Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-1989 Council PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE dmj MEETING^^^CITY OF ORONO PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 2.P at Z^OAp/i'/dd 3.^K.ocf;.\\ ^klw i? p»Ai ^ <■ > JiM/dt (UmK-flJ /llP/%'pXCdYi — 6.?2./ A://<^Z^<r du.^JL.c.wL h-^.■ 7./?/'UdbA'KidlouJ 9./^yr/[/ i- '^A'b ScPolf ^^OO/COM, 0/^ti) 9.Pe fjA-L X)yf'<< If ,0 •Asj y jfdrx .1 Lx> / S wi;/o /V ^ /jc ,2A^ l\J HT Y ,3.T^#fA/ C?^AnCFtb C>ROi'/ o ^ 4^7 ,4 ’ ^ <-0 (5 S "\ .5 J'l It ^ Sc a /o^'K j Hi n u)tlP'<‘ .7 •/“/ A..< y * , •—^^3 7^ y d2/,ytL> .8. V «o I A (5lJ^l 5 o 1 U 6 ' f S 1 ul'.^iruVDvll- 0/U-»M> C7P y/^yZ'Y I09S AyvCf. PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETINC DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) / 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. .0. .1. .2. .3. .4. .5. .6. .7. .8. L9. >0. 12389.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATS: January 23, 1989 SUBJECT: 1535 Bohn's Point Road This property was listed in the paper as being for sale by the IRS for a minimum bid of about $217,000. This is the first the City has been aware of the issue. The neighbors are concerned about possible use given the size for such things as a business or multiple residence. It was stated that this would require a rezoning (plus a possible comprehensive plan amendment.) It was indicated that the present Council would most likely not approve such a rezoning. It was also indicated that while the City also has a concern, that the City's authority in this property sale is no different than in any other sale of property. The property is valued for tax purposes 1987/payable 1988 at a market value of $965,000 and taxes for 1988 of $30,000. (The house was not completed on 2 January 1987 the date of the 1987 payable 1988 assessment.) The sealed bids must be submitted by February 13, 1989. The sale is of the resident's interest in the property and does not take into account any other interest, liens or mortgages that may also exist. cc: Department Heads AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1989, 7:00 P.M. (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. ^ Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. boll call council meeting JAN 23 1989 CITY OF OROW 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of January 9, 1989 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - '"oEllen Hurr Representative 3. Shoreland Management - Policy Direction 4. County Road 116 PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Pec Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT **APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolution copies. O 5. #1328 Howard Johnson, 1635 Concordia Street - Final Subdivision 6. #1353 John Fiebelkorn, 2730 Shadywood Road - Variance 7. #1360 Merkow/Charlton, 2340/2380 Abington Way 8. #1361 Orono School District #278, 980 Old Crystal Bay Road ENGINEER'S REPORT * 9. County Road 15 Funds - State Resolution MAYOR'S REPORT * 10. 1989 Appointments - Resolution CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 11. Marina Licensing Process - 1989 12. 13. Union Cemetery 14. Navarre Redevelopment 15. Recycling Agreement/Contract 16. Utility Services - Spring Park 17. Resignation Officer James Morrow 18. Salary Adjustment - Officers Mark Thornton & Irving English 19. Police Department Purchase - Office Equipment 20. Vehicle Purchase Public Works - Utilities 21. Kennel License - Ordinance Amendment 22. Lakeview Golf of Orono - 1989 On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License O AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1989, 7:00 P.N. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued a * 23, Administrator's Information Eurasian Milfoil Highway 12 - MnDOT 20 Year SAC Refund 130 Cygnet Place Recycling Program Start Up MCVW Op;^ratIdn Policy City Administrator Vacation Payroll Conversion Sewer Hookup Status CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (24*) « BILLS (25*) ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL MEETING ^ JAN23I9c3 MIHUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETIN^I^Y OF ORONO HELD JANUARY 9, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, CounciImembers Goetten, Nettlesr Peterson and Callahan. The following represented the City staff; City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Attorney Barrett, City Recorder Scheffler and City Clerk Hallin. OATH OF OFFICE City Clerk Hallin administered the oath of office to Mayor Grabek, CounciImembers Peterson, Callahan and Nettles. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7:05-7:07 The affidavit of publication and certificate of mailing was noted. City Administrator Bernhardson stated the purpose of this assessment hearing was to specially assess property located at 200 Hollander Road in the amount of $3,581.50 for hazardous buildings removal on the property, the Court had stipulated the amount to be assessed. He stated that the owners of the property, which is ar\ estate, had indicated their agreement to waive the appeal. Mayor Grabek asked if there were any comments from the public. John Hollander, 200 Hollander Road, stated he had submitted a written objection to the City stating he felt some of the charges were in excess. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2566 adopting the assessment roll for Hazardous Building Actions - 1988-2. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. CONSENT AGENDA* Councilmember Goetten requested the removal of Consent Items #32 and #36. Councilmember Peterson requested the removal of Consent Items #8, 22, 35 and 36. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items #8, #22, #32, #35 and #36, which were removed and discussed in the order they appear on the agenda. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the December 12, 1988 Regular MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONTINUED Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. PUBLIC COIOffiNTS George Johnson, 879 North Brown Road, asked Administrator Bernhardson to inform everyone present of the new information regarding Highway 12. Bernhardson stated this was still unofficial at this point in time but it related to the work the Highway 12 Task Force had been doing. Highway 12 is presently ranked second in priority on MnDOT's District 5*s preliminary 20 year plan. He stated that the first task will be a corridor selection study and there would have to be some local agreement among the communities involved and they would have to work together. MnDOT will have to get additional funds appropriated by the Legislature to help fund the project. Johnson stated he felt the Council needed to be involved with the Legislature on this matter. David Bye, 1910 Shadywood Road, asked what the Council had approved on Item #23 on the consent agenda as that item related to his property. Mayor Grabek stated the County will consider vacating the right-of-way. Public Works Director Gerhardson concurred that the County will consider the vacation and the City will be working with the County on the vacation. Mr. Bye asked about the signs. He was told that the City first had to determine if the County would be willing to vacate the right-of- way then the signs would be addressed as a separate issue. Marge Rossing, 130 Cygnet Place. Ms. Rossing passed out a letter to the Council regarding an alleged ultimatum she had received from City staff. She stated this matter involved a deck. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated this regarded a deck that was reconstructed without permits. He stated the letter to Ms. Rossing gave her two options; apply for a variance after-the-fact or to change the nature of the deck so that it meets the codes. Mayor Grabek asked Ms. Rossing to contact the City staff regarding this matter so that she understands what the City is requesting her to do and also options she could choose. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT: #1296 PETERSON/STODOLA 1895 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Peterson, Mr. Stodola, Mr. Tillotson and Attorney Skjervold were present for this matter. Administrator Bernhardson stated that this application had originally been a variance request, for parcels which had been acquired on a lagoon, to construct a dock on these lots where no principal residence was located. This has been before the Planning Commission and Council. When Council was going to deny the application the applicants asked for an opportunity for NIHUTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 ZONING FILE #1296 PETERSON/STODOLA CONTINUED Council to take another look at it. The applicants have now asked for a lot line rearrangement. Using a lot line rearrangement the applicants propose a shared dock not to exceed four slips. The shared dock would be located on the Tillotson homestead lot, requiring a lot line rearrangement as the existing Tillotson dock is located within the applicants* propertyr Tract F. Other issues related to this include the need for dredging, which would have to be approved by the DNR. Bernhardson stated the code section that is applicable in this situation is not under the land use section, but under Chapter 5, Joint Use Dock Licenses, which requires a license anytime more than two persons share a dock. The "persons" issue does not say residential lot owners, abutting property owners, etc., it just states "more than two persons". The applicants are here tonight to outline what they want to accomplish and to request the Council to allow them the use of a joint use dock. Some members of the Council had indicated some reluctance to allow this and indicated the appropriate place to address allowing two or more persons, who are not residential owners, to share a dock would be an amendment to Chapter 5. If that is the direction Council wants staff to take, after hearing the applicants tonight, staff will bring that back to Council at a future meeting. Attorney for the applicants, Paul Skjervold, reviewed for the Council the property currently owned by Peterson and Stodola. Tract F and Tract G. The owner of Tracts C, D, E, and 003 are owned by Mr. Gustafson. We do not know who owns Tract B as of this date. My clients presently own Tract F and G and they presently have the authority from the DNR to dredge the lagoon. They propose that Mr. Tillotson purchase the land immediately to the east of his property and then Peterson and Stodola will transfer part of Tract F, which is the portion of land where the Tillotson dock is located. Peterson and Stodola will then purchase Tracts C, D, and 0003 from Mr. Gustafson and make it one ownership in conjunction with Tracts G and the remainder of F. They propose to use the dock that is presently in place on Tract F in conjunction with Mr. Tillotson, two slips would be used by Mr. Tillotson and two slips would be used by Peterson and Stodola. Councilmember Goetten stated that if it was not directly stated in our code, that is is the intent of the code that any accessory structure on a piece of property had to be accessory to the residence on that specific property. She stated it was unfortunate for the applicants that they have gone through the time and expense regarding this application. If it is necessary to amend the code to make this intent clear she is in favor of such a change. Mayor Grabek stated the City would be opening "Pandora's Box" by approving this application allowing docks without a principal adjacent structure. He suggested a lot line rearrangement so that Mr. Tillotson could utilize a dock on his property or relocate the dock onto his property. mHUTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 ZONING FILE#1296 PETERSON/STODOLA CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles to deny the After the Fact Variance by Peterson and Stodola. Motion, Ayes 5, Mays 0, Motion passed. Administrator Bernhardson asked if the Council wanted staff to draft an amendment to Chapter 5. Council directed staff to amend Chapter 5. ZONING AMENDMENT - P't^ANNED DEVELOPMENT Administrator Bernhardson stated that at the November 28, Iliads Council meeting staff had presented a list of items as a follow up to an October meeting regarding a proposed amendment on planned development. He noted for the Council that with the Reber’s property first there was a rezoning with a conditional use permit and then a subdivision which was a two part process. A planned development approach as proposed would put those together in one item and would require a 4/5*s vote so that Council could deal with all the elements, both the rezoning and subdivision elements in one package rather than dealing with part of it in one place and one motion requiring a 4/5*s vote and coming through with a subdivision which requires a 3/5*s or majority vote. Additionally, Council always has the option of repealing it particularly since there would be no particular area zoning. The planned district would not be put on the zoning map until such time that someone came forward for a rezoning. While the idea is to allow more flexibility, it will get a better product and will not lower the standards. Bernhardson suggested that perhaps a good way to start with a planned development is to start with the sewered areas and then consider the unsewered areas. CounciImember Callahan stated he believed the comprehensive plan already addressed this issue. CounciImember Goetten expressed her concern about this being applied to all of Orono. CounciImember Callahan stated that the commercial area of Highway 12 would be the only application and concurred with Councilmember Goetten. Councilmember Goetten noted that the Planning Commission had approved this on a 5/0 vote and wondered what their comments were and why they had approved it. Mayor Grabek asked Planning Commission member Jeffrey Johnson what the Planning Commission's thoughts were regarding the planned development. Johnson stated the Planning Commission liked the flexibility and control of the planned development concept. Mayor Grabek asked for more time to study this due to the significance of this type of zoning. Administrator Bernhardson stated that staff is seeking Council's direction. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten to table this matter for further study. NINOTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 ZONING AMENDMENT ~ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT WOODHILL AVENUE PAYMENT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve Payment #2 to Hardrives Construction in the amount of $16,936.14. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. 1988 SEAL COAT PROJECT - 2ND AND FINAL PAYMENT* CounciImember Peterson asked for clarification why the difference from the original bid verses the amount to be paid. Public Works Director Gerhardson stated the difference could be a aifference in the estimated quantities required as it is very difficult to measure radius. It was moved by CounciImember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Grabek to approve the second and final pay request to Allied Blacktop in the amount of $^,685.19 for the 1988 Sealcoat Program. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT ORONO/LONG LAKE DISCUSSIONS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, that the Orono Council accept the information provided by the staff. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. 1989 APPOINTMENTS > RESOLUTION* Councilmember Peterson asked why the Council does not review appointments in October or November for possible changes. Administrator Bernhardson stated that could be done but every two years, when there is an election, it could change if recommendations were made in October or November by January there may be a new Council to consider the appointments. He stated that these appointments are proposed and if the Council would like to review certain appointments they could be removed from this resolution and brought back at a letter date. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to table the 1989 Appointments Resolution until the January 23, 1989 meeting. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Mayor Grabek stated that Counci'' should look at the alternatives available to the Council. Councilmember Goetten asked if Council was asking the Planning Commission to reappoint these individuals. Administrator Bernhardson stated as an alternative; Council may want to look to them for a recommendation as to whether they should go out and seek a process and secondly whether they have any ideas as to Chair and Vice Chair. Councilmember Goetten stated it was Council's MIHUTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS CONTINUED position to appoint Planning Commissior. members and their terms otherwise it puts the Planning Commission into the political arena. She noted that they should let the Council know if they have concerns or recommendations. CounciImember Callahan asked if there was a limitation as to number of terms a person can serve. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that issue would be reviewed as it would relate to eligible persons. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, for staff to determine any limitation on Commission member's terms, and to ask the current individuals whose terms expire if they are willing to serve again and request a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 1223 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - RESTORATION Administrator Bernhardson stated this matter related to the restoration of the property following the 1985 sewer project. The efforts to initially restore the property did not take and the resident has not been satisfied with the result. Currently he as agreed to the amount of the easement and the City is holding up the execution of the documents until the resolve of this issue. Mr. Quady desires to be paid $1,000 in cash for his time and effort to restore his lawn. Public Works Director Gerhardson stated that the City can kill all that is there and put on some top soil and reseed or sod or the City can contract with a lawn service to chemically treat the lawn for a two year period. He stated he had discussed both options with Mr. Quady and he has rejected both offers because he does not want to be responsible for watering. He still wants the dollar amount paid to him. Mr. Quady was present and reviewed for the Council the previous attempts to restore his lawn. CounciImember Goetten stated that she felt that it was unreasonable to expect the City to water his seed or grass. Councilmember Peterson stated she was in the same sewer project and concurred with Councilmember Goetten. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Goetten to refuse the payment of $1,000 and that the City's alternative offer will be open for the next 60 days, if the City's alternative offer is not accepted they will expire. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion Passed. WESTONKA BEAUTIFICATION Administrator Bernhardson reviewed for Council the plan by Westonka Chamber of Commerce's coordinated landscaping plan for the County Road 15 project from 15 and 19 in Navarre all the way to 110 in Mound. The idea is to put together a common landscaping plan that people in the future can use to do their MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 WESTONKA BEAUTIFICATION CONTINUED improvements to beautify the area. They are requesting from each of the three cities about $1,350 to hire a landscape architect to come up with this plan. They would allow the three Councils to make comments on the plan. In addition this is an item that has not been budgeted for. Chic Remien, Westonka Chamber Executive Vice President, was present. Ms. Remien stated the idea is for a concept only for private residential owners, business owners and the Cities. After putting out notice of the formation of the beautification committee had to stop taking applicants the interest was so strong in the communities. We have a list of persons who are willing to serve along the way if they are needed. This indicates a real interest by the community that they want to move forward on this project. A bulk mailing wil go out to concerned property owners informing them about a joint meeting where they can come and give their input to the Task Force and the planner. We want to- incourage individual residents. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, that the Council agree to contribute up to $1,350.00 out of its budgeted amount for Navarre Redevelopment 1989 and that the Council agree to the process proposed by the Westonka Chamber. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 - PROPOSED SAFETY IMPROVEMENT Administrator Bernhardson stated that there is a safety project scheduled for -1991. This safety improvement has no bearing on the long range planning for Highway 12, the monies are not transferable. There are six primary items addressed in the memo and one of the property owners has stated they would like to see a continuation of the middle continuous turn lane. We will look t;t that as an issue to see what accident history there has been in Long Lake. Long Lake's three concerns were; channelization, limiting the access to some of the business on the south side and signalization and the North Brown Road/Virgina Avenue intersection. Councilmember Goetten stated she was not in favor of giving any additional right-of-way regarding Brown Road and asked if MnDOT will fund a service road? Bernhardson stated that MnF OT has stated that in certain circumstances they have and it ma^ be a trade off for increased width and right-of-way. Councilmember Geotten asked when Long Lake will be included in discussions. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember G'^etten, that the staff be directed to transmit the City's concerns regarding the safety upgrade indicating that overall the upgrade is appropriate and an improvement. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. COUNTY ROAD 116 Administrator Bernhardson stated this was for transmitting NIHUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 COUNTY ROiM) 116 CONTINUED some of the information prior to the County being present at the January 23, 1989 meeting when this item would be brought back before the Council. He stated there are two distinct issues here - who is in control of whether 116 goes ahead or not and if it goes ahead what options are available to the City of Orono. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, that the Council table discussion of the item until the Council's January 23, 1989 Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. Mayor Grabek recognized two Medina residents in the audience. They commented that they were opposed to the project, funding was a question and stated they cannot stop the project even though only a handful of Medina residents are in favor. DRIVBNAY PERMIT i 490 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD Applicant was not present. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciIraember Goetten to deny access to/from Old Long Lake Road from residence at 490 Old Long Lake Road and to direct Mr. Wiken to construct access to Herrick Circle. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES - ENTRANCE STRUCTURES Administrator Bernhardson stated that this was for Council information before its presentation to the Planning Commission. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated this is a set of recr ‘mended standards for discussion and some procedures for issuance of permits. CounciImember Goetten stated that the gates concerned her the most and that the setbacks should be such that there is room for turn around as a safety issue. It was moved by Mayor: Grabek, seconded by Counci Imember Goetten, to send this item to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. CounciImember Callahan asked if the Council had received information from Senator Gen Olson regarding trees. He asked that since the City has done so much on hard cover, if in general it might be a good idea to have some kind of control over developers and others cutting down all the shade trees to develop property. He asked if the City should give some consideration to adopting an ordinance which gives us control over preserving the trees. Mayor Grabek stated it would be difficult to enforce such an ordinance and what can you do if someone breaks that ordinance, but agreed with the concept of preserving the trees. Administrator Bernhardson stated that other communities, Burnsville in particular, have been looking at this issue ^nd maybe staff can get some information regarding tree preservation MIHUTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES - ENTRANCE STRUCTURES CONTINUED from them. Mayor Grabek amended his motion, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to send the accessory structures - entrance structures information to the Planning Commission and to include language for tree presevation. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. SEWER AVAILABIITY CHARGE (SAC) REFUND POLICY Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the sewer availability charge (SAC) refund policy with the Council. It vas moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson to approve staff recommendation regarding the sewer availability charge (SAC) refund policy. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. 1989 SALARY RESOLUTION #2564 Councilmember Peterson asked for clarification on the proposed salary for the public works department. Administrator Bernhardson stated that instead of the 3% at the beginning of the year they will be getting a lump sum and next year the base they are on will only go up 1% from 1988 instead of 3% from 1988. He stated this concept is in line with public works departments in other cities. It was moved by C uncilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2564 as its salary resolution for 1989 for all persons not represented by a bargaining unit. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 1, Motion passed. Councilmember Peterson voted nay stating she did not understand the pay equity. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 89 COMPLIANCE Administrator Bernhardson stated that currently non salary benefits are considered tax free under the old IRS laws. The 1986 Tax Reform Act sets basic qualification standards and nondiscrimination tests which certain types of employer-sponsored health and welfare benefit plans must comply. It is suggested that an audit through DCA and also a legal review either through Moore, Costello and Hart or Popham Haik be accomplished. The Council is requested to authorize up to $5,000 to undertake this study. Councilmember Callahan stated he was not in favor of this expenditure at this time. Councilmember Peterson stated she had checked on these charges and had received charges of $25.00 per head and $500.00 lump sum plus $10.00 per each employee. Administrator Bernhardson stated it was unknown as to what amount of service was performed at those prices. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan moved, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this matter and directs staff to MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 89 COMPLIANCE CONTINUED seek other bids. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. FACILITIES - SITE ANALYSIS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, that the Council tables this item until its February 13, 1989 meeting. Motion, Ayes 5, Nsys 0, Motion passed. STUBBS BAY SEWER* CounciImtmber Peterson stated she had received a phone call from a resident in the Stubbs Bay area who asked what was going on. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated he had a^so talked to this resident. Gaffron noted this resident" system is failing and he is on the very edge of the project study area. He stated that there were 2 or 3 other persons who were in the process of building new homes that were asking the same questions. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Grabek, the Orono Council accepts the information regarding Stubb*s Bay Sewer. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. 1910 SHADYWO(X> ROAD* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to direct staff to assist in resolving the vacation of right-of-way in the area of 1910 Shaydwood Road. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. HIGHWOOD STORM SEWER* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to direct staff to discuss with the most affected property owner any options to a Capital Improvement Project. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. 1989 - INSURANCE RENEWALS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to award the Orono 1989 insurance for worker compensation and the umbrella liability to the League of Minnesota Citiers Insurance Trust, and the computer coverage to the St. Paul Company effective January 1, 1939 as proposed. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. 1989 FEE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, secon<^-*d by Councilmember Peterson, that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 62, Second Series to be effective upon publication and authorize the attached summary for publication. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT RESOLUTION #2565* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution Number 2565 amending the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission's Joint Powers Agreement relating to MINUTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL ECEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION CONTINUED the quorum requirements. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0,Motion passed. SALARY ADJUSTMENT - OFFICER MARK TOMCZYK* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to increase Officer Tomczyk*s salary from $16,163 per hour to $16,477 per hour effective November 17, 1988. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. EMPLvOYMBNT - PART TIME CLERICAL POLICE DEPARTMENT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, the Orono Council autnorizes the employment of Sally Lynn Christianson for the position of part time clerical in the police department at $6.00 per hour commencing January 10, 1989. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. ASSESSMENT ROLL - HAZARDOUS BUILDING RESOLUTION #2566* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2566 adopting the assessment roll for Hazardous Building Actions - 1988-2. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, that the Orono City Council approve renewal of contracts with the Cities of Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach at the rates and in the format outlined in Attachment A. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. MARINA LICENSING - RESOLUTION #2567, #2568, #2569 AND #2570* Councilmember Goetten stated she felt it was important to have a Marina Licensing Committee and would be happy to be part of the Board or Committee. Administrator Bernhardson suggested bringing that issue to the January 23, 1989 meeting for a recommendation. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the 1989 Marina Licenses as submitted by staff. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 1989 LIQUOR LICENSE* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the 1989 liquor license for the Wayzata Country Club. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. POLICE FACILITIES CONTRACT* It was moved by Mayor Grabek,<seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Police facilities 1989 lease agreement with the City of Long Lake. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. MINUTBS OP REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 POLICE RADAR PURCHASE* CounciImember Peterson asked how the speed limits are set. Administrator Bernhardson stated the State will be coming out in the Spring to monitor the speeds at which persons are driving and based on that will determine the posted speeds. It was moved by CounciImember Peterson, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, the Orono City Council authorizes purchase of rear antenna for radar units in the amount of $595.00. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR ’S INFORMATION* Counc i Imember Goetten asked why the need for three Lieutenant positions. Administrator Bernhardson stated the idea is to have supervisors on a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week basis. The primary reason for this was information regarding filling the second positon and also to indicate that we are looking over the next couple of months from a organizational standpoint to have a third position. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Minnetrista/Hennepin County, Luce Line - Leash Enforcement, MCWD Operation Policy, 1950 Shoreline, Deborah Drive, Navarre Redevelopment, Shoreland Policy, Police Lieutenant Position, Navarre Super Valu Robbery, Recycling and Goal Setting. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. LICENSES* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the following licenses: Residential Kennel License - Albert & Sally Hanser Septic System Installer - Volkenant & Sons, Inc. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. BILLS*It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:32 P.M. Mayor Grabek requested that the Council go into an executive session at 9:30 P.M. MIHUTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 ADJOURNMENT 9:42 P.H. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:42 P.M. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor 11989.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: January 19, 1989 SUBJECT: LMCD/Shoreland Regulation caum MEETHKi JAH23 u33 CITY OF Qkm Attachment: A. LMCD - Lake Minnetonka Management Plan Memo Dated 1/18/19 B. LMCD Shoreland Work Sheets ISSUES - 1. Orono's view on LMCD*s role on land within 1000 feet of the shoreline. 2. Level of investment in other parts of the Comprehensive Management process. INTRODUCTION - Atttachment A highlights several of the issues in development of the shoreland element of LMCD comprehensive lake management plan. DISCUSSION - The most significant issue at this point is the role of LMCD regarding lakeshore regulation; 1. Joint Local/LMCD control with LMCD setting minimums and enforcing its regulation. 