Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-1989 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meetingCOUNCIL PACKET 08/28/89 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATEo� PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW rOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) wt- IVA COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 19*61"959I. (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine enacted upon by one motion by the City Counci ft*mm Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Woodhill Avenue - Resolution 2. 7:00 P.M. PU]LIC HEARING - County Road 15 Lighting Improvement - Resolution 3. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 4. Regular Meeting of August 14, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Edward Brown Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT **APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolution copies. * 5. #1405 Thomas Colwell, 2640 North Shore Drive - Final Subdivision * 6. #1326 Wayzata Country Club/Ron Lauer, North Ferndale Road - Final Subdivision - Resolution * 7. #1407 Leopold Hauser, 475 Ferndale Road North - Final Subdivision - Resolution 8. #1417 NSP Substation, 3960 Sixth Avenue North - Conditional Use Permit * 9. # 1 4 2 5 Ward Farrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance/Subdivision 10. #1429 Ralph Burgess, 2610 West Lafayette Road - Variance - Conditional Use Permit 11. #1433 Loren Butterfield, 3925 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permit 12. #1435 John Nafus, 2580 Dunwoody Avenue - Variance 13. #1438 Mrs. Phillip Pillsbury, 1200 Brac<etts Point Road - Variance * 14. Road Name Request - Dennis Kumlin MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 15. Orono Centennial CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT lb. Deborah Drive 17. 1990 Strategic Planning 18. L.M.C.D. Intergovernmental Relations 19. Navarre Re -Development Meeting 20. 1990 Budget Meeting - Set 1990 Budget Public Hearing AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1989, 7:00 P.M. CITY ,�QjJ�STjtATgA1 S REPORT Continued 22.�:► de SchbilU e - Double Fee Policy - Ordinance Amendment * 22. Bond Sale * 23. Fee Schedule - PRD/CUP - Ordinance Amendment * 24. Public/Private Enforcement * 25. Stubbs Bay Sewer * 26. Firework:.: Ordinance * 27. CDBG - Subrecipient Agreement * 20. County Road 116 - Public Information Meeting Date Change - September 28, 1989 * 29. Public Works Promotion * 30. Resignation - Building Inspector * 31. Compensation Adjustment - Mel Kilbo * 32. Administrator's Information 530 Stubbs Bay Road Accident Highway 12 and Willow Lift Stations 10 and 43 Construction Site C Discussion Administrator's Vacation CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (33*) BILLS (34*) ADJOURN14ENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 09/14 - Council/PC Mtg--Facilities 09/28 - County Road 116 10/13 - Centennial Ball - Lafayette Club 10/14 - Centennial Program at the Orono High School 10/15 - Family Picnic at Bederwood Park as ociation of metropolitan municipalities August 5. 1989 BULLETIN AUG - - AMM Member Cities FROM: Vern Peterson, Executive director --- - --- Roger Peterson, Directcr of Legislative Affairs 1. THE PERPICH TAX BILL Preface The Governor's Tax Bill is upon us, public hearings gave been held by both the Senate and the House, and we are now in a wait and see mode. Interestingly, in three days of hearings before the Tax Committees, not one person testified in favor of the bill as presented including one of the three big business groups that pushed for the original veto. Based on observation at the hearings and one on one discussions, it appears that the legislators are far from supportive. The rext step in the process will be closed door meetings between the legislative leaders and the administrztion. There is no ind-cation of how long this Phase will last or when or if public hearings and input will be scheduled for a modified compromised gill. The only issue that seems to have general agreement among all the parties is that September 30 is the magic date. If the special session is not held by then, it won't be held. A major question is how much of the bill is for rial? The Governor and his staff have indicated several times that; (1) There r st be a firm agreement before a special session will be called; (2) There is . ,ch room for negotiation in the bill as presented; and (3) The Governor has definite bottom line. The problem is that no one knows for bure what is .,egot_able or what the bottom line might be on the part of the governor or the legislature. Analysis General. With a few exceptions, called rctorm by the Admicistration, the tax bill is basically the same as the vetoed bill. In theory it provides the same $274 million property tax relief, the metro versus outstate relief split is about the same at 69% metro instead of b8Z and 312 outstate, the levy limit provisions are identical as are TIF and future Truth in Taxation. The major differences are in classification tax rates, current and future, which cause a difference in how the tax relief is distributed among property class and a completely revised LGA formula with a $152 million dollar shift of aid to schools from other local governments. Other bill differences include the repeal of about 70 aid/grant programs between 1992 and 1994, increased local option fees or tzxes, and the addition of the SCORE bill. Repealers. Article 1 of the bill sets up a Commission on lntergcvernmental Finance to review spending for all mandates and repealej programs. Among the 70 183 university avenue east,ist paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 plus separate programs repealed are all school aid and county social service programs. Of special note to cities are the repeal in 1992 of Fiscal Disparities, TIF, and transition aid ar.d in 1994 park acquisition and maintenance grants, economic development programs, wastewater treatment grants, all transit subsidy including the MTC, and all Metropolitan Waste Management and landfall abatement programs. The administration staff keeps testifying that the purpose of the repealers are only to insure program and policy review, however, many of the repealed programs are already reviewed annually by the legislature. With the exception of the Intent to Review and possibly the Study Commission, this article appears to be dead. Local Option Fee:./Taxes. Article 7 of the bill provides at local option, the ability to establish utilit" franchise fees, unlimited Hotel/Mor.el sales tax, +_a to half the local tax rate (mill rate) fee for service on Lax exempt proue:ty other than constitutionally exempt property (churches, schools) and a one percent piggyback local sales tax. Testimony was mixed on local option taxeE: but did suggest that the result in the metro area could be drastic disparity in tax rates from one city to another. The AKM does not have policy on 'local option sales tax but did request the Legislature and Revenue to produce analysis on the effect of -his proposal cn the Metro Area. It appears that this en%ire article is dea on arrival. Local Government Aid. The LGA formula is drastically changed. It is basically a modified tax base equalization formula with limitations based on spending and property wealt;i. The initial formula is: f of aid -.75 (1989 levy base - 97. of adjusted net tax capacity) Thp levy hase cannot exceed $900 per household, a ' is zero if 1" of the adju-,ted uet tax capacity exceeds $32 per household, and _„_tial aid cannot exceed 120% of 1989 LGA. The initial aid amount is the same as the vetoed bill at $428 million but is reduced by $100 million by transfer of 5.5"� of adjusted net tax capacity to school districts, thus, city/town levies increase by 5.5 tax rate (mills) while the school levy decreases by a like amount. To achieve the full 5.5 tax rate increase in a few cities and most towns, part of the transition aid (or HACA as some call it) is also reduced. Additionally $27 million dollars of city/town transition aid is transferred to schools for a total of $152 million of aid/credit transfer to schools For 1990, city revenue generally will equal the vetoed bill except for the 5.5: shift. If LGA is greater, transition aid will be reduced and conversely, if LGA is less, transition aid will be increased. In the future, however, LGA will increase at a total'pot' rate of about 5" with a maximum individual increase o: 120Z over previous year. Many cities will remain zeroed and many will rec 4ve no increases in LGA and some will lose LGA since 'grandfathering' is elimianted. Correspondingly, all cities will lose transition aid at the rate of one half percent of tax capacity per year unless the 1;-a1 tax rate is less than 90-of the state average in which case the reduction is 27. of tax capacity. The LGA formula will be adjusted in future years to distribute the 'pot' which will grow by the CPI plus the state percent of household growth. As can be seen, cities with higher property wealth and/or low tax rates will lose LGA and receive less transition aid at a faster rate. Whereas, cities with lower property wealth and higher spending or tax rate will gain LGA and lose transition aid more slowly. It appears that in the name of reform, the administration has still fouud a way to insure that 'the more you spend, the more you get', except that the LGA formula itself is separated from spending. The AMM opposes the aid/credit shift to schools for two reasons. First, there is no control to limit school spending or future lesislati,re foundation, base increases that could offset the 5.5% tax capacity rate reduction. In that case the taxpayer loses and blames the city because that is the unit whose tax rate increased. Secondly, the 1990 prope?ty tax statements will show a comparison of 1989 and 1990 tax rates by unit without explanation. City officials should not have to be in a position of explaining a 5.5 mill increase that came about because of state manipulation. The &M aloi:g with others has requested the Legislature and Revenue to produce analysis on the future workings of the new LGA formula and transition aid. Classification Rates. As in the vetoed bill, classification rates are reduced for certain classes of property and the resulting local tax loss is replaced by increased transition aid to offset tax shifts to other classes of property. The primary beneficiaries of rate changes are mid and 'nigh valued homes, rental property, and C/I property. The Governors bill provides slightly less relief for homes and rental property and more relief for C/1. The number of different classification rates are reduced to 9 in 1990, 4 in 1995 and 3 in 1999. Future rate changes of note include a maximum limit of 2% for homesteads in 1991, 2% for apartments in 1996, and 3Z for C/I in 1999. Attached are two tables showing the comparison of classification rates. One compares current, vetoed bill, and governor proposed rates for 1990 and the other shows the eventual decrease to 3 classes by 1999. Levy Limits. The Levy Limit article is nearly the same as the vetoed bill. The 1989 levy base includes the reserve adjustments granted by the commissioner of Re,ienue except for the amounts not levied. Levy base growth for 1990 is limited to 32 