn replied they had moved to Orono in 1985. Hanson explained the need to preserve the watershed of Lake Minnetonka. Mrs. Piebelkorn commented that their lack of knowledge has been very embarrassing. She said that the neighbors had been asking about the outcome of the situation. Mr. Piebelkorn stated that he was just attempting to improve his property . It was moved by Planning Commission member Bellows, seconded by Planning Commission member Moos, to recommend denial of this application because of the lack of hardship. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1355 KENNETH 0. WBSSELS 1245 IfOODHILL AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. - 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Planning Commission member Bellows askr> why the point was made about the antenna being unrelated to the operation of Mr. Wessels' ! 'niness. Zoning Administrator Mabusth answered that dist nctic .as made because commercial transmitting cannot occur from residential property. Hhe added that there had been a previous problem with a renter of an adjacent property who used his radio for business purposes. Orono citizen transmitting from his property. Mr. WessfIs informed Bellows that amateur radio operation was a hobby of hi-. He would only transmit for a couple of hours on a weekend morning, as well as late in the evening and very early in the morning on weekdays. He assured the Planning Commission that the use would be entirely recreational, not commercial. Planning Commission member Brown asked for clarification MIiroTT!S OP THE PLMIHI1I6 COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE #1355-NESSELS CONTINUED regarding the problems of the previous radio operator. Mabusth explained that this person operated a security business from his home. He caused major interference with the neighbor's televisions, radios and telephones. Chairman Kelley observed that the same interference problems could occur with Mr. Wessels. Mabusth stated that in such cases, the FCC should be contacted. In addition, after a previous similar application, the City Council required that the name and number of the contact agency be given to the same parties that were notified about the conditional use permit application. The FCC, not the City, would handle complaints pertaining to interference. Bellows asked whether the conditional use permit could be revoked after a r/ :iod of time if complaints of interference are received? 1. Dusth replied that such restrictions were possible, but in light of Federal regulations, the City could not restrict a resident from operating a radio transmitter and receiver. nning Commission member Hanson asked whether the problem of ference would actually be within the receiver, not the traiiw. ;ter? Mr. Wessels confirmed that if his equipment is correctly set up, that would be the case. He added that there would be a possibility of probi -»ms due to a receiver, and stated that the FCC could confirm that. Any problems that mav occur with a receiver could be rectified easily. Mr. Wessels informed the Planning Commission that he transmitted from Ms previous home at the Lake of the Isles. That area was very congested, but in the eight years he resided there, he had no interference problems . Planning Commission member Bellows asked whether it was Mr. Wessels intention to raise and lower the antenna? Mr. Wessels explained that the location of the antenna would be in a heavily wooded area or his property. He said he could erect a free standing antenna thav would require guy wires. The proposed tower could be either at a fixed height r5.ght above the tree line, or have a raising/lowering capability. Mr. Wessels referred to a nationwide FCC regulation, P- i-*, that states that the City could not stop an amateur radio operator from erecting a tower. Mr. Dick Raiche, a neighboring property owner, inquired as to the proposed location of the tower? Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that the structure would have to meet the height iWiri»tions and meet the required setback from the boundary lines. Mr. Wessels stated chat he would be willing to locate the tower anywhere on the lot. Mr. Raiche stated that he did not want to see the structure from his property. Mr. Raiche further commented that he had talked with L^ke of the Isle neighbors of Mr. Wessels, most of w. did not «:.ow Mr. Wessel had a tower. MINUTES OF THE PLEMNIMG COMMIS'*OH MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE «1355-WBSSELS CONTINUED Ms. Marsha Rokke, 180 Orono Orchard Road, informed the Planning Commission of the circumstances involving Mr. Peterson's radio operation. She said that it became quite a safety factor when another resident in the area could not use her phone to call for a medical emergency. She said that the neighbors had registered their complaints with the FCC. However, the PCC dealt with Mr. Peterson directly, rather than keeping the residents apprised of their actions. Chairman Kelley suggested reviewing the conditional use permit after 6 months. Kelley also asked if Mr. Wessels had protection for the tower that would prohibit children from climbing the tower. Mabusth reported that the City was recommending "anti-climb" sections be installed for that purpose. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of this item subject to a review 6 months from the date the Certificate of Occupancy is Issued, and Mr. Wessels providing the City with phone numbers so he can be accessible if necessary. In addition, the City must be satisfied that the tower will not be a safety hazard. The structure must be placed in the wooded area within 10* of the location indicated in the application. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1356 GERALD T. NCCOURTNEY 1055 WEST FBRNDALB ROAD RBNBIIAL VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning. Commission member Hanson, to recommend approval of application #1356, renewal of variances, for Gerald T. McCourtney. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays«0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OP 1989 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Bellows, to approve the 1989 Schedule of Planning Commission Meetings. Motion, Ayes*f, Nays*0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 17, 1988 MINUTES* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to approve the Minutes of the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays-0, Motion passed. CMCELLATIOH OF DECEMBER 19, 1988 PLANNING COMNISSIOH MEETING* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Hanson, to cancel the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for December 19, 1988. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays»0, Motion passed. NimiTBS OF THE PIAHMIIIG COMMISSIOH MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 PIANHIN6 COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE w ^ «It was agreed that Planning Commission roemberr Maureen Bellows, would represent the Planning Commission at the December 12, 1988 City Council Meeting. ^*^^^The*NOvember 21, 1988, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9t30 p.m. 5 CITYof ORONO CITY OF ORONa Post Office Box 66* Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offic On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 23, 1988 3 3 Mr, Paul D. Swanson# President Landmark Construction P.O. Box 248 Long Lake# MN 553J6 Dear Mr. Swanson# In you letter elated November 30, 1988, you outlined your concerns regarding our billing procedures for legal and engineering fees for your subdivision review, Bayside Landing. We appreciate the fact that you were able to sit down with Jeanne Mabusth and determine that there had been a mistake made in the billina To the extent that those caused you problems# we apologize. The issue regarding the initial $6C0 road fee being overlooked# while it may have been a surprise to you# was an offset against the legal/engineering fees that you did pay on the road. While the system that we utilize has not been satisfactory in your case# it has served us well for the bulk of the applications we handle as most applications only take a 1° process and any attendant billings are received within a month or ?wo a?ter that. (As you will note in the ytached form, (specifically on Page 5 of handout material and Page 2 of the application), applicants are made aware of the fact that any legal or engineering fees over and above that covered by will be separately billed to the applicant.) In your particular case the extensive legal bills were due, in large to complicated title problems related to t*** *re developing. As far as the engineering costs, these were prolonged because of the slow road ‘‘*1? again related to the delay to sort out the should bo noted that one of the delays in billing ^* ^***^ ,^^ receipt of legal and engineering bills is generally two mon after the work has been incurred by the project. The delay in billing may cause you a cash flow because of that we are willing to extend the P»y^*"^,|9 hH fe«8 to you as a consideration to February 1# • they been billed in a more timely manner however, been items that you normally would be required to be paid. ■UILDING a ZONING - 47J-73S7 ASSESSING AlMIMSmATlON a FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Mr. Paul D. Swanson December 23r 1988 Page 2 of 2 O Based on your concerns r we are looking at ways to transmit interim bills in a more timely manner particularly for applications that cover an extended period of time. (V.e had received complaints about this in the past as some people just wanted a final bill.) We thank you for your letter. Please note the attached letter of Jeanne Mabusth dated November 29# 1988 which represents the corrected billing related to the property. rdson# Administrator MEB/dh Enclosure Mayor and City Council ^ ^ Jeanne A. Mabusth# Building and Zoning Administrator Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director Dorothy M. Hallin# City Clerk C j(g[lGM. DEC 2 2 '€83 \' U Ui —- -- - 12-14-88 Dear Mayor and Council: The M.W.C.C. Commissioner for District 13/14 is open for appointment or re-appointment by the Metropolitan Council in January 1989. I am soliciting a letter of endorsement for this position from you. The Southwest Communities continue to fall behind in infrastructures such as sewer capability and transportation. Siting future landfills, of course, cannot be ignored. If appointed, I can promise to actively support the needs of our area. I live in Shakopee, County of Scott and understand the needs of our Communities. Again, a letter of support to the Metropolitan Council would sincerely be appreciated. If there are further questions, I can be reached at 445-3018. Respectfully, Gloria M. Vierling 1461 County Road 79 Shakopee, MN 55379 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 December 27, 1988 To Cities Officials, County Commissioners, Townshi Legislators, and Metropolitan Council Members: ri gt 1 DEC 3 01988 bards '1s We're coming to the close of another busy year. I appreciate the opportunity of serving as your representative on the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). My precinct. Precinct G, is the largest geographically in the metropolitan area. In Precinct G there are 68 cities and townships, 30 of which have sewer service through the MWCC. I have not been able to visit with all of you personally, but encourage you to contact me and welcome your input regarding MWCC service. You will often find me on the job site as I want to see first-hand the progress of our various projects, the most recent of which was the repair of the interceptor sewer break in Wayzata. There are many projects contained in his bulletin, please note that the Sewer Service Availability .large (SAC) has been changed. You no longer pay for the SAC at the time of building unless connection to our system is available. In the past all new buildings were required to pay the SAC fee regardless of the current sewer connection availability. In addition to the SAC fee, you were required to put in your on-site septic system at a cost of $5,000 to $7, 000. This change, which I proposed, definitely benefits Precinct G. Another very important item for our area is the fact that the MWCC's system provides linkage to MWCC plants for all of our cities around Lake Minnetonka. With the phase-out of the Maple Plain Wastewater Treatment Plant, in 1987, the MWCC has now diverted all sewage discharges away from lakes. As the representative from your community at the MWCC, I am anxious to convey to you the status of some of the MWCC's current projects and plans for future projects which affect your community. - Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - Plymouth Interceptor Sewer Project — will service Medina - Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion - Blue Lake Interceptor Sewer Repair from July 23, 1987 storm 50 Years 1938-1988 ajiiiwm - Orono Interceptor Sewer Project - Lift Stations - Lake Virginia Lift Station & Force Main Interceptor Sewer Project - Lake Ann and Red Rock Interceptor Sewer Project - Phase out of the Savage Wastewater Treatment Plant - Septage Management Program - Legislated Change Combining Sewer Service Areas These topics are addressed in greater detail in the attached bulletin. If you have questions regarding the MWCC or would like me to present more detailed information at one of your meetings, please contact me at 471-9801. Sincerely, / V/bEllen Hurr, Commissioner Precinct G / Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 PRECINCT G BULLETIN COMMISSIONER JOELLEN HURR 612 222-8423 The Metropolitan Waste Control Coimtiiseion (KWCC) owns and operates the wastewater treatment system In the metropolitan area. The system serves 105 communities and Includes 11 treatment plants and over 550 miles ol Interceptor sewer pipes (those pipes shared by two or more communities that carry sewage from communities to MWCC's plants for treatment). The HWCC Is also responsible for new construction and maintenance within the system. There are a total of 63 cities and townships In Precinct G. Of these, 28 currently receive sewer service through the MWCC. Many of the remaining 35 areas receive Indirect service through the waste transport hauler disposal sites, which are part of the MWCC's Septage Management Program. The Chaska, and Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plants are located within Precinct G. The Savage Wastewater Treatment Plant has been phased out. The sewage from this area will now be treated by the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant In Eagan. The Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant, although not located In Precinct G, serves a large portion of the eastern part of Precinct G. ORONO INTERCEPTOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT The Orono Interceptor Sewer Improvements Project Is a $2.4 million project now under construction. It Is designed to provide additional sewer capacity for the cities of Orono, Spring Park, and Minnetonka Beach, and to prevent the overflow of untreated sewage Into Lake Minnetonka. The project Involves replacing two lift stations (structures which house equipment to pump wastewater). Improving three existing lift stations, and building 3.2 miles of new sewer pipe. The Orono Interceptor Sewer Is part of the interceptor system which carries wastewater to the MWCC's Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant in Shakopee. Much of this project will be built by an open-cut construction method, whereby trenches are dug to lay sewer pipe. During construction, traffic constrictions and road closures are expected along the western and northern shore of Crystal Bay of Lake Minnetonka. Detours will be coordinated with the county and the City of Orono. As construction Is completed, affected areas will be restored. Construction started In the fall of 1988. 