2. LMCD setting minimum regulation to be adopted and enforced by the local municipality. 3. Local jurisdiction enact as a minimis for their communities.cooperatively developed shoreland regulation and do their own enforcement. These minimums would be reflected in the joint plan. 4. Utilization of DNR regulations and their shoreland enforcement. 5. Combinations As for process review, the city could explore futher participation in the Advisiory Council process or at the review stage of the document prior to submission. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following discussion yi^h the City LMCD"representative that Council indicates its desired direction on the major LMCD/City jurisdiction issue. It is staff's recommendation that the cities jointly develop standards to be adopted and enforced locally as it relates to shoreland regulations which are included in the comprehensive Management Plan. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Orono Council indicate to its representative and staff regarding shoreland management its desire to cooperatively develop minimums for all cities around the lake and that such be adopted and enforced locally. Ayes _, Nays _. To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: January 18, 1989 Subject: LMCD - Lake Minnetonka Management Plan Background on LMCD *8 Proposed Management Plan - Council has recently been advised of the DNR's proposed revisions of the Shoreland Management Rules that have been developed to apply to the 4,000 odd lakes that are targeted for active management by the DNR. Rules reflect more stringent land use controls for all targeted communities with lakes and shoreland areas (land areas within 1,000* of lakeshore). The rules range from minimum allowed structures at the edge of the lakeshore to visual/aesthetic impact of multiple story buildings located 1,000*+ from the lake. Based on the varied types of developments found adjacent to these specific lakes, the DNR rules represent a compromise applicable to shorelines ranging from urbanized to largely undeveloped. Specific shoreland regulations were not developed with the special needs of Lake Minnetonka and its 14 shoreline communities in mind. The DNR has offered all 14 of the LMCD member communities the opportunity to draft their own comprehensive plan for the lake. The LMCD has assumed the role of coordinating and drafting the Comprehensive Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. In the spring of 1988, the LMCD convinced the Systems Committee of the Metropolitan Council that the LMCD could produce a Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka within two years based on a planning framework and schedule drafted by Andorfer Associates (consultants to the LMCD) dated November, 1986, **Scope of Work** - Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. In consider ­ ation of the LMCD*s previous attempts at drafting a Management Plan, the Systems Committee of the Metropolitan Council had assumed that there was little prospect for. the development of the Management Plan by local interests, and if a Management Flan for Lake Minnetonka was to be realized, that it would have to be done at a County, Regional or State level. The Management Plan being developed by particating local municipalities under the fraunework and direction of the LMCD represents the last opportunity ' r local leadership in this planning process. If we fail to develop a coordinated plan that protects the lake by the two year deadline, the Metropolitan Council will use its influence to assure that a coordinated Management Plan is developed and it is not clear at what level local input wilw^ be sought. LMCD - Lake Minnetonka Management Plan January 19, 1989 Page 2 of 5 Review of Issues and Topics to be Addressed in the LMCD Management Plan - 1. Shoreland Management (areas now located within 1,000* of the lakeshore ). A) Shoreline Aesthetics and Management mechanisms for protecting shoreline and lake aesthetics including ordinances, rules and regulations. B) Upland Environmental Protection - protection of the upland areas around the lake from adverse affects of lake use and lake- induced development. C) On-shore Related Facilities - the need for enhancing and improving lake shoreline recreational developments. 2. Nature Environment A) Fisheries B) Wetlands C) Water Quality 3. Public Safety 4. Lake Access and Lake Use A) Lake Use B) Lake Access 5. Stakeholders Studies A) Intergovernmental Relations - formal and informal relations between all of the agencies involved with the lake. B) Institutional Arrangements - determination of the management structure for the lake and for the implementing agencies. C) Funding Alternatives - mechanisms for funding plan implamentation. LMCD - Lake Minnetonka Management Plan January 19, 1989 Page 3 of 5 PLAMNIH6 PROCESS - Participating members to this planning process consist of an Advisory Committee composed of representatives of the 14 lakeshore communities, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural Resources, and other interested agencies, and five sub-committees made up of predominately technical representatives of the 14 participating communities of the LMCD (representatives of MCWD, Metropolitan Council, DNR). Sub-committees are to review the topics noted above and make recommendations to the Advisory Committee who in turn presents the final recommendations to the full body of the LMCD. As a participant on the Shore land Management Sub-committee, staff can report that all 14 member communities continue to participate, some with reservation. At the most recent January 5th meeting, the LMCD staff asked for reports from each of the participating communities concerning the reaction of each of the Councils. For the communities that were able to review the scope of the Management Plan with their councils prior to the January 5th meeting of the sub-committee, half appeared to be in full support and the other half voiced concern that the LMCD would now be dealing in land use matters above the 929.4 elevation of Lake Minnetonka. Staff has attached worksheets for the sub-committee on Shoreland Management for Council's consideration. Staff would appreciate any comments from the Council prior to attending the February 9th meeting of the sub-committee. Staff specifically seeks direction on Item C, Page 20, dealing with building heights outside of the shoreland areas and their affect on the aesthetics of the lake. The planning process at the sub-committee follows the guideline of what is referrenced as "Limits of Acceptable Change" or what staff has previously referred to you as the "lowest common denominator." Various controls/standards are proposed in a worksheet and each member city evaluates existing standards of their individual codes and the group centers in on the least restrictive standard for adoption by the Committee. As far as Orono is concerned, there is little that will be adopted within the . .anagement plan that will be in conflict with our current ordinance. Staff has questioned Gene Strommen on the enforcement of the land use standards within the management plan and he advised that it was never the intent of the LMCD to enforce land use standards, but that this was always to be left to the local jurisdictions. The land use guidelines and standards were to be at a level acceptable to all so that there would be no need to ever get involved with enforcement. If there was ever to be an amendment to land use standards, it would have to be done with the full participation and vote of all 14 member communities. LMCD - Lake Minnetonka Management Plan January 19, 1989 Page 4 of 5 Review of Issues and Concerns that must be Resolved for Orono - 1. Upon adoption of the LMCD Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka by the 14 participating commu ’^itles, will the City of Orono's more restrictive standards be compromised in litigation because of the City's participation and acceptance of less restrictive standards? 2. Although assured by the staff at the LMCD that it is not the desire of the district to enforce land use regulations within the Management Plan, but rather to have each municipality responsible for enforcement, is it realistic to assume that the final approving jurisdictions (DNR and Metropolitan Council) will approve the plan on that basis? Would the DNR require review and approval of all variance to the standards of the LMCD Management Plan? 3. What other options are available to the City if we at the end of the planning process decide to not participate? Staff is not aware if Council has received the full draft of the proposed revisions of the DNR Shoreland Management Rules, it should be noted that they are more restrictive in certain areas than our code, and based on current readings of the DNR position, the City would be required to make the necessary amendments within two years. 4. The following appears as a summary statement in a paper prepared for the LMCD Advisory Committee dated November 1988 and reads as follows: "It is not our intention to pre-empt traditional local authority or jurisdictions. Instead, it is to accept the political reality that a management plan for Lake Minnetonka will be developed. The LMCD, as the regional agency closest to the lake and to the local communities, undertakes the development of the plan in order to maximize the local Influence over the plan. We recognize the regional and state agencies have Sc^ecific legislatively-mandated programs that must be considered while managing the lake. This planning effort is designed to give all stakeholders the opportunity to find the best means for maintaining the integrity of Lake Minnetonka while fulfulling their legislative and traditional mandates.” LMCD - Lake Minnetonka Management Plan January 19, 1989 Page 5 of 5 One must ask why the councils of the participating cities were not provided with this background information before the first meeting of the sub-committee? Why was the obvious shock reation encouraged by the LMCD? Staff has never received a satisfactory answer to this question. Staff Recomnendation - It is obvious that some of the questions noted above cannot be resolved at this point as the planning process of the management plan has just begun. There will no doubt be many more issues raised and resolved during this process. Staff would recommend that we continue to participate actively in the planning process through resolve of the many unknowns, and strongly suggests that either you or a CounclImember explore membership on the Advisory Committee. Membership on this committee will provide the Council with continuous monitoring and an overview of the total planning process. (The advisory committee reviews all final recommendations of the sub-committees - makes recommendations for amendments or additions and presents the final draft to the LMCD Board for approval.) As a representative on the Shoreland Management Sub-Committee, staff will continue to provid ' updated information on all issues raised for consideration and if you approve, staff will continue to request Informal input from the Council when a policy-related question suggests the need for Council direction. DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES .< a; !“n. order established below. si; “-ThTia^i.r.C'a ss‘s::! «u - objectives for the “f"»8e»e« h,v| the option of l:=?osin8 more SSSS',1 P.U., £.. ““ Management Plan? SUGGESTION A: Use the policy statement given in 6120.2600. as rewritten below: "The uncontrolled «e of ®*'°”J?^^|i®g''®”piiiution*^of^p^^ waters and by safety, and general welfare by «"«^^“'^"«<,”<,rthe policiel declared in ^7^ impairing the local tax nl 116 394 396, and 462, and MinnesotaMinnesota Statutes, chapters 105^ 115^ . mini^ standards and Rules, Sections 6120.2500 to ®J ,. ’. . „se and development of the criteka are established for 'he subdivi^on. use “ P intended to 'XJy shorelands of lake tS^e wa“rs! preserve and enhance preserve and enhance the quali^ users of the water-surface; conserve the aesthetics for *^°=*^“^"®^ental values of shorelands; and provide for the:t;ns: ::Uc,.. a. u»..- alternatives : I Sn^HcfsIalemrt*?:-included in the ^gement Plan. ManagLenS pian dLs not address shoreland issues. That is, the SUGGESTION B: Develop a Management Objective/Policy Statement as follows: tn^r^fera-LfirrdSt^io^n: Plan for Lake Minnetonka; The intent of the cities,of the Management Plan ^^^e Mi™etonka^iy^»^^ ^ ^ 2js2‘?:5:2;ii;s i;«»«;■;“ si “iS “ssiwutS2%Sup.d i.«s;uu.iS;“ s interpreted as minimum regulations in order to afford eveni?e«er protectiorof traditional uses, environmental quality and socio-economic values. alternatives:1. Rewrite this statement. 2. What land use districts should be allowed in the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka? 3. What uses should be permitted in each of the land use districts? 4. What limits should be placed on lot size? SUGGESTION: A. Special Protect',;i District Description: Wetli,no.i; wet soils; steep slopes; flooding; inadequate drainage; severe erosion potential; presence of significant historic sites, biological or natural characteristics; or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the community. Uses: Forest management Sensitive resource management Agriculture Agriculture feedlots Parks and historic sites Extractive Residential Limits on Residential Lot Size: Lakeshore Minimum lot area 15000 sq ft Minimum lot width 75 feet Minimum setback 50 feet Consensus Statxis Permitted Permitted Permitted Prohibited Conditioii.ll use Prohibited Conditional use Shoreland 10000 sq ft 75 feet 5a.e»et A'./?. Consensus Permitted Permitted Permitted Prohibited Conditional Use Prohibited Conditional Use Consensus B. Lake Minnetonka Residential District Allow low density, single family seasonal and year-rcund residential uses in order to preserve existing living qualities and amenities; to minimize traffic; and to prevent alterations of structures which would damage the character or desirability of existing residential areas. Prohibit medium and high density residential as well as establishment of various commercial, industrial and other uses in these areas that cause conflicts or problems for residential uses. Uses: Single Family (■ffSasonal and year- Duplex Triplex Quad Forest management - Public and Semi-public Agriculture Agriculture feedlots Parks and historic sites Extractive Water-oriented commercial Residential PUD Limits on Residential Lot Size: Lakeshore 15000 sq ft 75 feet 50 ommercial . ' \C i Consensus Minimum lot area Minimum lot width Min n setback Status Permitted Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Permitted Conditional Use Permitted Prohibited Conditional use Prohibited Pgehtbired Shoreland 10000 sq ft 75 feet 50 feet Consensus Consensus I I I E I I I I I i B ■ ■ II «ss;::;vss a uses. Some nonresidential uses with minimal impacts on residential uses are allowed if properly managed under conditional use procedures. Uses: _ _ _ _^ .. Single Family ^seasonal AlUl yea» round; Duplex Triplex Quad Forest management Public and Semi-public Agriculture Agriculture feedlots Parks and historic sites Extractive Water-oriented cc^ercial \ Residential PUD ( ) Commercial PUD Status Consensus Permitted __ _ _ _ Permitted _ _ ___ Permitted _ _ ___ _ Permitted _ _ _ ___ Permitted_ _ _ _ __ Conditions Jse __ _ _ _ Permitted _ _ _ _ _ Prohibited _ _ _ _ _ Conditional use __ _ __ Prohibited __ _ _ _ _ Prohibited _ _ _ _ _ PrnhlM tad Ar~^ — Prohibited __ _ _ _ _ Limits on Residential Lot Size: Lakeshore Minimum lot area Single Duplex Triplex duplex Consensus 10000 sq ft 20000 sq ft 30000 sq ft 40000 sq ft lot widthMinimum Single Duplex Triplex Quad Minimum setback 75 feet 100 feet 150 feet 200 feet 50 feet Shoreland 10000 sq ft 20000 sq ft 30000 sq ft 40000 sq ft 75 feet 100 feet 150 feet 200 feet Consensus ^ %^Tch^ighe^ housingD, Five to Twelve Unit Residential District Provide for areas adjacent to commercial centers .. .— in multiple family structures. Other compatible uses planned Snlt development, surface ““"'-“I®"?***Single-family, parks, historic sites, and semipublic, are also allowed as conditional uses. Uses: Single Family (seasonal and year-round) Duplex Triplex Quad Six to twelve unit residential Forest management Public and Semi-public Parks and historic sites Water-oriented commercial Residential PUD Commercial PUD Status Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Conditional Use Conditional use Permitted Permitted Permitted Consensus Limits on Residential Lot Size: Minimum lot area Single Duplex Triplex Duplex .i. Lakeshore Consensus Shoreland Consensus 10000 sq 20000 sq 30000 sq 40000 sq ft ft ft ft Six to twelve units 10000 sf/unit Minimum lot width Single 75 feet Duplex 100 feet Triplex 150 feet Quad 200 feet Six to twelve units 250 feet Minimum setback 50 feet p* if( Water-Oriented Commercial District ^Provide for existing or future commercial uses adjacent to wa<- are functionally dependent on such close proximity. 10000 sq ft 20000 sq ft 30000 sq ft 40000 sq ft 10000 sf/unit 75 feet 100 feet 150 feet 200 feet 250 feet Uses: Water-oriented commercial— Forest management Commercial Public and Semi-public Parks and historic sites Kfesidentlal PUD Commercial PUD Status Permitted Permitted Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional use 'ConUlXiuital' Use- Conditional Use sources that Consensus 0 I I I I I I I 4^ General Use District For lands already developed or suitable fon development with concentrated urban, particularly commercial, land uses. Commercial planned unit development are ^ allowed in this district if handled as conditional uses. tfu Uses: Commercial Water-oriented commercial Forest management Public and Semi-public Parks and historic sites Residential PUD Commercial PUD .^ X Special Service District Status Permitted Permitted Permitted Conditional Use Conditional use Conditional Use Conditional Use Consensus For lands already developed or suitable for development with concentrated urban, particularly commercial, land uses. The purpose of the district is to allow residential and special service uses within a district otherwise devoted to commercial uses. Uses: Health care facilities Institutignal ^ ^ Status Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Consensus I I I I i I I alternatives : 1. Add additional districts 2. Delete districts 3. Take no action 5. What limits should be placed on accessory structures on shoreline property? SUGGESTION: Adopt the proposed rules contained in 6120.3300 subparts 2 to 3 ^ ^ with respect to accessory structures; stairs, lifts and landings; and, decks as modified below. a. Guest cottaged^ (6120.3300 subp. 2 C) must meet the local community standards for duplex (two-family) dwellings. Consensus - - - - - - - - - - --— b All accessory structures and facilities (6120.3300 subp. 3 H), except those that are water-oriented, must meet or exceed structure setback standards. Consensus __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __Jr c. Water-oriented accessory structures or facilities located closer to public water than the structure setback must meet these standards: 1) not exceed 10 feet in height, exclusive of safety rails. Consensus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- 2) cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Consensus I 3) detached decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point. Consensus _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ 4) setback of the structure or facility from the OHL must be at least 10 feet.Consensus _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5) treatment by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other acceptable means assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Consensus ____________ 6) not designed or used for human habitation. ^ Consensus _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 7) the roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but not enclosed or ^ used as a storage area.Consensus d Stairways, lifts and landings (6120.3300 subp. 3 I) are preferred to major topographic alterations and must meet the following ... , 1) stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots.Consensus __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ 2"^ landinzs must not exceed (four fe^ in width on residential lots Consensus 3) canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts or landings. Consensus _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 4) construction must assure control of soil erosion. Consensus must be located in the most inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the water surface, whenever practical. Consensus _____ - e. Decks (6120.3 local community. 3ubp. 3 J) must meet the »»muesu— setback standards of the Consensus __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19 riF THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ALL 14 COMMUNITIES, THEN:] f (6120 3300 subp. 3 J) that do not meet setback requirements may be fideS to existing str^ctSres if all of the following criteria and standards are 1) a thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable alternative location.Consensus _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2) the deck encroachment toward the OHL does not exceed 15 percent or 30 £eet whichever is more restrictive.Consensus the deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.Consensus_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ j^'^^opJse^iltemative standards for placement of these structures B. Provide no standards 6.What limits should be placed on the height of structures in communities? Existing Status: DNR Proposal Height 25 feet Community Range , .x25 feet upwards (out of the shoreland; There are nearly as many ways of defining building height as there are agency .evolved - level at the or hipped roof." SUGGESTIONS: Adopt this definition.a.Consensus b. Establish 35 feet as the maximum building height value for aitructures in the shorelands, while encouraging more restrictive standards. Consensxis — X r Buildine heieht of structures outside of the shorelands effect the even beyond the lakeshore community boundaries. We need to address this difficult issue. We propose to delay this discussion until the February f reach a consensus on the remaining issues contained in this the interim we would like each city to discuss this concept Manaeers Mayors and Council Members as appropriate. The problem^is not uniq to Lake Minnetonka. The City of Minneapolis is heavily involve- .n P^®® ®®, ^ this iLue on Lake Calhoun. We need to determine what our po should be. p^LhS: :l s^^nire^fm^lits (“^“criix and other Hatlo^l Parka) 2) use of vertical zoning similar to that used near airports 3) establishing tiers based on distance from the lake, each wit different height limitation. 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I These alternatives have the »ost potential of affecting the City of Minnetonka Management Plan, yet an issue that has significant implications for the future aesthetics of the lake. Given our planning context of "Limits of Acceptable Change" we need to make a conscious decision with respect to building height out of the shorelands. If there are to be no limits, let all involved understand the implications of that decision. If there are to be limits, there needs to be full understanding of the costs to be borne by selected communities. We need to discuss this at the February meeting. ALTERNATIVES: A. Leave building height as a local option. B. Select different building heights based on zoning district. 7. What limits should be placed on the use of outlots for lake access? POINT OF INFORMATION: _ ^ Another subcommittee will address the issue of lake access. That subco^ittee will need to address whether controls should be imposed on the growth of boats stored on or gaining access to the lake. One alternative is to consider placing a ban on the use of outlots to give non-riparian residents of subdivision access to the lake as one part of an overall control program. This issue is addressed in 6120.3300 Subpart 2(E). ^ We would like to receive your guidance, thoughts and concerns about that alternative. Specifically, we would like to discuss: A) community reaction B) impact on community development C) impact on tax base D) position likely to be ta!-en by your council SUGGESTION: Controls already exist through the LMCD that limits the number of watercraft that may be placed on the outlot. Those standards could replace those proposed by the DNR since they already accomplish the Intended purpose of the DNR's proposed regulations. Standards applying to the upland areas could be adopted as they appear in the regulations. a) the outlot must meet the ^inimvyn area and width requirements ot tne applicable zoning district.Consensxis _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ b) must be suitable for development under the requirements of the applicable zoning district. 'U ^Consensus j-tS_ _ c) the nvimber of watercraft allowed must be consistent with the rules and regulations of the LMCD. .Consensus _ _ _V <_ _ _ _ __ d) must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision. Consensus _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ e) must met the requirements of the local subdivision ordinance. Consensus V ALTERNATIVES: A. Adopt the DNR proposed rules for number of watercraft allowed. B. Adopt less restrictive standards for upland areas. C. Adopt more restrictive standards for upland areas. 8. What standards should apply to commercial Industrial, public and semipublic uses in the shorelands (6120.3300 subp. 10)? x 2>S SUGGESTION: Lake Minnetonka is entirely zoned. In most areas, Minnetrista being the lone exception, land uses are fixed. Redevelopment, not development seems to be the major issue. We propose to maintain the existing zoning, with discussion centering on the following alternatives: A. Prohibit industrial uses on the lakeshore. Consensus l-^.S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B. Prohibit manufacturing uses on the lakeshore. Consensus V.3 ? C. D. E. is Limit industrial uses in the shoreland zone to light ^dustry. Consensus 7 c. .s Prohibit manufacturing uses in the shoreland zone. Consensus /« Limit manufacturing uses to two story or 25 foot building height, whichever legs. Consensus '■/ ' s_ _ _ _ _ _ __ ^TERATIVES: , , . x ^ Adopt the DNR restrictions (always a local option) . ^ Place no new restrictions on commercial uses. 9 What changes should be made to subdivision provisions for the shorelands (h20.3500)? SUGGESTION: All development and redevelopment of parcels must be consistent with the applicable city subdivision ordinance, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 505 and Minnesota Rules, Sections 6120.2500 to 6120.3900 as modified and adopted by the local community. s/Consensus \_ _ _ _ _ _ _— ^ERNATIVE: /aJ Adopt the DNR proposed rules as written. Develop minimum standards for each city's subdivision ordinance. 10. What restrictions should be placed on PUD (6120.3800)? ^ ifl SUGGESTION: a. Local governments presently have the authority to determine if PUDs are to be allowed in their communities. That should remain a local option under the Management Plan. . i. iiPURPOSE: To reinforce communities that decide they do not wish to allow residential PUDs within their jurisdictions. Consensus _ _ _r fc!_ _ _ _ _ _ b) The minimum number of dwelling units for a residential PUD shall be set by the local community, or 13 dwelling xmits, whichever is less. PURPOSE: To assure that high density developments on the lake are subjected to local and DNR requirements for residential PUDs and that the PUDs are consistent with this Management Plan. Consensus c) Residential and commercial PUDs combined shall not constitute more ^an 25 percent of the a city's shoreline. (Less restrictive than 6120.3300 subp. 2 B.(4).) \ I I E I I I I I i I I i ■ ■ I i ■ Bi PURPOSE: To assure that single family character of the majority of the Lake Minnetonka shoreline is maintained as lands are redeveloped on the lake. Consensus '_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ d) Residential PUDs must not exceed the maximum height restriction for its zoning district. Consensus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ALTERNATIVES: Adopt DNR proposed rules. Adopt less restrictive rules. 11. What should the design criteria be for residential PUD? SUGGESTION: The design criteria should be established by local ordinance, except that the following paragraph shall be included in any local ordinance (6120.3800, Subp. 5(3)(c) as rewritten): "Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited *■' swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps mus- centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft must not exceed the number permitted under applicable LMCD rules and regulations. Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units." Consensus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ALTERNATIVES: A. Reach consensus on density and other standards. B. Adopt the DNR standards. 12.What should the design criteria be for commercial PUD? SUGGESTION: The design criteria should be established by local ordinance, except that the following paragraph shall be included in any local ordinance (6120.3800, Subp. 5(3)(c) as rewritten): "Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or dockl4.g of watercraft must not exceed the number permitted under applicable LMCD rules and regulations. Launching ramp facil.lties, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units." Consensus V _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ALTERNATIVES: A. Reach consensus on density and other standards. B. Adopt the DNR standards. 13. Given the changes resulting from the above Issues, what should the scope of authority be for the 14 Local governments? ScapMvernsients must provide for the administration and enforcement of their shoreland management controls by establishing permit and^fillinm construction, installation of sewage treatment systems, and grading and filling (6120.3900. Subp. 1). Consensus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14. What restrictions, if any. should be place on granting variances, conditional uses and nonconformities (6120.3900, subp. 3, 3a, and )? Municipilikes on Lake Minnetonka may grant varlances^^eg^j e^pdltlona^us^^ and upgrade nonconformities that are consistent with the Management^an.- Consensus_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15. What should the adoption schedule be for the changes resulting from the above issues? f sho«laSd ordinance consistent with the be adopted by each lakeshore community within 12 months of the adoption and imolementation of the Management Plan-.f , Consensus _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ A PROBLEMS AND ISSUES - SHORELAND AESTHETICS In developing the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, two perspectives must be maintained. First, developments and policies that apply to^e^ke s 5 j shorelands have direct and indirect effects on people who ««« the lake. Second, people who use the lake have direct and indirect effects on the in the shorelands and the uses of the shorelands. For these reasoM. we need to explore three additional topics to determine if the controls in effect on the lake are sufficient. These topics are vegetation removal, restrictions on li^ts shi^ng out lake and. perhaps, noise. The first two help protect the vho use the lake's surface. The last is included to determine detection needs to be offered to shoreline residents as much as those that use the lake. 1. What restrictions should be placed on vegetation removal and grading/filling in the shorelands? ^ere seem to be two ways to approach this. The first is to dev(^op and encourage adoption of a^separate vegetation removal ordinance. The second is to include*addltional provlsiLs in the Shoreland Manapment Ordlnape that we have been addressing. The latter seems to be the best alternative, since both developers and administrators would have to comply with only one ordinance. The potential for overlap, conflicting rules^and confusion would be reduced. ■ ■ ■ e s fe fe K a a a a a a a a a Therefore, rather than prepare a separate ordinance on vegetation removal, additional provisions should be added to 6120.3300 subp. 4. Consensus _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Vegetation removal should be limited as follows: Xhe provisions of 6120.3300 subp. 4 must be adopted in their entirety with the sole exception of subp. 4 A. (b). P Consensus __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Additional provisions should be included in 6120.3300 subp. 4 as follows: <sw;/i) Within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, removal of trees greater than 6 inches in diameter measured 2 feet above th^grounci--' may not be removed without a permit issued by the City Council'! ^ Permits will be granted only when such cutting is consistent with the purpose of the provisions of the Shoreland Management Regulations. Consensus _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Consensus I (^op li^^*' 2. What restrictions should be placed on lights located on the shore but visible from the lake? SUGGESTION: ^ i i.In the course of collecting data from boaters and from managers on the lake, the issue of bright lights shining out across the lake has often been raised. Such lights are often hazards to navigation and disturb the aesthetics of the lake. Therefore, we propose that the following provisions be added to 6120.3300 subp. 3 so as to apply to all portions of lakefront property. a. Lights located aii>-vhere on lakefront property on Lake Minnetonka used to illuminate walkways, accessory structures, stairways, lifts, landings, decks or other features must be directed away from the lake. Consensus _ _ _ _> _ _ _ _ _ _ b. No light source on any shoreline property shall exceed 0.5 candles at the Ordinary High Water Level.Consensus 3. Is a more restrictive noise ordinance necessary for Lake Minnetonka surface? This issue is raised primarily as guidance for another topic that we will addressing in the coming months under the Public Safety Subcommittee. Public Safety addresses the issues that involve the Sheriff's Water Patrol and the local law enforcement agencies. All 14 communities on the lake have controls over noise whether it is by special ordinance that references state standards or under their nuisance provisions. The existing controls seem satisfactory for sources on land. Where problems have been cited, they appear to be as much enforcement problems rather than authority problems. What we would like from this group is guidance. What does the Management Plan, and therefore the Public Safety Subcommittee, need to consider with respect to noise? The LiiCD has implemented noise controls that cover sources both on the land or on the lake. The Public Safety Subcommittee we will be examining the I following issues (among others): 1) Are the noise regulations satisfactory, or are alternative regulations required or desirable? 