plus one half of the percentage of the greater of household or population growth. Special levies are expanded to include tort judgements, natural disaster expenses, loss of tax receipts due to abatements, plus a number of county program levies. The only difference in levy limits is 0tat the Governor's bill repeals levy limits for cities for 1991 and counties For 1993. Truth in Taxation. This article remains essentially the same as the vetoed bill except the process for budget, notice, hearings, and certifi ns for this year are incorporated as established by the revenue department :. im rules issued June 23, 1989.. Thus, following either current law (1988 t:- or the rules distributed by the revenue department would :omply with the pi- d bill. The Truth in Taxation provisions established for the 1990 budget in the vetoed bill ace identical but delayed one Year. 3 Tax Increment Financing. The Governors proposal incorporates the TIF provisions of the vetoed bill. SCORE. One of the most contro•,ersial parts of the Governors Tax Bill is the addition of the SCORE bill on Waste collection, recycling, disposal, tax, and revenue distribution. Two primary issues caused this bill to not pass in the closing minutes of the regular session. One was the inclusion of a provision that prohibits local government from adopting ordinances that prohibited the use of certain plastic products. This same provision is in the Governors bill. Th. other was an apparent unfair distribution of the pro -peels from the six percent vernors bill gales tax on uaranteeing that hatoleast 150% ofhthe otax collectedmwithinsatcountyhis mwilltbey B returned to that county. The maiii question at this point is the appropriateness of adding the Waste recycling bill to a tax bill. Som- legislators have promised that keeping this measure on the tax bill will ensure opening the special session to other non tax issues. News Flash In a late breaking development, it was reported that Gov. Perpich, Sen. Moe, and Rep. Vanasek met in a maintenance shed at the 6Ltioc=rd airport Thursday and after ij F.ours all emerged smiling ........ there may be a compromise yet' Z. THE 1990 PROPOSED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM. The Metropolitan Council has scheduled a Public Bearing at 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 14th. in its offices to receive input on its proposed 1990-Budget and Work Program. The AMM's Metropolitan Agencies Committee, Chaired by Sharon Klumpp, OaVdale City Administrator, is in the process of reviewing ttie 'proposal' and will prepare a report to be considered by the AMM Board of Directors for action on September 7th. You can get a copy of the Council s Budget Document Proposal by calling the Council Office at 291-8140. The AMM is usually the only group or organization that reviews the Met Council's Annual Budget and offers 'constructive criticism' and consequently the Board believes its a very important service to the whole Metropolitan Area. Please call Vern Peterson at 227-4008 if you would like a co v of the AAL"4 critique. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This Bulletin has been mailed to Mayors, Managers/Administrators ana Pelegates. Flease distribute to other officials in your city as you deem appropriate. El PAYABLE 1990 NET TAX CAPACITY PERCENTAGES • Vetoed B (H.F. 17341 Rates in Rates Divided by ss Governor's Residential Homestead- Current .�iL_ -Proposal <S68,000 Mzrket 1.0% 0.95% 1.0% 1.0% S68,000 - $100.000 23 1.9 1.89 2.0 > S 100,000 33 3.0 3.16 3.0 Disabled/Blind/Paraplegic Vet. Homestead (1st S32,000) 0.4 0.4 .42 .A Residential Non -homestead 3-5 2.88 3.03 3.0 Market -rate Apartments: Regular 4.1 338 3.56 3.6 Type 1 & II 3S 338 3S6 3.6 Subsidized Apartments: TiOe 1' 2.5 2.5 2.63 2.4 Farmer's Home / dm. 1.5 1.5 1.58 1.6 Agg Homestead: Farni House,Garage 3 1 Acre: <565,000 Market 0.805 0.95 1.0 1.0 S65,003 - S68.000 21 0.95 1.0 1.0 S68,000 - S 100,000 22 1.8 1.89 2.0 > S 104,000 2.2 3.0 3.16 3.0 A.gricultur,)! Land do Bldgs: c565,000. Market* <320 Acres 1.12 0.34 36 .4 > 320 Acres 1.295 034 36 .4 S65.000 - S I00.000 • <320 Acres 1." 034 36 .4 > 320 Acres 1.665 034 36 .4 S 100.000 - 1125,000' < 320 Acres 1.44 1.30 1.37 .4 > 320 Aa es 1.665 1.60 1.68 .4 Over $125,000 c 320 Acres 1." 130 137 1.6 > 320 Acres 1.665 1.60 1.68 1.6 Ag Non -Homestead: House, garage do I acre 27 2.88 3.03 3.0 Land (incl timberland) 1.665 1.60 1.68 1.6 Seasonal Recreational Commercial. Homestead resorts 0.9 0.68 .72 1.0 Seasonal resorts 2.6 2.4 2 52 IS Seasonal Recreational Residential 23% 212% 234% 2.45c Commercial/Industrial. <SI00,000 Market 33 3.15 332 3.0 SI00,000•S150,000 5.25 3.15 332 5.0 >S150,000 515 5.05 532 5.0 Public Utilin, Personal 5M 5.05 532 5.0 Attached machir�► 4.6 46 4.84 5.0 Land & buddLngs 5.25 5.05 532 5.0 Vacant Land 5Z 525 533 5.5 Minerals 5if 52' 5.53 5.0 • These rates apply only to the pan of ag iand & bidgs between the value of the house, garage It 1 acre and the maumum value for the classification bracket Governor's Tax Bill (Released August 10, 1989) August 14, 1989 House Research Department Page 10' Table 4 PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION RATES PAYABLE YEARS 1990-1999 Pt opt LTe M 12U M 12L4 M M M M 1Q2 Residential Homestead Up to $68,000 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 $68,000 to S 100,000 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 $100,000 to $168,000 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Over S 168,000' 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Residential Non-Hmstd. 