50 -1- vears 1938-1988 SENECA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE AND EXPAKSIOK Th« Senvcfi Waatsvater Treatment Plant is located in Eagan. The plant currently serves the communities of Eagan* Bloomington* Burnsville* and parts of Inver Grove Heights* Lakeville and Apple Valley. With the recent closing of the wastewater treatment plant at Savage* the City of Savage's wastewater will be connected through "interceptors" or connecting sewers to the Seneca Plant for treatment. About 18.6 million gallons of wastewater are treated per day at Seneca. Plans for an expansion of the Seneca Plant are now being designed toi increase the plant's treatment capacity by one-third; reduce odors; and upgrade the treatment process to meet increasingly stringent federal and state standards. It is anticipated that this expansion will service the needs of this area through the year 2010. Construction is scheduled to begin in 1989 and be completed in 1992. PLYMOUTH INTERCEPTOR SEWER - Will Provide Additional Capacity for. Medina The Plymouth Interceptor Sewer Project is a S10 million new sewer project being built by the MWCC. The project will provide additional sewer capacity for the communities of Plymouth, Medicine Lake* Medina* and New Hope. The construction for this project will take place in Plymouth* New Hope, Golden Valley and Minneapolis. BLUE LAKE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE AND EXPANSION The Blue Lake Plant* which is located in the fcity of Shakopee* serves approximately 150*000 people in 23 communities: Chanhassen* Deephaven, Eden Prairie* Excelsior* Greenwood* Laketown township* Long Lake* Maple Plain* Medina* Minnetonka* Minnetonka Beach* Minnetrista* Mound* Orono* Prior Lake* St. Bonifacius* Shakopee* Shorewood* Spring Park* Tonka Bay* Victoria* Waconia* and Wayzata. This plant treats about 21.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. The *56 million plant expansion will Increase the plant's treatment capacity from 24 million gallons of wastewater (mgd) per day to 32 mgd* to meet the needs of population growth in the vestern suburbs. The expansion will also upgrade processes to meet stricter federal and state standards and improve water quality in the Minnesota River. The plant expansion construction work is expected to begin in early 1989 and be completed in the fall of 1992. Treatment processes will be added for removing chlorine and adding oxygen to treated wastewater before it is released into the river. -2- BLUE LAKE INTERCEPTOR SEWER REPAIR As a result of the heavy rain storm Thursday evening, July 23, 1987, the interceptor sever that conveys sevage from the western suburbs of Minneapolis into the MWCC's Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant in Shakopee failed because of extremely high flows. The permanent repairs to the interceptor sever and head box were completed late in 1987; landscaping of the area was completed in the Spring of 1988. NEW LIFT STA ,/(li A new lift station is being built in Lakeville to increase the sever service capacity for Apple Valley and Eagan. LAKE ANN AND RED ROCK INTERCEPTOR SEWER PROJECT These projects will carry sewage from the Lake Virginia Lift Station plus Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The Red Rock Interceptor, servicing Eden Prairie, is now operational and the Lake Ann Interceptor, servicing Chanhassen, is scheduled to be completed and fully operational in February 1989. LAKE VIRGINIA LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN SEWER PROJECT The Lake Virginia Lift Station and Force Main will carry wastewater flows from the western Lake Minnetonka communities. It is anticipated that they will have sufficient capacity to handle the flows until the year 2024. This project should be completed and fully operational in February 1989. SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - Affects Waste Transport Haulers, The MWCC Septage Management Program requires that Waste Transport Haulers obtain Industrial Discharge Permits in order to discharge septage and other transported liquid wastes into the MWCC system. There are three approved Waste Transport Hauler Disposal sites in or near Precinct G. They are located near Shakopee at the MWCC Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant (Highway 101), in Plymouth at the intersection of Nathan Lane and 10th Avenue North, and in Minnetonka at 11S22 Minnetonka Blvd. (City Shop - local sever line). Another site near the south eastern border of this precinct is at the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant near Farmington. If further information is needed on this topic, call Mark Pierson of the MWCC'a Industrial Waste Division, 229*2077. -3- LEGISLATED CHANGE COMBINING SEWER SERVICE AREAS “ Affecta Ratca The 1987 State Legislature amended Minnesota Statute, Chapter 473, to eliminate the MWCC sever service areas and to require that all communities pay the same rate per gallon for sever service by year 1992. A five year phase-in program has been initiated in 1988 to accomplish this legislative change. SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGE (SAC) - Limited To Those Who Have Severe The Sever Service Availability Charge (SAC) is a fee charged to all homes and buildings built vithin the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), if there is an existing sever vith vhich to connect. Prior to January 1. 1987, all buildings/homes in communities receiving sever fjervice, and vithin the MUSA vere assessed a SAC fee, vhether or not sever connections actually vere available, vith the expectation that severs vouid he available to them in the future. In .addition to lobbying for this change, I lobbied to make refunds of previously collected SAC monies available to those cities vho requested refunds of SAC fees charged vhere severs do not presently exist. These refunds are available through the year 1989. If refunds are paid, vhen sever service becomes available, the rate existing at the time of availability vill be charged. The rates have been increasing. Each city vas notified of the opportunity to apply for the SAC refund. -4- To: All City Employees From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director ■N Date: December 15, 1988 Subject: Recycling Office Paper In February 1989, the City of Orono will begin curbside recycling. Polka Dot Recycling of Buffalo, Minnesota was the successful bidder. The Contractor has advised me that they will accept office paper (8*sxll, 8*1x14, etc.). Please place all paper to be discarded in a box at a convenient location in your office or work station. The Contractor will pick-up twice monthly, the exact days will be determined at a later date. Office paper includes: 8*1x11 white or yellow 8*1x14 white or yellow Blueprints - any size We will have one central location for newspaper, manllla envelopes (window envelopes not accepted) and manilla file holders. Computer printouts should also be separate. Please contact me if you have any questions. a it METRO MOBILITY COMING!! Westonka Rides will soon be adding new dimension to the many services already offers. We have recently entered into a contract agreement with the Suburban Paratransit Co. which will allow both transportation programs to jointly bring to the Westonka area the much needed and asked about, Metro Mobility Service. What is Metro Mobility? It is a door-through-door transportation service for disabled individuals which will enable them to link up to those locations in Mpls. which are difficult for Westonka Rides to otherwise serve since they are out of our regular service area. When using Metro Mobility, it is not necessary for your ride request to be for medical appointment only. This service will also allow you to visit a friend, attend a special event or class, etc. This Metro Mobility transportation service will begin on January 3, 1989 operating in our area each week on Mondays and Fridays. The pick up time may not occur any earlier than 9 a.m. and return trips are to start no later than 2 p.m. Requests for service may be made by calling Westonka Rides at 472-049 between the hours of 8:00 and 2:30 p.m. n> later than 24 hours prior to needed ride. g^fore you can use this service however, a person must be **rider certified and have paid a $10.00 annual certification fee. To obtain an application for rider certification, call the Metro Mobility Administrative Center at 349-7480. The Westonka Senior Center will be avail able for anyone needing assistance with filling out their application form. In addition, Westonka Rides is offering to deliver applications directly to the Metro Mobility Center. Any questions, contact Westonka Rides at 472-0349. As of pres^ this holida^, may take other'^ leaves to pick up We will be sitting in ^ for the Christmas Carol, formance, we'll be journeys Library" (old Uptown library) delicious dinner of Chicken brea^ vetetables, fruit salad, dessert. The afternoon will be culminated with tour around the lake area to see the Christmas lights. All this for $29.00 which covers all! Call immediately if interested. 472-0347 or 472-0348. ItlrK he n An M E R R ^ CHRISTMAS AU D H A P P T j) a « Y E A R1 M iorfteallom of tdvsndiif y«*** r “Beyond the Basics” is.... • An excellent opportunity to enhance your skillet planning for developeent (of any size) in residential and conmercial sites, and conducting public hearings or meetings, e The next step for anyone familiar with the basics of zoning and subdivision regula tion. (Previous attendance at the Annual Planning Institute sponsored by GTS or at least c«e year on a planning commission or governing body is suggested.) PROGRAM FEATURES - Hypothetical case studies used throughout the day to illustrate points Informative presentations with both planning and legal perspectives - Entertaining videotape to highlight do s and don'ts of conducting public hearings - Packet of reference materials designed to make your job easier DATE/LOCATION Thursday, February 9, 1989 Breezy Point Resort County Roads 4 & 11 Breezy Point, HN 56472 218/562-7811 Thursday, February 23, 1989 Earle Brown Center U of M St. Paul Campus 1890 Buford Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 (Enter through Fairgrounds) 612/624-3275 Thursday, March 16, 1989 Archer House 212 Division Street Northfield, MN 55057 WHO SHOULD ATTEND? Members of planning commissions, boards of adjustment/appeals and governing bodies in Minnesota cities, counties and townships. vaoi xaxsioax sdoijsJiJOM asaijx CNOHO-• ZCIC ON Huuarf NM l»Wd •» OlVd aovisod en lIVMSSVIOiSUIJ U)I9S ooseuuiM'ined )8 | taejts MWnod iseg 9¥ Suipting eioseuuiM ZX 'sofAjes Bu(u|Ui iweu BEYOND THE BASICS FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS Threa Dates Thiee Locationsl February 9 Breezy Point February 23 St Paul March 16 Northfiehl PLUS NEW HALF DAY WORKSHOP ON Plj\NNEn UNIT DEVELOPMENT! PRF.SENTEn BY: GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE— BEYOND THE BASICS AGENDA 8I00 a.m. REGISTRATION PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT (Of An> Slzel) 6i30 • Some definitions and background e How tools relate to each other e Limits of authority; due processr other legal issues e Role of comprehensive plan; standards • Public and private sector perspectives 9t45 a.m. BREAK lOtOS e Presentation of hypothetical cases e Focused small group discussions on specific issues involved in consi dering residential and commercial development 12t00-12t45 p.m. LUNCHEON CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS/NEETINGS 12i45 Groundrulest Principles of Due Process Nhat Can Go Wrongt Presentation/ Discussion of vid*<otaped "mock” public hearing 2i30 REFRESHMENT BREAK 2i45 Practical Guidelines foi Success e Differences/putposes of public meetings e How to's e Roles of chairr staff e Making finding** Questions and Discussion of Specific Situations 4t00 ADJOURN FACULTY PETER H. BACHMANr Special Counselr Office of Minneapolis City Attorney GUNNAR ISBBRG; Planning Director; Consolidated Planning Depart ment, Rochester/Olmsted County FRANK KUNDRAT; Attorney; Hall, Byers, Hanson, Steil i Weinberger, St. Cloud JOHN SHARDLOH; Vice President; Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. (Institute Presider) REGISTRATION The $65 per person registration includes lunch, refreshment breaks and handout materials. Register at least 10 days prior to the workshop date using the attached form. A full refund of the fee will be made only if the registration is cancelled 3 working davs in advance of the program. Substitutes for registered participants may be made at any time. ABOUT GTS Government Training Service is a public, joint powers organization whose mission is to meet the changing management and leader ship needs of policymakers, staff and appointed officials by providing innovative, comprehen sive, practical training and consulting to publicly-funded organizations in Minnesota. MORE INFORMATION Contact Lisa McMann (Registration) or Vivian Hart (Program), 612/222-7409 or Minnesota Toll Free 800/652-9719. iSl A praotloal SPECIAL WORKSHOP: THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) i / f APPROACH TO LAND DEVELOPMENT DATE/LOCATIONlook at a such alausad and alaundaratood , dovalopBMnt tool which can ptovlda gtaat flailblllty in aoooapliahing your oonmunity'a goalal ]ui30i ti30 a.a^ *^iai30,p.a. i o, Baokproondi -Orifina, Hiatory, Currant intaraat I o Nhat lajiar how it diffata fron convantional aoninq 4 o ;Sow tho Ptooaaa^Jfotka ‘^0, Nodal POD Ordinanoai What to includa (fron ,authoriiation to allowad uaaa to standarda to control) ^o'i Baotpins Trands ACfacting PUDa in tha 80'a and PO'a Problaaa, Pitfalls to Avoid A U .^CaM8tirfloaj .t] ‘ j- 0 '.Sunaaryi jfAdvantagaa, PUD, Worksliop faculty is . » » : f » 4 John Shardlow. Thursday, April 13, 1989 Nicollet Island Inn ... 95 Merriam < Minneapolis, NN 55401 . 