2) Is enforcement of existing noise ordinances satisfactory? If not, what are the reasons for unsatisfactory enforcement? MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Based on the decisions that are reached at the Jantiary meeting of the Shoreland Subcommittee, management objectives will be developed for inclusion in the Management Flan. The management objectives will be specific statements about how the lake and its shorelands will be managed. Keyed to each management objective will be a monitoring element designed to measure achievement of that objective and to trigger specific action if it is not achieved. You will note that we have largely avoided the discussion of joint powers, any significant change in the existing powers and authorities of municipalities on the lake, or in administration of programs. There is a very specific reason for that. Two topics to be addressed in 1989 are Intergovernmental Relations and Institutional Arrangements (under the Stakeholders Subcommittee). That subcommittee will examine extant relationships and authorities and their sufficiency for implementing ALL elements of the Management Flan. Your City Councils will likely want to have a direct involvement in those discussions and compromises. I I P I » * i * f i i II p -P P I P 9 \ //^^ M//ecJ a/ 1^ -ii/ ,;i4* ..••;n.v^ ' > ' * f .'''^vt ■V* ./■t :0M'^ . ^-f -\, ■f;.>;:’KV: ^*v. -. ■J-l'^V- '.;'C.Vi-' —.Ji JAN20Be9 960 Willow Drive North Long Lake MN 55356 Orono City Council P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 Sirs: Re: Proposed Extension of County Road 116 into Orono We are unable to attend the January 23 City Council meeting but wish to express our opposition to the abcvementioned extension. We feel that the existing access is adequate and that theexpenditure would be a waste of taxpayers funds. -4.; !■! R^iWiWI 960 WjLllow Drive North Long Lake MN 55356 . . Orono City Council „P.O.._Bpx.._66_ _ _ _ _ Crystal Bay MN 55323 Sirs: Re; Proposed Extension of County Road 116 into Orono_ We are“ unable to attend the January 2 3 City Council meeting ' but wish to express our opposition to the abovementioned extension. We feel that the existing access "is adequate~and ' that theexpenditure would be a waste of taxpayers funds. ■ i 11089.5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: January 11, 1989 SUBJECT: County Road 116 COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF O k O:'^’C Attachments: ISSUE - A. County Road 116 Memo Dated 1/4/89 B. Letter to Residents Dated 1/19/89 1. Determination of Council's support or opposition regarding the proposed upgrade of 116 to be expressed to the County Board. 2. If County 116 goes ahead, determination as to what actions the City would like che Countv to take in Orono. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 9, 1989 Council meeting the issue of County Road 116 was discussed by Council. At that meeting it was tabled until the January 23, 1989, meeting when individuals from the County would be pre.*;- DISCUSSION - Issue ^ - As mentioned at the last meeting the decision is one with the County Board and the City of Medina and efforts regarding that in the City of Orono should be directed to either one of those two bodies or both. It currently is programmed for Spring 1990 construction. Issue 2. - The following represent issues the City has discussed with the County to determine their position should the County choose to go ahead on 116. A. Wi 1 low Drive - Medina Border to Six - Related to this segment are two issues: 1. If Council desires County to take over this section voluntary. (The County feels they have right to acquire without City concurrence.) 2. Once County has acquired jurisdiction the County, at its option, can either construct an improved segment to County Road 6 or stop at the border. 3. Construction layout - This would be construction layout to minimize the impact to the majority of homes. Wi 1 low Drive - Six to 12 - The issues related to this are tRe* fol lowing7 1. Allowing County Ro^ 116 - County 6 highway 12 - Determination as to whether the CouncTl desires to request Hennepin County take over this on a voluntary basis. 2. Reconstruction - Determining whether the Council desirea have or” approve plans of this segment if the County takes it over. 3. Alignment - Determine if the Council desires to have this segment constructed slightly to the west (up to 14*) to buffer existing residences on the east without a substantial impact on the undeveloped portion to the west. 4. Right-Of-Way - Only the costs entailed would be 1/2 of right-of-way costs. ($19,000 - 2 = 9,500) The right-of-way costs between 6 and 12 could be minimized by dedication of ROW for development. 5. Bike Trails - As an option a one sided bike path could be Installed for about $19,000 of which the City would pay half. It should be additionally noted that should the County take over the entire lenght from the border to Highway 12 the following benefits accrue to tbe City of Orono; 1. Signalization at Willow/12 - While this would not guarantee a signal at the point that vehicle warrants for cross traffic are met, the County would pick up a portion of the light which would otherwise be Orono’s ($10,000). 2. MSA Mileage/F;inding - Should the County take over Willow Drive the City would be able to designate another portion of that road in the City if it chooses for MSA designation together with using its funding that it gets for other needs in the community. This is particulary in light of the City saving any reconstruction monies for the future for Willow. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. 1. Choose to support. 2. Choose to oppose. 3. Choose to take no position. 4. Choose to table. Issue 2.A. Willow - Medina to Six la. Choose not to participate. lb. Allow County to voluntarily take over the segment. 2. Allow constt:-;Uon of an upgraded segment. 3. Specify alignmeiit for that construction. 4. Acquistion of effected properties. 5. Table. B. Willow - Sijc ^ 12 la. Choose not to participate. lb. Voluntarily allow the County to take over that section. 2. Allow the County to reconstruct. 3. Allow the County to under take a relignment. 4. Allow reconstruction of Willow Drive into allignment 1. 5. Table. RECOMMENDATION - Issue “ It is recommended that if the Council desires to express opposition or support to do so in the form of a resolution directed to the County Board. Issue ^ ~ If the project goes ahead the staff makes the following recommendations for the City Council to consider. This is predicated and assuming that the traffic generated will be at the Medina border and its an effort at trying to make the best of the situation. a. That the Council allow the County to take over the entire stretch to Highway 12 b. Require the County to reconstruct alignment that the City desires. it along an c. That the County work with the City to minimize the impact on the homes particularly north of County Road 6. d. Predicate it upon the County contributing to the area south of 12 should the bridge upgrade be undertaken. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, Seconded by _, that the Council directs staff to work with the County along the lines of the staff's recommendation. Ayes _, Nays _. 1489 /4TTlV(lU/WerOT A TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Adininistrato DATS: 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 Orono Regarding 116 INTRODUCTION - At the Council's July 13, 1987 meeting a public hearing was held regarding the 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. As 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 116 - 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 its viewpoint 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 di&cussion until the January 23, 1989 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 be tabled until presentation by the County at its January 23, 1989 Council meeting. TROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council table discussion of the item until the Council's January 23, 1989 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Pat Murphy, Hennepin County City of Medina City of Long Lake /(rrAOiwuenor'/: TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: April 15, 1988 SUBJECT: County Road 116 Attachment: 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 signa1ization. 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 with the County to either terminate at County 24 or County 6. The staff has been attempting to determine the costs to the City of Orono if it were constructed as County State Aid Road County 116 verses the upgrades it anticipates over the next 5 or 10 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. 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 Council on a 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 _, staff be directed to indicated to the City of Medina in writing its desire not to endorse the proposed resolution regarding County Road 116 and encourage Medina to work with the County to terminate 116 at County Road 24. Ayes _, Nays_. cc: City of Medina CITY OFMmm 2052 - 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 number of north-south arterial roads in the area is becoming more apparent as each of our cities experience growth and an 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, Thoma's tf.^nderson Mayor City of Medina CC: Greenfield Corcoran Independence Maple Plain Long Lake TRA/sl end. ADMINISTRATION . PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT . PUBLIC WORKS: 473-4645 / PUBLIC SAFETY: 473-9209 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD //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 //116 from T.H. 55 to T.H. 12; and WHEREAS, the proposed alignment of County Road //116 is the most practical route for a north-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 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 j{^116 from T.H. 55 to T.H. 12. Dated:, 1988 Mayor ATTEST: 7787.1 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 13f 1987 Attachments: B. C. D. F. G. A.City of Medina - Orono Extension #116/Willow Memo Dated 2/4/87 City of Medina - Orono Extension #116/Willow Memo Dated 2/12/87 County 116 Memo Dated 3/2/87 City of Medina Letter to Medina Residents Dated 2/12/87 City of Medina Letter to Mark Bernhardson Dated 5/20/87 Letter to Henn. County Dept of Transportation Dated 6/23/87 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 considerable 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 anothar which entails extending 116 from Highway 55 all the way down to Highway 12 (see map on Attachment D). Extension of County 116 - July 7, 1987 Page 2 of 4 Public Hearing 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 * 'e middle of their community where one currently does not exist. \s 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 6,000. In addition to having the County construct the road the ity of Medina does receive the benefit of having the County aintain 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 just north of County Road 6» the ditches would be very close to the residents' homes. Extension of County 116 - Public Hearing July 1, 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 development and this project may put that on line more expeditiously with a different funding arrangement.) The Highway 12 issue is one of: 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, ii desired, designate other areas for the MSA road fund monies.. Concerns related to the extension include: 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 If 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 with:‘i. 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 tne 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 If^or City of Qrono Attnr Council Ifenbera also P.0« Box 66 Cr-:rtal Mi# 55323 Gentlemenr We feel that the extension of county road #116 will have a negative effect cn our property and the entire area and wish to voice our didapproval of this project* Sincerely, iismi ^RettiMGS ~y/'^ CORTWNE ¥. ROLLINGS - VHRtClfl 12987.8 TO:Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator‘A DATE: February 4, 1987 SUBJECT: City of Medina - Oirono Extension #116/Willow Attachment:A. Preliminary Layout CSAH #116 B. Gerhardson Memo Cty 116 Dated February 4, 1987 ISSJE - Identification of issues and concerns Orono has related to the possible entension of County 116 from its intersection at Highv/ay 55 to Highway 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 extending 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 not a 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 cf 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 or 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 ''rono - Impact of status of Willow as v. 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 - Exte :sion of physical portion of Willow as to: A. Traveled portion (travel^"" portion is presently 24 ft. with 3 ft. shoulder wis^tl-. south of County 6 and 20 ft. north of County S) 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 th nunty may explore use of Old Crystal Bay Road from County Six 'th. This could provide for a County Road all the way down to Ccu.^ty 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 considerec* by the County. It is .. .111Cipated that this would probably take 2 to 3 years before it is funded together with another 2 to 3 years of construe' ion 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 Oreno are as follows; 1. Impact of increased traffic on; a. Residents abutting Willow b. Major intersections along the route - Councy Six ^ Highway 12 - North frontage roads 2. Conversion of portions of Ovono streets to County roads . 3. Funding sc improvements sh* ,ssary tiaffic control IS ion be made. As this change would ue ii-i; laliy in Orono, Medina will be formally rftguc^cting Orv '* rj^prcval c-should they v<^te to go ahead * it, RECOMK NDATION - Given the fact that this would be a significant northTsouth route through the community to assist both police and fire access in the Medina co. munity and to some degree not in substance different to the north/socth routes Orono has in Old Crystal Bay Road, Willow and North and South Brown that Orono not ob-i necessariAy, to the extension. Orono needs to for ways to have the impact s'’ch an extension mitigated. Absent a good estimate of what incr^ise 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 ecommended any other issues or concerns to staff and that this be brought back at your Febraury 22, 1987 Council meeting for further discussion. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved Ly _, seconded by , tabled until February 22, 1987. Ayes , Nays that this item be City of Medina City of Long Lake "N PROPOSED CSAH 116 EXTENSION I'PROPOSED ALIGNMENT 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 Scate 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 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 ^ f ° 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 tra i counts on Willow Drive between County Road 24 and bounty 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^ be received from residents abutting the proposed or existing roadway. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: 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 Counc:Imembers as to concerns t’ ay may have related to the extention together with laying out the process for Council’s further consideration of the matter. IMTRODUCTIOl? - 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 matter 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 Rc‘»d. 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 iOrth 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 signal izat ion 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 Willov/ 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 natter until formal action li”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 this 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 I ng Lake City of Medina To: Mark E. Dornharclson, 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. 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 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. PROPOSED CSAH 116 EXTENSION rs:iE2]|E3E PROPOSED ALIGNMENT . s HI------- ' 1 «v»**; •“tCitraoM D- ’ ^V:— single Family 83.7 AC. Town Homes 18.4 AC. Multi-Family 15.7 AC. .Commercial 25.8 AC. Inaiitutionai e.O AC. Open Space 27.2 AC. aO.W. 11.2 AC. 191.0 ACRES City of Orono HGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY ■r . 3287.5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: 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 -last 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 ovtr the road from the City as it currently exists, a M.S.A. street, the legalitv 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 anp ^abl^ future public hearing. Ayes Nays \ A , to accept the e matter until a memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: City Attorney RE: Extension of Willow Road DATE: March 11, 1987 Issue: Analysis: At the last Council meeting the City Council reauested 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 Statutes §162.02 Subd. 7 states that the Cour ty Board 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 syste. lying within the corporate limits of any city shall be constriiCted, 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. Subsequent to County Board and City approval, the highway or street selection must be reviewed by the district state-aid engineer of that area who in turn will forward a recommendation to the Commissioner of Transportation. Upon preliminary approval by the Conclusion: 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. 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 Husni:k -2- City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 FEB 231957 V . ; t . V. i ^ J ! » » <• ^ 1.... «... .... . . -...... * 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 H^iTy. 55 to Hwy.. 12:■, as shown on the map on the reverse side. At the meeting the City Engineer presented the following information: 3+ miles of City street would be transferred to the county high^^ay system; Cost of constructing 1^ 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 dov/n and curves straightened; less use of city streets by north/south traffic. Ted Hoffman of Hennepin County Transportation explained that construction ^rauld 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 2k 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 ^rork could canmence. The road \rould be constructed to a 45 mph design with stop signs placed on Co. Rd. 116 at Co. Rd. 24 and Co. Rd. f with signals at Hwy. 12. Various city residents spoke in favor of, and against, the construction. Some of the favorable comments were: The inability to travel on 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 H^iTy. 101 which are north/south routes but are 7 miles apart; the ability to have a through road at no expease to residents; the need to upgrade Willow Dr. in a few years at a cost of $I ’^7,000 to $200,000, assessed to city residents. .pponen. expressed the following concerns: A corridor bet^veen Hwy. 55 and Hwy. 12 for the benefit of others; a majoi' road through the middle of the city would 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. 24 foot wide road, which is wider than the new city road width policy for rural resxdential roads. The City Council agreed that the magnitude of the proposed road warranted .notification of all residents and business owners in Medina and request chat written -arments be forwarded to City Mall prior to their next discussion of the matter on Tuesday, March 17th at 8:00 p.m.Yours truly, cm OF hSDINA 'Doniia Roehl, Clerk-Treasurer si^7^'hf(i^^'?^-: y/'-- 4c^^fi«HSK bE«ffe®B 44®.. .i43.?='- ,-4iD^^|i'4;: :■!?>. •k::.' mmmlatea^l B H{ Greenfield CT...W^. Dayton 1 % Whi tf?-^1?^ fWs> /=?5» X ^1 _ ? ivia XJ V \ , 1 ^1 iZlf-5 J!lo. ,S" ^ I .--•M 1 .-•• ^ ; \ ( tei \o J1 '^WS'^r’mMl fe>:aii pie Gcovei ■\ N /\ iXEf. •t City of Medj 2052 County Road 2^ Hamel, Minnesota 553 May 20f 1987 hay 2 2m 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 will be contacting Orono for approval of extension to H\vy. 12/so if there is any help that we at liedina can give you, please call. Would you keep us informed as to the procedures the City of Orono is folloid.ng with regards to this project. Yours truly, CITY OF MEDINA Donna Roehl, Clerk-Treasurer City of Medina 2052 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 C; Commissioner Robb Vem Genzlinger City of Orono City of Long Lake Donna Roehi, Clerk-Treasurer i ciiy V bRONO CITYof ORONO Post OfTice Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnsaota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka June 23, 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. 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. John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator JRG/tln BUILDING a ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING ADMINISniATION k FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ( ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT ( MESS. KEY CONTROL NUMBER (OCA)CONT. AGENCY NCIC IDENT. (CAG) lE ,C , 1 1/ I P; /,<7^l / I M ■ N I 0 ,2 , 7 I / LN6R DATE REPORTED RPD) TIME RPO (TRP) LOCATION GRID NBR (LGN) T] / i/>,7L?,/ I £3 / <r\ / DATE/TIME REPORT MADE a7-^S^7 Q3aiBCaai!Zlii^0| PLACE COMMITTED (PLC) WJ///Ay^A^ /Jrcj Jtj: HPO SQUAD OR BADGE # (SBN) TIME ASIG. (TAS) TIME ARR. (TAR)/0/C TIME CLR. (TCL) L NBR ISN UOC UCS filR , ISl( , -------------US£________, n/ I I . ^/rn OFFICER ASSIGNED ASSISTED BY HROCodM P — Phon« R — Radio A — Alarm I — in Parson V - Visual M- Mail O mn 00 teas 1-*^ O OFFENSE INITI^COMPLAINT B?[ JraTT/^ • "" winvr OTHER PRINCIPAL: COMPLAINT □ OFFENDER Q VICT^^t]D.O.B.BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE other reports INCLUDED Impound □ Prop Invantory □ Impllad Centant □ Accldant Rapon QTags □ Influanca Raport □ Photos □ REPORTING PERSON|j(bFFENDERQVICTIM□D.O.B.BUSINESS AOORESS BUSINESS PHONE OtO^qac^ HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE r~| SEECASE^^'lLE ROLL CALL Q Warn & Release Dept. Assist Message Deliver Treated & Transported Advised Citation Issued Detail Completed G.O.A. ~/rnJ/yy /m ^^6) yi/ ^ ^ <Sa72)^ DpAlff^ fr^j') rfjrQ Jxi T • ( hr^^ j vYl 'pJ\ _______ ^f COPY TO: CO. ATTNY □CITYATTNY. □COURT □CHIEF 1 OTHER; • ISl ■DISPOSITION: Unfounded^Ieared by arrest Ref. other agency Inactive Other SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE ( ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT ( MESS. KEY CONTROL NUMBER <OCA)CONT. AGENCY NCIC IDENT. (CAG) lE .c I 1 I / I I M , N I 0 ,2 , 7 I /.“TV? ^ I / date reported (RPD) time RPO (TRP) LOCATION GRID NBR (LGN) □ / l^). yi i /["" ■ .</!// OATE/TIME REPORT MADE Y: Is rDAY: ISIM I fiTCl TIPIS' 11>O R>tu>BP#>rv Igl 4, ^ PLACE COMMITTED (PLC) L NBR HRD SQUAD OR BADGE # ISBN) TIME ASIG. (TAS) TIME ARR. (TAR)TIME CLR. (TCL) 3 / I ,i.5i /I iO y.VlA^/l /I yt Vk<t/ IBR tSN UOC UCSp/1^/1 ■ iSr isn iiRr UCS0/r^ '— — OFFICER ASSIGNED ASSISTED BY I fenseQ or initiai Tnoc^cV ^ R INITIAL COMPLAINT^^ IMPLAINT □ OFFENDER Q VIC D.O.B. OTHER PRINCIPAL: HROCodM P — Phon* R~ Radio A— Alarm I — In Parson V - Visual M- Mail T - Othar M Om 00 m rfa. 5 JO <! cc BUSINESS ADDRESS HOME ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE PHER REPORTS INCLUDED pound □ Prop Invantory □ Impllad Conaant □ Aecldant Raport DTags Q Influanea Raport □ Photos □ PORTING PERS0N(JJ0FFEN0ERQVICTIMQ D.O.B.BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE 4 iVe. HOME ADDRESS HOME PHONE 3 SEE CASE FTLE ROLL CALL □ Warn & Release Dept. Assist Message Deliver Treated & Transported Advised Citation Issued 1 1 Detail Completed G.O.A. ^ n/S/jjrjy.___________, / 32.t ■v%/ Jfy y- COPY TO: CO. ATTNY □CITYATTNY. □COURT □CHIEF^^^OTHER: DISPOSITION: Unfounded^lear^by arrest Ref. other agency Inactive Other OFFICEI SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE 12788.4 A TTft,<LltiW.Cv2r""B TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator’'' DATS: December S, 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 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 Tncludes 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 xll 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 t)ie 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. 12788.4 31 TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: 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 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 Tncludes 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 wTth 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 the City desire to MINOTES OP THB REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY /('TTtO:ivU\eVJ-r d XTENSIOH OF COUNTY ROAD 116 - *UBLIC 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 Robb 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 funds 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 sign) 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.) MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 13, 1987 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED 2.Approval by the County Board of the route designation. 3. Approval of the screening conunittee 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 ' mty Road 6. To solve this problem, an urban section co-Id 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 represent the views of a large number of Medina residents. HINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 13, 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/iiouth 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 cwr4 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 v^as 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 GrabeJc 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. MINUTES 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 & 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 Administrator Bernhardson stated that staff will ..eview the requirements needed to warrant a stop signal, where 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 pave County 116 on their own if Orono votes against the County 116 extension. Counci Imember 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 on a need in a 10 year old County traffic study. He felt the stop light was a major issue and concern. * minutes op the regular OROHO council meeting held JULY 13 r 1987 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember 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 OF MINUTES* It was moved by CounciImember 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 COMMENTS Chairperson Robert Kost was present for this matter. -LIVINGSTON TOffER PARK PLAN 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 for 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 i^ the park fund was precluded from the downtown Navarre r.development 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. CITY OF ORONO CITYol Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minneai On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka •1. January 19 r 1989 Affected Property Owners - Willow Drive Dear Property Ownerr At the Orono Council's January 22, 1989 meeting, Hennepin County will be presenting their plans for County Road 116 in Medina. When that was presented in July, 1987 the proposal required Orono Council approval before it went forward. The new proposal runs County 116 from Highway 55 to County Road 6 and requires approval of only the County Board and Medina City Council. The only options available to the City of Orono relate to the construction between the border of Medina to County Road 6 and whether the section of Willow from County Road 6 to Highway 12 is included. This meeting is not a public hearing, but your attendance and participation are encouraged. Despite anything you may have heard, this proposal only goes to Highway 12. There are no plans to extend County Road 116 south of Highway 12. Sincerely Mark E. BeHw^ilrdsd City Administrator MEB/dh 11389.1 BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ouNCfi 5 ;am ;:3 '"■!• w -■ J Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson v/lTy OF 09.0^,^ Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: January 18, 1989 Subject: #1328 Howard Johnson, 1635/1675 Concordia Street - Lot Line Rearrangement - Registered Land Survey - Final Approval Attached is a resolution for final approval of the lot line rearrangement between the Howard Johnson property (purchased by David Eiss) and Helen Tralnor. As you recall, the Trainor residence extended across Johnson's lot line into Johnson's property. The Council, at its October 24, 1988 meeting, voted 5-0 to approve the lot line rearrangement leaving a 5' side set’ick. The attached Registered Land Survey accomplishes that purpose. Staff RecoaBendation - Staff recommends approval of the Registered Land Survey as attached. Proposed Motion - Moved by_ _, seconded by _ _, to approve the lot line rearrangement via Registered Land Survey for Howard Johnson and Helen Trainor at 1635 and 1675 Concordia Street. Ayes _ _, Nays _ _. A RBSOLDTION APPROVING THE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR HONARD JOHNSON AND HELEN TRAINOR FILE NO. 1328 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a lot line rearrangement subdivision by Howard Johnson and Helen Trainor (hereinafter "the Applicants") of properties legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicants have completed all requirements of the City for the Registered Land Survey subdivision for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the registered land survey lot line rearrangement for Howard Johnson and Helen Trainor as shown on the Registered Land Survey dated December 30, 1988 by Phillip A. Nelson, land surveyor, and attached to this resolution, subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon approval of the subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Tract C as shown on the registered land survey referenced above must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Tract B as shown in that same registered land survey. 2. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached registered land survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's office on or before July 23, 1989 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Page 1 of 2 Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 23rd day of January, 1989. ATTEST?James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Page 2 of 2 oz < o H H 0 Htc Xa D 0 Ow It'S I “1 "I 9 §2-|| |sf“lJill mu *4 . M 3^ nil s5 pMhm C4 u «M5JI» 8 o °5 S - S*S ‘^3*iS 83 a 3 8 ■ ^ in M umillm^^rns !?itl -r;in >hS!iI3 al|J| eo u u 5 3^8'^.s*3 Is•aim S'*- JI-®. $5 sSs^lVM *-< -H 1 .« Si ISSiM-U fH AJ O «Mlfllg 4J *«M *H "IHl .|iii 3 I S € ; I - 3 o g IIjlisl r*> 8 4J f « iMHi ^ ® ss;::'8 «5ags'l 5SS“2 « «s§J § o p^u(Ssa^^- -•aa a*i a s Is •i'S I S.«3 g JSu I 1*ll^!3j5c s2 “l-aai jil|si“| illl|l2j S 3 ^IM iJ U T3 >>r-<0««B-2 I a sill 10 4J O (0 0)cc •H X >1 4J C 3 8 C •H a uoDAi*^ u-ai f I5 2ilimu I u MINUTES OP REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 24,1988 ZONING FILE #1311-PURDY CONTINUED requested variances. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1323 JOH PAPAS 3369 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD aftbr-thb-pact variance Mr. Jon Papas was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson outlined the details of this application. Mr. Papas was seeking an average lakeshore setback variance, as well as variances for hardcover and lake setback. The Planning Commission recommended denial based on a lack of hardship. Construction alternatives such as removing the railing or relocating the deck to the side of the house were discussed. It was determined, however, that those alternatives were not possible. Mr. Papas reiterated the fact that relocating the deck would not be possible. He said that he had not been aware of the need for a building permit. Mr. Papas did not understand the hardship aspect of his request. He said that his house was small and the deck would give added room and the opportunity to enjoy the laKe- He added that he would be willing to make any revisions possible or compromise suggested. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Papas if there a previous structure in place of the deck? Mr. Papas replied that there were pre-formed steps to the front door. CounciImember Nettles asked what kind of compromise Mr. Papas had in ajind. Mr. Papas said that he would have no problem making the deck smaller or putting up a handrail. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to deny this application, but .allow Mr^ -n® construct steps to enter his house. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0, Motion passed. #1328 HOWARD JOHNSON 1635/1675 CONCORDIA STREET SDBDI^ty^*jijninistrator Bernhardson provided a brief this application. Mr. Johnson was seeking a lot line rearrangement to conform with the property boundary agreed to many years ago by both affected property owners. The sale of Mr. JohLon's property is pending the resolve of Mr. Johnson had agreed to provide the Trainors of his property to resolve this matter. The Planning Commission recommended that the new lot line be 10 from the property so as to conform with the required 10' setback of the LR-IC Zoning District. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that Mr. Johnson was not present. MINUTES OP REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 24,1988 ZONING FILE #1328~JOHNSON CONTINUED but Mr. Eissr the buyer of Mr. Johnson's property was. Mr. Eiss stated that the encroachment problem had existed for over 30 years and that the 10* requirement was unreasonable. He believed the original proposal of 5* went a long way toward correcting the problem. Mrs. Trainor was also present, and indicated that it made no difference whether 5* or 10* was approved. Mayor Grabek asked if there would be a problem if they approved 5* rather than 10*. Gaffron replied that the Planning Commission had recommended 10* because that was the standard for the Lr-lC District. Councilmember Goetten commented that she understood the concern for conforming to the setback standards, but felt it was unfair to take 10* from Mr. Johnson's property when he was not responsible for the encroachment. It was noted by Gaffron that Mr. Johnson had attempted to alleviate this problem years ago, but found that the papers had never been recorded. Gaffron stated that Mr. Johnson and Mrs. Trainor were surprised to find that their legal descriptions did not reflect a 5* rearrangement of the lot line. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the lot line rearrangement at 5* as opposed to 10*. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0. #1330 FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC. 880 TOWHLINE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION 2528 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicant was seeking approval of a 7-lot subdivision. All of the lots would meet the required 2-acre contiguous dry buildable land. However, due to the configuration of the property and the cul-de- sac, three of the lots do not meet the width requirement at the setback line. The cul-de-sac will be 1,000 feet in length. Councilmember Goetten asked why the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District needed to approve the proposal since an outlet for the road was designated. Mr. Tom Haislet was present and commented that the Watershed District needed to service a weir on the property and needed access to do so through an easment along the north property line. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2528. Motion, Ayes=*5, Nays~0, Motion passed. 6 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fro*: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: January 17, 1989 Subject: #1353 John & Nancy Fiebelkorn, 3730 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variance Application - Request for after-the-fact variances to construct swimming pool and associated patio in 0-75* lakeshore setback zone. Zoning District - LR-IB, single family, 1-acre, sewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Letter From Applicants Dated 1/3/89 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 11/21/88 Exhibit C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/23/88 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/88 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of November 14, 1988. Briefly, the property owners are requesting after-the-fact variances for a swimming pool that was constructed in the 0-75* lakeshore zone without permits. They are proposing to construct specific run-off control facilities to mitigate the effects of the additional run-off created. The Planning Commission at their meeting of November 21, recommended denial of the application on a vote of 6-0, finding no hardship nor any reasonable justification for granting of the requested variances after-the-fact. Planning Commission discussion indicated that they re it there was no way to mitigate the effects of the proposed structure or hardcover based on location and based on the precedent that approval would set. Staff Reconmendation - Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation, noting that approval of these after-the-fact variances to hardcover, setback, and average setback would not only be precedent setting, but would jeopardize the integrity of Orono*s lakeshore policies, philosophies and ordinances. Staff will draft a resolution for Council’s next meeting, based on Council's action on January 23rd. JOHN f BYRON BBItTIN A. BUUI. JR JOHN M. PALMER RICHARb R. HANSEN JEROME B. PEDERSON ROBBRT O. WEBER ROBERT P SANDS KETTH A. UBBIY ROBERT B. WHITtOCB RAYMOND M. LAZAR THOMAS R. EINO JOHN H. STOUT JAMBS L. BAILUE WILLIAM I. EAMPP R. BERTRAM GREENER WARREN E. MACK JOHN L. POWERS CHARLES P. DIESSNBR QUENTIN T. JOHNSON TIMOTHY M. HEANEY JAMBS R. .WALLER ROBERT H. ZALK UO C. STERN PRBDERJCK E. PINCH THOMAS W CARTON JOHN A. SATORiUS MICHAEL A. STERN NEIL A. WEIEART WILLIAM BRODY JOHN H. MERKLR THOMAS S. ERASER JOHN A. CRIMSTAO ERIC S. ANDERSON DAVID R. BUSCH DAVID C. GBORUD KONRAD J. PRIBDEMANN LARRY J. BBRO JOHN J. ERHART JOHN G. KOST KATHLEEN A. HUGHES JOHN M. KONECK THOMAS R. WILHBLMT PAUL L. LANDRY KENT G. HARRISON FREDRIKSON & BYRON A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCWTION 1100 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3397 TELEX 290569 FREDRIKSON MPS TELECOPIER |612) 347-7077 TELEPHONE 1612) 347-7000 WRITER S DIRECT DIAL (612) 347-7052 January 3, 1989 SANDRA YAEGER BODEAU MARY E. STRAND CARDIN .MARY FOLEY ROMRT C. SIMON C. ROOT :OLOVIC . RUDENICK PRRITAO UECER DAVID R /MARSHALL ROBERT J STEWART WELLS J. WRIGHT II9IZ-19B8I OP COUNSEL HAROLD M. FREDRIKSON KARL P. DIESSNER EARL P. COLBORN. JR. Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: James and Nancy Fiebelkorn Dear Jeanne: It was nice to talk to you this past Wednesday morning, am writing to confirm my understanding that the Fiebelkorns* appearance before the City Council has been moved to Monday evening, January 23rd. I appreciate your permitting us to change dates once again. As we discussed, this will permit to have our landscape architect, engineer and both Jim and Nancy Fiebelkorn present at the meeting. Thanks again for your assistance. Best regards. / Lar LJB:lml cc: James and Nancy Fiebelkorn Ken Adolf Tad Anderson 5763i & J. Berg MIHUTES OF THE PLANNIHG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1346-HAGBERG CONTINDED 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 upon the removal of hardcover as indicated. The hardships in this 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/~ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1353 JOHN L. FIEBELXORN 2730 SHADT1IOOD RQSId 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, “aiTTlttorney for the Fiebelkorns. In addition, Pat Anderson, a Landscape Architect, and Ken Adolph, an Engineer with Schoell & Madson, Inc., were present. Mr. Berg began by admitting that there were serious problems involved with th.** ^ 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 allow 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. MmUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE 11353-FIEBBLKORN 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 exp''ained that 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 nerd 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 was an advisory body. It would be much more effective to present their proposals to the City Council. Kelley concurred with Hanson's suggestion. Mr. Berg was persistent in asking that the Planning Commission hear their presentation. Kelley conceded, but asked that the presentation be brief. Mr. Adolph explained that the Fiebelkorns would remove hardcover from the driveway and patio areas. The pool would be used as a detention basin for the runoff. An absorption system would be installed to handle the drainage. The pool would be large enough to handle the 100 year storm 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 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1353-FIEBELKORN 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 tures of the pool from the lagoon to indicate that the pool w. visible from that point. Vegetation would also be used to n the pool from view in those areas where it would be easily seen. Mrs. Fiebelkorn added that there was a possibility that 3/lOths of an acre be acquired from a neighbor. By so doing, it would alleviate the problem concerning the 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. Fiebelkorn replied they had moved to Orono in 1985. Hanson explained the need to preserve the watershed of Lake Minnetonka. Mrs. Fiebelkorn 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. Fiebelkorn 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 J. NESSELS 1245 WOODHILL 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 asked why the point was made about the antenna being unrelated to the operation of Mr. Wessels* business. Zoning Administrator Mabusth answered that distinction was made because commercial transmitting cannot occur from residential property. She 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. Wessels informed Bellows that amateur radio operation was a hobby of his. 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 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING FILE NO. 1353 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11/23/88 TO:John & Nancy Fiebelkorn COPIES TO: Larry S. Berg 2730 Shadywood Road Fredriksen & Byron, P.A. Excelsior, MN 55331 1100 International Centre 900 Second Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55402-3397 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 11/21/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Conmission reccxmends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Denial based on finding no hardship nor any reasonable justification for granting of requested variances after-the-fact. Planning Commission discussion indicated they felt there was no way to mitigate the effects of the proposed structure or hardcover based on location and based on the precedent that approval would set. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council December 12, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fxomz Dates Michael P. Gaffrcn, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Never ^r 14, 1988 Subject: #1. nn and Nancy Fiebelkorn, 2730 Shadywood Road - After* \‘i,«-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Application - Request for after-the-fact variances to construct swimming pool and associated patio in 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. Zoning District - LR-IB, Single Family, 1-Acre, Sewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Including Applicants* Hardship Statement Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Neighbors* Letters of Non-Objection Exhibit E - Survey with Drainage Proposal Exhibit F - Staff Sketch on Survey Exhibit G - Site Plan Exhibit H - Landscape Plan Exhibit I - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit J - Hardcover Calculations as Revised by Staff Exhibit K - Drainage/Run-off Calculations from Applicants* Engineer Exhibit L - Photo From Lagoon Area Exhibit M - 1970 Airphoto (Lot Vacant) Pertinent Facts - 1. On September 6, 1988, staff was advised by an anonymous caller that a swimming pool was being constructed near the lakeshore at 2730 Shadywood Road. Upon investigation, staff found that an in-ground swimming pool had been constructed totally within the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone. A Stop Order was immediately posted. Staff met with the property owners on September 13, 1988, and advised them that the chances of gaining after-the-Iact approval for the construction were minimal at best. The p erty owners were jsjvised to place proper erosion controls immedia , until the situation was resolved. Zoning File #1353 November 14, 1988 Page 2 of 6 2. The survey provided by the applicants indicates the location of the shoreline, but does not verify that the shoreline has been drawn in at the 929.4* elevation. It is staff's opinion after viewing the site, that the 929.4 elevation contour is approximately 15* from the proposed pool apron. However, all hardcover calculations have been made based on the shoreline as shown on the survey, for the sake cf simplicity. 3. The entire sub-surface pool structure was completed prior to the Stop Work Order being posted. No work has continued since that date. 4. Hardcover in the 0-75* zone prior to commencement of construction included paved parking area, concrete patio, and portions of a second story deck. These areas comprise 868 s.f. or 10.9% in the 0-75* setback zone. Proposed hardcover in the 0-75* zone is 2,261 s.f. or 28.4%. No hardcover is normally allowed in the 0-75* zone. In the 75-250* zone, pre-existing hardcover (including approximately 1,250 s.f. of rock beds underlain by a porous fabric), is approximately 7,387 s.f. or 70.0%. Applicants propose to remove a portion of the driveway in the 75-250* zone, but alio wish after-the- fact approval for a 64 s.f. pool maintenance and supply building, which was also constructed recently and which was found by the surveyor to be encroaching 3* over the line into the neighboring property. The net result is a decrease in hardcover of 62 s.f. in the 75-250* zone, resulting in 69.5% final hardcover. HARDCOVER SUMMARY Existing Hardcover 0-75*: 868 s.f. or 10.9% Proposed Hardcover 2,261 s.f. or 28.4% 75-250’: 7,387 s.f. or 70.0%7,335 s.f. or 69.5% 5. The specific code sections for which a variance would be needed for after-the-fact approval are as follows; Zoning File #1353 November 14, 1988 Page 3 of 6 A) Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) - Structures are not allowed within the 75* lakeshore setback zone. B) Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - This pool is considered an accessory structure that is located closer to the shoreline than the average lakeshore setback line, past which no encroachment is normally allowed. C) Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - The proposed structure constitutes hardcover in excess of the 0% hardcover allowed in the 0-75* setback zone, and includes land alteration to raise the grade approximately 3* higher than the pre-existing grade, where no such land alteration is normally allowed in the 0-75* zone. D) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Also prohibits structures and land alteration within the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone. E) Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - The required side yard setback for any structure is 10*. There is no basis on which the City can grant approval for a structure that straddles a property line. Note that although this structure is *• 3ss than 120 s.f. in area, hence it does not technically requii • i permit, it still must meet the zoning setback requirements. 6. The applicants are proposing to mitigate the effects of the additional run-off created by the pool and patio, by constructing the pool apron such that all water falling on the pool and patio is contained within the pool itself, with an overflow discharge at a presumably slower rate into a drainfield to be located adjacent to the pool. Similar types of run-off infiltration structures have been suggested by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District for use in lakeshore areas, however, such a practice has not been adopted in Orono. Note that, if the drainfield system works as proposed, most of the debris and nutrients carried in the run-off would be carried into the ground for natural dispersal into the watertable. Zoning File #1353 November 14, 1988 Page 4 of 6 7. In addition to not meeting any of the City of Orono*s requirements, the pool and patio does not meet the minimum 50* setback for structures as is required by the DNR for new structures, and does not meet the criteria for being less than 250 s.f. in area as is currently proposed by the DNR in their proposed shoreland standards. For the record, the City of Orono since 1975 has maintained stricter land use and setbacks for lakeshore properties than are required by the DNR. The City has the legal right to require more restrictive standards than the DNR. 8. The applicants suggest that past dredging of the lagoon adjacent to their property is a hardship, because it has made the lot area smaller. In fact, the dry buildable lot area has not changed substantially since 1970, as can be verified by a review of the 1970 airphoto attached as Exhibit M. The house was constructed in 1972, prior to the current restrictive lakeshore zoning standards which were adopted in 1975. However, the house itself essentially meets the current 75* lakeshore/10* side/35* street setbacks. Without a doubt, this property is very restricted by current zoning ordinances. However, these restrictions are similar throughout the neighborhood and the community, and there is nothing unique or unusual about this particular situation. Regarding the applicants* description of unusual property conditions, the applicants make the statement "rear-yard area Is a bluff dropping down a relatively sheer face at the rear to the shores of an Inlet dredged out to Lake Minnetonka. The surface of applicants' rear yard Is not visible from Lake Minnetonka. The existence of a pool or proposed decking surrounding a pool cannot be seen from Lake Minnetonka.” It is a fact that the lagoon is considered part of Lake Minnetonka, that the applicants* pre-existing rear yard was very visible from the lagoon area under normal lake elevation conditions, and that the pool, proposed decking, and proposed 2-3* high retaining wall 15* from the normal shoreline of Lake Minnetonka will be very visible encroachments into the required setback area. Staff would note that the entire yard area from the house to the lake is less than a 5% slope, and in no way can be cc sidered a bluff area such as you might find on Casco Point, where "'n there is a 30-50* sheer drop from the yard to the lakeshore. Zoning File #1353 November 14, 1988 Page 5 of 6 Also note that the elevation of Lake Minnetonka (and the lagoon) on Hovenber 8, 1988 was 926.02', or 3.38* (41**) below the normal ordinary high water level of 929.4'. Discussion - Construction of this pool without obtaining a permit or any prior approval, can only be considered a flagrant violation of Orono's codes, regardless of the applicants' claim that they were unaware of the laws governing development of lakeshore property. Staff is unaware of any similar situation that has received approval before or after-the-fact in contemporary times. In the instances where the City has approved additional hardcover over and above that which pre-exists in the 0-75' zone, the majority have allowed construe-ticn only along the lines of the existing house and no closer to the lake than the existing house. Staff is unaware of any precedent situations where hardcover in the 0-75' zone was increased from 10% to as much as 28% to construct an accessory structure. This property simply is not large enough to contain the proposed pool in the limits of what the code allows, nor within the parameters of the hardcover variances which have been allowed in hardship situations for other properties in the City. Even if the drainfield system does function as proposed to mitigate the effects of the run-off, the setback variance requested is an extreme variance compared to others that have been granted in the City. As noted above, approval for the construction of the pool maintenance building 3' over a neighboring property line would be approval of a new non-conforming structure, which the City cannot allow. There does not appear to be any location within the boundaries of the property other than in the driveway in front of the garage or in the street yard, which would meet the setback standards for such a structure, i.e. 10' from side lot line, 10' from any other structure, 30' from the street lot line, and no closer to the lake than the existing house. If the pool is allowed to remain, applicants must relocate the pool maintenance and supply building. Zoning File #1353 November 14, 1988 Page 6 of 6 Staff Recoaaiendation - Staff would advise the Planning Commission to review the materials and exhibits submitted by the applicants. It would also be helpful to view this property if you have not already done so. In staff's opinion, there are no hardships that have been presented that justify allowing this pool to remain, and there are no unique circumstances about this property that would suggest that those variances would be appropriate. Approval of these after-the-fact variances would be precedent setting, and would in staff's opinion jeopardize the integrity of Orono's lakeshore policies, philosophies and ordinances. The applicants were advised from the start that staff could not in any way support this application. Staff recommends denial of the requested variances, and recommends that the pool and all associated materials be removed from the property, and that the lakeshore yard be restored to its original grade and vegetation cover. Furthermore, staff would recommend that the applicants be required to remove the pool maintenance structure, and either place it in a conforming location or remove it from the property. ^ KT i’eoi.^A CITY OP OROW) - VWIIAHCE MPLICATM^ ^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 // ^ Qsb^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) CITY OF ORO^^O Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 ^ Fli^Ar^CE OFFICE (no change from original application) i-rzAnr>/^f-\AA After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ''"'''^"'oTcEH ^00.00 ------------------ raOFERTT LOCATIOB .YtLilPr-THA® u t ^ c^:7A nM 1 OA f Tf A * ■' i/vvx IAT«V i0/26/> Site Address H730 Shodv uJoc ^cJ l€j __________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) QQ33 Please check one - Property _ _ _ abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Q \>T~\ ^ fN e_xi c_)0-g-\j^-QX-Q. Phone (home) ___ Phone (work) 0>u4-0 Address; City; Zip; ^^33)--- - - - -- -11^-^---^^-.-----—- - -- - - OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Neune Phone (work) Address:City:Zip:. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land, PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_- - - - - -. Describe request in detail:_ _ _See gvAi<a.c.V_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ __ cxrV*Vo.c.Vie^ Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side _ _ _ Rear) HT^DSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; CkAA-<voVNP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DBSCRIPTIOH OF OHOSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; ■. A_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ^ w 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date- - - - - - - - - - - - APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Jyi.Date T5 ^ OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ^ o.. a ft / - _ _ Date - - Applicant must have al3^ submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are neld on tne third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. JJ.rr 1 [ >—- ' CITY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION Application Fee = $400 This application fee includes the initial application fee of $300 to cover Applicants' request for a variance from the applicable hardcover requirements together with an additional $100 fee to cover Applicants' request for a variance from the applicable Lake Shore and Side Yard set-back Please note that these fees represent double the standard fees as required under Orono's ordinances for after-the-fact variances. PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address: 2730 Shadywood Road Property Identification Number: 21-117-23-24-0033 The Property is Registered ("Torrens") Land. The legal description of the Property is Tract . Land Survey No. 420, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Date Property Acquired: December, 1984 Applicants do not own the adjacent parcels of land. APPLICANTS John L. Fiebelkorn and Nancy L. Fiebelkorn 2730 Shadywood Road Orono, Minnesota 55331 Home Phone No.: 471-9640 Office Phone No.: 542-0500 (Please send a copy of all correspondence to: Larry J- ^erg, Fredrikson E. Byron, P.A., 1100 International Centre, 900 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3397.) PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District: Present Use of Property: 0098R LR-IB . , Single Family Residential - 1 - DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST 1. Applicants request a variance from the applicable 10-foot side yard setback requirement to enable them to maintain a pool ecjuipment shed which encroaches slightly upon the property owned by their neighbors, the Dunsheath family. When Applicants purchased the Property, the Dunsheaths advised them that a refuse container structure owned and used by the Dunsheaths encroached slightly upon Applicants' Property and requested permission of Applicants to maintain that structure. Applicants gave their consent. Applicants later constructed the subject pool equipment shed on Applicants' side of that structure. When a survey of Applicants' Proper^:y was^ later prepared. Applicants' discovered the true location of the Property boundaries. Their neighbors had been in error; the garbage container structure was completely on the Dunsheaths' property, and the pool equipment structure that Applicants had constructed encroached slightly upon their neighbor's land. 2. Applicants request a variance from the 75-foot setback requirement to permit Applicants to maintain a swimming pool constructed by Applicants earlier this summer. Prior to the construction of the subject swimming pool. Applicants were unaware of the 75-foot set-back requirement from the shores of Lake Minnetonka. Some years ago, a portion of Applicants' Property was dredged to create an inlet from Lake Minnetonka. This has resulted in the rear yard portion of Applicants' Property being reduced in size. The pool constructed on the Property is situated on a bluff in the rear yard area, and is not visible from the lake. There is no portion of Applicants' Property more than 75 feet from the shores of Lake Minnetonka upon which a pool could have been constructed. Applicants are willing to provide such landscaping as may be required by the City to provide additional screening of the pool area. 3. Applicants request a variance from the applicable hardcover requirements. Applicants desire to construct decking around the existing pool area in accordance with the plans attached to this Application. Because of the size of Applicants' lot, any such decking within the rear yard area would fall within the zero hard cover area. - 2 - Applicants have retained an engineer who has prepared plans for drainage control structures sufficient to cause the drainage on Applicants' Property to be far better following construction of Applicants' pool and any decking proposed to be constructed by Applicants then existed previously. A copy of the engineer's proposal is attached hereto. CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1. Cost of pool: $25,000.00 Pool equipment shed: $1,850.002. 3. 4. Proposed drainage control structure to be constructed by Applicants to improve drainage so as to alleviate hardcover concerns: $1,500.00 Estimated construction costs for proposed pool decking: $10,000.00 VARIANCES REQUIRED 1, Set Back variances: a. Set-back from the 75-foot Shoreline set-back requirement. b. Set-back from the 10-foot Side Yard set-back requirement. 2. Hardcover reqpiirement variance: a. variance to permit construction of pool decking in the zero hardcover area. HARDSHIP The necessity for a Side Yard set-back variance is attributable to a misunderstanding between Applicants and their neighbor as to the location of the existing Property line. The set-back from the shoreline is necessitated by the unusual configuration of Applicants' lot and the placement thereon of Applicants' home which makes all portions of their rear yard area within the 75-foot shoreline set-back area. Dredging of a - 3 - portion of their Property years ago has resulted in the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka having been artificially modified to create an inlet, the result of which is to deprive Applicants of the ability to maintain any structure whatsoever in their rear yard area. This situation also results in the need for a variance from the applicable hardcover requirement in as much as no hardcover whatsoever would otherwise be permitted in Applicants’ rear yard area. DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Applicants’ lot is small and the house constructed thereon has been placed so as to render the entire rear yard area within the zero hardcover area and the 75-foot ”no structure” set-back area. Applicants’ rear yard area is a bluff dropping down a relatively sheer face at the rear to the shores of an inlet dredged out to Lake Minnetonka. The surface of Applicants’ rear yard is not visible from Lake Minnetonka. The existence of a pool, or proposed decking surrounding a pool can not be seen from Lake Minnetonka. MISCELLANEOUS Applicants have discussed with their neighbors, the Dunsheath family, subdividing the Dunsheaths’ Property so as to permit Applicants to acquire a portion of Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 420. This would vastly improve Applicants’ hardcover ratio and would eliminate the need for the side yard variance requested by Applicants. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Attached to this Application is a certified ’Property Owners List’ showing the owners within 150 feet of Applicants’ Property. Also enclosed are ten stamped legal size envelopes pre—addressed to each of the names shown on the above—referenced ’Property Owners List’. Also attached is a certificate of survey including hardcover calculations and a copy of the Registered Land Survey. Finally, a description of the proposed drainage improvements designed by Applicants engineer is attached as are photographs taken by Applicants of Applicants' rear yard area showing the relationship of Applicants' home, pool and the shores of the inlet leading to Lake Minnetonka. - 4 - Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ October , 1988 APPLICANTS' SIGNATURE The Applicants hereby agree to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agree to pay all fees and/or usual expenses incurred in review of this Application, and certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Applicants' Signatures: —>_ _ _in/26/88 John L. Fiebelkorn N^cyfli. t it, 9 A 10/26/88 Fiebelkorn Applicants are the owners of the subject Property. - 5 - i S s|ImI % at in s SSocS SO Z Ui < K» 2* 8 X w •n UI X M VS8S S^Su.38 I U. X M Sar£®3 ro UI in lu e «■ M U ID o O X O 1 "> CM HI # 3S .. 5 i “§*3ouJ Kl O Z 3 (VI Ui i O W §1 M(VI in e ~8 m UI S ©w.c h» (VI X K o UI 2g£*UI X UI B U__3& e 3 UI ^ 3 S M UI UI m 88“ ® — - S UI ►" H (VI ID UI < UI e in u UI 8 ? (VI B 3 UI UI UI S^bS53, ~S^ " 0 (vi< < X in o a. a. (VI UI 8Sgx3 J* -j ~8z 8 j3 O UIin u X(VI UI 0 <M ■u 0sso LKORN ET LKORN AN E LKORN 00 RD 553310 0 «■ 8 N P 0 «n 0 5 00 0 *;*38888SiE 0 0 M >• M M 0 Q B 0 B 1 a 83 UI ^ > ut < M iis M M M »• CL B lU < (VI 0 H> m Z X O 0 o X X m >• 8Sgg8g in oo weo I I 0 UIs 1 s:|88P 2*3398 i "’“’ga 0l3^^?i!30 O UI Ui (VI UI s 8 M 0 0 (VI 0 (VI 0 : 0 0 UI s 8lil m4 *=g8 < < 0|g“ oltsli S9s:sg I »- X M_ 0 C 0 8 M 2 0 UI «S9383 (VI B 0 B 0 BM o 0 B S ^ ~ 5oo 3 < B O >i % <3 2 B a g203 g CL SS!£clS£^ 8a O £m 0 O O B O ^ Rw a 0 0 B 0 8 S 8 M 58-. ^ 5 0 N 0 0 8 _ (VI B >; 0 0 0 0 85 “5 b> «• < o 89 X X I*.U 0 0O B _ -i 0 Z O 0 1 m4 *-8 «U X 0 M 0 5 X e ^ n 0 0 0 B 8i O 3 B P 520< B < 0 B 1 a 0 a XS§3ia o K ao £ 8 < S 8 8 ^isg-I I- M z^3 2 0 583 -J 0 0 § 8 < B a Z0< O I- 0 0 0 0 :i R , 0 0 *-88890 UI UI U. (VI 1^ '^58 M to 0 __5 5 “9S - O — ^ M -I 0 8 _____B--_ O X B 0 U O O 0 O -J O -» -» *-i 0 0 B B X a o <oc a p Z 0 < <5 >• N « “ 5 iy o. 0 a X #])o4 'Ui’ 5_--' ■■" September 12, 19b8 To Whom It May Concern: I do not object to the Fiebelkorns pool project at 2730 Shadywood Road, Excelsior, Minnesota and this project does not obstruct our view in anyway. Signature b o u ^ S vj ^ s Ue 0.4- ^ Name (print) ^7 VO S> V SI Address ^ ^ c e. f c > o r____AA a7_______5^ ^ 3* ^ Legal Description Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 420, Hennepin County, Minnesota u 7T Q J September 12, 1988 To Whom It May Concern: I do not object to the Fiebelkorns pool project at 2730 Shadywood Road, Excelsior, Minnesota and this project does not obstruct our view in anyway. „ (J. /■/ Signature /AJ. a/ _ _ _ _ Name (print) _ , Legal Description Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 420, Hennepin County, Minnesota 'l ‘ V *. i • I j September 12, 1988 To Whom It May Concern: I do not object to the Fiebelkorns pool project at 2730 Shadywood Road, Excelsior, Minnesota and this project does not obstruct our view in anyway. S^fgnature S]n. c5 . Name (print)(— , AddTjgfs / / Legal Description Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 420, Hennepin County, Minnesota SURVEY FOR: MR. and MRS. JOHN FIEBELKORN € \ \ PREPARED BY' ^ SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. tNOINeCNS . SOBVtYOM planniH* . BOIL rttriNo ••••• wavxata aivo ••INIIiTOHAA.III.. |(a«, ititi Kt-riti exHF MINNETONKA <S ^ SouCs-CW/^et^ /ve^AS. //^E>ICAT^ peDeo5(^ F/A^AU HAKJ>CP^^ ^ wi 1L ' ''\l ? rApC'r*^^ w ‘l\*: \ T-rT" I? ilKiU W; -■*^1IIKI uioz UI Q H-4 CO UIoc Ss cn UI oo u V > o o ■o . w JO er* c «> M Xu oo 00 C\J CO o Ln CT» « •• Ik• ' m «k• M ' Ik • m m Ik• •1 M i Ik M i Ik• •1 « Ik 9m » « •m » I %4 « •1 1 #o •J<•J ft*g oo CM VO COr>. CO oJ cr»oo M < ft*e VO CO VO asto cn CO VO CVJ ,, in CM O 00 to r— 4-> (U QO O O CL Q Of T3 C C i. e »9 «Mo u a O *0< « U o a e <0* 3 iJ u o o H O •Vw « so JiC ao03ftt liftt JOftE ftr M.a •M +j 0) 0)VO•C A) O’ in in o•r* «l in r>.•M•S r-s.ID-o CLcc • 1 ‘r-o • JC >»X ■M.