1-3 Units 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Apartments 4 or More Units 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.0 Title U & FHA 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Farm Homestead House, Garage & 1 Acre Up to S68,000 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 $68,000 TO S100,000 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 S 100,000-5168,000 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 Over S 168,000 ` 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lnd do other Bldgs. Up to S 125,000 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Over S 125,000 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Farm Non -Homestead House, Garage & 1 Acre 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 22 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lnd do Other Bldgs. 1.6 13 1.3 13 12 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Seasonal/ Recre.acicnal Residential 2.4 2.3 22 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Homestead Resort 1.0 1.0 1.0 •' " as " " " as Commercial 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Commercial /industrial/Pub5c Utility (except P.U. Attached Machinery) Up to S 100,000 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Over $100,000 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 42 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.0 Utility Attached Machinery, and Minerals 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.6 -4.4 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.0 Vacant Land 5.5 53 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.0 *The toW rate on a residential/agricultural homestead cannot exceed 2%. Hence, the value in access of $168,000 is subject to a 2% rate. Although tilt lapg,"ge in the bit Ls 1996, it was intended that this rate take effect for 1991. "Beginning in payable 1993 and thereafter, the residential home: -lead rates (t,e., i%. 2%, 3%) will also be applicable to the homesteaded resorts COUNCIL MEETING TO: Mayor and City Council AUG 2 81989 FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato V CITY OF ORON 0 DATE: Augus`. 17, 1989 SUBJECT: Woodhill Avenue - Assessment Attachments: A. Woodhill Assessment Construction Memo Dated 6/14/88 E. Notice of Assessment Mailed 8/11/89 C. Assessment Role Dated 8/24/99 D. Proposed Resolution of Assp-.:ment ISSUE - 1. Holding o,` public hearing prior to assessment. 2. Determination as to whether the Council desires to assess any of the balance of monies to the abutting residence. If so, the amount to be assessed. 3. Adoption of the resolution of the assessment. INTRODUCTION - The Woodhill project was undertaL^n and constructed last year. As noted in Attachment A the c l,.)per together with the Country Cl_h were charged 75% of the . C. nf the balance of 25% the City was going to pay 15% and with 10% to be assessed to the three abutting property owners. The project in addition to straightening and widening also provided a better access entrance onto the street from Crono Orchard Road together with improving what oad been a-i oiled upgrade over the years. DISCUSSION - While the project construction was done last year, the restoration was completed this summer. As noted in the assessment the proposed assessment is $1,660.47 per unit. For a total among the three properties of $4,981.41. The project cost totals were $49,81.4.19 with no capitalized interest is being charged between the actual payment by the City last year and the interest between then and now. The assessment will be over 5 years at 88 interest. ALTERNATIVES ]. Hold the public hearing. 2. Adopt as proposed. 3. Amend and adcpt. a. Per household basis b. Frontage of the lots c. Altered percentage charged residen 4. Choose not to assess_ 5. Table. RECOMMENDATION - 7t is recommended that the � as presented. cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director 2 ON 6141 I I TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: June 14, 1988 STJBJECT: Woodhill Avenue Attachments: A. Bid Tabulation - Woodhill Avenue B. Woodhill Avenue Memo Dated 5/25/88 ISSUE - �n4ag4C-Vf 4 1. Determine if Council will reconsider the award of t,id ordering on the project. 2. If reconsidered and ordered in, what financing would be appropriate. 3. If riot reconsidered, formal rejec=ion of bids. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's June 13, 198E meeting on a 2 to 2 vote regarding the ordering of the project the item did not receive a sufficient majority to order the project. As established in the bid specifications the bids which were received on May 20, 1988 originally expired on June 20th, but have been extended to July 20th. DISCUSSION - As the Council has taken bids it would be appropriate that if Council does not desire the prcject to go ahead at this time that the bids be Normally rejected. As such this would allow the Council at some future date, should it desire to undertake the project, tc re -bid the project although it is anticipated that the project bids will be at or above the original Engineer's estimate inztead of the approximate $7,300 below that is presently available under the bid. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Zeconsideration A. Accept bid/Order project in B. Not reconsider C. Table to July llth 7 C 7/L 2. Financing J A. Developer 75% - City 25% B. Developer 75# - City 15% - 3 abuttinq owners 10% C. Other D. Table to July llth 1 m 3. Bids A. Order p,:oj_-,ct In (Issue #1) B. Formally reject C. Table to July llth RECOMMENDATION - Given the need for the project improvement and the favorable bids at this point it is still recommended that thz Council reconsider and that the project be ordered in on at• lea:,t a 75% developer and 25% City split the costs. It is anticipated any rebid in the future will be higher and may not generate the 75% from the developer. Should the City subsequently order the road in after these bids lapse it is anticipated that the co:,ts will be substantially higher to the developer and the City. If not awarded it is recommended to formally reject the bids. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ , seconded by that the Council reject all bids for the Woodhill Aven.ie project. ;,yew Nays cc: John McDowell, MSM & Associates, 315 East Lake, Wayzata henry Kingman, Wood,ill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Rd 2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS WOODHILL AVENUE ORONO, MINNESOTA 1988 CONTRACTORS Alexander Construction Buffalo Bituminous Hardrives, Inc. Munn Blacktop Preferred Paving, Inc Alber Const., Inc. Barber Const. Co., Inc. TOTAL BASE BID $45,998.75 39,414.00 36,991.00 45,937.39 49,890.00 39,906.00 45,875.00 52588. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Be,nhardson, City Administrator DATE: May 25, 1988 SUBJECT: Woodhill Avenue Improvement Attachements: A. Woodhill Avenue Improvement Memo Dated 11/13/87 B. Woodhill Road Plans and Specifications Dated 4/21/88 C. May 28, 1988 Bid Summary - Woodhill Avenue D. Orono Letter to Woodhill Dated 6/7/88 E. Draft_ Resolution ordering Project and Awarding Bid F. Financing Alternatives ISSUES 1. Review process and determine appropriate means to undertake the improvement based on activities to date. 2. Determination as to whether the project is to be undertaken. 3. 7f the project is to be undertaken, award of a bid to the appropriate contractor. 1. Determination if the process is to be undertaken of the financing including any possible assessment of parties other than the agreed party who has committed up to 75% of the project. INTRODUCTION - At the Counci l's November 23rd meeting a public hearing was held regarding the improvement of Woodhill Avenue and on a ?-2 vote it was directed that further work be done regarding the installation of the project including preparation of engineering plans, bid and specs. At the Council's April 25, 1988 meeting they directed that bids be taken again on a 3-2 vote. This project was initially commenced as a precondition to the Woodhill plat subdivision in order to upgrade the public portion of Woodhill Avenue to a 22 foot standard and the City has an agreement with the applicants, MSM Inc. plus Woodhill Country Club that they pay 75% of the cost of the project. The original cost of the project as directed to be undertaken was $55,000. DISCUSSION - Issue 1. Review of Process_ - Subdivision approval was contingent upon an agreement for the improvement of the public portion of Woodhill Avenue in order to serve a greater volume of traffic to be generated by this development. Although the City does have an algr,2emen� from the developer who does have 40% of the street frontage on the public portion of Woodhill Avenue it does not have what wou,.d be constituted as a petition. Therefore in order for the project eo be ordered as an assessment project, the 1 Council would require a 4/5's vote. The City however, could undertake the project on a 25% City 75% developer split at its own expense without the assessment on a 3/5's vote. The City does not have the agreement of the contractor to extend his bids, so that this matter could not presently be tabled beyond the June 27, 1988 1 ?ting be considered as late as the Council's July 11, 1988 meeting. The agreement with the develop, rs maxe them responsible for the costs. Mr. McDowell has verbally agreed to pay his share as a lump sum and Attachment D is a letter to the Woodhill Country Club requesting a lump sum payme . also. At this time all lots are sold so there is no property of the development against which an assessment could be macs-, although the Woodhill Country Club project does abut the rood. (In order to have Woodhill's payment done as an assessment, +.t would require the necessary 4/5's vote for the project.) ':he project vote, ordering the project, in any less than 4/5'a however, negates any subsequent vote to assess the abutting property owners apart from Woodhill and MSM (it would give them an initial basis on which to contest the special assessment hearing.) An alrernati a avenu, and pr.-)3ect direction would be to undertake the following process in advance of the public hearing: 1. Vote to cease the pruject's initial consideration F--)m last fall. Receive a petition from the developer. (Although re is no guarentee of receiving the petition - ,,;pecially since all lots have been sold.) 3. Reordor the feasibility study. 4. Accept the feasibility study that has already been done. 5. Withdraw bids. 6. Hold a public hearing. At that point the City would be a position to order the project on a 3/5's vote. Issue 2. Orde_rinq the P-olect - Once it has been determined as to the course of action the City chooses to undertake the next issue would be determination as to whether the project itself should be ordered with final resolve )f the 3/5's or 4/5's vote issue. should the City not choose to undertake the project at this time the developer would no longer be required to pay anything reSarding the improvement directly. In the future, shoul"i the Citv choose to undertake improvement to this public street it will either ha.