612/331-1800 a ’ u REGISTRATION The 135 per person ceglatration ^ includes refreshments and i *7 handout materials. Register^by|yl April 3 using the attached form.Jlj!;, ,*^ Refund of the fee will be made M'4 only if the registration is |«^a cancelled 3 working davs in |T advance of the pmarae. '4 REGISTRATION FORM BEYOND THE BASICS PUD Workshop _____February 9 — Breezy Point ____ April t3 — Minnespolia _____February 23 — St. Paul _____March 18 — Norlhfield Name^ (Please print or type) Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .Daytime Phone (. _City/State/Zip. Jurisdiction Title .How Long in Position. .Enclosed is $65/person for Beyond the Basics .Enclosed is $35/person for PUD Workshop .Bill me (Registration Fee plus 13 billing charge) Please mail to Government Training Service, 202 Minnesota Building, 46 East Fourth Street, St. Paul, NN 55101 Register at Least 10 Days Prior to the workshop Date RerviP-v-i siDj?.pe.'C 'B>CK Rl- Glen A PlannedXommercial Develounient Eden Prairie Minnesota Design Framework Manual Developed by Jcsco, Inc. Planned by Howard Dahlgrcn Associates PROJECT DESCRIPTION:15.2 acre mixed commercial development PROJECT LOCATION:Property is located just west of the Eden Prairie Center. It is bordered on the east by Trunk Highway 212/169, on the south by Single Tree Lanfe, and on the north and west by Eden Road. OWNER/DEVELOPER:Jesco, Inc. 7175 Cahill Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 - PLANNING CONSULTANTS:Howard Dahlgren Associates, Inc. One Groveland Terrace, Suite 102 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS:Pope Associates, Architects 533 Saint Clair Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 CONTENTS Introduction ...................................... Purpose, Objective , . . . Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Review Procedure . Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Architectural Standards. II Landscaping . . . . Ill Site Lighting IV Signage . . . . . . . . . . V Screening . . . , 1 1 3 3 3 5 7 15 17 18 FIGURES FIGURE 1 Project Location Map. FIGURE 2 Site Plan. FIGURE 3 Analysis Sumin2u:y. FIGURE 4 Mass Grading Plan FIGURE 5 Sections . . . . FIGURE 6 Landscape Plan FIGURE 7 Lighting Fixture. 2 6 8 9 10 12 16 INTRODUCTION Eden Glen is a 15.2 + acre commercial development located just west of the Eden Prairie Center, along Trunk Highway 212/169 in Eden Prairie, Minnesota (see Figure 1). This location, just south of the Interstate 494, Minnesota 212/169 interchange, places Eden Glen at the center of the Eden Prairie Major Center Area. This Major Center Area is a 1,000 acre area which is planned to be the major diversified center in Eden Prairie and the southwest Metropolitan Area. The central cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul will continue to function as the focal point for major office, financial, entertainment, and specialty shopping uses in the upper midwest. Therefore, outlying centers, such as the Eden Prairie Major Center Area will function best by providing specialized services for the surrounding residential area as well as such regional services as office, entertainment, finance, shopping, employment, and recreation. The Eden Prairie Center is located in the heart of the Major Center Area and contains over 600,000 square feet of retail space. Areas located around the periphery of other major centers throughout the Metropolitan Area have been developed with a strong pattern of uses. These uses can be generally chcuracterized as being dependent upon a regional service area, but, requiring too much space to operate cost effectively within the Center itself. Restaurants, both fast food and sit down types, financial institutions, and office buildings have also been successfully located in these areas, benefitting greatly from their exposure to regional traffic corridors. While there is a great deal of similarity in the types of uses located in areas around the periphery of major center areas, there is considerable variation in the physical appearance of these developments. Some of these developments have been very successfiol in guiding the exterior aesthetic relationships between uses. The unifying result of these efforts is evident and the strong sense of continuity exists throughout these developments. Unfortunately, several others have developed with little if any attempt at integration of uses. The results in these cases have been aesthetic mish mashes. The distinct lack of continuity has resulted in developments %^ich lack a sense of place. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE It is the purpose of this manual to provide a framework and a process for making important decisions regcurding external relationships within the Eden Glen Development. The main objective in establishing specific criteria and restrictions to guide Eden Glen's physical development is to integrate its various uses into a unified whole and to create a strong sense of place. 15.2 Acres A Planned Commercial Development - . . , by Jesco, IncEden Prairie, Minnesota Figure 1 AUTHORITY The authority for implementing the design controls contained in this development framework manual stems from the fact that it is to be a protective covenant and included as part of the land purchase agreement. This manual is also an integral part of the design concept proposed for Eden Glen as part of the City's Planned Unit Development process. By including this manual in the concept approval for this development, the City can greatly strengthen and enhance its review role in subsequent site plan reviews for building permit applications. DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE Prior to-submission to the City of Eden Prairie, all site and building pleins roust be submitted to the Development Review Committee. This Development Review Committee will consist of the Board of Directors of Jesco, Inc. and their architectural and planning consultants. Every possible attempt will be made to solve inconsistencies with the overall goals and objectives for Eden Glen prior to seeking City approval. SCOPE The scope of design control established by this framework manual will be to include performance standaurds, selection criteria, and restrictions related to the following basic categories: I Architectural Standards A. Objectives B. Building Siting, Form, Massing C. Exterior Building Materials IT Landscaping A. Site Grading 1. Objectives 2. Mass Grading 3. Final Grading B. Comprehensive Landscape Concept Plan 1. Objective 2. Major Plantings 3. Accent, Foundation, and Screen Plantings 4. Plant Size Requirements, Selection Criteria 5. Mulch and Edging 6. Irrigation Ill Site Lighting A. Objectives B. Type of Fixtures C. Height and Location of Fixtures D. Type of Lighting IV Signage A. Objective B. City Sign Ordinance 1. Wall Signs 2. Freestanding Signs 3. Directional Signs 4. Temporary Signs 5. Rest Room Signs 6. Other Applicable Provisions V Screening A. Objective B. Rooftop Utilities C. Other Utilities D. Service Areas E. Trash Handling ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS to is A. OBJECTIVES The relationships between the forms and massings of component structures and the appearance of the exterior building materials which they are constructed of will provide the predominant opportunity to create a strong, identifiable image at Eden Glen. The primary objective in establishing aurchitectural standards is ensure that the design and construction of individual structures compatible with plans for adjacent sites and consistent with the overall image of Eden Glen. B. BUILDING SITING, FORM, MASSING The concept site plan which has been developed for Eden Glen is illustrated on Figure 2. As it reveals, buildings have been oriented to gain their access from an interior public street. The development of Eden Glen as proposed will require a reioning from its present rural classification to Highway COTimercial. This zoning is consistent with the Major Center Area Planned Unit Development which was adopted as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1973. The siting of buildings and parking areas will be governed by the following setbacks, established in the City's Zoning Ordinance. BUILDING SETBACKS PARKING SETBACKS Public Streets 35 feet 17.5 feet Trunk Highway 212/169 50 feet 35 feet Side 20 feet 10 feet Rear 20 feet 10 feet maximize the development potential of lots , while meeting the walls are typically oriented as parallel as possible to street right—of—way and exterior lot lines. The result of this orientation and common construction techniques combine to create rectangular buildings. The only departure from that approach shown on Figure 2 is on the main office site on Parcel 7. In this case, the concept ca^s for the building to wrap-around and be built into the hillside to save trees. Any further departure from that form would only be allowed after the Development and Review Committee had determined that the change was not deleterious to the overall development. Building permit applications will also be subj^t to the review and approval of the Eden Prairie Planning Commission and City Council. 3 C3^ § |SSSSSSR I ^ I imm0- QJ -4— 175 l^^l3.S.SS ^Sl|g8§Sg^ 8 r:: "3 • ? 75 c cS ^ 0.2 D S =s gl “peoa"^3' C. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS Exterior building materials shall be dark toned, traditional materials; face brick and mortar, copper, or wood are encouraged. However, other basic materials may be approved if it can be demonstrated that the result will be con5>atible with the goals and objectives of the whole development. The high degree of visibility afforded this project makes it essential that high quality materials are used on all four sides of its structures. If metal frames and trim are to be used, it is strongly suggested that they be dark brown anodized finish or painted a dairk brown color to match. Corten steel trim is also an acceptable substitution. If wood frames and trim are proposed, they should be stained or painted dark brown. In reviewing building plans, emphasis will be placed on durability and permanence of finish. Factors related to maintenance will be Ccurefully scrutinized in the review of building plan proposals. II LANDSCAPING A. SITE GRADING 1. Objectives The primary objective in grading this site is to prepaure the land for development. The secondary objective includes the need to match street grades along Eden Road and Single Tree Lane along with the desire to create an attractive interface along Trunk Highway 212/169. The retention of the valuable vegetation in the northwest corner of the site is also very important. It is also essential that positive drainage exists along the interior street and that all of the storm water collected on the site can be conducted, by gravity, to the north. 2. Mass Grading Prior to filling, this 15.2 acre property was a major depression lying 30 feet below the grade of Trunk Highway 212/ 169 (see Figure 3). The concept for the development of this property calls for a major grading operation involving the movement of over 190,000 cubic yards of earth (see Fig\ires 4 and 5). Filling began with the stockpiling of approximately 35,000 cubic yards of fill along the norJdieastern edge of the property. This was primarily due to the fact that the developers did not yet own or control the southern portion of the property. The plans call for the peaty-muck area shown on Figure 3 to be removed and either stockpiled for use as p:ns <vs- 3cn 1 LO I ----------0:1 00m Im C4 . 01 § i So o I ,>- Ij OJ L. 3 oi U 0 1o topsoil or hauled off the site. Then, since the entire parcel is now owned by the developer, a controlled filling operation will commence from the south to the north. This is primeurily due to the need to maintain the natural drainage pattern to the north as well as to insure the opportunity to intercept storm drainage with straw bale dikes to filter out sediment prior to its outfall xnto Lake Idlewild. A detailed Erosion Control Plan will be prepared subject to the approval of the City's Engineering Department and the Watershed District. Following the major grading operation the land will be seeded and mulched to stabilize its soils. 3. Final Grading The construction of berms and the responsibility for .e preparation of final grading plans will be left to the developers of individual peurcels. However, the decision of whether or not to approve proposed grading plans will be determined after assessing their affect on adjacent parcels and the development as a whole. Proposals which call for site grading which would vary greatly and appear incompatible with the rest of the development will not be permitted. On the other hand, a well conceived plan for the use of terming to enhance landscaped areas and aid in the screening of service aireas could be of considerable benefit. B. COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN 1. Objective To integrate the various uses within the development, and aid in the creation of a strong and consistent image through a commitment to an overall landscape plan. 2. Major Plantings An overall landscape plan for Eden Glen is illustrated on Figxire 6. This plan is comprised of three main types of plantings, entrance and boulevard, interior and screen, and slope stabilization plantings. Red Maples have been located along the main entrances into the development. They were chosen for their spreading synmetrical form and excellent year-round color sequence. Red Maplas also hav«* a rapid growth rate, while not becoming as brittle as other soft maples and are tolerant of a variety of soil conditions. The remainder of the boulevard plantings include two deciduous and two coniferous species, all of which have been chosen for their hardiness and tolerance of de-icing salts. (Us- 3 CD —peoH-------------------u»P3----------- Sugcir Maples have been located to designate and frame entrances into the individual sites. In addition to the reasons noted above. Sugar Maples were chosen for their superior Tall color, their tolerance for a variety of soil conditions, and their preference for open sunny cureas. The other deciduous species has been designated as Oak, primcirily to extend the cheu:acter of the site's existing trees through out the development. The two varieties which have been chosen are Northern Red and Northern Pin Oaks. Both of these varieties have the advantage of retaining their leaves long into the fall and winter. Two coniferous species have been selected. Black Hills Spruce and Norway Pine. The Black Hills Spruce were chosen for use along peirking areas where their dense, compact form will facilitate screening. The Norway Pines were selected for their tolerance of urban conditions and their rapid growth rates in youth. The frontage along Trunk Highway 212/169 will require slope stabilization to prevent soil erosion. This £u:ea is also subjected to the spray of road de-icing salts. In order to assxire an attractive and healthy image for individual parcels, as well as the total