<u 0)•r—.o <u e«•O >1«o o c**oM0)OI *r«>>•M ft. ft.i-oooCL bJ U £ CO iCoc § zo M < 3 U iJ<u (k! U> Oua £ X oo 0 1oo in o 0 in 1om r* 0in M 1 in in I ® •i •: *! *i *i "2 i i i ; i i •: *: •: ■“ •! *:■ *| VO CO '51' VO CTI OOi CV'I COim o > — ou M «l uSo s N O' J< cu 2 ** o kto ft) kkhhk ************»*>*x»*><mk m 3 00 CM >4• 50» W<« >V* u o s. •a •H VO •o o ** o <0 «> o. o o C >H xH 4) e>2 *••»*!U FT4 « «« « n k fH *D « • a «c « <o • • k C >*jC •J « 3 O « k JZ**o 1M 2 M K M> §ee< X M H (O ►4 ft) < H O H.. . X iWAt^YoJooli (ptt^^viwr OKA CMAVPy S‘'^«»m/T7"»«^ Q-n^ Pg^-ey</iTTMg> J *4. *" ^Vs.-C. 3>icn/ewKr^ * 3^V g/> .. ■ ___________ iTaTJr B^2> f ~>^rD V^j’<---—• ilf<fST?^Cm, P/gpror^ fbo^- 4-» .! fjeno ^MyCitOMAJ^ I j I; . lUSTktt^thiC /2flT7cyi> “7C.^ &4. 0C> si. Z2.U / 5 Sr. ZZ.U{ y^2>8.V/<> <D-7X* C» }0^flmO sJl, (s'97y • - ^ /^tt\ Lmj^ X 32.i) ■ *7^-S 5.4. ,!!>«.(\)*fv-»A^ ZB?C) - PA?no^e<< (T«->H7>A.C4y2-f) ‘ || ^OfKoVtfiC^iajC^ /^ro s4.~^.. ^1 ^^^^^Arufc>^(l©AiC^ 6 “>‘V'o' ^ -gQQ ^.4. ± _________ 7 3 3") 7337 ^^7gTo /4 I <-_ «crsr7A/c 7x-^ro• 7r'3rO' /®i2^<»oseX^ ---; \•*. * . J - ta«^»-ov/r //4 ii. i>/eii/e»^*^ - Arf^ti 6*4^. S.C., (teU (i^AJi-, Ql.b&. ........ - ^)r7“ - . S’2.aJP,.<*«»-tertOAJ . .......... -7 a a*? - 5-1 * -733S~ if.- .. . .. .. 7aii" -r r^.O -Ihfl.S-'A. | ■«-----ts^zio’., ___ ^. ___ .....;? «l Mas Z>«TP«Af/Alefik TWA^ /eoCK gtfCAS UAJlO«e/AfAJ fiV____ poieotKS __i^iilLSr Co^iiDcre^s^ ^S HA*AJik<::£>w^AL. ___ Fb(fc» C^l-^^LAT76/vJ_v*lA^2^C36iS^ . ....... .......................... schoell &madson .inc . < DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FIEBELKORN POOL PROJECT 2730 SHADYWOOO ROAD Drainage Concept: To mitigate the effect on storm runoff of the additional Impervious surface area of the swimming pool and adjacent patio, the pool would be utilized as a detention basin with the patio areas sloped to drain runoff Into the pool. An overflow from the pool would drain the runoff Into a soil absorption water disposal system. Impervious Surface Area: Pool Spa Adjacent Patio 736 square feet 33 1040 1809 square feet Required Detention Storage Volume In Pool; Use SCS Method, 100 year frequency, 24 hour storm From Fig. 1-8, Ralnf?’’ » 5.9 In. Use SCS Curve No. 98 »*om Table 3-3 Runoff * 5.67 In. Detention Volume * i,., square feet x 5.67 In.855 ft? 12 in/ft Storage Volume Available Pool 4 Spa 11 Inches freeboard (filter outlet to patio level) Volume “736 square feet » 33 square ft. x 11 In. 12 In/ft. Assume flooding patio area (no overflow) Maximum depth on patio - 2 In., avg. depth - 1 In. 675 ft. y •V 0 • Additional depth over pool Volume (patio) ■ 1040 s.f. x 1 In. * 12 in/ft Volume (pool) = 736 s.f. x 2 In. * 12 in/ft Total 86 22 ft.C^ 883 ftr Final design of soil absorption water disposal system will require soil borings and percolation tests to determine absorption rates. VIEW FROM MOUTH OF LAGOON ENTRANCE, SHOWING SCREENING OF POOL AREA (see plan S-1) ffnr iUL : . V: fj«? Mm f. ‘ t 14-‘iP^ .'^€ ^nm tiM- pspis^ 7' j J^li h^^r<\W ^r", V n ST >A L J /I ,4--. ii A . "7 / >'■ % .»J j^io ^[itethro /'V ’CC ,C"• ' ^Vi 7 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: January 17, 1989 Subject: #1360 Robert & Margaret Merkow/John & Phyliss Charlton, 2340/2380 Abingdon Way - Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements Resolution Application - Vacation of drainage and utility easements in conjunction with lot line rearrangement application #1354. Zoning District - RR-IB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo & Exhibits of 1/11/89 Exhibit B - Resolution Exhibit C - Notice of Planning Commission Action Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of January 11, 1989. This request for vacation of drainage and utility easements is related to the lot line rearrangement which was approved by the Council in December. Planning Commission at their January 17, 1989 meeting recommended on a vote of 7-0 to approve the requested vacation, finding that: 1) vacation does not affect access or or use of any adjoining property, 2) the City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the portions of dedicated drainage and utility easements in question, 3) the portions of dedicated drainage and utility easements in question serve no public purpose, 4) the portions of dedicated drainage and utility easements as a result of a recent lot line rearrangement no longer coincide with the boundaries between the properties at 2340 and 2380 Abingdon Way, 5) the property owners have granted similar drainage and utility easements over the new lot lines. Staff RecooiBendation - Staff recommends approval of the drainage and utility easement vacation request, based on the above findings, per the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNUSED PORTION OP DEDICATED DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 2340 & 2380 ABINGDON WAY WITHIN THE PLAT OP ABINGDON GLEN SECTION 03, TOWNSHIP 117, RANGE 23 IN THE CITY OP Otiv^NO, MINNESOTA PILE NO. 1360 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1988, Robert and Margaret Merkow and John and Phyliss Charlton filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of drainage and utility easements originally dedicated within the plat of Abingdon Glen, legally described as follows: The Easterly 5.00 feet of Lot 10, Block 1, Abingdon Glen according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of the Southerly 10.00 feet and Southerly of the Northerly 10.00 feet thereof. Also; The Westerly 5.00 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, Abingdon Glen lying Northerly of the Southerly 10.00 feet and Southerly of the Northerly 10.00 feet thereof. WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 17, 1989 regarding said vacation and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation and the Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings; 1. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoj-iiing property. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the portion of dedicated drainage and utility easement described above. 3. The portion of dedicated drainage and utility easement as it exists serves no public purpose. 4. The portion of dedicated drainage and utility easement as a result of a recent lot line rearrangement, no longer coincides with the boundary between the properties at 2340 and 2380 Abingdon Way. Page 1 of 2 The affected property owners have granted similar drainage and utility easements 5' either side of the new boundary between the two properties. HOW, THBRSPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD that the petition of Robert and Margaret Merkow and John and Phyliss Charlton is hereby granted and that the portion of dedicated drainage and utility easement legally described above 3^ hereby vacated. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, regular meeting held January 2**, 1989. ATTEST: Minnesota at a Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me cn this day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _, 19_ _ _, by James R. Gracek & a Minnesota _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _f Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of th* City of Crono, »l?nicipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission t. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1360 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMIT IION ACTION Date of Notice; 1/19/89 TO:Robert & Margaret Merkow 2340 Abingdon Way Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES:John & Phyliss Charlton 2380 Abingdon Way Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OP APPLiCA;?10N: Easement Vacation DATE OP MEETING: 1/17/89 VOTE:7 For 0 Against Pl^uming Comnisslon recoonends the following: Approval as submitted Applicants' next scheduled meeting confirmed as: City Council Monday, January 23, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: FROM: DATE: Subject: Planning Coininissica Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 1 Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator January 11/ 1989 #1360 Robert & Margaret Merkow/John & Phyllis Charlton/ 2340/2380 Abingdon Way - Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-lB Application: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements in conjunction with Lot Line Rearrangement Application #1354. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Legal Descriptions Discussion -* This vacation of existing easements is the second phase of the previously approved application for a lot line rearrangement. The lot line has been revised as shown in the survey/ and the intent of the current ap’^’lcation is to remove the old drainage and utility easements along the fo er lot lines/ which the City would normally approve as long as new sivtiiar drai) age and utility easements are granted. The property owners have granted the new drainage and utility easements. There are no conflicts with existing utilities involved in this vacation action. The vacation and granting of the new easements along new property lines is appropriate. Staff Rc omendation - Staff recommends approval of the drainage and'utility easement vacation request based upon the following findings: 1. ’*’he vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. The City has not and d'as not intend to develop/ improve or use the portions of dedicated drainage and utility easements in question. 3. The portions 1 dedicated drainage and utility easements in question serve no puolic purpose. 4. The portions of dedicated drainage and utility easements/ as a result of a recent lot line rearrangement/ no longer coincide with the boundaries between the properties at 2340 & 2380 Abingdon Way. zvn OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Z^Vo/zS&O MTIOH -----^ I ^88=55^ 7 o2-//7^E 2.3 OO// Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) • - ^0/2- Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? ‘TV r.c nz-riAini : ui L.*i\w/tw (for Conditional Use Applications only)rrsMAfrr nccrrcI ^iirrMuu t sLfU 1350200000 Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. [ucrK Q1 GEH 50,0( 50. OC STOT.rra wy Name K<A^^A^2>4rr~ /H. P. Phone (home) -WW‘ fivi 716- Phone (work) V73 "■ 12/05/ Address 2.SVO /4^/AJ6b>Q City U L-Zip lamtim, (if different than applicant) Name CMa^tDaJ Phone (home) :? 3 3 - VO. f Phone Address 2>3^Q /te//Q^b>o<0 U^fk^City Z>Zip Date Property Accjuired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS •- Renewal Pee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee SI'* • 00 a).Residential accessory Use $150.00 b)Institutional (church, school, etc.)■. ... * . ' $150.00 c)Duplex Credit/Bldg - - $250.00 d)Commercial/Industrial Use r$200.00 _ _ _ _ _ ‘ N f)Land Alteration .. ^ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd.or more - —7;':-Grading, seawall, retaining walls within .75* • «• -r ■ .of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule • ; - - -U , f ■'■■ ■ ........ APPLICATIONS - —• . ... - •• * «• . . • . ..4m. * * ‘ • '$150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (t consultant fees) / $250.00 Vacation • * _ : Easement Vacation * J^]$^0.0p^Easement Vacation With Subdivision ^250.”00 Rezoning $100.00 Appeals I other - see fee schedula PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property /Cre-ia Residential^ Otli^ (cpooify)—^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ' 3. ^4. /k. fA /'A/2At^T T>fC\ ihJey'i- \ lUIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) preT-^dre^ed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. I (J Certificate of survey. — ------^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). Plat Map. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required o. requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her ...Applicant's signature OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and v/^ri^ica^^ioj^ pf tbi^s request. Date J(Owner's sicmature-^fe^y/^-) AAfti Applicant must have^ll submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commissior Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of uhis change prior to the meeting. z7 e m 6 03. os SS‘w \ S . •• '■ V ■i-Vir>C ■'ftl - •* ..if-, ♦••* l'‘y^ ' •: V -..t; V' .•:• *‘4> M. 5 ^ \ \M V <o .;ii - " • u ,*f - ■ J-.- ■ *'!•• • * «.v. . , Z64-.Oi S' O M.Si ; X'TT'i rVSii ■-V- .^ L M a. • lUn iIII ae rmt ss uimu :2:6 s« 7®:«s ®ss§“5e S MIII »o e ^ atIp P III M 2 ^ HI S Si a! PC Z ui O HIJ e IP u HI Z .S“isi IP e e o IP ^ t f. r I <. 2 p S Sv§“ IPZ<Sg.P •I O M«s-'*saM 2 P Z M IP fiSzS^s^SsSz “$^S p5 M Z > -« tt PM < W < m e o o p HI iI Svii «SSrr g sf^SS- M Z Z S z 7 5-S5 Sog“^2 IP e n M -1 M -"S m HI ^ p P p-mm M B Z ZI O M MKozr -• U. II. ^ o o OPHIH. c o J2 SPopp <^2Is< -*a ssg s;!t p = 5Sft3l2 -p£|tt|S rgfeSis 7 silsxls § M m s s p o HIu. ®^5§>-S:|iirrseeii p<mkZui 29S$ZHI S |as3 2 8833 m^mmB pmmmmoI e Z Z M liJ B si < iu PM IP O HI III M -J "ii 2o o B HI HI SiSff" aIss-* B M “ -Z®®gHI 8p553^gNoSgsgggs m B P p i"ss S 2*Ss»® 2s ®- “is ^55p o u S p li ft z giis^ B P HI ii*i COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING 482 -A TAMARACK AVENUE LONG LAKE, MINN. 88388# B 473-4141 —i— u 11-30-88 -f! 1 o fy r\ A f PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR DRAINAGE & UTILIir EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED IN LOTS 9 & 10. BLOCK 1. ABINGDON GLEN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA A. That part of the easterly 5.00 feet of Lot 'lO, Block 1, ABING< DON GLEN, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, which lies southerly of the northerly 10.00 feet of said Lot 10 and which lies northeasterly.of thelsouthwesterly 10.00 feet of said Lot 10. B. That part of the westerly 5.00 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, ABING­ DON GLEN, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, which lies southerly of the northerly 10.00 feet of said Lot 9 and which lies northeasterly of the southwesterly 10.00 feet of said Lot 9. •pos Planning Commission Chairman Kelly - Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: January 10, 1989 Subiect: #1361 Orono School District #278, 950 Old Crystal Bay Rd No - Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easement - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.12 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List ^ ^ Exhibit C - Legal Description of Utility & Drainage Easements to be Vacated Exhibit D - Plat of Crystal Crest Exhibit E - Resolution #2249 Approving Metes & Bounds Class I Subdivision of Lot 2, Crystal Crest Exhibit F - Orono School Expansion Plat Review of Application - Per the directives of Orono Resolution #2249 (lot line rearrangement of Lot 2, Crystal Crest), Exhibit E, specifically Condition 2 of ^^^t resolution, the current owner of Lot 2, Block 2 Orono School Expansion, the Orono School District, seeks the vacation of the drainage and utility easements that run for approximately 630 along the shared north and south boundaries of Lots 1 and 2 of the former Crystal Crest plat. The drainage and utility easement serves no public purpose and in the*^present location within newly platted Lot 2, Block 2 encroacl^s the buildin^g envelope. Note that the proposed vacation. Exhibit C, excludes the east portion orono s'^hoeasement that exists along the east side of Lot 2, Block 2, Orono Sc Expansion. Staff Recommendation - TO recommend approval of the proposed vacation of t^ejrainage and utility easement as described on Exhibit C based on the following findings. 1. The drainage and utility easement serves no public purpose. 2. The location of the drainage and utility easement within Bot 2, Block 2, Orono School Expansion places severe restriccions on the building evelope. 3. The proposed vacation will still maintain 25’ of drainage and utility easement along the east side and 10' on the west side of Lot 2, Block 2, Orono School Expansion. Zoning File #1361 January 19, 1988 Page 2 of 2 Additional Coaaents and Planning Connd.88ion Reconnendation - Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed vacation of drainage and utility easements as described on Exhibit C. The enclosed staff resolution has been drafted for review and action. A RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION’S OP A DRAINAGE ft UTILITY EASE^.^:NT ffITHIN LOT 2, BLOCK 2, ORONO SCHOOL EXPANSION SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23 IN THE CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 1361 WHEREAS, the Cit^ of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 1988, Orono Schc^l District #278 filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of drainage and utility easement originally dedicated within the plat of Crystal Crest, legally described as follows: That part of the South 5 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Crystal Crest according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying East of the West 652 feet of said Lot 1, and West of the East 25' of said Lot 1; That part of the North 5 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Crystal Crest according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying East of the West 652 feet of said Lot 2, and West of the East 25 feet of said Lot 2. WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 17, 1989 regarding said vacation and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested vacation and the Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1. That portion of the Jrainage and utility easements serve no public purpose. 2. The location of the drainage and utility easement within Lot 2, Block 2, Orono School Expansion places severe restrictions on the building envelope. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the petition of Orono School District #278 is hereby granted and that the portion of the dedicated drainage and utility easement legally described above is hereby vacated. Page 1 of 2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held January 23, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r 13_ _ _, by James R, Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 2 of 2 CITY OP OROPO - GENERAL LAND USE PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address_ _ _O /d. OOOO -}^J So, oo /X ~/2—H ■ i 7^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) .ooo 2, >/~ooo3 Please check one - Property abstract or (for Conditional Use Applications only) torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name t \ !e f- Phone (home) 4^*73 Phone (work) ^^75 — Address City U-fa. Zio OWNER (if different than applicant) Vame ^c-,Uo q /_______________ Phone (home) Phone Vr3 -73/3 Address ^ro " &/d City Zt'p & i> 3 S ^ A " ^Date Prooertv Acouired / (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. IK "S - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -FimCE OFFICE Af ter-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee 1350200000 01 QErl Au*'/ a W$100.00 a)Residential accessory Use CHECK ' Ti 150.00 $150.00 b)Institutional (churchr school, etc.> liECtlPT-WANK rOU' $150.00 c)Duplex Credit/Bldg cool r<01 T10:C 12/13/S^ $250.00 d)Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f)Land A^ '.eration ^.i.ading and filling - designated wetland or fl odplain G.’ ding and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more C dding, seawallr retaining walls within 75* f ' lakesliore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Basement Vacation'"' “ $ 50.00 Easemc It Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning _ _ _ _ $10U.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property _ _ _ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: -F REQUIRED SVIBNITTRLS 1. Completed Application Form. Certifi Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government St^pedf^legal^^ sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certificate of survey. . \:ing and proposed contours) if land ,n elevation (grades), able (see staff for requirements). 2. 3. 4. 5.Topographic survey ' alterations involve ch. 6. Construction plan, if aj^ 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning 0t.4.cials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-— - - - - - - - -33 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^ . .The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administra^^or, agrees to pay all fees end/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tru^ and correct to the best of his/her knowledge• Applicant's signature Date ONNERS SIGNATURE , j ^ 4.^,The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for y uvposes of investigation and verification of this .v^quest. Owner's signature ____________________________________ Date -----------------------------^ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 day* fore the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are n < on the third Monday of each mouth. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant ts unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an ^authorized agent attend in your place and advi.-ie the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. c m4 I s| Iif X s i o<< fO “ -I -e # X s 10 sS eeo an ^ to ca X SSgaPPSSi!lO M ||s^ s3o p4 e S sssfiP:i s meee §01 £u Ul « Nese »oeo £ M tjJ UJ UJ 2 10 S 5 X OT ^ X O r- H UJ UI M1 X _ JXIO s|5_i 2 X .j.2|2?s se t00950 ALBIN ALBIN I W 1 LONGin life -j S 1- K ? Se uii ee i g ee n to r K K H> Ik lo gg3» X s H ^X 10 «« >4 b5SS I O H CO -j to V) X O M M X a a A -j -j"ggg iisi< >- X illi ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street R O. Box 148 Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 RE: ORONO SCHOOL EXPANSION rr ’*1 L December 8, 1988 3- , y n>o i UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATIONS Portion in Lot 1 That part of the south 5.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, CRYSTAL CREST, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of the west 652.00 feet of said Lot 1 and west of the east 25.00 feet of said Lot 1. Portion In Lot 2 That part of the north 5.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, CRYSTAL CREST, according to the reocrded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of the west 652.00 feet of said Lot 2 and west of the east 25.00 feet of said Lot 2. . ^ f'h f« •l|■..N•IIIM ‘••f)'| liMill M.NHM-|,| ‘'..IIIA.IA.III', |»l»f I '■..(•MM I till I •l•llls.Mlll^H JO oins «'n j‘> s«i’i o'H .lopim joAoajos pupi pur januiDuj |MI3 pajaisifotj Xfnp c BP r irgi pur uoisia •jddns }3aj|p Xb japun jo aw Xq pajrdajd ■ SPM XaAjns sim qru3 Xjnuo3 Xqajag i 'ii ^ •asajo jrasXjj *i ^poia ‘i joi pur -joajaga aaaj 00‘2W as»H «m xo asp3 6u|X| i joi jo urd arm '8 •asaj3 irasXjo *| naoia *2 ad ;o aaaj oo*2W asan am *» ‘suoiad|jQsao |r6ai pasodoj^ 1S3M 1V1SAMD •» 5(3018 *2 P«» I $aoi *D •$uoiadiJ3$ao irBaa 6u}as|*3 CiTVf : ^QROlUa City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2249_ _ _ _ _ _ A RBSOLDTION APPROVIHG A METES AND BOUNDS CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR THE ORONO COMMUNITY CHURCH FILE NO. 1179 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by the Orono Community Church, (hereinafter " the subdivider") of property legally described on the certificate of survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated 7/1/87 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the metes and bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds division of a lot line rearrangement for the Orono Community Church as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated 7/1/87, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall deed to the City drainage and utility easements 5 feet on each side of the newly proposed lot line. 2. The drainage and utility easement along the north side of Parcel B will not be vacated until combined Parcels B & C are subdivided at some future date. 3. Parcels B & C as referenced on the attached survey shall be legally combined for tax purposes at the Orono City offices prior to the filing of this subdivision with Hennepin County Recorder's Office or the Registrar of Titles Office. 4. This resolution, the attached Certificate of Survey and the above referenced documents shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or the Registrar of Titles Office on or before February 24, 1988. Page 1 of 2 I*-. ' ' ‘ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2249__________ afiapia '7.7 tt i) 'W' ■O V*- # ei The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the subdivision has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council on this 24th day of August, 1987. ATT2Sr; /)L:z£jyh. /Dofothy I^-Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 2 . i TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE: January 18, 1989 SUBJ: Resolution Approving MSA Expenditure of Funds During the review and approval process of the reconstruction of County Road 15, it was determined that Orono's share of the costs of the reconstruction would be funded partly by MSA (Municipal State Aid) funds. Because this is considered spending MSA monies off the system, a requirement to do so is for an official council action requesting approval by way of a resolution. Recommendation - To approve Resolution #_ _ _ _ authorizing the use of $200,000.00 of MSA funds toward the City's share of the cost for the reconstruction of County Road 15. ___moved, ____________ seconded, to _________ authorizing the use of $200,000.00 MSA funds toward the City's share of the cost for the Proposed Motion - approve Resolution # of O reconstruction of County Road 15. TO: Mayor Grabek and Citifj^uncil FROM: Mark E. Bernhardsonfjlf a Forwarded recommending approval. 3 APPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL STATB-AID FUNDS TO C.S.A.H. 15 WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Orono to participate in the cost of a construction project located on C.S.A.H. 15 within the limits of said municipality, and WHEREAS, said construction project has been approved by the Department of Highways and identified in its records as S.A.P. No. 152-020-06. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that we do hereby appropriate from our Municipal State-Aid Street Funds the sum of $200,000.00 to apply toward the construction of said project and request the Commissioner of Highways to approve this authorization. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 1989. day of ATTEST; Q Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) this The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on day of , 19 . , by James R. Grabek and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 1 of 1 121388.5 /O TO Mayor and City Council FBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: January 18, 1989 - - -- SUBJECT: 1989 Appointments Attachment: A. Proposed 1989 Appointments Resolution 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 nov/ 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 12/31/91 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 . j - 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 fesolution 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 Commission) • Ayes _, Nays A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SELECTED APPOINTMENTS FOR THE TEAR 1989 BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that th appointments aua assignations 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 - 4M Fund Norwest Bank Minneapolis Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Mpls. Dain Bosworth, Inc., Mpls. Franklin Savings Assn., Ottowa, KS APPOXHTMENT/DESIGNATION 1989 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 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 & Cc.'lnc., 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 Grabek Melvin Kilbo Mark Bernhardson (Alternate) LaDean McWilliams Marc McCabe (Alternate) Steve Anderson, Mtka Fire Inspector Tom Anderson, Hopkins Building Officia! 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, Mir esota, at a regular meeting held January 23, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor II Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Date:January 17, 1989 Subject: Procedures for Marina License Review The City of Orono has licensed marinas since the early 1960s. In the 1970s and through 1985, a "marina committee" in conjunction with staff, reviewed marina license applications on an annual basis and recommended approval or disapproval to the City Council. The marina committee typically consisted of three members, one from Council and two from the Planning Commission. City codes do not specifically recognize, authorize or specify duties of a Marina Committee, although formation of such a committee is probably not strictly prohibited. Note that the creation of boards and commissions is regulated under Section 2.50 which suggests that such boards or commissions should be more of a formal nature (copy attached). The Marina Committee in the past has functioned strictly as a recommending body regarding licensing of marinas, but has had no definite authority to make land use or license approval decisions. Marina licensing historically has been approved or disapproved by the City Council based on issues which may or may not be strictly under City jurisdiction. Often, in an attempt to show a united front with the LMCD, the City has withheld licenses based on dock use issues which are not specifically regulated in Orono codes. On other occasions, the City has been in opposition to LMCD interpretations and has issued licenses without consulting the LMCD (case in point is the Chaska Marina dock layout in relation to neighboring properties, in which the LMCD was pushing for a dock layout that in the opinion of the affected neighbor and City staff was more of a problem to the neighbor than what the marina had in place). Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 2 of 6 City staff has attempted to direct dock use issues to the LMCD, although the significant issue which held up North Shore Drive Marina’s 1985 license had to do with dockage of the marina owner's private boat within the required dock setback area. Arguably, the City's only legitimate specific concern was whether that extra slip required additional parking space on land. Two of the six full-scale marina operations in Orono have been the subject of recent land use applications which authorized major renovations, and which involved a complete review of the land use issues. The remaining marinas are ripe for similar re-development, which in each case would undoubtedly require specific variances. Staff is obviously geared-up to do such reviews as they come up, but was unable to free-up time in 1988 to do a thorough licensing review of each existing marina as was hoped for. An update review and analysis of the degree to which each marina conforms to existing codes may be a good objective, but may take as much as one or two full days for each marina, to accomplish. Staff would note for the record that marina licensing in Orono in the 1980s has been relatively ineffective, from the standpoint that specific marinas have been operating for many years without licenses. The City has not seen fit to attempt to gain compliance by shutting them down, apparently because of the extremely high attorney fees and staff time that would be involved, coupled with the fact that the concerns generally are not strictly related to health, safety or welfare. Staff questions whether licensing of marinas is a practice that should continue, and that is the reason in 1986 and 1 987 the City was looking at the possibility of making them a conditional use in the B-2 zone. That concept met with opposition from some of the marina operators and has never been followed through. Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 3 of 6 There are three distinct issues Council should consider regarding future dealings with marina licenses; 1. Should there or should there not be a Marina Committee? 2. Shoul.d the City license or not license marinas? 3. Should marinas continue to be an allowed use in the B-2 zone, or should they become a conditional use? Staff Reconiieiidatioii ~ In staff's opinion, a number of factors point towards the conclusion that the City should discontinue licensing marinas. First, the City has or>ly indirect jurisdiction over dock use areas, dock layouts, and numbers of slips. These items are all regulated by the LMCD and the DNR. The City also has no jurisdiction over dredging, other than when spoils are placed on land areas within the City. Secondly, marina licensing mer ly serves as a duplicity of regulation, in that the licensing standards are virtually identical to the B-2 zoning district performance standards. Any changes in intensity of use, or any construction or renovation of buildings, requires a commercial site plan review by the Planning Commission and Council. Where code standards are not met, a land use variance application will be required, as it would be for any other business. Because all the marinas are substandard in their jagree of conformance with performance standards (i.e. hardcover), virtually any change in a marina operation will result in a variance application. Procedures for Marina License Review January 17/ 1989 Page 4 of 6 Thirdly, marina licensing or denial of licenses has not been a significant factor in the continuation of marina operations. For instance, Gayle's Marina has not been licensed since the 1980 license year, yet the City Council in that time period has apparently felt that the issues outstanding were not worth the battle of trying to shut down the marina operation. By allowing continued operation without an effective reprimand, the licensing procedure becomes valueless. Furthermore, it is apparent that the old philosophy that it will be "problematic" to sell a marina that doesn't have a current license has proven to be false. Case in point is the Maxwell Bay Marina, which was not issued a 1985 license, but ultimately sold in 1986 or 1987 and is currently operating under new ownership and new management. Regarding the issue of formation of a marina committee, staff feels that unless such a committee has a c^istinct responsibility and authority, it has little value. In past practice, the marina committee's only function has been to provide an initial screening of the issues, but has never effectively had the authority to do anything about them without full Council action. Frankly, instead of wasting time with a sub-committee, if there are issues that need to be resolved regarding a marina, staff feels it would be more efficient to bring those issues directly to Council through a land use application or commercial site plan review, whichever is most appropriate. Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 5 of 6 Regarding changing the code to make marinas a conditional use in the B-2 district, the City would face a court battle with 4 of the 6 major marinas. The marinas feel that they have a distinct right t*^ exist as an allowed use, but would face a much less secure existence if they became a conditional use. The B-2 commercial district was created specifically for marina operations. All of our marina operations exist within B-2 zoning districts. If marina operations became a conditional use in the B-2 district, then, presuming the current performance standards on file are continued, none of the marinas would meet the required standards and you would end up granting variances right off the bat. The only value, then, in making marinas a conditional use in the B-2 zone is to ensure any new marina operations starting up would have to meet the new conditions. The City already has this type of control in its B-2 zoning standards. In summary, staff feels that there are three factors that support discontinuation of marina licensing: 1. The City has limited jurisdiction over dock use areas, layouts, number of slips and dredging. Tne City's main jurisdiction lies in land use controls. 2. Marina licensing is an unnecessary duplicity of regulation. Any changes to a marina operation requires a commercial site plan review as a minimum, and often requires a land use application, both processes which are under final authority of the City Council. 3. Denial of licenses has not been an effective reprimand, nor has it Increased compliance with the codes. Lack of license has proven to not be a deterrent to the sale of marinas. Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 6 of 6 Regarding the existence of a marina committee, staff feels that in the past the marina committee has been ineffective because it has no authority to negotiate or approve licenses. The marina committee has no mandate for its existence in the municipal code. Regarding making marinas a conditional use within the B-2 zoning district, staff feels that a zoning code change of that magnitude would result in a long and expensive lawsuit with questionable result. Finally, staff recommends that if marina licensing is continued, it should be merely an automatic, administrative procedure similar to our licensing of other businesses such as garbage haulers and septic contractors. Until such time that the Council decides to take a strict enforcement attitude towards making existing "grandfathered" marinas up­ grade to meet current zoning standards, the licensing process is nothing but a fund-raising tactic. 3287.12 D 3 ORDINANCE NUMBER 31, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE SECTION 2.50 ENTITLED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS GENERALLY AND SECTION 2.51, ENTITLED PLANNING COMMISSION, SUED. 1. The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 2.50 and entitled Boards and Commissions Generally is amended to read: All Board and Commission appointments authorized by ordinance shall be made by the Council at the first regular meeting in January of each year unless another appointment date is established elsewhere in ordinance. The term of each appointee shall be established and stated at the time of his appointment, and terms of present Board and Commission members may be re-established and changed so as to give effect to this Section. New appointees shall assume office immediately. Provided, however, that all appointees to Boards and Commissions shall hold office until their successor is appointed and qualified. All vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as for an expired term, but the appointment shall be only for the unexpired term. No appointed Board or Commission member shall be an employee of the City, but an ex officio member may be so employed. All appointed Board and Commission members shall serve without remuneration, but may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their duties when such expenses have been authorized by the Council before they were incurred. The officers shall be appointed by the Council annually. Any Board or Commission member may be removed by the Council for any reason and his position filled as any other vacancy. Each Board and Commission shall hold its regular meetings at a time established and approved by the Council. Boards and Commissions created by resolution shall terminate when the purpose for which they were created has been accomplished or upon the expiration of the terms stated in the resolution. Except as otherwise provided, this Section shall apply to all Boards and Commissions. Section 2.51 and entitled Planning Commission is amended to read: Subd. 1. A Planning Commission composed of seven members, who serve staggered 3 year terms is hereby established. The period of these terms is from 1 April to 31 March and shall be appointed by the 2nd business meeting in March. It is the policy of the Council to appoint persons to the Planning Commission as follows: Two of the members shall reside in and be appointed to represent the Rural Service Area of the City as defined in the Comprehensive Management Plan, two members residing in and appointed to represent the Urban Service m ^ J 11989.3HD To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Froa: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: January 19, 1989 Subject: Designation One-Way Cemetery Road - No Parking One Side Recently the City of Orono received a request to close one entrance to the union cemetery. The cemetery currently has two entrance/exits. The entrance/exit most easterly is of most concern due to the severe site distance limitations when trying to enter. In order to allow more time to perform a feasibility of closing one entrance/exist, an alternative and Immediate solution is available, that being to designate cemetery road as one way only. Traffic would enter the w«st interseat:'on and exit the east intersection. Exiting the east intersect! on offers adequate site distance. In addition to designation of a one way traffic flow, one side should be posted "No Parking" 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. This would allow funeral processions to enter the west intersection and allow adequate space for turning into the cemetery parking lot. Recommendation - To designate cemetery road one-way street and to post one side of the road "No Parking" Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. Proposed Motion - Moved by seconded by to designate cemetery road a one-way road and to post one .side of cemetery road "No Parking" Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. o 'T- rz o 11} -rr ■3 Q JU Vj *:a Cs.^ bJ o 11989.4 /V COLWL TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: January 19, 1988 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment ■'**•*» r m • Currently we are attempting to set a meeting date for Council to have the consultant present theif inventory of the Navarre area together with outlining a range of alternatives that could be undertaken. I will be contacting you this next week with a date, either the end of February or the first of March. O o C'X'NCIl ICreTINS • ••I • ^ •*! y’ J ,<* »■ • To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: December 5, 1988 Subject: Recycling Agreement Contract Attached for review and approval is an agreement/contract between the City of Orono and Polka Dot Recycling of Buffalo Mn. City Attorney Tom Barrett has reviewed and revised as appropriate. The recycling Program is scheduled to begin the first Tuesday in February. Recommendation - To approve the attached agreement/contract with Polka Dot Recyclers of Buffalor MN. Proposed Motion: Moved by _ _r seconded by_ _, to approve the attacned agreementTccntract with Polka Dot Recyclers of Buffalo, MN. TC: Mayor Grabek & Council From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded Recommending approval. W-f' RECYCLING AGR] This agreement is entered into by and between Polka Dot Recycling, Inc. of Buffalo, Minnesota (hereinafter "Contractor") and the City of Orono, Hennepin County (hereinafter "City") to outline the rights and obligations of the parties as they relate to the recycling of materials within the City. WHEREAS, for the consideration stated herein, the contracting parties agree as follows; 1. Contractor agrees to pick-up recyclables. Including glass, metals, newspaper, batteries, oil, corrugated cardboard and other materials as the parties shall from time to time agree upon. 2. Contractor agrees that the pick-up shall be twice monthly and that pick-up shall not be before 8:00 a.m. nor after 8:00 p.m. on those stated pick-up days. Recyclables shall be plcked-up at the curbside or where a private driveway intersects with a public or private road. 3. This contract shall be in effect from February 1, 1989 to January 31, 1990 unless otherwise cancelled by either of the parties as outline in this agreement. 4. The City shall pay the Contractor $1,617.00 per month for the services outlined in this agreement. It is understood that the maximum amount during the contract term (February 1, 1989 through January 31, 1990) shall be $19,410.00. 5. Contractor shall submit monthly reports of quantity and material type to the City. Contractor shall also provide proof of sale and weight slips to the City for materials collected under this agreement. 6. In the event Contractor misses a scheduled pick-up, he/she agrees to make the missed collection on the day following by 7:00 p.m. 7. There shall be no collection on the following holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. If collection day falls on one of the above holidays, collection shall take place the following day. 8. Recyclable material shall be placed in containers provided by the City or directly beside the containers if properly bound. Contractor shall leave a violation notice with resident in the event recyclables are not properly prepared for pick-up. Contractor agrees, however to pick-up all recyclables unless violation by resident is frequent and aggravated. In that case, the City shall be notified of the offender's address and agrees to assist in correcting any violations hereunder. 9. Contractor agrees that its employees shall do their best to remove all recyclable materials and shall not leave spilled or dropped recyclable material or other material at the curb side. Page 1 of 2 10. At all times Contractor agrees to be courteous and helpful towards the residents of the City. Contractor agrees to keep his equipment and trucks in clean and sanitary condition at all time and shall maintain its identity Including toll-free telephone number on all such vehicles. 11. All complaints by residents shall be collected by the City and forwarded to the Contractor; Contractor agrees to answer the complaints in a prompt and courteous manner. Contractor will meet with a representative of the City from time to time to review problems and progress of the program. 12. Contractor agrees to employ adequate staff and provide proper equipment to adequately perform under the terms of this agreement. Contractor may be temporarily excused from performing under this agreement in cases of extreme and severe weather or acts of God for which Contractor has no control. In such case, Contractor agrees to contact the Public Works Director or the City Administrator immediately and will be expected to provide curbside pick-up the next day, weather permitting. 13. Contractor agrees to provide the City with copies of required liability and property damage insurance in amounts determined by the City. The City shall be a named insured on any such policy and notice of cancellation shall be given to the City in the event any such policy is cancelled. 14. Should Contractor default under any of the terms or conditions of this agreement, and fail to correct said default within ten days of notice, the City is authorized to hire additional contractors to perform the necessary work and to deduct any monies paid to remedy the default owed Contractor hereunder. 15. This contract may be cancelled by the City in event the Contractor breaches its obligations hereunder. 16. This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and cannot be altered or sunended unless in writing. CITY OP ORONO Date: Its Mayor Its City Clerk Dated: Its: Page 2 of 2 o To:Mark E. From:John R. Date:January Subject:Utility 11989.2BD COU?«C!L i w J In October 1988, Council conceptually agreed to entering into an Emergency Stand-by Agreement for utilities with the City of Spring Park. The attached agreement has been reviewed by Spring Park and Orono staff and attorneys and is agreeable to both sides. The agreement outlines the duties and responsibilities of Orono and Spring Park and the costs to Spring Park for services provided by Orono. Recommendation - To approve the attached Stand-by Agreement for every other week-end emergency call-out service for the City of Spring Park. Proposed Notion - Moved by ___, seconded by ___, to approve the attached Emergency Stand-by Agreement for utilities with the City of Spring Park. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^jl^')^ Forwarded recommending approval. AGREEMENT FOR STANDBY SERVICE This agreement is entered into this day of 19 by and between the City of Orono, Minnesota, and the City of Spring Par5n“Minnesota, and is made under and by virtue of Minnesota Statutes S471.59. ^^;REAS, the City of Spring Park is desirous of contracting with the City u/ Orono for the performance of the hereinafter specified maintenance and inspection services within the City of Spring Park, and; WHEREAS, the City of Orono is agreeable to render such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW THEREFORE, the City of Orono agrees that it will provide standby maintenance and inspection services (hereinafter "services ) for Spring Park and the City of Spring Park agrees to pay for those services on the following terms and conditions: 1, Scope and Quality of Services - The level and quality of services rendered to the City of Spring Park by the City of Orono shall be the same as the service rendered in the City of Orono, except as hereinafter stated. The services shall include the inspection of the lift stations, water distribution system, water plant and sewer collection system and, when there is an immediate necessity, the maintenance and repair of said lift stations, systems and the plant. The services shall be performed by the City of Orono*s Public Works Personnel or, where essential, by independent contractors of the City of Orono. 2. A^^ministration Procedures - This section is set forth to clarify the responsibilities of each participant and to establish procedures for performing the servies. A) Responsibilities of the City of Spring Park 1. Maintain and make available to the City of Orono all information necessary to perform services. 2. Pay to the City of Orono all amounts due hereunder in a timely fashion, together with the cost of repair parts and material supplied by Orono and the charges of independent contractors of the City jf Orono. 3. Train Orono personnel, to the extent deemed necessary by the City of Spring Park, at a time to be agreed upon between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Training of persons performing services for the City of Spring who are hired by the City of Orono after the training sessions are completed shall be the responsibility of the City of Spring Park and regular time rates shall be paid by the City of Spring Park to the City of Orono for personnel training hours. Page 1 of 4 B) Responsibilities of City of Orono 1. Perform all inspections and maintenance of lift stations, water distribution system, water plant and sewer collection system as necessary and, subject to the require­ ments of this Paragraph B.l, do routine repairs or contract for repairs up to $_______________ without additional specific authority of Spring Park. All such inspections and maintenance shall be performed only in response to calls. Except in cases where the City of Orono determines, in the exercise of prudent judgment, that immediate maintenance or repairs are required, maintenance or repairs shall be deferred such that the same may be performed by employees or contractors of the City of Spring Park during their regular working hours. 2. Provide inspection reports, time sheets, invoices, receipts and other information for the permanent records kept by the City of Spring Park. 3. At the request of Spring Park inspect all work done on lift stations, water distribution system, sewer collector system and water plant performed by others. 4. The above services will be provided by the City of Orono to the City of Spring Park on an every other weekend emergency call out basis, and during vacation time or illness of City of Spring Park personnel as requested by the City of Spring Park. 3. Administration Responsibility - Services rendered to the City of Spring Park shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner under the direction of the City of Orono. The manner and means of performing the services are to be determined by the City of Orono, except as specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement. The City of Oorno shall submit to the City of Spring Park a monthly report of services rendered and charges due in such detail as the City of Spring Park may reasonably require, as well as periodic suggestions related to the services. 4. Personnel, Employees of the City of Orono - Personnel assigned to perform the services in the City of Spring Park shall be employees of the City of Orono and shall not be employees or independent contractors of the City of Spring Park. The City of Orono shall assume all obligations with regard to the salary, workers compensation, P.E.R.A., withholding tax, health Insurance and other benefits of such employees. The City of Spring Park shall have none of the responsibilities which arise out of the employer-employee r .lationship with respect to personnel assigned by the City of Orono iy provide services hereunder. 5. Cooperation and Assistance - The City of Spring Park shall provide full cooperation and assistance to the City of Orono, its agents and employees in rendering of these services. Page 2 of 4 6. Effective Date of Service - The effective date of services shall be the day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _$ 19_ _ _ _ and this Agreement shall be effective until terminated as provided in Paragraph 7. 7. Termination of Agreement - This Agreement shall be in full force and eff«4 t as set forth in Paragraph 6 and will automatically continue unless cancelled by either party as provided below. Cancellation notice may be submitted tn writing by either party. Notification of cancellation by Spring Pa ;K to Orono must be mailed to; City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Notification of cancellation by Orono to Spring Park must be mailed to: City of Spring Park P.O. Box 452 Spring Park, MN 55384 If notice of termination is properly given, this Agreement shall terminate as of the date set forth in the notice, which shall not in any event be less than 60 days from the date of said notice. Any amounts due to the City of Orono shall become immediately due and payable on the date this Agreement terminates. 8. Cost to the City of Spring Park - For and in consideration of the rendition of the services, the City of Spring Park shall make payments to the City of Orono as follows: A) Straight time rates will apply for all services rendered between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. ♦Straight time rate;$20.60 per hour - Public Works Supervisor $16.29 per hour - Maintenance Worker B) Overtime rates will apply for all services rendered during hours other than as noted in Paragraph 4 (A) and 4 (C). ♦Overtime rate: $30.90 per hour - Public Works Supervisor $24.42 per hour - Maintenance Worker C) Holiday rates will apply for all services rendered on holidays as set forth in the then current City of Orono personnel policy manual. Holiday rates are _ _ _ times the straight time rates. Pag« 3 of 4 D) In addition to the payments required above, the City of Spring Park shall pay a charge for fixed costs. The fixed cost for standby personnel for the period from Friday 4:30 p.m. to the following Monday 8:00 a.m. shall be $50.00. If a two-day weekend includes a holiday, the fixed cost shall be $100.00. If a three- day weekend includes a Monday or Friday holiday, the fixed cost shall be $150.00. E) Administration Costs: 10% of the charges made pursuant to Paragraphs 4 (A) - (C). F) 3/4 Ton Vehicle: $5.00 per hour. All rates are subject to change upon 60 days notice. The City of Orono shall bill the City of Spring Park within 15 days after the last day of each month for which services were rendered and the City of Spring Park shall remit payment thereon by the first day of the month following receipt of the bill. 9. Insurance - The City of Orono shall maintain workers compensation insurance as required by law covering its own personal and public liability insurance in the amount of not less than $300,000 per occurance. The City of Orono shall furnish the City of Spring Park with a certificate of insurance as to the policies in force. In addition, the City of Orono shall require any independent contractors providing services in the City of Spring Park to procure and maintain insurance with limits of liability not less than those provided herein. CITY OP ORONO ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk CITY OF SPRING PARK ATTEST: Jerome P. Rockvam, Mayor Patricia Osmonson, Administrator/Clerk/ Treasurer Page 4 of 4 COUNCIL N>!ETING \1 .... • o V* »*• ^ »w «- J DATE; TO; FROM; January 20, 1989 Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator - Orono City Council Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police SUBJECT; Resignation of Officer James Morrow Officer James Morrow has tendered his resignation effective January 30, 1989 as he has been accepted as a full time officer with the Eden Prairie Police Department. Officer James Morrow served the department in an exemplary fashion. His public relations manner and his work performance was an example for others to follow. I will miss him. I request permission to hire a part time officer to replace Offreer James Morrow as soon as possible. The department is interviewing several prospects, one of which is an Orono Reserve Officer who has completed his studies and skills course towards becoming a licensed police officer. I request permission to hire a person at hour as a permanent part time officer as soon as possible i -ull information to be furnished to Coxincil at its regular mee j • TO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by of part time officer James Morrow. seconded by _to accept the. resignation Additionally authorization is granted to hire a part time office as a replacement. Ayes _, Nays _. coufica mriHG INTEROFFICE ME!10 «•*»« (wO JOwJ DATE: January 10, 1909 *!7V / ^ '•'•a * wr c: j TO: . Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police RE: Pav Status Chances Officer Hark Thornton will have completed three years with the Department on February 1, 1989. I request his pay be increased from $14,123 hourly 1988 contract to $15,692, 1988 contract, which is top patrol pay. Officer Thornton is improvina in his work. I TO: FROM: Officer Irving "Chip” English will have completed four years with the Department on February 11, 1989. I request his pay be increased by 3% additional longevity to his base rate. I also request his vacation accrued rate be increased accordina to contract. All of the above increases are a part of the labor contract rates. \ \\ Mayor and City Council \ Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator ^-/ Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to adjust Officer Mark Thornton’s salary from $14,123 per hour to $15,692 per hour effective February 1, 1989. In addition Officer Irving English's salary is adjusted 2% on February 11, 1989 from $15,692 per hour to $16,163 per hour at the present time there is no change in vacation accrual. These adjustments are within the 1988 contract. Ayes _, Nays _. COUHC!!. ^ . .. . ,^r • A ^ r • “ * ■^.! br .'V. > DATE: TO: FROM: RE: INTEROFFICE MEMO January 20, 1989 Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police Emergency Equipment Purchase - Unbudgeted Item In 1982, the Police Department purchased a used machine from the Administration Department to be used as a Logis terminal. This terminal, a Hewlet Packard 125, is outdated in that we can no longer get floppy discs for it as late as 9 months aao. Now it hasbeaun acting up, in that for the last month, it has gone off its proaram several times and is requiring lonaer and more expertise to bring back up its operation. Technicians from Loais told us six months ago that it could go anytime and it is no\i cn its last lerr, i am requesting permission to purchase an IBM PC 2 with word processing software to replace this terminal as soon as possible. This replacement would be compatible with our purchase in 1988 for the replacement of the state terminal. The cost of the terminal will be about $5,100 with appropriate software for word processing. I have requested two quotes and am expecting them within 10 days. I am also requesting permission to purchase a transcriber out of existing budget funds to replace a transcriber that is beyond repair. This old transcriber was confiscated by the departoent 5 years ago from a burglar and has aiven good service but is now unrepairable and outdated. A new replacement will be approx. $380 from Business Products. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded Recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to authorize purchase of a transcriber from the 1988 police department budget in the approximat amount of $380; and a police department terminal/word processor with software from Equipment Outlay Fund monies in the approximv^ amount of $5,100. The purchase is to be reimbursed from the 199:" jral Fund Police Department budget. Ayes _, Nays _. 9 .... m •* t-*r • ,■> *• .* .ill i;r 1X389.IHD To:Mark E. Proa:John R. Date:January Subject:Vehicle For 1989. the Public Works Utilities Department budgeted for one new four-wheel drive pickup to replace a 1979 pickup. Specifications were submitted to Hennepin County purchase and a bid award was approved by Hennepin County on December 29, 1988. The low bid was awarded to Thane *'*1*^^° 1/2 ton 4-wheel drive pickup in the amount of $11,653.00. Recommendation - To authorize the purchase of one 1/2 ton 4-wheel drive pickup for the Public Works Utilities Department from Thone Hawkins Chevrolet for an amount of $11,653.00. Proposed Motion; Moved bypropoaea motion, _ _. seconded by .to approve the purchase of cne~l/2 ton 4-wheel drive pickup the public Works Utilities Department from Thane Hawkins Chevrolet for an amount of $11,563.00. Ayes _ _, Nays _ _. TO: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members FrfWt Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. 11989, TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratol DATS: January 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Kennel Ordinance vAN23 <933 •w?Ty Of / Attachments: A. Draft Amendment to Ordinance 5.36 B. Kennel License Renewal Date Memo Dated 1/10/89 ISSUE - Determine if Council desires to make the licensing period for residential/commercial kennels coterminous with the licensing period for dogs. INTRODUCTION - As outlined in Attachment B it would be more beneficial to have them expire at the same time. The license period for dogs is two years with kennels remaining annually but having the two end at the same time would make it easier for both the city and the kennel owners. The City requires kennel license for any household having more than two (2) dogs over six (6) months of age. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt as presented making them coterminous. 2. Choose not to adopt. 3. Table. 4. Change to a different date. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the Kennel Ordinance amendment making the kennel licensing period expire at the end of the cal'indar year. This would be beneficial to both the kennel licensee and the City. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , to adopt Ordinance No. , Second Series as an amendment to the Kennel Licensing ordinance which changes the expiration date of kennel licenses. 11089.6 ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5.36 SUED. 3 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984, AND ENTITLED ”AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO KENNELS.” The City Council of Orono ordains: Ordinance No. 5.36 Subd. 3 adopted April 1, 1984, and entitled "Kennels Subd. 3. License Period.” is amended to read: Subd. 3. License Period. All kennel licenses shall expire on December 31, of each year. Application for renewal of an existing kennel license shall be made to the City Clerk at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. This ordinance becomes effective on January 30, 1989 after its publication. Passed by the council this 23rd day of January 1989. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk To: Fron: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Melvin Kilbo, Police Chief Theresa L. Naab, Deputy Clerk Date:January 10, 1989 Subject: Kennel License Renewal Date Section 5.36, Subdivision 3 - License Period - states "all kennel licenses shall expire on March 1 of each year." I believe this date should be changed to February 1 of each year for the following reasons: 1. Dog licenses are due by January 31st of odd numbered years. 2. New home owners with three or more dogs should theoretically apply for a kennel license which would run from the time of application to March 1st of that year, and have to re-apply for another kennel license in February of that same year. Because of the March 1st renewal date, we have three options currently available to staff: A) We can ignore the first 3 months of the year in which they would have no kennel license and notify them in February to apply for said license to run from March 1st forward; or B) Staff could have owner apply for kennel license at the time tags are issued and have license run from that date to the following expiration date; or C) Have owner apply for current year license and re-apply for next year license, as stated above. Staff would like direction as to how the code should be enforced or aunended. S 5.36 C. It is unlawful for any person to construct, keep, maintain or use a kennel structure for one or more dogs without a valid residential or commercial kennel license, except that kennel structures used for not more than two dogs over six months of age need not be licensed if said kennel structure is located in a side or rear yard and is not less than thirty (30) feet away from any property line. Subd. 3. License Period. All kennel licenses shall expire on March 1 of each year. Application for renewal of an existing kennel license shall be made to the City Clerk at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Subd. 4. Runnel License Standards. All kennel licenses are permissive only, granting limited authority to the licensee according to the provisions of each license. Kennel licenses may be issued by the City Clerk only after review and approval by the Council. The Council shall review each kennel license application for pertinent facts and circumstances including, but not limited to, location in•the City, zoning, lot size, number of dogs, existing or proposed kennel facilities including location on the lot, kennel maintenance, sanitation, and any previous dog or kennel license violations by the applicant such as keeping too many animals, nuisance complaints, excessive noise, running at-large or commercial activities occurring at a residential kennel. Subd. 5. Residential Kennel License Standards and Requirements. Residential kennel licenses are intended as a special privilege to be granted upon a showing that the keeping of more than the normal two dogs, and/or a kennel structure location will not be a public nuisance or otherwise adversely affect neighboring persons or property. The Council shall have the authority to limit the maximum number of dogs kept at any residential kennel based upon the kennel standards listed in Subdivision 4. No residential kennel license shall be granted unless the property contai is a proper kennel structure or is otherwise fenced to prevent the dogs from running at-large. Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude the breeding of licensed dogs kept at a residential kennel, the sale of offspring, the occasional sale of licensed dogs, or the private grooming, training or medical care of such dogs on the premises. Subd. 6. Commercial Kennel License Standards and Requirements. New commercial kennel licenses shall be issued only for property that is properly zoned for business purposes or for rural residential property of sufficient acreage to comply with the Zoning Chapter. Commercial kennels shall not be allowed as a residential "home occupation" pursuant to the Zoning Chapter. - No commercial kennel license shall be granted unless the property contains a kennel structure and other enclosed buildings sufficient to operate the business without nuisance or other adverse effects - on neighboring properties. ORONO CC (4-1-84) 11989.1 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE: January 19, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING JAN 23 5SS3 CITY OF SUBJECT: 1989 On-Sale Mon-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Attached is the application by Lakeview Golf Course for their 1989 On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License. Police Chief Kilbo has reviewed and approved this license. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending appjov^. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ seconded by _ to approve the 1989 On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license to the Lakeview Golf Course. Ayes , Nays ____iSt ■ To the. STATE OP MINNESOTA Combination Application for Retailer’s (On-sale) Non-lntoxicatinsr Malt Liquor License Qrjn O County of.t Hum oI IlMaalns Milharitf (coboItI (city) (vUtact) R. L)<r\V(s\tfrt> ■ Pr< town ofl.___ O^’o'^o , eounty of —thlUO±eiI^ of the ^ty, vtUafe, or StatelOUffi ^ ^ KJ n \y --------^ vuun^u V/—^ l.i ^ I.. .1. Ml............. I I.ii.iy of Minneeota, hereby make application for a Retailer $ (OorsaleJ (Off-tale) ^on-intoxteatint Malt Liquor Licence to tell luoh Malt liquor under and pursuant to an ordinance (resolution) passed by dty. village council, county board of -----—Ql^-^--------------------------------------------------------------------------- and Chapter S40, Minnesota Statutes 2946, as amended, providing for licensing and regulating the tale of nonrintoxleating malt liquor. v . a v 7/0 /vtSrt-U SitlOf*- ftritfo 6J- OfortO ■ l/^inefteic^ 5~?3fe*/ During the poet five years, my residence has been as follows: —^LLQ.—flltirfK 1 • :■]I was bom./9*/7/!« jJaitr ioLJ n Cliy VIU m* flUtoorCoBalrBonoah T»w« I am a f native) (naturalised) eitixen of the United States. J nrtL X_______married. My fwife’j) (husband's) name and address 7/0 /O Akjft, Or . QrunO I am proprietor. 4 ■ Firm was incorporated.19 SI _tn the state of.fOi oilf JO •Ia-/ Corporation is authorised to do hiuiness in Minnesota. Lioense is /l/»i-»nfoK»>ctLf (highway) located ae follows: VOS' /Oui-iW ftrwv ________________________________________________ The license will be in connection with.Go 14" Cci2riC^^. which has been in operation.OG- I9S~(o Onic Stonii Caf*. lUalaanutl, BMal, Ctak MomIm The establishment, is located on the. Ymn F«r J V S f 10 6ol4~ •/ OcciyO .floor. The business premises are owned by. The taxes on the property are not delinquent. / nm Alof*_____engaged in the retail sale of intoxicating liquor. I hy,t» fio\^_____had an application for license rejected as follows: I have never been convicted of a felony nor of violating any National or state liquor law or local ordinance relating to the manufacture, sale or traruportation, or possession for sale or transportation of intoxicating liquor. OambUng or gambling device.^ will not be permitted on the licensed premises. I am the owner of the leasehold, furniture, fixtures, and equipment In the premises for which the license is applied, except.. I have oo inUntion or orrMinont to tramfor tha Ikanao to aaothor ponoa. I ■nbmit tho followlnr namea of portona, inelndinc a bank, for referenco, with wbom I haao had boalsoaa rtlaUoaa Ror>VL dV Lxl k 0aa followa: G) . lOcLU t . //) P-0- Boa. P to onKago ia tho aalo of tntoxieatinff liquor and will haro a Fodoral Ooeopational Tas Roeaipl la aecordaneo with tha ordinanca aoTamlnff thia licanaa. M j Federal Taa Stamp Receipt ia ___I will eomplp atrletly with the provialona of the ordinanca relating to tho aalo of aoft drinka tor p%. ' .f.-- and wUl aenre patrona In full rlew of the public. ... I arrea to waire my Constitutional Rlghta againat search and seiiura and will freely permit peace offieeri to iaapeef my premises and agree to the forfeiture of my lleenso if found to hare violated tho provisions of the ordiaaaee (roaolunoa) pro^inir for tho ^rantinff of this license.I horeby solomnly swear that tha foregolnK sUtamenU are true and correct to the beat of my Imowledfe aad that I agree to comply with all the provisions of the ordinance under whlplnthis license la granted^ ■nboeribed aad sworn to before mo this----/O.^'-----Cy/ 'jT~/y MOTIi mmt W ImaS ealy W awwu whs era cMasss sf tbs Qslud 8Utas sad whs srs sf tos<l siotsI tharselsr ss4 rssela sMstssa Ihs ses Sil yssn sa4 w£s sis aispristsis s« tbs ■tshlkb>ssto fsr whkb tbs Ussssw sis Iisss4. Uws IMS. s. TIC. ^ ■ ■ 1 . ... 11789.6 A TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: January 17, 1989 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information COUf^CIL f/*EET!i^Q C'ljy OF •'“''It— EURASIAN MILFOIL - As you may have noted in the newspapers the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has held a couple of meetings regarding the issue of Milfoil. The LMCD has been exploring the possibility of undertaking a harvesting program during 1989 and has been looking at a program that would cost in the range of $240,000. It presently is requesting donations for funding but is also looking to the Hennepin County Public Works Department together with cities around the lake to assist in the funding. To date the LMCD has not formulated the amount that they would be requesting from any individual city, but one option that they are looking at would be to raise about half the monies from the cities with the balance from Hennepin County. The amount of about $120,000 is their annual operating budget amount and if it was to be prorated on the same basis as the operating budget the City of Orono would look to fund in the range of $17,000. To date however, no decisions have been as to total amount of program to be undertaken or the amount that will be requested for any individual city. Once the LMCD has made a decision as to the direction of their request it will be brought forward to the Council for consideration. There have been no monies in 1989 budgeted for this contingency. HIGHWAY_12 - In a contact with the Commissioner of Transportation's office it is anticipated that the official 20 year MnDOT funding program will not be completed by the Central Office for another couple weeks. Following that, the Commissioner will be in contact with me to establish a date in the later part of February for a meeting of he and interested persons in this area. I will apprise you once I have heard from the Commissioner as to when this meeting will take place. SAC REFUND - As noted in the attached memo from Mike Gaffron answers to questions raised at the January 9, 1989 have been addressed. The staff will be bringing forward a resolution for the February 13, 1989 meeting. 130 CYGNET PLACE - The owner had contacted the City staff on January 10, 1989 following her appearance at the Public Comments section on January 9th. A meeting was set for Jafiuary 17th and at that meeting Jeanne Mabusth reviewed the options on the property and rectified any misunderstandings that may have been engendered in prior communication. It is anticipated that the individual will be filing for an after the fact variance by the filing deadline for the March Planning Commission meeting to determine if the deck can be left as it is currently constructed. RECYCLING PROGRAM START UP - On December 12, 1988, the City of Orono approved bid award to Polka Dot Recycling to provide curbside recycling starting on February 1, 1989. The City has received containers for each resident and at this writing, the containers are being delivered to the residents along with information about the program and how to prepare recyclable items. The contractor will pick-up recyclables on three separate days in Orono. The reason for three separata days is due to the number of residents and area. We tryed to schedule the recycling pick-up with refuse pick-up as close as possible but due to the fact that there are seven licensed refuse haulers in Orono, it was impossible to maintain that type of schedule. The City has been separated into three area routes and the pick-up days are Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. As the program progresses, information will be submitted as to the tonnages and number of participants. MCWD OPERATION POLICY - At the Minnehaha Creed Watershed District's meeting of January 19th they will receive comments from the agencies and discussed those as to direction for the operations policy. The staff is recommending continuing the operations policy and we will apprise the Council of the final result. CITY ADMINISTRATOR VACATION - It is presently anticipated that I will be taking vacation from March 10th through Monday, the 20th. John Gerhardson will be the Acting Administrator in my absence. PAYROLL CONVERSION - Within the next month the City will^ undergo a conversion on its LOGIS system to improve the flexibility of accounting in its payroll areas. This conversion is being done by all LOGIS cities and will initially show up through the use of different checks and stubs. Highway 12 Corridor Task Force 518 West Litchfield Avenue Willmar, Minnesota 56201 P.O. Box 287 612-235-0300 MEMO January 16, 1989 To; Highway 12 Task Force From; Ken Warner Highway 12 Coordinator Willmar Area Chamber of Commerce Re; Meeting with House Transportation Committee This is to inform you that with the help of Represenatiye Alan Welle, we are scheduled to meet with members of the House Transportation Committee nesday, January 25, 1989. Please find enclosed a copy of Represenative Welle s letter to me confirming the date and time. In an effort not to overwhel.t the House many HiahwaV 12 Task Force members. Chairman Dean Schluter hi .ked that the ?il^o;ing people b^fn attendance at this very importam meting Please check to see if 5ou? name is on the list, if it is please call the Wijlmar Chamber at 612-235-0300 and let us know either way if you can be there to help us with our efforts. Your attendance is vital if we are to keep the corridor concept on the right course. If your name is not on the list and you would like to attend please give me a call so we know how many to plan for. Bob Klingle--Swift Gordon Wetter—Wright George Johnson--Hennepin Ken Madole—Coordinator Robert Dybvig--Big Stone Carole Vennerstrom—Kandiyohi Dean Schluter—Chairman Dale Smolniski--Meeker Ken Warner—Coordinator Ue will be having a planning meeting at 11:00 a.m. cn the same day at the Highway Department Cafeteria located in the Transportation The reason for the planning meeting is to assure that with the ]imited time that we have with the Transportation Committee(30 Minutes) is quality time, and that their isn't duplication of material. We have made some very significant progress in the last few mMting should only help strengthen our efforts. We need eveyone on the list above to make every effort to attend this important meeting. If >-u have any questions please do-not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Please remember to call the Chamber and inform us if you will or will not be attending no later than Monday, January 23, 1989. Alan W. Welle District 15B Kandiyohi County Committees: Taxes Tax Law Division, Vice-Chair Heaith and Human Services Transportation Judiciary Crime and Famiiy Law Division January 12, 1989 Minnesota House of Representatives Ken Warner Willmar Chamber of Commerce Willmar, MN 56201 Dear Ken: The Highway 12 Coalition meeting is scheduled for 2:15 P.M. on Wednesday, January 25th, in Room 10 of the Ltate Office Building. The time follows the regular meeting time (12:30-2:15) of the House Transportation Committee. You may want to come early and sit ir. on part of the Transportation Committee meeting and meet some of the members of that com­ mittee . At this point. Commissioner Levine and District DOT represen­ tatives will be present, as well as Representative Henry Kalis, Chairman of House Transportation, a representative of the Governor's office, and a staff member of the Senate Transportation Committee. I will also be inviting other mem­ bers of the Legislature who represent the corridor. Would you please forward that list to me as soon as possible. In addition, let me know what other types of people you would like at the meeting. I assume you will be contacting memb *s of your organization and making those arrangements. Please contact me if I left anything out. Sincerely, ALAN WELLE STATE REPRESENTATIVE Reply to: □ 503 State Office Building, St. HauK M;?iMbSOta S5155 Office: (612) 296-6206 □ Rural Route 4. Box 319D. Vifillmar. Minnesota 56201 Home: (612) 235-5029 To: Mark E. Bernhardson. City Administrator From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: January 17, 1989 Subject: SAC Charge Refunds - Additional Information Additional information regarding the M.W.C.C. SAC Charge Refund Program limitations and requirements has been obtained from Don Bluhm of the M.W.C.C. as follows: 1. The City Council does have the sole authority to take part in or reject participation in the SAC Refund Program. The M.W.C.C. has no requirement for a public hearing to be held. It is up to the individual cities to determine whether or not they want to hold a public hearing, and whether or not they wish to participate. 2. It is Bluhm's feeling that the City would probably not have any future liability if we do not take part in the program. Furthermore, he notes that of 105 communities eligible for a SAC Refund Program, only 5 or 6 have elected to proceed with the program, but more than half of the 105 have said they will not take part in such a program. 3. He reiterated that of the few cities that have choosen a program, typically they have designated only portions of the areas in the community as being eligible for refunds, and have identified other areas which will likely be sewered in the near or far future, as not being eligible for the program. 4. Our next step is to draft a resclution based on the Council's wishes, and transmit such resolution to the M.W.C.C. They do not require a list of eligible properties if we choose to not participate. Please advise if you want me to draft a resolution rejecting participation in the SAC Refund Program. A✓ M Date: Subject: I. Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator ^ohn R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Nark E, Bernhardson, City Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 6, IS89 Update on Status of Sewer Connections As of 1/6/89, the following residence has not completed the required connection to municipal sewer: Project 65-LS-l Address Owner 1340 Baldur Park Road David H. Mess Comments: Property is at end of Baldur Park Point, Length of connection is about 500* through property currently owned by another party. II. As of 1/6/89, the following properties with existing buildings have not completed the required sewer connections for the Crystal Bay Project (were to be connected by 10/11/87): Arbor Street - Bjerkeng Arbor Street - Jesus People Church Briar Street - Hartraft Brown Road South - Bernhardson' Brown Road South - Bernhardson Brown Road South - Bernhardson Brown Road South - Bernhardson - North Shore Drive - Art Center East' North Shore Drive - Art Center Prospect Avenue - Bergquist Prospect Avenue - Fred Curtis (not occupied) Shoreline Drive - Marina - Willow Drive South - McWilliams Willow Drive South - McWilli2uns (Additionally, the 2 cabin buildings at 1950 Shoreline Drive remain unconnected.) III. The following properties have had plumbing/septic systems removed and are used for storage only: 660 Tonkawa Road Lindall 2755 Casco Point Road Peterson 1.1245 2.1270 3.1290 4.1275 5.1285 6.1335 7.1355 8.2180 9.2240 10.2140 11.2180 12.1955 13.1120 14.1130 Update on Status of Sewer Connections January S, 1989 Page 2 of 2 . ^ IV. The following property is currently vacant and may not be reoccupied until the sewer connection is completed: 525 Tonkawa Road Roger Koehnen (lis pendens filed) If you are aware of any other properties which should be hooked to sewer but are not, please let me know. i jUKCilV * ' I i »• o * ^ ^ J ^'\Ti ,'',r .^f*' 15'-- LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF January 23, 1989 Cigarette Licenses: Richard M. Keaveny @ Keaveny's Navarre Drug Grant R. Wenkstern @ Lakeview Golf of Orono LeRoy Koehnen @ Navarre Amoco • Don Scherven @ Navarre Bowling Lanes . . v, . • Steven Corl 0 Navarre Liquors, Inc. . Orono Golf John M. O'Sullivan 0 O'Sullivans' Minnesota Vikings Food Service 0 Washing Scientific John A. Downey 0 Wayzata Country Club Residential Kennel License - ■i Judith A. Spinner 940 North Arm Drive .. • - xr . _ •i-»- -I..!t - ,-^y-r-^r r ,;fk .. • H'- ■ ••• .# » ~ 'rT--- - - > ,—: V. .. i >.y / !i^ Owner: KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective March 1, 198_? to February 2o_;|il'9A'iO iLl "Judith A. Spinner __________ ,,--------------—- ^ j j JAN^9;;gs iJii Property Address* North Arm Drive, Mound, Minnesota 5536U •f (include city and zip) --- > . ->---wT-r» - ■ Mailing Address (if different): Phone: . . >4 (home ) U7p1 i7?t" ~ '--(work ) vr? pot ■ BBSIDENTIAL Kennel License .Information:^ $25^00/year .. " (payment must accompany ^application vc* - ■ •.r* . Maximum No. of dogs to be kept .at one time: (over 6 months ‘of age) ' ' Principal Breed: 2 St^ringers 1 ______________ '* Purpose for more than 2 dogs: " Hunting Dogs normally kept:inside.__x kennel.structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License In^iormation: $150/year .(payment .must accompany application). . ^ Name of Business: •• V — •• rrj^ i *- * ’U til ■=. T ■ :ri •” Business Activities:■ (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary ..care, retail, et^^ Normal Business Hours:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ fC.»Iwu ■ * After ^Hoiir s Contact : ■ 1 - '••T (name)J (phone! .i:r. . . , .ASllSOOOOO TViJ£?/ Dog runs/exercise areas are; : TL ns: 'a,'. vv 25, OC inside ---butsl&e^- ^ TO . C0J)1 .wi TIO- The undersigned hereby makes application to the Kennel License as specified on this form? the undersigned .^acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; tne cS*„rA%irvri of^MS^cipIlXode ^aptir s""^intltdin^a^^^^c^^^ the City^Council as part.^of any «PP|?SaJ; ‘ -.cr. ctucyjff 1/6/89 Applicant Date For Kennelei^Inspected^by Date /—^<0 r.:-—><.f. Recommends Approval Denial ••V. *- • Ti. ■ .. V. , >--*.■ ■*. i-: • • «• r V izo. 2li u. -.VJ A'-.L. CITY OF ORONO NAME ' 1 PAY _______Y-T-n DIV CROSS GROSS EXPVALLC 3 _ ANDERSON_-BL-31 1jU-1 .74 1441^4_ _ _LIU *BERNHAROSO ME 12 2044.06 2044.00oCBOBZIENSA31856.80 856.80 - 45690612456.90 7 BOYLAN SD 93 0.00 0.00o8BRINKHAUSJF421579.90 1579.90 8 i CARLSOM MB 35 0 00 0.00 ’°l1 CHESUICK 6B 31 1418.00 1418.00 1 CORNICK JL 31 1247.52 1247.52 <2;FNCLISH II IH 31 1302.44 1302.44 t3 1 ERICKSON DJ 93 0.00 0.00r )1 ERICKSON KR 31 1354.41 1354.41 15 parr PR 33 0 00 0 oo 1I’e,FISCHENICH DT 31 1278.90 1278.90 ..h"!FRIT2LER JM 31 1482.10 1482.10 GAFFRON.JHE_J53__JL213^^0_1213.60 GERHARDeON GREGORY HALLIN_ _ _ JR AS 163tV.0a 1636.06 JD 42 1372.89 1372.89 DM 1P 1071 go 1071,go O w “' 4 1' 22.f 1 HANSEN SC 42 1182.21 1182.21 !“i HANSING CJ 31 620.06 620.06 !S-»;JACOBS TJ 33 1213.60 1213.60 I2S;JOHNSON BP 31 1362.23 1362.23 KILBO MH 31 1760.00 1760.00 127 .KNU.TSON CA 15 856.81 856^81 ■ Zt KUEHN TM 15 1646.64 1646.64 izB LINDSTROM DJ 93 0.00 0.00 iso'MABUSTH JA 33 1454.08 1454.08 PM MARQUARDT BJ 93 0.00 0.00 i32|MEYER MA 35 0.00 0.00 !s3:MTKELSON RA 1 5 868.64 868.64 3^i MILLS JR WH 93 0.00 0.00 !35 MORAN MF 31 1835.97 1835.97 be'M0R0UC2YNS 31 1983.82 1983.82 MORROW JS 31 576.80 576.80 |3e:NAAB TL 12 856.80 856.80 |3B HA.5 DO 93 0 00 0 00 40j OBRIEN RL 92 1142.50 1142.50r"OMAN LE 33 1017.60 1017.60 PALMER PB 31 0.00 0.00 PETERSON RU 93 0.00 0.00 *W'i QUAST UA 92 1051.94 1051.94 45.PATHRDN BJ 92 1189.91 1189.91 <46 { ■ROSS JA 93 0.00 0.00r>SASS JJ 42 1264.95 1264.95 *. SCHAUSS CR 31 1041.98 1041.98 SCHEFFLER LK 12 588.04 588.04 i'°SKREEN DS 42 1209.55 1209.55 bi'STEFFENHAG.RE. 93....1.07_2. S O.l.ft72U6iL__ !sr STEVENS BG 93 0.00 0.00 ••-3 ;5.. THOMTON MR 31 1129.84 1129.84 ■56 LUo n o o o o o f sU =#«? t;f‘l •'■l”l ! O o c. o o ,:s2; IfS Ue; CITY OF ORONO P A ^ Y-T-D NAME TOMCHECK. DIV GROSS GROSS EXP/ALL LF 31 1Pfe3 30 1gfi3.3Q _________ TOMCZYK UALSH MU 31 1318.IS 1318.16 KL 35 153.00 153.00 * , t. . . . COUNT PATH 00041 GRAND 49,417.79 TOTAL 00054 TOTAL TOTAL FICA TAX CROSS " 27,467.58 EHPL0YER8 F _ _ _ _ _ _A - CROUP HEALTH_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ •. f , B « PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD MEDICAL CENTER PLAN_ _ PRUDENTIAL - . 25! 261 I 1271 F C « COORD. HEALTH ■ MINNESOTA HMO CARE I2c! 1 1.20 |30 1- - - - - - - - - - H - TRANS-AMERICA OCC. .. .... . . • .... J ■ MUTUAI_SERVICES MUTUAL OF OMAHA L - EMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT J1 "AETNA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N - NICOLLET EITEL —1 43. 44 <5 . 0 - LEAGUE OF CITIES P ■ METROPOLITAN HEALTH PLAN 46 i l47 Q « SHARE \ 48 ; .T' MTftftTMC HQSP CODE FOR SOME EMPLIS- (0 In (U ouiec ycu lU Xo - M «A • N •• 2 = 2 A « II • t (0 X CJ Hi 1u•<•cn • 03 111 X • a a. >z (U ^in M 01 cu •M M PI *r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O' o o* o* •*o*O'c n u *« 01 P-♦Mzo c O Vi 01 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-o e O O 0|ozVO Vi V* V* V* 3 01 0 01 01 a 01 Mo•o ^'T ^•o CJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1(J V* V* V V*•c o «o o o e o zc CO (C (0 (0 03 (0 111 u UI UI U UI H •-« i-»-« M »H M 0.-J _-IJ J a. a CL 0. Oh Ol CK o. a O. IL CL 0. CJ 3 =3 3 3 3 V.<0 o:(0 0) 03 10 zuo R UI u UI UI U UI X o c CJ U (J u oJ X « »-M ^ V M >i4uu. u.U. U. Il IL 1-u. u.U. Il II u.Ui M o c O O O o 1- u u CJ (J U uz z z z z z < 4 < <<< 1- H 1- 1- K 1-o o O O O o CO (13 (0 0> O)0)X ac UI Ui 111 111 Ui UI Xoz z z z z z 0| IS z z z z z z CJzM M M M uu X X XXX X 1-»1 1 1 1 1 1o c o o o o IK a IK oe «te o u CJ u u u 1-< 4 < < <<< • *i> *o *«•0 o*- r*P- P* P3 P- UI U3 «o -*- *- p-M O r M ^p- p- ee P- M UIz 5 z< o* o O' O' O O'o CO a « CO cc CO oc X N XXV X N o* o O' O' o O'o Vi V* ^wu.X V XXV X X»-V-<o c o o c o oc cz *o «l *<4> ^£*o • c o c O O C o » nu«o c o o c o • o X 'O ^♦• ^c «4> ^^ M *0 • •A M r n n r M * n ^ n n w n I I I •* '» UI (U r*- h- 7 7o o e I I N ♦ — — rn O' I I i O' in O' M n »« «« I I o O' r- o-| iO O' 0 ^ uk m u>1 I il I I♦ ♦ o- <r (U (U (VI N lUn n p» n n III 111 u Z X z O O Q XXXa. a. 0. Ill III u j -I -I 111 UI Hi I- 1- H o o q, u uci I'- »- M O' U) O «0 (I — <Vl 0* O' O' CO 00 CO V. s \ 0*0*0 o o oo o ^ «o «o «( *r I I Iwo o 0) 0) (0 UI UI III I- I- H l-l I-' 1 ♦ n o I- I'- •» m UI UI t-l M K I- J -J -1^ J M Ml M M I- I- H K 1“ 3 3 ms 3 ^ K X z n o o oout) < < < MOM CO (U l*- 0* <V) Ouv in O* O' O' CO <0 €0 V X s, O* O' O' XXX o o o M M M o o o <r o o<o «o «o M M M X X o o u u K H< « 1^ in o •- o *1 M CO u M O— w O' O' CO 00 X X O' O' X X o o M n o o <r o•O lO M n oi <u o o OJ OI (U <u s:s-".88.8 S383 1----- S 8_Si_8 »m CO X X XVCJCJ ••••••«•• p-o 01 — 0 (U Vi o •*■♦ p- o O'n 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 O'e o O' o O'O' O'UI o ♦ O’ —*o (VIo<0 01 CO O’UI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M '0 ■o UI UI UI UI o o o o o o o M C n n M M M (U*r •o O’ O’ O’O’O’ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UI — O’M O o o o (U p-e M>Odat > >>(0z(LOO o 111z z z M at p-_l 0)>UI O H P-p-0. CO o z CJ _l _l u o. Q : 1 M 3 3 3 3 J p-<_l 10 to 10 CO o 0)1—< z z z UI UI o o o UIHUIoc10 CJ u u o Z u M M <(•(3 C» C»o IL<0.z z z z z u. X (0 111 III u UI UI o 01 z z z z z UI «0) 0> 10 (0 p-<< < <<>- (0 <XzMUIUI UI UI UI a.o CJ z z z z z < CO o UI UI UI UI UI at 0)to 0) (0 10 (0 (J ■ft 0)o o o o o o<od X « O'ee K X O<•ft o o o o o X M alo o o o O. 3 z IK IK IK IK IK O <P-I- p- p-p-CO X X 0)O) 0) 0)10 X o IK Ui UI UI UI UI u<<z z z z z < -J o o o o o o _J ID ID a ID ID (D a m ••• o o UI UI o >0 O’ in « n n o o o o o O' «o P>M P-UI UI UI o o o — — O’lU o in •0 *0 M n -o P- UI P-— UI p- — UMU (U <u «• O'O'O'O' O' O'O'O' 00 00 CO 00 ® CD CO ODk X X X XXX X X O'O'O'CP O' O'o*O'««VO ^ ^ V- X X X XXX X X V*V"V" o o a o o o o o til •o o ■a O’ O’ O’▼♦ — vO •r-* p-p- p- p-fw • CD o •o • o o o o o • o*■o • ‘0 O’ O’ o * ^ 'A «<0 • «c «0 *0 *0n•M * r M PI PI n * n tfl 3t V I• CD «D V'» N n «• 2 = 2 >z Q Z I- X 3 O U o Xo Ka •H at (J CO Ui 01 CJ I» Voe<tf N XU 3cn UIzo n n (u a N.IT <1 9 ru • A 2i2_f 2 8 « a a a MAPJ " " R 6 S s $ O O o o in in 2 2 2 • ca• T» ^• V• s• n n n I I •- <o (U ftjliu I I M ill fU <u I I o o U 3 Z Z I £r h- Hi-o o -I -I o u <0 «0 Z c a: K o o u. u. *-HZ z 3 D <0 (0 >- >- o u o in 0> 00 n «c> 00 ul o> a)N O' o N. S O- 'T in in T O tO vO n n o in •o n oj iri pj o n o- ;l3jj»«vyj;,sajsssA!_S n r» TT 0. O l» -»:* UJ, 3s oel KIZ <iiii >11 zlo So oc! te <1 < 295 o •- O I'- o O' o t- «f = s f: r OJj • PJ» — • PJ• >01 * n o o o o O' O' "T •o tO sO 00 (VI (U TvO n rr? oiLK: (0 <0 to I- 1“ »-HX oeae ae 01c* < «<UJ►*< 0. 0.a. K CL O.a.•-4 _l 0 3 3 3a. o o a HCO UI UI III 3 53n S jiS SSK^li?JEi| — PJ — n o- O' I I O' 0> O' PJ ♦ ^— PJ in I I PJ (VI cu n n rv AJ lU (U♦ <r 'i I I I — — ii<O O h* O O Q O O U 0> 0> 0) »-»-»- CE a: a: < < <^ CL ol a. Ui UJ UJ Z z z•t >H 3 3 3 z z zUI UI UJ(» i» to O' in 00 >0 PJ O' o n o- O' -o O' O' CD 00 00 (0 ‘N V \ O' O' O' \ \ \ tO >0 >£lin in in PJ a> PJ ■O O- T ■0 «0 n n n •o o <0 in p- >0 «o 1O' ?l S niT o>to noi I « N ft 4 n • r» ■• 2 = 5 S 2 S ! ogz u 1••• r (U -— CU n»▼ r •« »•» 1 1 1 1 1 1ein a a> a> o Oi ▼ n 4- «o 9u<u -in in in11 1 1 1 1•- r ^ «■r fU 4 <u n. Ajr<u r AJ AJ AJ ^ n 4- ♦ 411 1 1 1 1 Ain ••r-o o A- r- n oc < a, u at « H uZcut» -I* c* u n Z B z z z M M M »-&I 1-X X z pm 1- z K 1- Ho •-O O OCU 4 -1 J ^u O z U O U »-<ru to «CO CO M 3 Ul u UJ Hi lu C o u (J o u•-•-a •■« m a > >> > S oc OC at ataUl UJ UJ Ul Ul 4 CO «CO CO IfO II oc z oc oc oc •• 4 •0 •« «e ti (0 U l» o u <1 CU ni •(4- n- o^in a 9- — 4 o n ^ n n n 4- - 4 CU O m »o^ m O'a 00 a 00 00 c\N >S N NaO* 9 m m ir \V N V V s *■c O c o o o ^»CU n AJ AJ Aj«<»n A- A- A-A «CU A AJ AJ AJ•4- >9 4»•O >1 •o >o tOr«n r n n n ^ w w »- • •s a i r-28 sJia IMJIiAsJ OJ s 5 o> lUto flC > Mo z IL >- CJ O O O O O* o> n n 0» CO O) u I• 2 o o in in (u ni J lU $ Z X. _ o X n ;1 s'? o CO fft o O' lU » «D d da a 2 t\r. i 9 z a'2 » lijf • n• «a» n * T* ^* Fi sJslsxsssXsJ o a o o in m o e •40 « ;.383|sjS8S?!;:'gggg^ o o o o o o OJ (U t « t <> = S* - • r- 1^ •e in CD in a - 4, A 4 ^ a Ul 0 < 01 0^ «D In (U •• N *i_y O 0. HZ ouu< x? W oc lij H U> u UJ OE ozoa;o • 2 = 2 2-2JI.2 £2 28 n a .R a a 8" 8 8 3 8 8 fi 8 8 8 Sj 5_55 S_5 S ICCo»<0 CO CD CD 01zzzZZzuCJotlu11111 1••»»»ft•••••ft•••••ft n ft r-1*- — n i«— n on0— nr ft ft* ftJ1**n n ft*o1111 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 1 1 0 o>ft* ft* ft ft* ft* ^•»0*o* o o r>-0 ft*ft* oi r*J ft ft ft!: <o z OJ ft*l o ft o o — •■(u in in,in •—— w o1I11 1 1 1 I ll 1 1 1 1 1 0 ft-- Oi ft lu o fti AJ o n n o ft 01 n n r M - n,n ft ft ft n r n OJ 01 ft OJ OJ AT OJ rn n nft-ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft1?1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1«»«a ^ m» m - 01 Rj n — ftoaoo o o O N r-o o r- CD M ID iO CD tr.CD zm -J UJ b u z1Z U CJ u 3 o zZ O ci U ID u »-n 3 < ft1 <<3!CD «0 'J t-l <3 Z CD ID W Z Z CD 1 OJ CD CD►- H J-1 1- Z Zj t-iM3ITCDz z z1 Z 3 ^z z O SObbJ•X ft ft < CD ID(<z1 _j j blKft Z Z z >~z o ffi m1 zhKzbJ ID *-* Z z z Z U z K 1- j-_lZ-1 o — J •I Z z z o<0 3 3 3 Z -1 3 »H IH CDhK_l 13 O O Z J-1 o <1 < <<3 3 tp UJ UJ UJ O 3 u r X X 0 •o •0 z 0 0UJ UJ b UJ UJ Z ttJ X z zblZ Z Z Z Z Z z *-n M1zOft ft ft < < <<z z z ozC3 3 3 3 3 3 3 o z z CJ<a Q Q Q O 0 Q 111 UJ>2 z z z Z Z Z Z Q z z _J<U O ft ft ft < < «1 <O UJ UJ *-*z u *X z X X X X X z Q a o>«D z Ul Ul(D ><UJ UJ u UJ UJ lU U z z CDZoC*z z z z z z o:w zUiz z z z z z1 z CJ z z *-HKftzft ft ft < < «, <M *-l _JZ«.z > > >> > >>z _J _l _|<a *1 ft ft ft < < <<z z z oZXzZ Z Z z z z z o o o z •««•ft •ft o o e O •> -— in N in ft* ft*<0 OJ e o o o o r*- NO P»ft-01 0 r- ft- o lU ft* ft ft* 0*o o o o o 00 00 — >o ft r!•o u CU 00 00 W ft »o in CD CO — o in inin ▼A ftj 1*1 00 —n f-z OJ €o in n n no>00 0( n n cr>ft ft*ft* 0* ft ft* ft* ft*ft*ft* ft*ft*00 0 ft>00 CO a oo 0 00 CO 00 00 00 00V,V N.-s N V S X V •*n -v N S N.o>ft ft*ft* ft* ft ft* ft* ft*ft*ft*ft* ft*ft* mm «M 0m w- ^0m , ^ •s \N V S N -s. N V V \N V N*•mm mm 0m ^»i» w* «-• o c o o o o o o o o O O O O w » u •o •00 00 cc 00 00 w 00 # ^•o o t in«a • <0 »ft*«ft- ft- ft ft ft ft ft ♦ r-•kO M3 •{1 f-T • ft «ft-»in in IT in in b 'l in • Ul ••0 '0 vO<r • ft ♦ft ft- ft- ft ft ft ft ft # ^ft ft ft ft•o • OI ••o »■O kO <lO o <ci •o ft sO >CI «*an• w »n •n n r n n n n • n ft n n n « r «N a •12 r?r* In •-i. «■’8^q'riS .■i ; r.;-*'8 TTS'3's'lf;5 «r? ■: 'H— ••""- . .. o»zu 5 S a 3 8,8 5.8 i R |!,y.Ri] o o cc» CO T ■* ^xsloiy ■; 2 '5 I (Un (U I o 0> bioe a. 3 Zo oz UJz toz 3 ffi 3CD CD h-n V. O' O' o* o O' o n n n|. o o e o o o <n o ui r- oi o r • •o <a o> ct n n f'* H- r- (*'- i? ^ N O ro n cu <u o n n 5 r ? : i r • >r * • r> •• 2 = S ??AS tn -ArJ58 a a to [Faal ULOj o.(O X X X Xcu, o CJ UJ 1 1 I 1 1(»<•: i : :01 ••• •cn Ul X • d a • o n o p•-n ?7 n o •1 -o 1 1 O »i <1 I o r 01 01 o farop*oJL1 1 o o 01za9o •*•00 IA|3 p n Ol 01 Ol roo O, rr 1 T ■o 'T 1 1 1 Ton<«o o o p-o z i Ulpu►H o.•X Zj1-M > <a X X z a:0]z o UlOfO!<O H toou*7 to Ul Mp Ul a X Ul 11 1 > oeoUlp<<' X X < Ul |X A 3 DC £ul «Q J O O m oHMM<X X Ul z•X X X ^ J u. z Ol to toO]Ul Ul o X tX M 0£dK H t-H►"IX IX z JaU U oau IuZ XaX X Ul Poe«1-IXo>a u. u.p _JGKoo o <Ozu3oJUlc<Ul Ul <>*7 3 3 O iiJ P U P at zX< <H zao111 111 U1 ►" »“ ..J -1 X X t a z a 1: — n M n I I o* o <u N Io o <U lU' n n, Tii i Ul tall z z< o o; ^ 3:a. ta' Ul tai _J J111 lu r r X Xo o ou> z z z z o o o n O' Irl N V O O 3 Ul uV n oi aj!O 0( n n I I o« o* «i (U I I! I Ol (U (U o o i/> ■o o I I CD IB (D 111 111 U ii. u.|ul o> o) ir- Z Zl z M^ ^ UJ lA|l UJ U. lA.|U. “q a 0.10.1 Sl £ S 'j u; o -j _» j j) m a 3 3 3 0.0.0. oi o o e o O O •O' or »-00 ot N O' o aSitLaaaafi&ffc u > ill o o Ul in r- o o t % Hit r n> i 3 a Ul 2 o XKJ OC 3 <0 ee Het X I- I 01 01 Ul a • -« * o• ^ < • f* - K n «• N • * 5i r:? «n t-ad«a 23«E V O' 2 S t 2 ?« «- <u n o I I o» o* <« w I I o o M a Ji a K S b 8 M n K a A « ft ft S 3 5f ; u 3J 3 5 5 S !} a S 2 KX K S S S S 8 i 3 3 3 S.S 5 S S P 2 2 JJ£i] ift - «i O' «> <T> till O' o« m o* « O W to O lA M U) I/I o ml U) (U MIA (U UilA rn rtn n M n •o 0^0 O o I II I l< I »• »4». tu 01 PIO O'O N IH P* o ai o z z z•-4 M m CO CO W CO CO <0 bl Ul bJ U1 U M <- ■ ■J z Z|0 z a o o 0|« o £ z X X O. X oJ 0. O. CLj BL J Ui ujI < bJ < I1II1I<U<< p- Mo I- a a 3 33 3 _z £z r X X £r X X O So O G U CJ| U U CJ I- CO CO Cfl U U 111 13 3 3 to COi CO CO CA 3 313 3 3 01 O ot lA O' O «D CO N. N O' O' s lA lA O < n PI <U (Uo o 01 p- H p. CO IT 0 M tC 01 lA »• O' O' M O' 00 CO o CO S. S. N N O' O' O' O's s ^ ^ e o G lA lA U1 0 o < PI p» n 01 01 01 o e e tO < CO < O 01 S r. rn 01 o 01 OJ p- p 01 a 01-01O- 0> O' I I I O' O' o* < <■ »• 01 lA lA I I I 000 CO 00 CDPI n PI 'T < < — w n o p- p. o at o. O. 0. X M M M X z X CO (0 CO z z z u u u z n o XXX u u u XXX -I M M U U UU bl IIIz z z 000 W U 111 c» 3 D 5 SiS nl ij3 CO o to M H < < <u1 0 z<-1 Z u ►• )- H < M z zu033zZ « «•-<z 3 0 M M _i HH0.U IL.z z z U 3 u bl U u <H<U u M XXX 3E z m X ac K Z BL Z z Mu0<<0 0 a 0 3 K S X 0 •J Z z z a z 1-U>3 ••i •«••»• 0 0 0 e 0 e 0 e 0000 <■<• 0 0 in in If0 0 0 0 0 0 lA in 0 0 a 0 (U Al U1 in — — a• • • •• #• •• •• • lA lA tr <0 0 <U (U 0 z 0 lA 01 AJ P p- P P «o01 01 <0 to 0 0 O' O'— v>Z OJ CU P PI PI PI PC .#1 z-Al Al ■— in in O'O'O'O' O' O’O'1 .O'O' Z CO CO z z z z z z <N,N N \V »s. V V N V NO'O'O'O' O' O'O'O'O'0 z* z*«■ V N N N V N N.Nz* <■ 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 in to 0>O' O' 0 0 Z r0000000 O'O'O' O' 0 o<O'0 PI n n n PI PI p n PI r0101(U (U OJ (U 0 <u z a0000 ____1 0 <■ M I ,. - 0 c ^'a's 7 1 5 • t;^ 8 -ill zip. uu<a. aeut H<o (• Uloe atu UJ Xo r-surus <0O) UlX o Q. o X 5* o< H i aeo a X U)O' ton Ul H<a « * » •• 2Z2 flO Q> o e 5SSS Z ;28 a4|SS63 «Hsa|aa?iS|ii8«V a X a Z> Xu »• J t<< r- K ■ Ul « X tfl Ul » c» f K C- o q H- H o o oX 3 wu. a »- cn a ton Q a X X 3 3 0 u. a X 3 Cl) «o a O Q CO XO O >H X X h- o o < n o X Ula a a K o in Ul CO o Hot Ot < — — 3 0 o o,p « 01 (u mn ai ■o *- rtl UJl SJ_8J ' ■*. 533 3 8 8 8 SlO 5 C U flh Ul(»< n A r- - N ft y 3 3 Z Z < < Z Z < < < z z z < < < z z z 00 9 O* •- (U I I e e« M n e e I . «J (U N N (U 01 < < <iii z z z Ul N — — — n I I o< o* — «•«»«- 0 o 01 01 01 01 01 01 o o o n n n I I Ul o «o - 01 01 I I 01 01 01 ^ 'T ^ I I I N N N 01 01 01 o o o 5 2 = 5 n Ul 01 n w •«r I I t: 2 S a z z z <<< z z z — — 01 9 9 9 I I « Ul o« O o> o> ▼ o» - ^ tU 01 Ul Ul I I I I I I 01 01 01 01 01 01 I I I I 01 n o r- r- 01 01 01 N N N 01 01 01 o o o o o o H H H s a a a a a fi a«fi s 2 U s ? 2 2 21 ra 5 ? 8tWaa s s s 8 < < < z z z << < < Z z z 01 n I I I o« o o« n T Ul 0 o e 1 I I OI 01 01 n n M ^ 9 I I I o o o < < « 3 9 3z z z * < < z z z Ul n 01 - n ^ o« o* *o h- ^ 0 — (U 1 I I 01 01 01 n n n <r ^ ♦ I I I e o o -1 -1 J < < < 3 3 3z z z < < < z z z z O 9 CD z Z z z z z z z 9 CO CO z z auZ Z z z z z z z z z z M Z Z z <a in V 'S N “W X N N X N N XXX X >u z Ui bJ Ul a a aoaZ Z Z.U Z 9 3 z < < < < < <c < << < << < << < << < <<a a H- H Hi H 1- I- Ul u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u <X Z Z 9 9 Z Z H M HO M M HO HO HO HO M HO HO'3 <0 0 OiO 0 0z z z z z a U.U.a a aa a aa a 1-a a a a a a < 1-z z z z z z z z 99 9 9 9 9 z aIII III III III w u w w Ul a z u a aaz z XXX XXX XXX X X x,x Q< << < << < < < < << < <<0z-J -J J -1 -J -1 -IJ -1 3 .1 -1 _l _l 3 0 K K K Z K Ko3a a a a a aaX X XXX XXX XXX XXX X H 1- H H 1- ►-z z z z z z X z z z z z z z z z Z z z z z z zu< << < << < << < << < <<z 0 < < <!< < <>Z 9 99 9 z a z z z z 9 9 9 z z Z z z Z|Z z za z H 1- K 1- H 1- H V*1- H K H K 1-1-1- >-H H H z X Z Z ZiZ Z Zz z Z Z Z 9 9 9 z z z 9 9 9 z -I 0 000000<a a aa a a •• • o o O Z PI 9 9 9 'O' z z O Z O'z -0 0 z z 000 000 O M r- z z 9 9 tU — z z »o — PI CO 0 0 e z z 0 e 0 0 0 e O' pi z o z Z Z Z *- 'Z PI Z P- O oi ^9 0 kO Z PI p- r-z Ul z «• 9 — z O M —z z Z *• z z z Z Z z z z 0 z Z — PI 1-z O' PI V—z «- z — PIz 3oz< 9 9 z z z 9 9 9 9 9 9 O' O' z z z 9 O' O' z 999 9 9 z z z 9 9 9 9 9 9 z z z z 9 9 CO z z 999 N N N N •S •V N XXX XXX X X X XXX XXX««^ ^^ ^V* ^90 ^ 9"w~O* 0» ZB o» ^Cpo ^^90 90 V* 90 90 ^ ^ w N N ■N N N ■s X V XXX XXX X X X XXX XXX I-^ 90 ^0 90 9» ^^ 90 ^<o o o o o o o o o o o 000 0 0 0 000 000a oz 9 9 z z z 9 9 9 O' z z 9 0 z z z z z zuUl U)Ul Z ZlUl z z Z Z Z z z z Z z z «0 «0 '0|'0 Z 'O Ul n PI n PI pi;pi PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI Pl'pl PI PI X 00 9 , CO z z z z z CO z z z z z Z 9 9 CO Z zlz z zuo u u u u u u u u u u u u u U 0 W 000 u u u X X XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X XXX XXX " 1 I • V O - N !