•e to do it at its expense or attempt to specially assess some portion of the project to the abutting property owners. In the case of a future assessment direct benefit to the six lots i-: the Woodhill c..odi: ision may not be easily n demonstrable, many do not directly abut on the public portion of the roadway. In addition to the concern with the present 16 foot width and condition of the road that an improvement project to the area will be necessitated in the next 5 to 10 year anyway regardless of the increased traffic. Issue 3. Bid Award - The present bids received have a project total of $47,900 which is approximately $7,000 under the modified Engineer's estimate from the previous project. Such would lower the costs of all parties involved (apart from the City) depending on the scenario that the City chose to undertake fer financing if the project went ahead. Issue 4. Method of Financing - As stated above the developer, at this point, has committed to 75% of the cost. It is his expectaton to pay it as a lump sum. It then becomes a question of whether there is an assessment on the three abutting property owners. Prior to the subdivision the three abutting owners particularly the one furthest, had the advantage of being on a quiet, almost private road, as there was no traffic through there since the voluntary blocking off of that access by Woodhill in about 1975. While having the quiet repose of a private road the property owners have not had to pay any of the costs to date for the maintenance of the road. (other private road owners have had to pay the ongoing snow plowing and upkeep of their roads and in the case of Hollander Road are facing about a $2,000-3,000 cost to just bring the road up to City standards should the City choose to take it over.) While the increased traffic on Woodhill would not necessairly be considered a benefit from the property owners standpoint the additional width and stability of the road, as far a access is concerned, is to some degree a benefit, and is the fact that a future improvement to this road may cost those property owners substantially more, should the City choose to assess a portion of it. The City would not have in the future a guarantee from t ? new subdivision as to its share of the payment. Please review Attachment F regarding potential financing alternatives. The layout as presented in the revised alternative should provide a means to limit the adverse impact on the property owners. ALTERNATIVES Issue-l. Review and Determination of Procedure A. Go through the steps in order to limit the needed vote on ordering the project to 3/5's as outlined above. B. Go ahead with the vote on ordering the project to determine if a 4/5's vote is available. C. order the project on a 3/5's vote requiring the develope_ to live up to the agreement but not assess any of it. D. Order the project on a 3/5's vote and have the City pay for all of it. E. Commence and conclude the public hearing and then determine a cuu.se of action. F. Hold and continue the public hearing and table further discussion until the June 23rd or July llth meeting. G. Not undertake the project. Issue 2. Determination as to Whether the Progect Should be Ordered A. Order the project with a 4/5's if there is no petition in order to assess a portion to the property owners. B. Order the project with the 3/5 .pith the City paying 25% and the developer paying 75% in accordance with the agreement. C. Order the project at 3/5's vote with the City financing the total. D. Table E. Not undertake the project. Issue 3. Award of Bid (Agenda Item #17) A. Award the bid to Hardrives Inc. B. Table for futher discussion. C. Reject all bids. Issue 4. Derermination of Financing A. Undertake the originally agreed on percentages. B. Undertake an altered percentage of the costs. C. Table. D. Do not undertake. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City Council order the project to be undertaken on a 4/5's vote and that the Council determine by separate action the financing. It is recommended that the financing be as follows: the developer rays 75% for a total of $36,000, the City pay about 15% and the three abutting property owners split the difference on the remaining 10% for an averaqe cost of about $1,50B.L10 n I PROPOSED MOTION #1 - Moved by seconder'. oy , that the Council desires that the project for Woodhill Avenue be undertaken with the necessary 4/5's vote in order to assess. Ayes Nays __ , PROPOSED MOTION #2 - Moved by , seconded by _ , that the Council award the bid to Hardrives for a bid of _ with an eventual total of Ayes , Nays __ J PRCPOSED MOTION #3 - Moved by , seconded by that the Council determine the preliminary funding to be as follows: MSM 75% - $36,000 Abutting property owners about 10% - $4,500 City of Orono about 15% - $7,500 Ayes , Nays cc: John McDowell Woodhill Country Club `t %M--cl,rtC N I i11687.1 n .4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato�lP'z DATE: November 13, 1987 SUBJECT: Road Improvement - Woodhill Avenue Public Hearinq 7:00 P.M. Attachments: A. Feasibility Study Dated 9/23/87 - Follow-up Letter Dated 10/13/87 B. Agreement of Assessment and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal Dated 10/5/87 C. Woodhill Avenue Project Progress Memo Dated 10/6/87 D. Public Hearing Notice/Mailing List E. Draft Resolution Ordering Project ISSUE 1. Holding of public hearing regarding proposed improvement to the upgrade of Woodhill Avenue. 2. If deemed appropriate ordering in project. 