development, the following plant list has been selected. Substitutions will only be permitted by special approval of the Development Review Committee. COMMON NAME LATIN NAME Red Twig Dogwood Yellow Twig Dogwoca Alpine Currant Potentilla Smooth Summac Fragrant S’immac Cottoneaster Amur Maple Chokecherry Pfitzer Juniper Green Ash Northern Pin Oak Black Hills Spruce Cornus Stolonifera Cornus Flaviramea Ribes Alpinum Potentilla Rhus Glabra Rhus Aromatica Cottoneaster sp. Acer Ginnela Aronia Melonocarpa Juniperus Chinensis "Pitzeriana" Fraxinus Pennsylvanica Quercus Ellipsoidallis Picea Glauca Densata 3. Accent, Foundation, and Screen Plantings Although a Comprehensive Landscape Plan has been prepared to direct the planting of major overstory trees, it is expected that individual site landscape plans will be designed to include accent, foundation, and screen plantings. The following list has been prepared to aid in the selection of compatible plant materials. Individual site landscape plans should utilize plants which will enhance site conditions, complement the airchitectural treatment of the structure and grounds, as well as be compatible with adjacent properties. COMMON NAME Dogwoods Viburnums Junipers Yews Ninebeurk Buckthorn Mugho Pine Serviceberry Silver Buffaloberry Atlantic Leatherwood Amur Maple LATIN NAME Cornus sp. Viburnum sp. Juniperus sp. Taxus sp. Physocarpus sp. Rhamnus sp. Pinus Mugo Amelanchier Sheperdia Argenta Dirca Palustris Acer Ginnela Any shrub 3isted in Slope Stabilization List 4. Plant Size Requirements, Selection Criteria a. Major Entrance and Boulevcird Trees. All major entrance and boulevard trees shall be of specimen quality. Deciduous trees shall be at least three inches in diameter when planted. Coniferous trees shall be at least six feet in height. Bare root materials may be used if they are planted dxiring the proper time of year. b. Other Trees. All other trees, those not adjutting public rights-of-way may be planted at sizes smaller than those of the major entrance and boulevard trees. However, in no case shall deciduous trees be planted smaller than l*a inch diameter, nor shall coniferous trees be planted smaller than five feet in height. c. Accent, Foundation, and Screen Plantings. Since the initial planting size of shrubs may vary greatly depending upon species and location, the following criteria shall be considered in the preparation of detailed landscape plans. 1. All slope stabilization and mass plantings shall be sized and spaced to assure minimum soil loss. 2. Major deciduous shr\ibs shall be a minimum Oj three feet high and balled and burlaped. 3. Container grown stock used in major plantings shall be a minimum five gallon size. 4. Small and ornamental trees shall be a minimum of 1^ inches in diameter. 5. Plantings used for screening shall be chosen and spaced to provide an opaque baurrier of at least six feet in height at maturity. 5. Mulch and Edging Individual site plans may, under certain conditions, wish to incorporate the use of mulch within planting areas. In all ' cases, if mulch is used it shall be a shredded hardwood bayk mulch (Pay-gro or approved equal). All mulched areas shall be edged with a black plastic edging. 6. Irrigation In order to assure the maintenance and healthy character of all plant materials, individual builders are encouraged to use irrigation systems. In all cases, site plans shall provide at least quick couples for watering hoses in all planting areas. These couples should be located so that planting areas can be watered without requiring hoses to cross drives, parking areas, or walks. Blowouts and drains will be required for effective winter cleanout. Ill SITE LIGHTING A. OBJECTIVES TO provide adequate lighting, to allow for safe pedestrian and vehicular use during evening hours. Also to accomplish this goal through a commitment to a common lighting system. This coitmon lighting systen provides another opportunity to integrate the individual sites and strengthen the image of the entire development. B. TYPE OF FIXTURE Beoause the property is located along and somewhat below Trunk Highway 212/169, it is essential that the fixtures chosen be of a down-cast, cut-off type. The fixture chosen is the Sterner Maurquette Series as illustrated on Figxire 7. Such a fixture conceals the light source from view and prevents glare from leaving the site. Aluminum poles and fixtures shall have dark bronze anodized finish. Lamp Reflector Refractor (clear acrylic) Single 2: 180 ’ 2: 90’ 3= 90’ 4: 90’ Figure 7 Mounting Arrangements Marquette Series Sterner Lighting Systems c. HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF LAMP POLES Since the majority of the buildings within Eden Glen will be single story, the maximum allowcdale light pole height will be 20 feet. Lighting which is proposed specifically for pedestrian ways will be mounted on 12 foot high poles. Every attempt will be made to maximize the overall efficiency of project lighting when locating individu2J. fixtures. As the project develops, a master lighting plan will be updated for use in the preparation of future individual site lighting plans. This master lighting plan will illustrate isolux diagrams determined by fixture height and lamp wattage. In the review of site lighting plans, the Development Review Committee wi 11 determine that they -provide ample light without duplicating the service of existing fixtures. D. TYPE OF LIGHTING High pressure sodium lamps have been selected because they are the most efficient, providing more lumens of output per watt of electricity than any other type. IV SIGNAGE • A. OBJECTIVE To establish a reasonable set of standards and regulations to cover the erection, use, and/or display of signs and displays. These standards should allow for innovation and free expression while assuring that the public is not endangered, annoyed, or distracted. B. CITY SIGN ORDINANCE Ordinance No. 261 of the Eden Prairie City Ordinance governs the erection, use, and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols to attract attention. The following performance standards are established in the Regional Center Highway Commercial District and provide the general parameters for signage within Eden Glen. 1. Wall Signs The total area of all wall signs affixed to the building shall not exceed 15 percent of the total area of the wall. 2. Freestanding Signs One (1) freestanding sign per principal building pei^ street frontage is permitted. The total area of a freestanding sign for a building having one street frontage shall not exceed 80 square feet. Where a building has two or more street frontages, only one freestanding sign of the above size shall be permitted. Each permitted freestanding sign in excess of one shall have a sign area not to exceed 36 square feet. The mcucimum height of freestanding signs shall be 20 feet. 3. Directional Signs Directional signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. 4. Temporciry Signs Although no temporary signs will be permitted after the ^ completion of the development; during construction, and prior to sale of individual property, temporary signs will be permitted as follows: Temporary real estate signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or buildings shall be permitted on the site being sold or leased provided that such signs shall not exceed six square feet for residential property, 32 square feet for undeveloped non- residential property. Temporary signs will also be limited to one sign per lot, parcel, or structure and these signs shall be removed within seven days following the lease or sale. 5. Rest Room Signs Signs indicating the rest rooms and containing no advertising shall be permitted. 6. All other general sign provision which are applicable to district. A more defined set of sign criteria will be developed when the specific needs of individual uses are determined. These additional standards will be adopted as appendix to this design framework in a further attempt to strengthen the consistency and overall image of Eden Glen. SCREENING A. OBJECTIVE The fact that Eden Glen is surrounded on all four sides by public roadways, and has a public street through its center combine to create a very high level of visibility. Consequently, toe following performance standards are adopted to ins\ire the prot^tion of a strong and consistent image on all four sides of individual sites. B. ROOFTOP UTILITIES Section studies across the interface between Eden Glen and Trunk Highway 212/169 have shown that the roofs of the buildings to be located along this area will be at approximately the eye level of passing motorists. Consequently, it is very important that all rooftop utilities be screened from view. The extension of parapet walls and other modifications of roof treatments will be judged as preferable to the construction of separate rooftop screening devices. If it is impossible to av id the construction of separate screens, they should be made of materials which are compatible with the principal structure and treated to appear as inconspicuous as possible. C. OTHER UTILITIES Other utilities such as meters and condensers should be located to insure their proper function and facilitate easy maintenance. They should be totally screened from view, or treated in a manner which complements the architectural treatment of the principal structure. D. SERVICE AREAS Areas for loading and other essential service functions should be properly provided for on site and building plans. In preparing said plans, individual site designers should strive to maximize the efficiency of these essential service functions in a manner which has the least possible negative aesthetic impact on the development. Any necessary activities which would consistently create objectionable views should be screened from view. E. TRASH HANDLING Every possible attempt should be made to accommodate trash handling in the interior of buildings. Such trash storage areas should be accessible from both an interior and exterior door to facilitate proper maintenance. If it is impossible to accommodate trash handling within the building, a trash storage structure sh^l be constructed of high quality building materials which ^e deemed compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal structure. i NEWSLETTER ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE - MAPLE PLAIN - MEDINA MINMETONKA BEACH ORONO 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 55356 473 7313 ORONO SCHOOL BOARD David McKown, Chairman 479-1692 Don Anderson, Vice Chairman 479-1810 Luc ‘ Taylor, Treasurer 473-1189 Kitty Crosby, Qerk 478-6037 Jim Franklin, Director 479-2130 John Maresh, Director 475-3197 JANUARY, 1989 ISSUE NO. 5 Administrative Notes Mid Winter Fun Fest The Orono Elementary PTA is having its annual Carnival nn <;afiirHav. Fpbruarv 4th from l.*00 Dm to 5:00 pm at the oHtea InTonjunction with the Carnival is a raffle featuring adu^ a* ^ r^t for the^ ^ ^ i„,,„ding bikes, stereo, keyboanl and much op'^ortunity oMhis colu^Uit to review some of the most school'Mudent^oHt “thec-^gingLes&cingyourschoolsfoisyear. elementary or .ntermed.ate school student or at the EQUITY UrnCATlON You have probably read newspaper accounts of a lawsuit brought against the state of Minnesota by a coalition of school Carnival. The students will be bringing the raffle tickets home soon. PTA Co-President, Teri Wood, is in charge of the raffle. We’ll have lots of fun, prizes and food, and we are looking S “S^oLdisfocTcon^d Zi the pm^t prnoss forward to seeing you there. Be sure to put it on your for funding K-12 public education is unconstitutional. calendar and join us! The plaintiffs argue that present funding does not provide for equal educational opportunity because equal revenue per students is not available across the state. The fallacy o» the argument is the assumption that equal revenue pwovides equal opportunity. The fact that a very real difference in cost occurs arrwrg sdvx)l districts is ignored. Costs in the metropolitan area exceed those in other parts of the state. Similarly, veteran teacher salaries in an established district exceed those of young faculties in growing and expandir^ sdKX>l districts The lawsuit al» seeks to forbid the rigjit of local communities to additionally tax themselves to enhaiKe the educational programs of their sdrrol districts It seems to me that the financial needs of the school districts bringing the lawsuit need to be addressed without resorting to an egalitarian judicial decision. In association with several metropolitan school districts the Orono Schools will oppose the lawsuit Similarly, we will work to prevent legislation aimed at accomplishing the goals of he lawsuit Tb be sure, this matter is cwnplcx Very much to the point tiie success of this lawsuit will result in the failure of many school _ , dismcis ID mainlam quality programs CbnlonpageS 1 AID VINTERS FUN FE5T FEBRUARY 4 1:00 PA AiDDLE 5CHOOL Orono Education Fund Boys Soccer Awards It is not too late to send a donation to the Orono Education Fund. Many donations have been gratefully received, but more money is needed to fulfill the requests for Academic Enrichment in our schools. In addition, in the spring, the Orono District Scholarship Awards will be given to selected graduating seniors to honor their past performance and to promote continuing education. TTiese scholarships vary depending on the funds received from the Scholarship Fund and interest from the Thist Fund. Please consider this worthwhile cause. Audrey M. Beal, Chairperson of the Orono Education Fund, resident and parent DONOR’S CARD I/We wish to make the following contribution and have enclosed our check payable to the Orono Education Fund. $____ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT PROGRAM m $____ORONO DISTRICT SCHOLARSHIP FUND □ I/We would like to be contacted with information regarding the Non-Expendable Fund and New Facilities Trust Fimds. □ I/We have applied for employee gift-matching funds from my employer. □ I/We prefer that our gift remain anonymous Name: Address. Phone _ Early Childhood Health and Developmental Screening During the week of February 13 - 17, 1989, Early Childhood Health and Developmental Screening will be held in the Orono School District at the Orono Primary School (in Maple Plain). Children ages 3 1/2 to 5 years of age are eligible for the screening which includes height, weight, hearing, vision and dental health, gross and fine motor skills, conceptual and communication skills and a review of the child's health history and immunization status. The screening will be conducted by the Orono educators, health professionals, and trained volunteers. If you have a child in the above age group you will be contacted for an appointment for the Early Childhood Health and Developmental Screening. JoAnn Ree, Early Childhood Health and Developmental Screening Coordinator. Tlv boys^ ywr team finished its first