•» 1 «i i* 2 r a a JLJLSui -IJ .J < < < 3 3 3z z z 5 < < ^ z z ^ Ul r- I I I9 9 9 in 9 9 0 o e 1 I I ^ ^ ♦ T ^ ♦ I I I r- r- 0- 01 01 01 N N S o o o ^ ▼ N N N <<<(<<« oe K Z IK z z 111 Ul Ul Ul 111 U 111z a o. z a. z z J -1 u < < < 3 3 3z z z 3 3 3 z z z<<<<<< Z Z Z E Z Z n n n I I I- in — - — 01 I I - n 01 n n 'T I I I 9 9«r- ▼ - 01 I I I T ♦ ^ ♦ ♦ ^ I I I ♦ ▼ »I I I h- 1- 01 01 M S S N I- h- r^ M w 01 o o o H I- H ♦ «r ♦ ^ N N o o oH H H ▼ ’T tr K Z Z Ul Ul Ul Z Z Z <<<<<< Z Z KZ K K Ul 111 Ul III Ul Ul Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 Y e> OI 01 01 01 O Ul •> 01 0 9 01 »- O ^ ^99♦ ^ O' O* <7* O' O' O* CO O O Q (0 CO N N. N N X N N N N o o o N S N N N V o o o o o o n n n n Vi M n 9 9 9 9\9 9 9 — — OI «0 0« O' I I 0 e« O' 0"T *e 01 Ul Ul I I I ^ O' ^ ^ o o- I I I 01 n O M'- h- r- M 01 z> o o o h* I- 1- O- O' o- N N N < < < < I3 3l ilii j ^ ^ c < < 3 3 3 E Z Z C < <c z z j ^ j < < < < < z z z < < < z z z M O' Ul I I O' e* O' n Ul «o 0 o o 1 I I r- — »■ - n n I I O' — Ul O' ^ e «- «- I I I O' O^ I I I 01 01 01 o o o |0 CO « 01 M Z >* N N III III Ul I' j z z z z <<<<<< K Z K K K K111 III 111 ClI III III z z zlz z z - O' n n»- Ul n O' O' O O' O' V» M Z 9 9 9 9 9 9 V V S n n n M n n CO a o a o n u u ulo u u X X z z z X n n n9 9 %0 n n n 0) Q> CO 0"0 ^ «o O <0 — z Ul n»« »- 9 9 9 9 9 9 N N N < < « z z zIII III III z z z < < < 9 9 at^ III III z z z Ul 9 Ul r- Z 9 Ul — Ul Z h* 9 z z < < Z K n n I I ■p> «oz z O' O' O' 0^0 I I I I I ^ or ♦ O' I I o o o >. V Nz z z o o o H ►- H « CO «z z z N N S z z zIII III III z z z S N Z Z o o ►- H » • Z Z < < z zin III z z < < < « < z z zz z III III mill u z z zz z •O Z «« ro ^ «o Zjo^ o 9 0 999 N N N ^ o o o o n n n n 9 9 9 9 VI n n -n 9 9 « O U U U U U UlU X X Z2 X X X 9 9 9 9 9 9 N W N S. \ o o o ^ O' o «o «o >o n n n 9 Ul O'z —Ul Ul 9 9 9 9 9 9 N N N N N. N o o o 9 9 9 9 N N N X o o O' O' O' O' o 9 9 9 9 9 ,n n n Vi n u u u!u (j uiu u X X X X X X 3 *- < “S oz o ac o tLo Ula< o» CO Ul X o a. o Z| I-z 3 Oou<< oeCl CO Ul a, z' Ul t-' ^1 z Ul H co CO Ul tt z Cl Ul XCl I i i n I0 01 oon Xtoss Ulz zo < o o o o o o (U 01 11^! 10zu I '2|0* 0 'o» Ul 1 0 01 n UlI a |UI o> I<0N Ulo N 0 o 01 01 1", o o e o 0 o o o 1 I I I o o o o o o e o 0 o o o 1 I I I0 o o o CO CO CD CO 01 01 01 01 T 7 T T o e o o >- « I-co «z Z Ul z O Z K -I U. Ul 3 Z j a.a. z z Ul o o z o z U Ul z z z z z z z z o a o o z z a z Ul Ul Ul Ulz z z z Z Z Z Zj Cl U Cl uz z z z Ul Ul Ul Ul z z z z < < < < >>•>•>• Ul W Ul u J J ^ -J J J J J < < < < > > > > Ul Ul Ul Ul Z 9» 9> O* CO z z z N N N N Ul Ul Ul U) o o o o X N V N o o o o r- r- r- r- z z z zo o o o z z z z o o o o o o e o to zlu « z z z z z z z z < < < < o o o o o o o o o e r* z o w 0*O«0O|w«- — — Ul »- z toz»>• Xzoeum X Ul X o o o o ui ui'ss;' z z N Ul o N • ::.. :■ : j s: I I : V f y «><-nnnnnYzzz I I I I I I I I I 11 I ZZvtOZZYZZZO i*izzzzzr>^Vzz oo^-^-^wuizm 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I ZZZOJZZZZ — zz UIWUIZWUIUIUIUIIIIW 77777777 7 7 7I I I I I I I I I I I ooooeoeo^•r-^• xzxxxzzxxzx <<<<<<<<<<< •t *1 ►! *7 *71*7 *7 zzzwzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz M UiZUUUUWUUUUzzzzzzzzzzz -I J J -IJ -1^ Jl J mtntotototomtotntotozzzzzzzzzzz UIUIUIUIUUIUIUIUWUIzzzzzzzzzzz -1-l-l-l-IJJJ-JJ.I J-J-IU_IJ-I_U_IJ<<<<<<<<<<< UUUtJUUUUUUU KZKKZZKaKKK UIUIUUWUUIZUIUUI XKXXKXKXXKXXCXXXXKXXXXooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuu ooooeeeoQiooo ,ui r- o> o« «o 1*1 0* o ot o> i< (u 01 n o*.n <o ^ «0n 0»0»9«9>0<0>0«0«9i0*0> (OO(Dfl>COQO0IOCOCO N S S N. '>v X S S S N S UIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI ooooooooooo N S V N N NiN V S O O O O O OjO O 0,0 o nnnnnnnnnpin ,<<<<<<<< < ♦ < 0*0>0«0«0'0»0>0>0»0»0» ooooooooooo ooooooooooo CO Xu I ftft ft o o o o o o 0 0 •t:’.. .. — - n n n n n n o I I I I I «• 0 0 < O <U N M N 0- wJ. JL j. ' •ui ui ui ui m 7 7 7 7 7 I I I I I o ^ ^ <o o o o ^ z z z z z < < < < < ►> *7 *7 *7 *7 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o X X X X z u a u u u z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N S N N S 0 0 0 0 w o o o o o S N N S S o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 f^r^h-r-r- 0 0 w M M 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o H I- H I- -IJ J J _l < < < < <Ul Ul U 0 U X X X X X z z z z z3 3 3 3 3 O O O O O« K Z K K 0 0 0 0 0 j r» 0 n 0 - ^0 n w n o 0 1*1 n ^ n (u< 0 *r 0 0 0 <■ 0 ^ n o or- > 0 0 (U M "t 'li r c lU 0»o lU s m oz Hz3ooo'< z!o E! SIum uio s ttt UIh- CO ►-* CJ UI K Zu UI Zu KO'az o z o Z UI O I-<u. a,o I•i > ot- z • r !'! u.u.o o 0-In 1u.zou I-z o o h- r- (p♦nov o 010 1o on Xtn ae UIaz UIz K h-«0 (0zou <zKZ UIz< o e UI III n n n nfU (U ... u:;;; <QZu I»» e« 01 T«oo n ,T oz M §tozo K U)z>-o. aeutosto UIco ia iV i* o o o e n n •I tl 14 II ‘ - o o 0,0 0*0* 10 CDn ri *r Tin UI O'o»o lO i • i: I • o) ! ^ I o o o o 0 o 01 01 -; ' .1 ■, 3 o o o o ; i: j:::: i I V IJ I ! i 01 in «• >- n 01 — — n n n *rI I I I I Io» o» *e 0* O' o* n *0 01 01 O'0 o — ^ 011 I I I I I in in in in in ui OlO o o o oI ll I I I I z z z z z z<<<<<< ►»,*'» *0 1*0 ►» a II) w w m m z z z z z z a m a a m M o o o o o o z,z z z z X UI 111 u u u wae ae oe ae at ae<.< < < < <u u u u u u z z z z z zH h- H H H H < < < < Ul 111 ui W U UI z,z z z^z z ae ae ae ae ae aeHHt-HHh-o u u u u u Q o Q Q a aIII uj lu iij m m z z z z z z o a a a - M a o-ia a aio o m a V M wa a a a a a a i- n o. a a e* o> o* tf> to ta to to ca to VN N N.a a a a a a 0,0 o o o o n! V N N N N o o o o o o ;• h- f- h-w a a a a a a • o o o o o o• a a a a a a• o o o o e o• o o o o o o a :* 5: r : :*i:’ l r azu !iiO* a I !o i • o 0 1oo 0 1at a 01 Tnr- a waae<zu z< ►» oaeHzou wI- a<3 OaeHUZ a a a a ri ri r- r- r> r- a a ao IN 7ia, a 7aa 0 1 az u$><• u.azua z,z< o o o o ai a' N:a if n Ia a To a n0 1 az0 1 # ztoto< u.u.o aeo. wz aeu zz 9 o! o o a a a a - ? : f 9> (O I O* 0 1 oe u (»Hi oe ae o 111 zu III(» <■ 0>{ (0< III Si o z H Z 3 Ouu Ku at 111 o, s 111 K Q! O a z 111 >1 o* <11 T'o CD n r :* ! ’! . ■ 71 ?? ' j;*.' V41 ^ 2/. r ? i; s'h <•z 0 1 ;; 5’. r r :, <0z 0 1 <u n I 01 n r- n I o X <0« Ul CD E u E Z <0<, to u. Ill X u IIIu•>« -J o o. z E K III H K< 3 O I- 0} 'o o o o n n 0 e o* o> 1 I 0 e - 01 «e « 1 I 01 01 .CD I o* «- CD I I 01 - I 111 01 3 a III 3 CD a o Z I- 0 z ,CD M 1 m *• 01 n — - 9* 9* 9* I I II I 0 9* 9* 9* O 01 « ^ <0 9*0 o in in in 1 I I I I o e o o o0 e o o o n n n n n 1 I I I I «- — oin<- o o r- > I w K I •• < U H Z -I X O >• 0. & H H M*t 111 a > 3 Z< eoiin-<-nM^nij 0 ^ ^ n n riiT 9* •* 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I o n «o (u 01 ▼ >o0 e o ^ lu in in 1 I I I I I I I I 01 - - - ^ »- ^ r-ininininnininin n T ? ? ♦ ? ? Ir 5 I I I I I I > I I I ^ ^ ^ ^ 01 n oeo.eeoer-r- 01 n 'T I I- H H z z z CEE >->->- E E 0. i H I- H M M M Q Q Q 3 3 3< < < ZZZZ*fZZZZ <<<< '<<<< tnmtomtontotom zzzzzzzzz E E E E E EE E E (ocowoicoioiomto OOOOOOOOO: X X X X X X X X X, in n « n n n ^ I I II 1 •« 01 01 r- ^ ?TTT701 01 M 01 01in in in in Ul ? 5* ? ? ♦ 11 I I I I o o o e o z z z z z < < < < < CD (0 <0 <0 <0z z z z z 111 111 III III Ul E E E E E M M M < t ■ I t I :< <E E E E E ! 1 z z Ul Ul Ul 111 Ul I 1 1 ” 1 “ H K <0 m to to m to u>xxxxxxzxx -> ->E E E E E •-►•►-l-l-l-l-l-l- i E E O O O O O 3-IJJ-l_l-l-IJ E E <<<<<<<<<a i IllUIUIUWUUIUlUzZ Z E E E E E X X X X X XX X X 3 z z E E E E Eo< <Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul <D<DCDCD<DI0<0<0C0 E E CD CD z z z z z zzzzzzzzz Ul 1 <<<<<<c < <t- E 1- 1-J J -1 -1 3 M M M M M »<•M M M <0oCO CD -1 J J J _l uuuuuuuuu < Ul Ul 1 Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul M M M M M M M E>3 3 i z z z z z CD<DCD<DCO<OIO<OIO H H 1 E « 1 z z z z z >->->->■>->•>•>->•<0 •>4 O O 1 < < < < <xxxxxxxzx Ouz z E _l -I J J J < < < < < M M M M l-l-l-l-l- z z z z z III 111 Ul 111 III a a o a a 3 3 3 3 3 « « K E « « IT o» P! .O o T 1 •»••1 1 1 •<»! • j o o U) Ul o o e o o e o o o e o o o o o p- o o r-o e V e p- o o 9 o o 1 o 01 E |0 o o 1 o o o O O <9.o o e - PI O Ul O 0 9 o o /r 9 9 P* O Ul O O o o «o <o o Ul in 1 Ul r- Ul Ul Ul r-E r- 9 o n 9 Ul E 9 9 p- r»o 9 p- E 9 o o Ok Ok Ul Ul !OEM Ul O Q »- <• o 9 o> O 9 o O 9 9 PI 9 cu <u n Ok,o o»-!n n 1 t» 9 9 o E - r-P> « PI E E PI 9 —,9 i 1 ^ ••z -^ ^ «%1 •1 1 3 PI PI I j O PI PI >1 O Ul - «o ;11 1 1 1 1 E t 1< i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ! ! i i 9*9*y c» t1 iOk Ok Ok 0> ' j 9* 9* 9* 9* 9*9 1 i 9 9 9 I i. \ ' 1 j 0> Ok Ok Ok Ok 1 9 CD CD |o o 1 (0 0 CO O CD 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 CD CO O O CO 9 O V 1 "S ^ 1 XXX X X XXX X X X XXX X \ N X N N X Z U)Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul VI Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul in Ul O e o O O 1 o o o e o o o o o o o o o o 1 O o o o o o ,o E Ui N X N X X X X X X N \ S X X V S X X X X X X X X X O I-V* ^^ V*' ^ 9"' ^ ^ ^, ^ 9* u.< o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o j o o o o o o o o o 'O o 1 >•o [I ; 1-z i i 1 ! 1 !t u z !•Ul •^ V> i •0 9 E O 9 •' V* 9»*—•9 •PI PI PI PI PI •PI o *n •V r~ 1 #o e o o o •E E E E E E E E E •E •9 9 9 9 9 • <r»111 ui1 »Ul •Ul Ul !•9 9 <0 >0 «0 •1 dO dO kO 9 9 9 9 9 9 •9 »9 9 9 9 9 •9o>X o*•9*•9* 9*•9* 9* 9* 9* 9*•' Ok Ok Ok 9* 9*9 9 9 9 •9 •9 9 9 9 9 •9 o*o 1 o *o •O O •O O O O O •o o o o e O O O O •O *O O O O O 1 •O o •o •|0 e 1 •o e o e e •o o o e o O O O O •O •o o e o o •O Wi COUNCIL mm JAM 23:-33 ' *Tv sao» \' . OPEN HOUSE JAN 2 3 You are cordially invited to an Open House and tour of the: O CITY OF MOUND'S NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 5468 LYNWOOD BLVD. (corner of Belmont Lane and Lynwood Blvd. - 1 Block north ’of the Post Office) SUNDAY. JANUARY 29, 1989 1:00 P.M. TO 4:00 P,M. The Mayor, Council and City Staff look forward to seeing you and your family. ***FREE COOKIES, COFFEE AND SODA*** An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to. or treatment or employment in. its programs and activities. Dear nr -Ll L .. JAN I 9 ;2S9 January 17, 1989 jiii' I am seeking the Metropolitan Council seat for District 13. I have appreciated the opportunity to serve on metropolitan level committees ar commissions In the past, and believe strongly that the CoimcJf representative should possess both knowledge of our communities and exper lence In public service. 1 have worked as the planner for the city of Medina for almost nine years, and have extensive knowledge of, and experience In, solid waste Issues. Medina has the only operational landfill In Hennepin County, and Is also the site of a proposed municipal solid waste compost facility. I have been, and continue to be, closely involved In Issues pertaining to Lake Minnetonka, and clearly recognize the regional significance of this valuable natural resource. 1 have received a Metropolitan Council grant to study the Impact of regional facilities on host communities. As a member of the League of Minnesota Cities Planning Committee, 1 Initiated and outlined an informational session regardlng^compensatlon for host communities. 1 perceive a genuine need for metropolitan government to ^^unctlon as a planning and cc ■ lating agency for the cities and counties of the region, and look rorward to the opportunity to serve District 13. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, C^oEllen L Hurr JoEllen L. Hurr 930 Partenvood Road Long Lalce, Minnesota 53356 (612)471-9801 Education: Bachelor of Science, University of Minnesota Land Use Control Course, University of Minnesota Legality of Planning Course, MN Institute of Legal Education* Waste Legislation Course, MN Institute of Legal Educaticm Experienc?^ Planning and Zoning Administrator Oty of Medina 1980 to present 1988-1989 or 1981 to present ^ Minnetonka Conservation District Commissioner Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 1985. to present Representing Western Hennepin Cou ity, Scott County, Carver County, and a portion of Dakota County - Chairman of Budget and Administration Committee 1986 - Member of Internal Audit Committee 1986 - Member of Employee Relations Comm. 1986 and 1987 - Residual Solids Management Committee 1987 and 1988 Member - Metropolitan Council Systems Committee 1987 to present - Metr opolitan Council Citizen Advisory Comm. 1984-1986 - Metropolitan Council Advisory Comm, on Aging 1979-1986 Central States Water Pollution Control Assoc. 1987-1988 - Hennepin County Park Reserve District's Noerenberg Memorial Park Planning Committee 1984-1986 - Orono aty Coundi 1978-1982 - Orono Marina Committee 1980-1982 - Orono Planning Commission i976-1978 - Orono Park Commission 1975-1976 JoEUen L. Hurr, Page 2 Board Member and Advisor Women's Assoc, of the Minnesota Symphony Orchestra (WAMSO) 1979-1986 and 1988 to 1991 - Vice-President for Education 1973-1975 -Junior WAMSO President 1969-1971 - Symphony Ball Committee 1979-1989 Board Member National Auiiliary to the Academy of Neurology 1980-1987 Past Board Member Hennepin County Medical Auxiliary Past Board Member Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church Past Board Member Westonka League of Women Voters Past Delegate State Republican Convention and Member of Resolutions Committee References: Available upon request U <te^^J t> •oiwJ)- vl) ‘^*'^ ““!• ^W association of metropoiitqn municipaiities January 13* 1989 Dear Legislative Contact; The date for the Breakfast Meeting with the Legislators in your area has been set. Please reserve: Friday, February 3» 1989 from 7:30 to 9:00 A.M. For a Continental Breakfast at the Hopkins House 1501 Highway Seven Hopkins, Minnesota Enclosed is a copy of the letters sent to your area legislators. Will you please follow up? A handwritten note or personal invitation from you will encourage their attendance. The AMM encourages you to also invite the one people, either on your City Council or city staff, who will be the most active in dealing with your legislators. order to help defray costs, the AMM asks that you share the cost by paying $5»00 for yourself and for each city official attending. 0 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 Please call Melanie Ault or Carol Williams at 227-4008 with the names of people attending, or if you have any questions. We are looking forward to seeing you and your legislators! Sincerely, Gary Bastian, President Association of Metropolitan Municipalities enclosures e ftJr b] Os z < CQ 06 CQ 9(/) H 5 8 & 8. S o ,S•i|ii=3! a 8.c«» 2-I o S 5 S 1 = i| |- 5f lilljils ^ 8§- -5 i i 1 I I I mm illlii O 2 s:sl!ii| l|l|li| 9 11 1^ i^slllil »il!i;|3I mip s il-il'fl vm I||fls 5! ® Q ^ ll S8 3 ’■■3 a r^'S«si?.2«S ei«it “■g CO .- i S •® 12 S ». I HENNEPIN DATE; January 5, 1989 TOl Dorothy M. Hall in, Orono City Cl4^ FROM: Donald F. Monk, Director of Assessments SUBJECT: 1989 Local Board of Review Date Thursday May 11 Day of the Week Date Minnesota Law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Review meeting. After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council. As therajnust be a quorom,' I would sifggest that an informal review of your members with a request'that they mark their calendars would be appropriate. 5-- -U i - ® f •:*Please confirm.^e dateJset out or call Tom May at 348-3046 with your alternatlve.-date’Tby^Janu^ary. 20!,\ ^ so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., but will discuss it with you if you wish a different time. Your early completion and return of the attached tear off strip will be appreciated and we will sent your official notice for posting as required by law. CONFIRMATION Municipality: Date: Time: Place: Orono May 11, 1989 . 7:00 P.M. 0 >no Council Chambers 1 For selecting meeting dates will be helpful _________ uture years, the following information •*. '-i .’U . s . »,»• .T..- Lcke yUnnstcnka Cable CommuvAcations ComrrAss'wn -143 uA:< STRHET • EXCcLSiO.^, MIMNESOTA 35331 • io:2j Date: January 9, I98? To: LMCCC Commissioners From: Holly Hansen Re: Monthly Update Upcoming MACTA Conference Li @ (s 0 ' -'I 1\\ JS» I 0 Effl _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (ill Enclosed please find the minutes from the December meeting of the LMCCC Executive Committee. Also enclosed are some articles from Multichannel News and Cab lev Is Ion that 1 hope you will find of Interest. This Is also a reminder to all of you that the MACTA Conference Is coming up January 27th and 28th at Scanticon Conference Center In Plymouth. The Executive Committee authorized up to 6 people to attend this conference. You may attend either one or both days of the conference, and there are still a few openings available. If you are Interested In attending the MACTA Conference or want more Information, please contact me Immediately as we will be sending in our registrations on January 17th. The quartely meetings of the full Commission will be held on the following dates In I989: .-ebruary 2; May 16 A uo u s t: 15 November 21 All meetings are scheduled at 5:00 p.m.; location will be announced prior to the meeting. If you have any questions or comments or want to register for the MACTA Conference, please give me a call. I look forward to seeing you all in February! HH/mb Enclosure I. MINUTES LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION e:: CEL SI OR studio 5:00 P.M. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1988 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Haggerty called the December 20, 1988 executive meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Directors Present Dennis Haggerty Lois Johnson Jim Olds Lesley Hughes-Secimans Others Present Holly Hansen Shelly Quaas - Recorder II. APPROVAL or MINUTES MOTION 12.20.88.1: Olds moved, seconded by Johnson, to approve th. Minut.. of Noveob.r 15, 1988 as written. Motion carri.d unanimously. ... III. REPORTS A. OFFICERS Chairman Haggerty expressed to the Commission how important it is to get the cities involved in the Commission. He would like to see more participation from Council members in attending local cable conferences. B. TREASURER :iCTIC:i 12.20.33.:; JUST ClAIUS; •.r.cved, J3ccr.ded by Johnson, to approve the Just Claims as written cn Appendix A. 2'icdcarri-d unar.ir.iCU3l", Olds reported to the Commission that the LMCCC received a bill from W.F. Denny Company for the financial review of Dowden. Hansen has not recommended payment as a report or evaluation has not yet been received from W.F. Denny Company on the financial review. Haggerty feels that the gross revenues should be defined in the report. C. ADMINISTRATIVE Administrator Hansen explained to the Commission that there is em outstanding bill for O'Connor and Hanneui for transfer expenses: this bill was only recently brought to Hansen's attention and she sent a second request for payment to Triax. Access: Plans for a Valentine program called "Video Valentine" is in the works. Hansen would like to purchase a Crime File Series which includes 30 shows that can be run consistently; she will look into splitting the cost with other cities or cable commissions. LMCCC Minutes Decexnber 20, 19 88 Page 2 ADMIMISTRATIVE REPORT COirTIMUED; Secretary Monique Basart will be leaving the studio. Her last day is January 20, 1989 and Hansen will be advertising for a new part-time secretary. The MACTA conference is coming up January 27 and 28. The cost is approximately $130.00 for 2 days and meals are included. MOTION 12.20.88.3: Olds moved, seconded by Hughes-Seamans to allow six (6) members to attend for a full registration (2 days). Motion carried unanimously. Projects for 1989; *Hansen would like to do a subscriber telephone survey in 1989. The purpose would be to point out how effective LMCCC is, how Triax is perceived, what can be improved and what is going well. Volunteer assistance from commissioners and access users would be necessary in order to conduct the survey. ♦Hansen ^eived a complaint about the signal quality on Regional Channel 6. She would like to readdress this problem beginning in January. ♦Channel space for the PEG (Public Educational 6 Governmental) Channels is another issue that needs to be addressed in 1989. A variety of new programs have come into existence but there is not enough channel zir.\e to play them. iiansen wouid ii/ve zo see Channel 8, the Government lhannel, opened u? next. IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION 12.20.88.4; Johnson moved, seconded by Clds, to adjourn the December 20, 1988 meeting at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Shelly Quaas Recorder UfCCC JUST CLAIMS iI/16/88 - 12/20/88 CHECK #DATE PAYABLE AMOUNT ACCOUNT 10123 11/30 Holly Hansen $ 737.34 Payroll 10124 11/30 Monique Basart 155.03 Payroll 10125 11/30 Uilliam Strotm 76.87 Payroll 1793 1794 11/30 P.E.R.A. VOID 85.94 P.E.R.A. 1795 11/30 U. S. West Comnunications 59.34 Telephone 10126 12/15 Holly Hansen 728.34 Payroll 10127 12/15 Monique Basart 159.29 Payroll 10128 12/15 Williaai Strohsi 276.57 Payroll 1796 - 12/15 P.E.R.A.9.00 P.E.R.A. Life 1797 12/15 P. E.R. A.85.94 P. E.R. A. 1798 12/15 Coasiissioner of Revenue 120.37 MN Payroll Taxes - 1799 12/15 Bank Excelsior 631.31 941 Taxes 1800 12/15 Paychex 27.80 Sect'l. Svcs. 1801 12/20 Shelly Quaas 60.00 Sect'l. Svcs. 1802 12/20 U. S. Postmaster 22 50 Postage 1803 12/20 Weekly News, Inc.32.40 Transfer 1804 12/20 Crow River News 37.53 Transfer 1805 12/20 MN Sutmrban Newspapers 89.43 Transfer 1806 12/20 The Laker/Pioneer 37.46 Transfer 1807 12/20 Holly Hansen 47.88 Mileage 1808 12/20 Lake Business Supply 574.75 Office Supplies 1809 12/20 Voss Electric Supply Co.198.75 Misc. Video 1810 12/20 Cinequipt Inc.201.37 Misc. Video Insurance (1989 exp.)1811 12/20 John W. Traeger Agency, Inc.293.00 1812 12/20 Holly Hansen 262.23 Health Ins. (1989 exp' 1813 12/20 O'Connor & Hannan 446.25 (Legal - 170.00 Transfer 276.25) TOTAL $5.456,69 BANK EXCELSIOR Beginning Balance Clalaa Deposit - access Interest Bank Charge ENDING BALANCE $27,967.00 ( 5,456.69) 30.00 122.17 ( 14.92) $22,647.56 STATE CAPTIOL CREDIT UNION Balance* $ 6,438.54 *Does not include 4th Qtr Interest C.D.*s $ 7,000.00 8 7.52 due 1/10/89 26,000.00 8 8.5Z due 4/10/89 o CO < CO COo ap|8-g“i|i®-3 ® ll 'IlKriliul*™s lull §1 sir S'! i'' \tm Millf;! ^lilfiillli ’llfSK ”fl!l|j\m “#||1 a*illHl fllfel -- MIllP iSfUiln &8aS& CM i 7 mmm «llfsllfatli -‘=«»-j5,5|i|||j “ I !|ii!rilli5^’s2 t^nnu ag^l'Sagfl s,®aga'|l'8g«s.- „ illllisifs^l'siil mm oi-|L®-as^fs ■£^VJ ifi|s|P ||- ia'Sa^ 6g8|« =3.3 'iil^ 121Hi^Wl ix »ig *1 biiillfjlf! = 4umo ’C111^3 5 e c ^ olSf.S &i 42-§-p ui g !5 E "P c ^ cr «I £01| »| I •6 I u I - 5 D d ii;iysi|p8 ■5 •c ^ a c 3 — I I J ^ _ • s S’** is E g S. o -o S •» w r* J i; S " 2 t> iiii^ lllfisi, i S .« a .5 a V ^ &-fi _ ^ s i 'S'S « » S s-a S>8'§ 6 = 0 B g “ y SifU H “-2 “ ' 4l ;| 2| I SI ^6 flilJ s s.« illOWI .Sn^a:fe§>'g».l ipsi “-■i| 2 BiplH i!N§ e V e ® ^ O-mm §2|ts|c|i'C IfoS'^lst-a^-B!g«o.g-i8^ • fe 2-.S B o “ I li|l|l|S KlllllltlS* « ^ sjlsisi* S-O > ^ fllllslfli^i "£ig'2««isp_ ^ a'sIS.gsIsi-' « S <0 x^ihL “2s:iiii^?tii fisiiiiila cS 3tn £ 2 i: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 1988 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, December 12, 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 Jim Franklin, the consent agenda was approved as follows: 14, 1988 regular meeting; 14, 1988 Board workshop; - approved the minutes of the November - approved the minutes of the November - approved the following variance request: Kirsten Gilfillan, grade 11, to attend Robbinsdale Schools; - approved Diane Dingmanr.'s request for a maternity disability leave to com­ mence sometime in March at the direction of her physician, with a return to work date of April 24, 1989; - app»-oved the following coaches for winter sports: Brian Bergstrom, assistant basketball coach - boys (F); Steve Boylan, assistant basketball coach - boys (MS) and girls (MS); Debbie Thompson, assistant basketball coach - girls; Liz Young, assistant basketball coach - girls (MS); Bob Komma, assistant gymnastics coach; Dave Shavlik, assistant hockey coach; Kelly Shaughnessy, head wrestling coach; Peter Dubay, assistant wrestling coach; Todd Meyer, assistant wrestling coach (MS); Amy Luesebrink, head ski coach; Joe Dalman, assistant ski coach; - approved the appointment of Debbie Perry as a noon supervisor at Schumann Elementary School effective December 1, 1988; - approved the appointment of Lynda Stahlke as management aide at Orono High School effective December 5, 1988; - accepted the resignation of Judy Schliinz as lunchroom supervisor at Schumann Elementary School effective November 30, 1988; - accepted the resignation of Betty Beach, hi ,.! school counselor, effective at the end of the 1988-89 school year; - approved the following new winter Community Education classes: Approved by the Orono Board of Education - December 12, 1988 COMMUNITY EDUCATION WINTER CLASSES Cooking with Red Apron Catering Nail Care Hair Braiding Personal Development: Healthy Self Image, Leadership Jean Isley Clark Workshop Parenting with Dan Daly Powder Puff Mechanics Scarf Tying Parenting: Balancing Work & Parenting, Single Parenting Parenting Teenagers Prevention of Athlete Injuries for Coaches - approved the following new winter ECFE class offerings: Approved by the Orono Board of Education - December 12, 1988 ECFE WINTER CLASSES 1. Guest Speaker: Jean Illsley Clarke - ''Self-Esteem and the Ties cf Strong Families" (co-sponsored with the Elementary P.T.A. and the Middle School Parent Advisoty Council) 2. Family Parent/Child Class (5 evening sessions) Parent Discussion Topic: Balancing Work and Family 3. Grandparent/Grandchild Class (1 evening session) 4. Parent Only Workshops: "Coping with Miscarriage, Stillbirth, and Infant Loss" (1 evening session) "Is There Romance After Children?" (1 evening session) 5. "Super Saturday" Events: "Storytime Extravaganza" and children's concert by the Flyers "A Morning of Memories" at Haven Homes in Maple Plain (Old fashioned sleigh rides, activities, and storytelling by Bob Gasch) "A Teddy Bear Picnic" with the Teddy Bear Band 6. Parent/Child Workshops: "New Kids in Town" Meeting (1 session) "Valentines: Signed, Sealed and Delivered (to the Post Office) "Parachutes anC Parades" (1 session - music and movement hour) 7. Field Trips: Tour of the "Cookie Factory" (Olson's Bakery in Wayzata) Tour of the Post Office (Valentine Workshop) Open Gymtime at Northshore Gymnastics Rollerskating at Cheepskate - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 061052 through 061211 and 060431 through 060566. Dr. Mich reported that Mrs. Kitty Crosby was honored by Governor Perpich at the "Capital for a Day" program, held on November 22, for her work on behalf of the Orono Scholarship fund; that Orono has received 210 application requests for open enrollment and 135 have completed applications representing about 100 fami­ lies and he emphasized that no facilities/instructors will be developed/added but students will be accepted within Orono's established parameters for class size. Dr. Mich stated that on December 1, 1988 the District completed payment to Woods Academy for the return of the Maple Plain facility to the Orono School District. Following condemnation of the leasehold agreement, a negotiated settlement for the sum of $450,000 was achieved. Dr. Mich stated that it is regrettable that this cost was necessary, however, the decision to lease the building was made at a time of declining enrollment with little prospect for reversal of that trend. During the life of the lease, the District received $108,000 in payments from Woods Academy which offsets, in part, some of the settlement cost and the fact that the building was not in operation for six years provided a savings to the District of an estimated $800,000. Dr. Mich stated that the decision to condemn the leasehold and to negotiate a settlement was made in light of the cost of building a comparable facility, that cost being estimated at 4 million dollars for construction and the cost to taxpayers, inclusive of financing, would have approximated 6.6 million dollars. Dr. Mich stated that the building now houses the Orono Primary School and the District is looking forward to making good use of that building. Dr. Mich reported that the AMSD pre-legislative dinner session is scheduled for January 11, 1989 at the Sheraton Midway; that the MSBA Convention will be held January 19, 20 and 21 at the St. Paul Civic Center; that the NSBA Convention will be held April 1 - 4, 1989 in California; that he wanted to draw their attention to the article in the PIONEER regarding the scientist in residence program in the elementary schools; that he had received from Tom Wasbotten a document entitled "Orono” High School Enrichment Opportunities for Gifted and Talented Students" whirh details the opportunities available for high school students; that he woulu send a letter to Betty Beach on behalf of the Board recognizing her retiren'?;nt and expressing congratulations/appreciation to her for her twenty-seven years of service and dedication to the Orono Schools and its students. David McKown reported that the Superintendent had been evaluated by the School Board on November 14, 1988. He stated that each Board member was given the opportunity to rate the performance of the Superintendent and a composite rating was developed. Board members also had the opportunity to comment on the perfor­ mance of the Superintendent. In summary, Mr. McKown stated that the Board of Education is well pleased with the performance of the Superintendent. He expressed congratulations to Or. Mich for a good year and appreciation to Kitty Crosby for her work in the evaluation process. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education directed its representatives to AMSD (Association of Metropolitan School Districts) to support legal efforts and activities, including the possibility of intervention, designed to counteract the "equity lawsuit" filed against the State of Minnesota. Dr. Mich provided background information to the Board regarding the "equity lawsuit" being brought against the State by A.S.G.S.D. (Association of Stable and Growing School Districts) and the implications should this lawsuit be successful. Or. Mich reported to the Board on the facilities needs of the District. He stated that the short term needs have been resolved with the opening of the Orono Primary School; that with the securing of additional land, the Board has begun to plan for long-range forecasting/growth; that the immediate problem to be considered is the overcrowding at the intermediate/middle school. Dr. Mich underscored that the facilities needs being considered/developed are being discussed because of Orono's students and not because o- potential students resulting from open enrollment. He stated that a recommendation will be made to the Board next month with respect to facilities. Dr. Kent Winter reported to the Board on activities occurring at the high school this year. He stated that as this is Orono*s first year of participation in the Tri-Metro Conference, he wanted to inform them that the match-up of activities is good, the competition is more evenly distributed, there is a broader range of activities available for our students and that this was a very positive move for the District. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved contracts for the District Coordinator of Buildings and Grounds for 1988-90 and for the District Accountant for 1988-89. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education directed Dr. Thomas B. Mich, Superintendent of Schools and ex officio member of the Board of Education, to represent the Board of Education in the third step of the grievance procedure (Article XV, Section 15.4 of the Scnool Aide Master Agreement) in the grievance appeal of a management aide. Mr. Howard Dettloff, on behalf of the School Day Task Force, presented the recommendations of the Task Force to the Board of Education as follows: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SCHOOL DAY SCHEDULE TASK FORCE TO THE ORONO BOARD OF EDUCATION 1. Of immediate concern is a combination of elementary and high school students on the same bus. The Task Force highly encourages the Board to address this issue this school year (1988-89). 2. It is recommended that the School Board explore other transportation grade configurations and to plan bus routes differently but efficiently within limitations. 3. If possible, there should be no mix of students on a bus, e.g. elementary with high school; middle school with high school; etc. If this is not possible, then the concept of monitors on busses should be explored. 4. The school day schedule should be established with the high school beginning first, intermediate school/middle school second and elementary third. 5. Any schedule changes for next year should not negatively impact teacher pre­ paration time nor extend their supervisory duties. 6. Any schedule changes must be established in a timely fashion so the com­ munity can be notified of the public hearing prior to the final establish­ ment of the schedule, and prior to the closing of the school year. 7. The Board should recieve the packet of materials provided for the task force which summarized the survey results and, further, the task force encourages the Board to pay particular attention to parent, teacher, and principal comments. 8. The Task Force encourages the Board to continue to be sensitive to the needs of families requiring day care and their need for timely notification of schedule changes. 9. The Task Force asks that the Board encourage the highest level of safety and concern for the well-being of children on the part of the transporation company. 10. The Task Force recommends that no schedule changes take place this academic year. Each recommendation was explained/reviewed with Me Board asking questions/requesting clarification on various aspects of the recommendations. Or, Mich expressed appreciation to Mr. Dettloff for his r^esentation, to Bill Fenholt, Dr. John Maresh and each member of the Task Force for the time and effort that they gave to this committee. He stated that aaiinistration will now study these recommendations and will, within the parameters set up by these recommendations, look at the potential school day scheJules that co d be established. Within a timely fashion and allowing ?or normal ating procedures to be followed, administration will present to the Board a recommen­ dation for adoption. Or. Mich stated that the Task Force ill be notified as to when the recommendation will be presented to the Board. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Frank in, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: 'y9/‘’n Dave McKown, Chairman