season in the 1U-MetiD Gold division in fifth place; behind conference leader Bredc, Minndiaha Academy, Blake and MahtomedL Thqr progressed one round in the playoffs, beating Mound 3-0, but lost to V^hyzata in the second round by a 0-2 score. Dun OReilly was named team ’s Most VrfuaHe Player and Most Valuable Midfidder while Matt Bradcen was the Most Valuable Defender. Matt Peterson was Most Valuable Forward and Ted Adams won die Most In^jroved a want Three players - Dan OReOly, Matt Peterson and Kenny Lacy virere named to the All-Conference team. Captains for next season are Ted Adams; Jason Anderson and Matt Bracken. Readasaurus Winner At the end of the last school year our students were given the opjportunity of being a part of the "Summer of the Readasaurus" summer reading program. Kathryn Baldry, presently a second grader at Schumann Elementaiy School, participated in file program. In September she was notified fiiat ^ had won a set of Worid Book encyclopedias in a drawing for her particapatkm in the program. Cor^tulations, Kathryn! Marvel Bongait Sdumumn Elementary FrindpaL Kathryn Baldry SENIOR PARENTS MEEUNG The Oroi¥) High School Senior Parents are meeting to plan the "AD Night Graduation Party". The next meeting is scheduled far January 16th at 7KX) pm in fiie Hi^ hool Cafeteria. The |ianrdr^ committee is hard at work to n Mdce this a very special evenir^ full of "safe" fun and gocxl times. It is not too late for parents to get involved in this important evenirg - plan to attend ourmeetii^ If ai^ parents would like to "help" out our budget - fiiey can pay for their Seniors attendance at the party now. Price for file evening is $5(X This would help out file conuruttee wifii the plans for a great evening. Admijiistrative Notes cont from page 1 SCHOOL DAY TASK FORCE At the local levd^ reaction to sdKX)l day and busing schedules resulted in the appewtment of a special Task Frace. This haid working group, composed of parents, teachers and administrators, presented a series of recommendations to the Board of Education on December 12. The recommendations are under review by the administration and will be returned to the Board in earty F^iruaiy. The recommendations are tfiou^tful and consistent widi die opinions presented to the Task Force via a written survey of parents and an open hearing session. The (haHengp win be to devise a schedule which conforms to tfie parameters set forth in the recommendations. A schedule will be prepared and presented in eariy spring to the conununity 1^ means of an open hearing before being ad vanced to the Board for approval or modifkatioa As a result of this issue all of us are more sensitive to the complexity of school schedules and their impact on families and individuals VN% are also significantly more aware of competing interests in designing schedules OPEN ENROLLMENT This legislation permits students to attend school outside of their resident school disbirts Hie Orono Schools are participating in this program for the 1989-1990 school year. We intend to monitor the program for one year to determine the benefits and/or proUems that result VAfe will acrept students from other school districts when room is available. V\fe do not intend to raise dass size or seek additional facilities to accommodate students from other districts. As of this writing relatively few, if any, students are leaving the Orono Schcx)ls for other sdiwl districts by means of this program. However, approximately 160 students are seeking admission to the Orono Schools. \fery shortly we will determine the number of students we will admit. Rever.ue generated the attendance of these students, paid by their respective districts and the state, is a very real benefit to the Orono Schools. FACniTlES Quite apart from open enrollment students, the Orono Schools population is growing. Within a few years we antidpate a total enrollment in excess of 2600 students, up from about 1950 students a few years ago. The increases are not proportionate across the grades. Eruollment at the High Schcx)l level will continue to decline for another year or so. The increased enrollment begun at the dementary level a few years back is continuing and increased numbers of students are now appearing at the Intermediate and Middle Schools. This year we opened the Orono Primary School to remedy the facilities crisis that was occurring at tl« elementary level. Now we must address the needs of ^udents in grades 4-8. Classrooms and core facilities are needed now and the need will iiKiease for the 1989-1990 schctol year. The Board of Education and administration are studying the ^ problem A recommendation will be presented to the Board in early 1989. Of all the issues I have rcportcxl hene, this is obviously the the most important. Failure to adc>quatcly house our instructional progi? m will have negative oonsecjuenoes. In addition to the items listed here we are continuing our curriculum ard staff devdopment effort However, I wanted to share diese other pnssing topics with you at tills time. We know it is going to be a challenging New Year, but let me offer best wishes for a happy one as well Dr Thomas B. Mich Superintendent Hdp With Parenting Orono Early Childhood Family Education, the K-5 RTA. and Parent Advisory Counefl are sponsorii^ an Evening with Jean msteyOaike. This special event will take {^ace on Hiesday, January 31 at 70) pm in the Orono Hig^ School Auditorium. The ^leaker is the author of Setif-Esteem a Family Affair and is widdy known for her insights in the comjdexities of parenting. The title of her presentation is "Self-Esteem and the Ties of Strong Families". There is a $250 per person charge for the evening with preregistration reconunended through Orono Community Education. Seating is limited so be sure to register now. Don't miss tills chance to hear an outstanding message. A special event for all parents!!! An Evening with Jean Illsley Clarke • Author of "Self-Esteem: A Family Affair’ • Tuesday, January31, 7-9p.m Orono Hi^ School Auditorium (South Parking Lot) 795 Old Crystal Bav Read ■ Long Lake, MN 55356 "SELF-ESTEEM AND THE TIES OF STRONG FAMILIES” $2.50/9erson • Seating limited • Pre-registration lecommended Sponsored by Orono ECFE, P.TA. (K-5), and the PA.C Registration for Jean lUaley Claik Na. Mail to; Orono Comm. Ed.. 795 CM Crysa) Biy Road. Lofy Lake. MN S53S6 Name_ Address:. Phone:_Amt enclosed:. For more information call 479-1530 Computer Labs Visitors to Schumann Elementary and Orono Primary Schools have noticed an air of excitement over the past few weeks. This excitement was because new computer labs were being installed in each building. Students were already using the lab in Schumann by Friday, December 16. The kindergarten and first grade students will be using theirs at Orono Primary inunediately after vacation. Each of the labs consists of fifteen Apple IIGS computers in addition to a Macintosh II computer that will be used as the file server for the lab. These computers will be networked shortly after vacation but are now being used as stand alone units. In addition, the school district budget has provided for software to be used on these machines. The primary purpose of these labs is improvement of learning in subjects such as reading, mathematics, writing, and problem solving. It is our belief that computer use for this purpose has only scratched the surface and about to become one of the primary learning tools. When you visit these schools, please stop in and take a look at these labs. Don Boylan Technology Coordinator Orono Math Team For the first time in history, Orono Senior High School has a math team in conference competition. Upon joining the Tri-Metro Conference we were invited to join the math competition. This conference has been active in this field for several years. It is part of a state-wide mathematics league. A team consists of eight participants plus spares. Each of these students take two individual tests consisting of four problems with a twelve minute time limit for each. Upon the completion of the individual tests, a team test is administered where six problems are solved by the group. There is a twenty minute time limit on this test. All tests are scored with individual and team scores added to make up a school ’s score. The spares scores are kept individually but are not included in the team score. The Orono team has participated in two meets thus far and are now in fourth place out of the eleven schools that are competing in the conference. Participants in the first two meets have included Laurie Hite, Nick Coult, Craig Beal, Tony Hughes, Mark Taylor, Chris Erickson, Van Qiu, Craig Gardner, Brent Anderson, Mike Kirby, Asad Aman, Ben Zanetti, and Cory Carrick. Don Boylan Math Teacher tt Coach Guidance At A Glance Upcoming Test Dates SAT January 28,1989 Registration Deadline: 12/12/88 March 11,1989 Registration Deadline; 2/3/89 ACT February 11,1989 Registration Deadline: 1/12/89 Tunlor*s Poat-Secondary Planning Now is the time that juniors should begin to explore post high school educational institutions. The guidance office has many search resources including numerous college and vocatioital school catalogs, the DISCOVER computer program on hard disc, the LRN Disc Center, and frequent . visits from college representatives. LRN LASER DISC CENTER AVAILABLE IN THE GUIDANCE OFHCE - THE NEXT BEST THING TO A COLLEGE VISIT The guidance office has a television monitor and lasCT disc unit available for use by all students interested in having a campus tour right here at Orono. Approximately seventy-five schools are included on a series of video discs. Each tour is about ten minutes in length and includes meeting students and professors, attending classes and extra curricular events, learning about academic curriculum and students life, and even visits to the off campus community. It takes less time than reading college brochures and it's more fun. All students, especially juniors and seniors, are encouraged to avail themselves of this college search resource. Students may want to check back occasionally to see if new colleges have been added. Fighth Gradp and Npw Student Parent Meeting A program regarding preregistration will be held in the high school auditorium on January 16, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Each year this meeting is held prior to registration to acquaint parents of incoming ninth grade students and new students about high school graduation requirements, curriculum, extra-curricular activities, and othc ’ high school opportunities. Students are welcome although the meeting is essentially for parents. High School Guidance Counselors: 473-5472 CaU Widi Your Questions Mis. Betty Beach All students with last names A-K Me. Thomas Wasbotten All students with last names L-Z High School Registration To Begin for 1! Students in grades nine, ten, and eleven will begin registering for the 1989-90 school year on January 16. Each student will meet individually with their counselor to formalize the courses they will take next year. If parents wish to participate in this registration process, they should check with their students to the specific day and time of the meeting. Cont. on page 5 Activity Calendar District ActiviHes 1/4 Qasses Resume 1/9 Board Meeting, MS Vocal Music Room......... 1 /20 Semester Ends, Teacher Workshop, no school 1/23 Board Meeting, MS Vocal Music Room....... 1/31 Jean nisley Qarke Program, Aud.................. 1/24 Girls Basketball - Wayzata - Here......................7:3i Ski meet.............................................................'4.-00 Boys Basketball at St. Bernards..........................7:30 Gymnastics at Buffalo.........................................6:30 Hockey at St. Louis Park....................................7:30 1/26 Wrestling at Minnehaha....................................7:30 Gymnastics - Mahtomedi - Here.........................730 1/27 Boys Basketball at St. Agnes..............................730 1/28 Hockey at Mahtomedi.......................................7.-00 1/31 Girls Basketball - St. Anthony - Here.................730 .7:00 Elemenfary ArHvities 1 /9 Sculptor in Residence all week 1/17 Elem/lS PTA Board Mtg. at SE.......................7:15 1/17 Primary & Elem. Jan. Birthday Party 1/20 No school 1 /23 Author in Residence all week 1/26 Cheepskate PTA Family Fun Night................6:00 Intermediate/Middle School Activities 1/17 MS PAC Meeting.................................................730 1/17 IS PTA Board Mtg. at SE....................................7:15 1/20 No School 1/24 MS CAPS Day High School Activities 1/3 Wrestling at Centennial.....................................730 Ski Meet...........................................................4.-00 1 /5 Boys Basketball - Blake - Here............................730 Hockey at Farmington....................................7:00 Girls Basketball - Brookl)m Center - Here.........7:00 Wrestling at Hopkins.......................................9:00 Math Team at Brooklyn Center........................4:00 Wrestling at Blake............................................7:30 Boys Basketball at Mahtomedi.........................7:30 Girls !■ asketball - St. Agnes - Here...................7:30 Ski meet.............................................................4:00 C lymnastics at Farmington................................730 Hockey at Blake...............................................730 Wrestling - De La Salle - Here...................... . 730 Boys Basketball at De La Salle..........................7:30 Hockey - St. Bernards - Here............................730 1/14 Gymnastics at Glencoe 1/16 Wrestling at St Anthony...................................5:30 1/17 Wrestling at St Bernards...................................7:30 Girls Basketball at Washburn...........................730 Hockey at Mound.............................................730 Boys BB - Bloomington-Kennedy - Here..........7:30 1/19 End First Semester Ski meet...........................................................4:00 Boys Basketball - Brooklyn Center - Here.......730 No School Girls Basketball at De La Salle..........................730 Wrestling - Cooper & Edina - Here..................630 Hockey - Breck - Here......................................730 1 /21 Gymnastics at Watertown 1/6 1/7 1/9 1/10 1/12 1/13 Guidance At A Glance Cont. from page 4 In addition to regular registration, ninth graders are required to make up a formal three year plan of the courses they propose to take in grades ten, eleven and twelve. This plan must be reviewed and signed by a parent and submitted at the time they register. Students will register in the following orden Eleventh Graders January 16-19 Tenth Graders January 30 - February 2 Ninth Graders February 6 - 8 New Students January 20,27, and February 3 Eighth graders will register at the Middle School through liid: counselor. All parents will receive copies of the schedules mailed home before the end of May. At that tin>e adjustments can be made before finalizing of the schedules. Wayzata Winter Night Sc-?, Opportunity A night school makeup urse will be offered at YJayzata High School starting in January. At this time a specific start date has not been set. Seniors who will be short credits for graduation should consider this option. See your counselor for further information. 1/20 Middle School Students of the Month Orono Middle School has named its "Students of the Month" for December. The monthly honor acknowledges exceptional scholastic and citizenship efforts on the part of the students. Students are selected oy a committee of faculty members after a slate of nominations is gathered from the entire faculty. This months winners are: Matthew Scherer and Becky Danielson, eighth grade; Ryan Kullberg and Jtie Kolasa, scventli grade and Scott Emmack and Sorina Fadden, sixth grade. Congratulations to these six outsUnding students. r'' Board Review Regular Meeting - October 10,1988 • Approved the following variance request Greg Van Buren, grade 10, to attend Delano Schools. • Approved the appointment of Kristen Peterson as \ half-time math/reading teacher for the intermediate " school. • Approved the appointment of Tamara Bjorkedal as a 1C ' *mr a week gifted liaison teacher for the elementary schools. • Authorized adndnistration to accept the bid from Bob Ryan Ford for or^ handicapped van. Regular Meeting - October 24C 1^'*8 • Approved the following variance requests: Donald Hagedus, grade 1 to complete the 1988-89 sdiool year at Westonka Schools. Benjamin Theis, grade 10 to attend Orono Schools. • Approved Lynda Meador's request for a leave of absence effective December 1,1988 for Ihe renwinder of the 1988-89 school year. • Approved the request of Sally A. Nelson Wennberg, teacher at Schumann Elementary School, for early retirement effective at the end of the 1988-89 school year. • Approved Christine Locker’s request for a leave of al^nce effective October 26,1988 for the remainder of the 1988-89 school year. • Directed the administration to examine the available options regarding facilities, report those options to the Board as soon as possible and make a recommendation for Board consideration. Regular Meeting of November 14,1988 • Approved the following variance request: JillKrotzer, grade 11 to attend Orono Schools. • Accepted the resignation of Cathy Zeglin, short-hour cook at Orono Middle School. • Accepted the resignation of Kristen Holm, management aide at Orono Primary School. • Accepted the 1988-90 agreement with the custodians as negotiated by the Board. • Accepted the low bid of Germundser Co»npanies, Inc for removal and replacement of the undeiground oil ' ■ storage tank at Orono Prin\aiy School. > • • • Accepted the audit of school district records for 1987- • ' 88 as submitted. • Approved and adopted the Affirmative Action Plan. High School Students Shine! Orono High School Students held a very successful food and clothing drive. This is the sixth annual drive which is sponsored by the Student Senate. The students collected 11,180 items which were brought in two truck loads to Sabathani Community Center and Lutheran Social Services. There were prize drawings for the students that participated in the drive. Local retailers donated prizes to this event. The fii^t prize was $100 in cash. Congratulations on your successful drive! Jeff Scully on Director's List Jeff Scully from Orono High School was named to the Elirector’s List at H.T.I. - Brooklyn Park Campus, for the second quarter. Students named to the Director's List are nominated by their instructor, because of their manipulative skill, attendance/responsibility/attitude, theoretical understanding, and technical competence. A certificate is given to each student commending them on their accomplishments, and a copv is placed in their file. Congratulations Jeff, Orono is pr"id of you. g NEWSLETTER AOMiNicnuTioN omci •M OU> CHYSTAI. BAY NOAO NOMTN LOWO LAKB. MINNCSOTA SSMA Nwi-PrelW 0.9. U $ K)STAOI PAID ton* lake. Mn. pfuMi NO n City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 MINUTES OF m MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOm///j/ )F ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 27Wll' HELD ON November 14, 1988 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School Dis 278 was held on Monday, November 14, 1988. Present:Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William Fenholt UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the October 24, 1988 1988 regular meeting; - approved the following variance request: Jill Krotzer, grade 11, to attend Orono Schools; - accepted the resignation of Cathy Zeglin, short-hour cook at Orono Middle School, effective November 3, 1988; - accepted the resignation of Kristen Holm, management aide at Orono Primary School, effective November 4, 1988; - approved the Activity Fund Report for first quarter, 1988-89; - approved the Treasurer's Reports for July, August, September, and October, 1988; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 060886 through 061051 and 060325 through 060430. Or. Mich reported that Dar Whitman is recovering from her surgery and will be returning to work as her physical condition allows; that the reading days occurred at the Schumann Elementary School eid the Orono Primary School this past week with many volunteers, some in costume, participating; that the AASA Convention will be held in March and he has been asked to be a speaker at one of the sessions; that Allison Rice, Orono High School student, is the National Council of Teachers of English Writing Award recipient and congratulations are extended to her, this is a very prestigious award with over 6,000 nominations and only 300 awards given; that Dr. Ernest Stachowski worked with our admin istrative staff on November 10 and 11 with the focus being on supervision and reinforcement conferencing; that the high school play "Annie Get Your Gun" is now being presented; that conferences are under way for all schools; that Dr. Dianne Monson is the featured speaker this evening at the Orono P^jr-iry School; that the curriculum, K-12, has been completed and copies will be distributed throughout the district, updates will be made on an annual basis; that Jim Franklin will distribute to them a memo from Dr. Donald Drayer regarding the equity legislation and that information meetings sponsored by AMSD will be held on November 29 and December 6 and he encouraged Board members to attend one of these informational meetings. Dave McKown and Kitty Crosby both stated that they had enjoyed the play "Annie Get Your Gun". Bill Fenholt played a videotape, from the State Department of Education, on open enrollment. He then reported that he has had many inquiries and that he has sent a letter In response to these inquires detailing the process/procedure. Mr. Fenholt also provided the Board with information regarding the positive financial impact open enrollment will have on our District. Bill Fenholt reported to the Board on the progress of the Task Force. He stated that 950 surveys were sent out and between 550 - 575 replies have been received with tabulation of the surveys now in process. The public hearing will be held on November 29 and the Task Force plans to make a recommendation to the Board at the December 14 meeting. Lucie Taylor expressed appreciation to Bill Fenholt, John Maresh, and members of the Task Force for their diligence/efforts in this area. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education accepted the 1988-90 agreement with the custodians as negotiated by the Board Negotiating Committee. Kitty Crosby expressed appreciation to Jim Franklin for his work in negotiating the custodial agreement. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the Board of Education accepted the low bid of Germundsen Companies, Inc. for the removal and replace ment of the underground oil storage tank at Orono Primary School. Don Egnell, Froehling, Anderson, Plowman & Egnell, Ltd., presented the 1987-88 Audit Report. Mr. Egnell briefly summarized the audit report for Board members stating that the audit supported an unqualified opinion in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Mr. Egnell expressed appreciation to the Orono staff for their assistance and cooperation. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the Board of Education accepted the audit of school district records for 1987-88 as submitted. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved and adopted the Affirmative Action Plan as follows: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ON FILE IN DISTRICT OFFICE The Board heard a report from Sue Sjeklocha, Staff Development Coordinator. Mr. Sjeklocha provided the Board with an overview of the staff development programs/activities that have been held and that are planned for future dates. She stated that there are shared/individual options available as well as joint opportunities with Wayzata and Minnetonka Schools. Dr. Mich stated that he wanted to express appreciation to Ms. Sjeklocha for her efforts in the staff development area and that he is pleased with the progress that has been made this past year. Bill Fenholt stated that he wanted to draw the Board's attention to the fact that a $30,000 payment which was levied a year ago and approved on tonight's agenda, represents the School District's final payment on building indebtedness which goes back 37 years or to the beginning of the School District. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: 3^,Kf i/nr Katnerine P. Crosby, C^erk Da"^ McKown, Chai rman '.u'TPPxi Polkv-^. THE PROFFSSiCN'AL VfHCc OF L^N’FORgEMLM' : :-t-;& rWiii •.■rt.-riTk’'?-' V.. K -',3f-^..&^Sr-f. —■ ■,1« :iM0 r^i- -‘miMl ^- - • mm^m aVj^ Sr .'.^-i-'-,-•- Contracting for Law Enforcement Services By Chief MELVIN R KILBO, Orono Police Department, Long Lake, Minnesota [rime is not confined within artificially created political boundaries but rather ex tends throughout the larger commun ities. A workable pro^m of formal cooperation or consolidation for law enforcement services Ls the desired goal for improving the quality of law enforce ment at the local level"* The concept of shared services is not new. It was discussed in 1967 by the President's Commission on Law En forcement and Administration of Just ice as a way for small jurisdictions to have more sophisticated services. One of the earliest agreements unifying police operations through contract agreements took place in Los Angeles County in 1954. Other services—such as public works, inspectorial services, and water and sewer maintenance—have also been shared by governmental units to save resources. The city of Orono has been providing law enforcement services to neighbor ing municipalities by written contract since 1%7. Located 12 miles west of Min neapolis, Orono covers 16 square miles of land and 9 square miles of water, including about 40 percent of the lake shore of Lake Minnetonka, and has a population of 7,020. The city of Orono and the entire serv ice area has 11 licensed marinas, 2 designated public lake access sites, 5 other lakes and 5 country clubs. Due to the recreational facilities in the area, Orono experiences a substantial popu lation increase during the summer months. Unlike the basically residential area of Orono, the contracting cities of Spring Park (population 1,470) and Long Lake (population 1,920) have industrial areas as well as commercial retail areas. The city of Minnetonka Beach (popu lation 580) has only one commercial enterprise—a private club. Long Lake and Minnetonka Beach are completely within the corporate boundaries, while Spring Park is an adjacent city. In January 1967, the city of Long Lake asked Orono to supply police coverage. Twenty-four-hour coverage was sup plied, using the ratio of each city's population to total population to deter- 24 THF POUCE CHIEF/DECEMBER 1988 mine the proportion of the total police budget for each city's share. 'The man power complement was set at eight. In November 1%9, the adjoiiung city of Maple Plain contracted for coverage on the same contract basis and another officer was added. In January 1978, the city of Miimetonka Beach also requested a contract. Due to its small size, no personnel were added. Late in 1978, the dty of Maple Plain served notice that it would be withdrawing from the con tract in 1979, as it was joining with an adjacent city. Independence, in a joint powers agreement for police service. For the contract year 1979, the con tract was renegotiated to include a debit-credit clause. In negotiations for the contract year 1980, the dty of Long Lake reouested a change from the population-only concept to one that would take into account each city's assessed valuations, population, square miles of area and road miles. It was ultimately dedded to use weighted foctors to arrive at a fair distribution of costs. Long Lake also asked for a police officer to serve in the city to give a local identity to the police services rendered. After many long ne gotiations, the current contract was put into final form. On January 1, 1981, the dty of Spring Park asked to be included in the contract and, like Long Lake, wanted officers specifically in Spring Park to gain local identity. Contract Specifics The current "Agreement and Contract for Law Enforcement" is an 18-page written contract covering all insurance costs, including the Minnesota Public Employees Retirement Association and OASI Workers' Compensation insu rance; all salaries, fringe benefits and overtime, all costs of equipment and apparatus acquisition and maintenance; all non-prosecution consulting fees; holiday and severance pay; unemploy ment benefits; utilities; telephone ser vice; gasoline and oil for the police cars; books and periodicals; wearing apparel; officer equipment; rental costs or esti mated fair market rental value of building; and ail other expenses nor mally and reasonably incidental to the operation of a nine-officer police depart ment. An administrative overhead charge of 10 percent of all the above costs and an escrow charge of 6 percent of the net budget (budget and adminis- trative overhead charge, less town aid credit) are divided among the contract ing parties, excluding Orono. The contract requires that the shields on the squad car doors indicate the cities served, and that listings in local tele phone directories also identify those cities served. The contract states that the level of services rendered to contracting cities shall be the same as services rendered to the city of Orono unless otherwise stated. There shall be addi tional officers who, when on duty, shall be stationed within the cities of Long Lake and Spring Park. The law enforce ment services to the contracting city shall be under the sole direction of the city of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance, the hiring wd discipline of the officers assigned and other matters relating to regulations and policies shall remain in the control of the city of Orono. Any disputes between parties shall be resolved by the Orono city administra tor. The contract states that each contract ing city may appoint two volunteer members to a joint advisory comnuttee. This committee meets the third Wed nesday of each month to discuss, make recommendations and hear all evidence and argiunents it deems relevant in order to make written recommendations for solutions of the problems raised to Orono's administrator and the city councUs of the contracting dries. Any recommendations are advisory only. Officers assigned to a contract dty shall be police officers of the dty of Orono, which shall assume all obliga tions with regard to worker compensa tion, PERA, withholding tax, insurance, etc The contracting dty shall not be required to fumisli any of the foregoing fringe benefits or assume any other liability of any officer assigned to duty in that city unless the officer is employed directly by the contracting dty, inde pendent of the contract to furnish law enforcement services. Further, the en- forceinent policies of the city of Orono shall prevail and officers assigned to contract cities shall enforce all ordinan ces of the contracting cities. All Orono officers shall be named officers of the contracting cities. The contract requires all offenses shall be charged in accordance with the or dinances of the contracting city in which the offense occurred wherever possible, and prosecuted by that city's attorney- otherwise, charges shall be made in accordance with the laws of the state or of the f^eral government. There is a termination clause that requires the contracting city to notify the city of Orono by October 1 of the contract year if it intends to terminate the contract. The contract requires, on notice from Orono, the contract city to pay any extraordinary costs that arise from its termination, such as the layoff of personnel or the sale of squad cars. The city of Orono shall furnish ail com munications equipment, vehicles, ticket books and forms, unless contracting city requires specific forms. The contract specifies 24-hour service. On August 1 of each contract year, the dty of Orono is required to notify each contracting city of the preliminary cost of police service for the next year. On CENTER FOR ADVANCED POUCE STUDIES 'i , I pma pjr this program mysclr and it was money well spenL -TAji Rob^. G. those findtn^''B'(xniruHt ‘^^ vjork schedules and shift plans were extremely valuable." f*- 1 • Vi.- Ciidc M M M iMikr Smkt Old 2i THE POUCE CHIEF/DECEMBER 1988 September 15 of each contract year, the city of Orono shall notify each contract ing city of the estimated cost of police services for the next year. Cost Development The entire police budget, including all additional manpower requested by the contracting cities, is prepared first. After this is accomplished, a formula for allocation of costs is applied. 1. Population of a contract city Population of all contracting parties Assessed valuation of contract city Assessed valuation of all contract parties Area (sq. mi) of a contract city Area (sq. mi) of all contract cities ML of roads of contract city ML of roads of all contract cities fiO + .125 + .125 X 1(X) = Percentage of contribution 2. Percentage of contribution for each dty X approved budget of Orono Police Department = contribution due from each party. Ail of the above calculations are in statistical form as a part of the contract The population figure is taken as of April 1 of each year from census figures available. The assessed valuation is based on taxes due and payable for the year immediately preceeding the budget year. Miles of roads of each contracting dty are defined as the linear miles of roads, streets, highways, avenues, thoroughfares and other public ways of the contracting dties^ as deter mined by a qualified engineer. The area of each contracting city is the dryland area expressed in square miles as determined by a qualified engineer. On or before April 1 of each year, the dty of Orono will tabulate the actual cost of the police department budget for the prior contract year and submit to each contracting dty a summary of actual costs. The actual costs set forth for the prior contract year may result in either a credit or a debit to each, contracting dty, whether or imH the party is still participating in this agree ment If the adjustment is a credit one- half shall be deducted from the esti mated cost required of the contracting dty during the current year of servicca. If there is a debit, the additional sum shall be paid during the contract year. There is a standard arbitration clause in the contract according to Chapter 572 Minnesota Statutes. An escrow charge has been built into the contract because of the finding that expenditures in the police budget occur in large sums at irregular times in the contract year. It is necessary to have a contract charge to ensure that no one contracting city is subsidizing the others. The debit- credit clause described earlier also applies to the escrow charge, so that actual cost is audited and charged to each contracting city. The contract has a clause that outlines the cost of specific manpower requested by a contracting city over the base contract of nine men. The actual salaries of officers assigned to the contracting city are computed. Added to this figxire is a percentage of the overtime budget, holiday pay, wearing apparel hospital ization, life insurance, workers' compen sation and pensions at the salary level previously computed. This total is then added to the total cost per contracting city to arrive at the cost of service to the contracting city for the coming year. It is understood that at the beginning of any contract year the contracting city may, due to budget considerations, adjust the number of additional officers it wishes to employ. There is a hold- harmless and indemnification clause. Among other items, it states that the city of Orono will carry all necessary insu rance against liability, but cautions each contracting city that if the insurance coverage proves to be ins»ifficient, the contracting city shall hold the city of Orono haimless. The contract cities have the right to approve any proposed capital expendi tures and/or increase in numLcr of officers not otherwise included in the annual budget. If the city of Orono chooses to go ahead without written approval the contracting cities are not obligated to pay the additional costs. There is one page that describes police contract service to be provided, includ ing 24-hour service by licensed police officers, attendance at meetings as required by council shifts assigiied and a statement of the training provided to all the officers. Several recent issues have challenged the contract. In 1987, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a statute man dating a levy limit of 3 percent for tax year 1988, applicable to all cities rather than only those with populations above 2,500 population, as had been the case previously. THE SEAL OF EVIDENCE Tsmper Buara Seal in the integrity of your confidential materials TAPE Tamper Guard Self-Destructs Serrated edges tear to reveal evidence of tampering. Dye-protection bleeds in presence of most solvents. Tamper Guard “Grows ” to the Surface Superior adhesive sticks permartently to polyethylene, glass, metal, plastic and all paper and cardboard products. Tamper Guard Performs Economically Giant 108 ft. roll ^ , dispenser box with cutter is included along with Techniques of Taping wall chart. ^ Available Preprinted as follows; Evidence-Do Not Open (For Police, space is provided for initials of officer and date.) Confidential * Security Seal To Be Opened Only By Addressee » Blank (No Printing) For more details and a free sample, call or write us.Public Safety Products BECTUFT DICKINSON Ivers-Lee Division 147 Clinton Road. West Caldwell. N.J 07C06 (201)575-3985 1-800-631-1122 ext. 3985 Code BO. 45 on Ruder Service Cud THE POUCE CHIEF/DECEMBER Ne i'gli bo rh ood O r te dt eci-mg -r |sifi|^|«S=|«gppipi^ . ■ .•' . 7. _ ■••;, . . ..^v , - r.T.’:. \.r‘(o .i :..-r75T;r,7;v> v;»'^,.k'-^J,vr." -^T.-:'^ B-^ r^v";V,r^tLv ,^*-V.V"; ■■•• P--‘-v It.:,■■■.■ • a', r» . .:.. ■ ■ - .' '■.•■,:• Z^'-: ,■ v' II INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF ASSETS CONSULTANTS PRESENTS A PROFESSIONAL HANDS-ON SEMINAR PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILING FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS Featuring W.T. “BILL” PETERS Intamalionally recognized instnictor and cor^ltant in psychological profiling Learn the science of using seemingiy insignificant clues to develop new leads to help solve crimes ranging from arson to murder. Pailicipams are invited to brfrig information on their unsolved cases. Many similar crimes have actually been solved at these seminars. TTie instructor, former FBI Special Agent Bil Peters, has been woridng in the field of psychological profiling for more thm 27 years as a law enforcement official, an ar^unct college professor and an intemational consultant Size of the 32-hour course is Umilad. so register earty. Cost is $295. For 1968 seminar localions and dates, as wefi as to registsr, cal Julie Charles tofi free at 1-600-255-6961 (264-6455 In Utah). 3422 South 700 Wlsat ■ Salt Lake aty.LNah 84119-4191 INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF ASSETS CONSULTANTS A service division of ASAfKXJ SERVICE TO CORPORATIONS ANO LAW ENFORCEMENT AROUND THE WORLD The city of Long Lake, in its budget consideration for 1988, decided to elim inate one of its three dedicated officers because of the budget limits. After get ting publicity on the cutback in officer strength, the citizens of Long Lake asked for a special meeting with the council after which the council reinstated the officer who had been cut from the budget. In January 1988, the Long Lake Council elected a new councUperson and the Orono Council had four new councilpersons. Both councils also had members who were not totally familiar with the police contract. The contract provision calling for a Joint Police Ad visory Committee was used to bring about four meetings of contract parties in which difiierent approaches to con tract foctors were dL^ssed. After six months of discussion, all contract parties agreed that present contract factors were extremely close to actual incident numbers in relation to contract cost In July, the dty of Orono was advised that the city of Long Lake would not be able to spend more than $231,(XX) (the 1988 cost for services to Long Lake) for the 1989 contract Long L^e asked Orono to look at sever^ alternatives. The first alternative was to cut one of their three dedicated officers; the second, to use an officer only 20 hours a week in 1989. This would give Long Lake a dedicated manpower of two and one* half officers. The contract as outlined here estab lishes a business relationship, allowing each contract party to decide its level of service and the money it wishes to pay for the service. This has proved to be a very success ful contract. Part of its success u due to the foct that the chief has only one superior to repiort to: the Orono city administrator. In a joint powers agree ment, immediate decisions required by a police administrator are not always possible. Part of the contract's success is the result of monthly meetings with each council's representative, attended by the police chief and the Orono city administrator. At these meetings, police direction is discussed, along with any grievances that may have surfaced during the month. Alro at these meet ings, a summary of service calls deli vered is disseminatecL Another part of the contract's success lies with each city council's willingness to negotiate; to share costs, to meet and coi^, to un derstand law enforcement issues. Ihis spirit of agreement has flowed over into contracts for building inspectio ns and agreements to share street fire and utility vehicles and pcrsonnd in emer gency situations. In short Orono's contract has met the challenge, fir THE POUCE CHIEF/DECEMBER 1988 Cfade Ml 30 oa Stnrice Czefi Briers andft Inc. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE NEWSLETTER A BI MONTHLY PUBLICATION OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND WAUKESHA • 507 Marquelle Avenue • Minneapolis. MN 55402 1255 • 612 339 8291 VOLUME 34. NUMBER i FILE: Financial Specialists: Ehiers and Associates. Inc. Please distribute to governing body members JANUARY. 1989 The management and staff of Ehiers and Associates wish you all another happy and successful solar orbit. We congratulate those who continue to serve the public and those newly entering public service. Have a good one! MUNICIPALITIES MAKE PROGRESS This starts our thirty-fifth year building better communities through finance, and the changes are remarkable. Tax-exempt interest rates in the early 1950s were around 2.5%, while home mortgages (taxable) were about 5%. The total tax-exempt bond market was about $6 or $7 billion per year. A million dollar issue was considered a "King Size" issue. Hundreds of towns had no sewer systems, or had collection systems without treatment. Dirt streets and rudimentary water systems were common. The Midwest hao an inordinate number of Baa and Ba bond ratings. Some communities didn ’t dare ask for a bond rating, but after tens of millions of dollars of financings, now have complete sewerage, water, storm sewer systems, streets, city halls, hospitals and A, A-1, and Aa bond ratings. There are also those who say it couldn’t be done, but if progress sometimes seems slow, we need only to look back and see the accomplishments. Local government works — and we are proud to have been instrument ARE TA> . XEMPT BONDS SAFE? The shape of change can be seen. While the Supreme Court changed the Constitution allowing federal taxation of interest on state and municipal borrowings, we don ’t see Congress launching a full attack on local governments. Rather we see tax exemption offered only to those financings that go to the heart of state sovereignty - public infrastructure and operating capital. One hopes that Congress will clean up the mire it created so that investors will know, simply, whether interest on their bonds is tax-exempt. With a smaller supply and a cleaner market, long term tax-exempt interest rates might well drop below 6%. The efficiency of tax-exempt financing will have been restored. FUTURE CREDIT MARKET CRISIS? Many are worried about the rising sea of corporate leveraged buy outs and federal debt. Credit is a finite resource which, if we allow, won’t be available for the real business of America. Historically overextension of credit has resulted in inflation, high interest rates and, sometimes, massive failures. In some crises the government has hao to ration credit. Robert L. Ehiers IS MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE WORTHWHILE? Is bond insurance worthwhile? You bet - sometimes. Getting issues qualified (whereby the successful bidder on the bonds decides if the insurance is to be purchased and pays the premiunri) ^reauy enhances their marketability and usually results in lower interest costs. The bidder on the Donas decides on the sale date if the insurance is purchased. If purchased, the bidder pays the premium, in other cases it makes economic sense for the issuer to simply pay the premium and offer bonds. For some issuers insurance makes little economic sense. What's best for your issue. The answer will depend on such factors as current financial market conditions, the terms and type o bonds, the issuer and the modeling of the various financing options. Carolyn Drude FmHA LOANS: DISCOUNT PURCHASE PROGRAM The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) is required to discount existing loans to eligible communities commencing January. 1989. We think that the program will be similar to the 1988 program which included the following features: 1) Depending on the interest rate and maturity, the discounted community loan prices can be 50% or less than the amount of the loan outstanding. 2) Tax-exem >t refinancing is permitted. 3) A community may discount one or all of its loans. 4) Communities who declined the past program can still participate. Each community with an F mHA loan should determine whether to refinance. At no obligation, Ehlers and Associates will perform a detailed analysis and, once the guidelines are official, we will update the analysis and report back. Allow enough time to plan and discuss this complex undertaking. Those who participated previously benefitted greatly. ^ Steve Emerson PERSONAL NOTE OF THANKS I want to extend a sincere "thank-you" to all the clients, friends, and business associates in Iowa and Minnesota for the flowers, phone calls, and written notes of sympathy 1 received following the recent death of my husband, Charles Vanda. The expressions of sympathy and concern are deeply appreciated. __ f -JCt cQia ct Jeanne F rederlck We look forward to seeing you at: NAHRO MID-WINTER CONFERENCE -- January 18-20. M1NNF_50TA SCHOOL BOARDS CONVENTION - January 20-21. ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA COUNTIES - January 22-24. MINNESOTA A3SOCIATIONToF COUNTY OFFICERS - February 14-1 /. MASBO WINTER WORKSHOP AND MEETING - February 16-17. SUHHARY OF AREA BOND SALES Bond HunUipality Date Type of Bonds Iowa Co1unt>us Junction 10/11/88 T.«« 10/1//88 West Union 10/24/88 Fairfield 10/24/88 Denison 11/01/88 Denison 11/01/88 Johnston 11/14/88 Clarinda 11/15/88 Clarinda 11/15/88 Sioux City 11/21/88 Minnesota Brainerd 10/03/88 Edina 10/03/88 Edina 10/03/88 Edina 10/03/88 Edina 10/03/88 Lino Lakes 10/03/88 Lino Lakes 10/03/88 St. Paul Park 10/03/88 Karlstad 10/04/88 East Grand Forks 10/04/88 Hennepin County 10/05/88 Bass Brook 10/11/88 Nicollet County 10/11/88 Stewartville 10/11/88 Lester Prairie 10/11/88 I.S.O. #/16 lO/W/88 (Belle Plaine) Forest Lake Jo'nt Powers Dist. #6011 (State of Minnesota) Burnsville 10/17/88 Wilkin County 10/19/88 Wilkin County 10/19/88 Minn. Higher Ed. Fac. 10/19/88 I.S.O. #332 (Mora) 10/24/88 Waite Park 10/25/88 Chanplin 10/25/88 Scott County 10/25/88 ArvDka County 10/25/88 Minneapolis Sp. S/0 #1 10/25/88 Browns Valley 10/26/88 1.5 0. #917 ll/Cl/88 (Dakota County) RoObinsdale Cox tonwood Isle GEM Sanitary District (Stearns County) West Concord 11/02/88 Apple Valley 11/03/88 Plynouth 11/07/88 Chanhassen 11/07/88 Chanhassen 11/07/08 Ctanhassen 11/07/88 Keewatin 11/09/88 Coon Rapids 11/09/88 Fairmont 11/14/88 Fairmont 11/14/88 Nonticello 11/14/88 G.O. Bonds Sewer Revenue Bonds G.O. Corporate Purpose Bonds G.O. Inprovement Bonds G.O. Airport Improvement Bonds G.O. Corporate Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds Sewer Revenue Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Recreational Facility Bonds G.O. Utility Revenue Bonds G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds G.O. Tax Increment Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Temporary Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Temporary Improvement Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds G.O. Drainage Bonds G.O. Grant Anticipation Certs. G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Aid Anticipation Certificates 10/17/88 G.O. Improvement Bonds 10/17/88 G.O. School Building Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds G.O. Watershed Improvement Bonds Mortgage Revenue Bonds G.O. School Building Bonds G.O. Tax Increment Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Bridge Bonds G.O School Building Bonds G O. Grant 4 Loan Antic. Bonds GO. School Building Bonds 11/01/88 G O. lax Increment Bonds 11/01/88 G O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds 11/01/88 G O. Grant & Loan Anticipation Bonds 11/01/88 G.O. Grant & Loan Anticipation Bonds G O. Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds G O. Refunding & Improvement Bonds G.O. Taxable lax Increment Bonds G O. Tax Increment Bonds GO. Tax Increment Bond* G.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Grant Anticipation Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds G O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds G O. Water System Bonds Net Buyer Amount Maturity Rate Index Rating $ 800M 1989-2003 7,04t 7.53%NR BOOM 1989-2003 7.08%7.52%NR 44CM 1990-2001 6.93%7.45%NR 1.440M 1990-1999 6.63%7.45%A1 100M 1989-1998 7.15%7.36%A 1.075M 1989-2004 6.82%7.36%A 1,350M 1990-2008 7.22%7.44%A 800M 1989-2004 7.29%7.44%NR l.OOOM r-' ^7.00%7.44%NR 2,200M 6.75%7.50%Aa 315H 1991-2000 6.85%7.64%A 2.470M 1992-2009 7.26%7.64%Aal/AA 3.160M 1990-1999 6.68%7.64%Aal/AA 5.100M 1995-2009 9.60%7.64%Aal/AA 10.175M 1995-2009 7.26%7.64%Aal/AA 2.090M 1990-1997 6.84%7.62%Baal 610M 1991 6.43%7.62%Baal 680M 1989-2000 6.89%7.64%Baal 660M 1989 6.37%7.45%NR 125M 1990-2004 7.33%7.64%Baal 20.500M 1989-2003 6.80%7.64%Aaa/AAA 1.530M 1990-2000 7.01%7.53%Baa I95M 1989-1998 6.60%7.53%A 1,/70H 1991 6.44%7.53%NR 450M 1989-1998 6.88%7.53%NR 6 70M 1989 6.20%7.52%NR 310M 1991-2000 6.95%7.52%Baal 3.925M 1990-2009 7.42%7.52%Baa 4.650M 1990-2004 6.93%7.52%A1 450M 1990-1999 6.77%7.52%A 255M 1990-2004 7.07%7.52%A 4.250M 1998 7.55%7.52%NR 390M 1993-1998 6.68%7.45%A 4.500M 1991-2008 7.26%7.45%?aa 1.510M 1990-2004 6.94%7.45%Baal 8.500M 1989-2010 7.19%7.45%Aaa/AAA 6.300M 1990-2009 7. 16%7.45%A1 5.150M 1991 -2000 6. 70%7.45%A1 1.125M 1991 6.46%7.45%NR 3.790M 1991-19%6.34%7.36%A1 2.250M 1991-2009 7. 13%7.36%A 80M 1991-1998 9.60%7.36%NR 665M 1991 6.38%7.36%NR 860M 1991 6.39%7.36%NR 75M 1990-1999 7. 16%7.36%NR 2.890M 1989 2005 6,54%7.36%A 1.050M 1992-1998 9. 19%7.33%Aa 740H 1989-2001 6 62%7 33%Aaa/AAA 1.015M 1990-1997 6.64%7.33%Aaa/AAA 4.185M 1990 2002 6 62%7.33%Aaa/AAA 990M 1991 6,57%7 33%NR S.OOOH 1990 2010 6 99%7 33%Aaa 395M .990-2003 6 86%7.44%A1 750M 1990 2009 7.12%7.44%A1 I.IOOM 1990 2004 6 99%7 44%A HunIcIpalUy Vadnals Heights New Ulffl Murray Shakopee Carlton County Stearns County Stearns County Oakdale Oakdale Lakeville Worthington Worthington Worthington Worthington Naple Grove Chaska Chaska Chaska Lake Park North Mankato North Mankato North Mankato Moorhead Moorhead I.S.O. #194 (Lakeville) I.S.O. #9)1 (Can4>ridge-lsanti) I.S.O. #S49 (Perham-Oent) I.S.O. #138 (North Branch) Wright County Date Type of Bonds amount Maturity n/IS/88 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/15/88 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/15/88 G.O. Drainage Ditch Bonds 11/15/88 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/15/88 G.O. Capital Impi-ovement Bonds 11/15/88 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/15/88 G.O. Drainage Ditch Bonds 11/16/88 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/16/88 G.O. Improvement Bonds 11/16/88 G.O. Improvement Bonds 11/17/88 G.O. Gran Anticipation Bonds 11/17/88 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/17/88 G.O. Improvement Bonds 11/17/88 G.O. Sewer Revenue Bonds 11/17/88 G.O. Improvement Bonds 11/21/88 G.O. Improvement Bonds 11/21/88 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/21/88 G O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds 11/21/88 6.0. School Building Bonds 11/21/88 G.O. Equipment Certs, of Indebt. 11/21/88 G.O. Inprovement Bonds 11/21/88 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/21/88 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds 11/21/88 G.O. Improvement Bonds 11/22/88 G O. School Building Bonds 11/28/88 G.O. School Building Bonds 11/29/88 G O. School Building Bonds 11/29/88 G O. School Building Bonds 11/29/88 G O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 3.070M I.675M 730M 1.015M 330M I70M 450M 3.200M 2.225M 2.400M 2.885M 4/OM 285M 160M 5.400M 3.300M 3.910M 2,340M 1.200M 250M 415M 525M 1.450M 920M 4,700M 1,530M 4,DOOM 7.100M 1992-2000 1992-2012 1990-2004 1990-2001 1990- 2004 1991- 1998 1989- 2008 1992- 2004 1990- 1999 1990- 2010 1991 1991- 1996 1990-2004 1990- 1998 1991- 1995 1990-1999 1995-2001 1995-2000 1990-2004 1989- 1993 1990- 1999 1991- 1998 1991-2009 1990- 2004 1993- 2002 1993-2000 1991- 2005 1990-2008 Net Rate 9.38t 7.191 7.071 6.831 7.041 9.351 7.011 9.541 6.581 7.111 6.691 6.711 6.931 6.661 6.461 6.791 7.111 9.721 7.231 6.361 6.721 6.681 7.201 6.941 7.061 7.051 7.311 7.541 Bond Buyer Index Rating 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.441 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.501 7.581 A A1 Baal A A A A A A A Baal Baal Baal Baal A1 Baal Baal Baal NR A A A A A A Baal 7.581 Baa 7.581 Baa 3.800H 1990-2009 7.301 7.581 A I.S.O. #738 11/30/88 G.O. Refunding Bonds 3.575M 1991-2010 7.621 7.581 NR (Holdingford) I.S.O. #22 11/30/88 G.O. School Building Bonds 4.200M 1990-2010 7.621 7.581 Baal (Detroit Lakes) Wisconsin Balsam Lake 10/03/88 G.O. Refunding Bonds 745M 1989-2003 7.291 7.641 NR Hc'dison Metro S/0 10/03/88 G.O. Promissory Motes 3.730M 1991-1994 6.301 7.641 Aaa West Milwaukee 10/04/88 Taxable G.O. Promissory Notes 770H 1995-1998 9.581 7.641 Baal West Milwaukee 10/04/88 G.O. Promissory Notes 330H 1997 7.091 7.641 Baal Saukville 10/12/88 G.O. Promissory Notes 7I0M 1993-1996 6.841 7.531 Baal Altoona 10/17/88 G.O. Promissory Notes 675H 1989-1998 6.841 7.521 NR Beloit 10/17/88 G.O. Anticipation Notes 3.700M 1989 6.381 7.521 NR Brown County 11/14/88 Corporate Purpose Bonds 4.900H 1989-2008 7.111 7.441 Aa Brookfield 11/15/88 G.O. Promissory Notes 930M 1989-1998 6.501 7.441 Aal Brookfield 11/15/88 G.O. Corporate Purpose Bonds 4.070M 1989-2008 7.111 7.441 Aal Madison 11/15/88 Taxable G.O. Promissory Notes 3.500M 1993 9.081 7.441 Aa Delavan 11/15/88 Waterworks System Hort. Rev. Bonds 2.775M 1991 2010 7.711 7.441 NR Saukville 11/16/88 Waterworks System Mort. Rev. Bonds 600M 1990-2008 7.581 7.441 NR Cumberland 11/22/88 Sewerage System Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds I.750M 1989-2001 7.351 7.501 NR Sussex 11/30/88 G O. Promissory Notes *1990-1998 6.841 7.581 A North Dakota Fargo Public School 10/25/88 Certificates of Indebtedness 3.SOON 1989 6.231 7.451 NR District #1 Ramsey County 11/01/88 lenporary Inprovement Bonds 665N 1991 6.231 7.361 NR Ramsey County 11/01/88 Refunding Improvement Bonds 670M 1989-2007 7.in 7.361 A Fargo 11/07/88 Refunding Improvement Bonds 4.550N 1989 2006 6 841 7.331 Aa/AA 3155 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55458 IQfl 8 DEC I 6 1988 JU; 7^ Mr. Mel Kilbo Orono Police Chief p. O. Box 86 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mel: I just want you to know what a nice job I think Chuck Schauss did on handling a vandalism problem at my house at 1690 Shadywc^d Road. The way he handled himself throughout the whole thing was absolutely exemplary. He deserves a real pat on the back for a job well done. From the time I first approached him out in front of your offices with the problem to the time the next night when he called to tell me he had elicited an admission from the kids who did it, he was really top drawer. Unfortunately, that isn't always the way things work out. But in this case, it did. It is courteous, considerate, caring and competent action like he displayed which gives the "public” confidence in your officers and your department. The problem was simply a case of a neighbor boy and some of his friends throwing rocks through the windows of my house, including the big plate glass ones facing the lake. We figured we knew who did it, but for me to have gotten an admission would have been next to impossible. But Chuck was able to do it in no time, with what he called his "Columbo" routine. The culprits then "fessed up to what they did. The damage has now been repaired and all that remains for me to do now is to collect from them. So thanks to your department, well done. and Chuck in particular, for a job Most sincerely. Jack F. Rhode JFR/bas cc: Mayor James Grabek vCity Administrator Mark Bemhardson ’ > ■ ' ■ ■.wt: A lex and Irwin Mr- Dec I 61986 ly /rf '^^<1 / ^ ■'2^ ^ _ Jv4. LA^CL<x J iU^^^MA^lKy ^.os^ AcAA ) OU(x^ (Lo/f.'- JaA^^ A du^ cvMf^ (jjuL. dP<^ ) Alex and Irwin Jacobs \ CLc^JU^^ OCCC A^^ -(XA c£^a.-'C..^ , OL-CjPt ^ 6CwCi-y^ (S--TV_ C^r-iyJL - ' *» ••j." --i c>-^<^ ilScP Cacu^^ C^^xAi ,^j1^c£a£. tLx, q RONQ Telephone: 473-7710 Dispatch: 544-9511 Emergency: 911 City of OROIVO Post Office Box 86 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka Police Deparlmeiit 445 Willow Drive Long Lake. MN 55356 MJl.KILBO Chief of PoUce Case File__- yrCC A vehicle registering to you was observed parked on a street in our jurisdiction by our officers on _____________at A (large) drinking party with persons under the State's legal drinking age was in progress nearby. We are very concerned with persons under the State's legal drinking age, drihking alcohol! beverages and then di'iving afterward. If you were in the neighbor hood and not a participant, please disregard this letter. If, however, your car was in the neighborhood without your knowledge or consent, please handle the situation as you deem appropriate. fy jj If you liave any questions, please call me it 473-7710. Sincerely. Melvin Kilbo Chief of Police f Senmg North Lak»Mlnnamr*» CommmtMis of Omno, Lxxtg Ukt. Minnemma BMCh tnd Spring Pwk ihrUc, ~^ah, CJirrv Q Ccunal) ijCJhoi- a ueu4 "IhGu^VTVTujl) -thiYiQ ci'c' oiad a>U-ML Ccanit^mcjrda^. "^fc- p\0Lc^v ‘(/D beftdt^ OjyoSoK. VXJ^ OJX Tifcoji)0-an^ ^Afcod'J- aaci -ihoimhi- ^ reaxiuj cjCx3ajULd euex*^iWnc| ; Gib^firaci. (').,nVH. H-Q.UJOO ^ p‘ ad4o be_ ^cul V ck oH j QjuLdD.'^ sVyOLn2.^Ol|£juj ^dlujLu^ --^dGLu^ , ^<000 aWxuI<^ ^lOLoe. -4o Jijuoe and aJl clM. CXLn+QinJuj cicj>»"iC^ Oa^fccxj'^o& Uju2)Jixq ' n^GjuJco^ (uhjJii i Mtvj2,Q^OJUUO cl &r^d ad OLchVevjcnnGnTs. ^ <JltDCj Vjari 4-|Qriiul^ upjLn—l^d and KjLEi a ►3 3 ^ X y* o -t .. ■ ?■ •; .1 < ; «.. ;■ ‘ ■ s i. t.-. '•* * .O-' V.v r; V •/ / . .• • i ■■•y ^h. '{ i e. \ t ' • k "•k t: t.' * •i •V