3. Direct staff to establish date for hearing for imposition of the assessment when project completed. INTRODUCTION - In order to provide appropriate access for the Wooc�hi 1 1 plat, Woodhill Avenue needed to be upgraded to handle the increased volume of traffic. Asa result of this, a feasibility study was undertaken to determine the approximate cost. The range of the originial feasibility study had the cost of the project between $50,700 and $61,680 depending on the alternative selected. :his Fas subsequently been amended as the original feasibility study submitted by the Engineer was done in advance of soil borings being done on site. Because of soil borings, it was determined that additional expense would be entailed in the project and the Engineer is recommending a re,,isfd alternative II with some relocation of the road as alternative I is no longer cost effective. As a condition of the subdivision approval adopted on September 23, 1987 was a requirement that an agreement had to be reached with the subdivider regarding their share of :.his project improvement. Following negotiations it was &greed that the developer and Woodhill Country Club would pay 75% of the total cost based on the original feasibility study not to exceed $46,260. Between the parties they agreed Woodhill would absorb 3/16 of the cost and McDowell 9/16. As such this represent- a way for the special assessments to be spread up to the maxi,aum outlined above. The City expedited its consideration and determination of the appropriate amount for Woodhill and the developer in order to allow the developer the opportunity to construct the road before the winter. This has been accomplished and at present the -oad has been graded with the initial surfacing being placed on it. It is anticipated that the second surfacing will be placed on it r.c-,.t spring. DISCUSSION Pro ect - The project has been revised based on soil borings with the Engineer now recommending a revised alternative II. Any increase in the project over the original total should be borne by the City. It is expected that the revised alternative II will be below the original alternative I. Process - The following represents the process to be undertaken for this project. 1. Public Hearing 2. Consideration and orderi,: ,c the project. 3. Project bidding and award 4. Project construction 5. Project assessment in advance of October 1, 1988 Financing - As noted above the City has an agreement for up to 75% of the original cost from the Woodhill Country Club and the developer. As noted in Attachment C it is the recommendation that the City take 101 of the cost plus any expense over the original maximum $61,680. This leaves a balance of $9,252.00 to be assessed against the abutting property owners based on an equal share to each property. As such this would need assessment shares as follows: - a. Jane Delaney, 13i5 Woodhill Avenue - $3,084 - b. Mark & Mary Fox, 1230 Woodhill Avenue - $3,384 - C. Jane McClaren, 190 Orono Orchard Rd - $3,084 A ten (10) year assessment could be implemented with an approximate $310 per year principal assessment plis interest. Alternatives - 1. The follcwing represent alternatives the Council could take at this point. 3. Not do the project. 7). Order the project to be undertaken based on the preliminary fending plan outlined above. c. Order the project in based on an amended financing plan and assessment date. 2. Direct staff to set an assessment date in advance of the October 1, 1988 deddline fut certliicazion of assessments. RECOMMENDATION - To accept the revised alternative II for Woodhill project presented by the City Engineer for the Woodhill Avenue Street improvement and to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the street improvements to Woodhill Avenue. It is further recommended that Council directs staff to set an assessment hearing date for an appropriate time in 1988. Moved by �PROPOSED MOTIOCO-, To approve the revised alternative II presented by the City Engineer for the Woodhill Avenue street improvements and to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the street improvements to Woodhill Avenue. tt is further recommended that Council direct staff to set an assessm��thearing date for an appropriate time in 1.988. Ayes Nays -_ . 1 Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. 011oc dOw..1.40 Pf GI.wwR Cow. PE -- _ Rub'. N ,CWII. /•! I. A Ad.A , /•! C 1 wrrA C'. A. A.ht. Y ! T Auw.. ! Nu.r.. Y ! A..d/wI A L—hA 1. P ! au owd W .' • "'. P ! 1,A.ro E. Tw—. P L. Rob.. (i SSA —A., P L 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 Eogineers & Archi9ects l.w„ C. (x>,.w. PF M.'..w L. Sash. PE St. Paul, MN 55113 J,,,yA . Rrrpro. Pf. nq A. 6aurQuw, P E. 612.636.4600 Ara! A 11* r . P.X . r-E. October 13, 1987 M,.A..r T. r.. .swwrww. /. t .. rJ.J/sw. r ! City of Orono r�u'�w.p w�P#Wn .r. £. Sox 66 Mn A. iC. LrW*, P. L. Xwe. L. Arwa.Pf " Crystal Bay, MN 55323 It." R. 1/a4.d. P. E. A.wa,A P 4wwn..w. PQ. A...AA p/IAww Attn: Mr. John Gerhardsoni. P P! Rubrl C X—A, A I.A. Re: File No. 13Q34 SA tL E. Aw,r.. PC s, u.l L ra.wr. r ! Weodhill. Avenue Street Improvements CA-A.A e.wL.aw ..o AI PI.wW, llwuw AI 04uw Dear John, 1w 'w !e.'l.w We have obtained soil borings on the Woodhill Avenue Street Improvement Prci- ect. The soil borings indicate up to 19 feet of organic soils in some areas. There are three options f.,r constructing the street as outlined in the soils report. The street could be surcharged to remove th-e potential f orim signifi- cant settlement in the suture. The organic material. could be excavated out and backfilled with granu.ar material. The street can be _:-atructed ever the existing embankment with the .,se of a stabilization fabr�_. The surcharZing of tl.e site d.)es not appear tr ,-e desirable as it would re- ouire closing *he road for approximatci, :�rzC months. Toe excavation of the organic material is a viable ziti•n but gets quite :vnc:,live. We estimate that this option would add $75,000 to the project cost. Construction of the street on the existing embankment would seem to be the most desirable alternative. The existing roadway appears to be quite stable over this area. We would not anticipate any significant chanZe in stability as a result of the construction. We would anticipate Some settlement in the street over a period of years. The rural. design section through the low area will minimize the maintenance prob- lems for the City. This new soils information will require a change in the alignment from that proposed in the preliminary report. We were originally planning to widen the roadway to the north. We would now recommend that the new construction be centered on the existing roadway through the low area. The project costs could be increased by 10 percent as a result of addi'ional tree removal and restoration work. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIR 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li '�?le AGREEMENT OF ASSESSMENT A*:D WAIVER OF IRREGULARITY AND APPEAIJ THIS AGREEMENT is made this 5th day of October, 1987, between the City of Orono (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Woodhill Country Club, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, and MSM Associates, a Minnesota general partnership, (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants"). In consideration of the a-:tion of the City Council to approve the final subdivision of certain real property legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, prior to the City's final determination of costs and assessments associated with the Woodhill Avenue upgrade and in consideration of the to c�Y benefits conferred by such upgrade, the Applicantsagree a fair share of such costs as set forth below. The improvements to Woodhill Avenue (hereinafter ref-rred to as "the Project") include an upgrade to a 22 foot standard from Orono Orchard Road east to its connec_.On with the private road to be constructed to serve the 'Wood,-iill Ridge development in accordance with information outlined in the City Engineer's Report for Woodhill Avenue Street Improvement Project 87-3, dated September 23, 1987. In consideration of the City's action, Woodhill Country Club agrees to pay 3/'_6ths of the com-t of the 'Project up to a maximum �f $11,565.00. MSM Associates, also in consideratic.)n of the City's action, agrees to pay 9/16ths of tthe i-e cost �� Project up to a ffaximum of t34,695.00. Although the final specifications Of the Project have not been determined, the foregoing agreements assume a maximum Project cost of t6l,680.0r. In the event the Project cosr_s exceed t61,680.00, neither the Woodhill property, nor tha MS:•i property shall be assessed any more that, the respective amounts set forth above. Finally, the Applicants expressly waive objection to any irregularity with regard to the improvement assessments and any clam that the amount thereof levied against t:,e Applicants' property is excessive, together wit'� all rights to appeal in the costs. CITY OF ORONO Jam s %. Grabek Its Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ss COUNTY OF HENENPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 5th day of October, 1987, by James R. Grabek, the Mayor of the City of Or-^,o, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on bei,alf of the municipal corporation. E:TTY L. NELLIST ' COUNJy Notary �?ubl ie My eemn;s:fcn •ey;rtes<-rJ 17, 1391 1100I`HILL UNT Y 'CLUB By STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF r?ENENPIN ) The foregoing was a`c,,�wledged before me La�- of =ay of U_tober, 1997, by !-- V �r2'�(� the ir'ood,ill Country Club, a Minnesota nonprofit cozporaon under the laws e)f Minnesota, on behalf of the nonprofit •. : r.wt.,wwN•1 :orpgra 1I1�i�-{ons :. '::I; _T = 4 • F`{IYl//f\ L' -(•.� lip?J f�St�i;7 C�I�:iTY 240.tary ubl is ......r...+....«f«•...� NISM ASSOCIATES By Its, STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENENPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before rye this day of October, 1987, b_' i7_ _/`�i1-• ��l he f-G of MSM Associates, a Minnesota general partners 1p and r the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the general partnership. UIHARIta bOSCi1:i Otar�l ;• NOTARY PUDUC—•WIW',ES91:- !'01 •� HENt1EPiNCCUNtr $ My C0jr,,T=Spn buttes Jan 19. 1553 ; 4562w ■ -Z- I:XLIIIiI'C 11 ,vud Ile Ccxsrty, tinnesota", according tr, the plat thereof thereof: file and of mcord In the offices of the 12, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 307, pirLCouuty, except the following -sr of Titles -and the County Recorder in and for said Ilcnneportions :.,ceps that part or Lot 11 in "Auditor's Subdivision Number 307, ilernepin County, Miruiesota", described a" ''^llaws: Beginning at the Southwrt ��:,+er I Lot 8 in said Auditor's Subdivision Number 307, thence £ant along the extension117,Lge 23 a distance of or uie south line'1r ,I feet to a distance i o� ez nsiOn •�e �rth parallel with the North and South center line oC Section 2, Towrtihip 117, irtherly line of said Wti11; thence Southwest rly along no ofid 310 t[cetdto the point of beginning. of 49.03 feet to the Northeast corner of said L t 8; 7ence South alone the line of said desr_ribcci w followo: Beginning et the porn: of "acept that part of Lot 12 in "Auditor'n Subdivision Numb.-,!r 307. Hennepin County, Minnesota", Section ntenection of the Nocthccll l�� the Northerly 1 ne oid frsaid Lot 8 to thee angle ion Number Opointhin the Northee North rly line outh center said pot2beiMg25.5 feet en¢e 23: thence Southwesterly . Lot 8; thence Nortliwcsterly 32.2 Cce:t ton point 204.74 feet Southwesterly from the taint of beginning; ve of the wont Westerly corner of said ;hence Northeasterly 204.74 feet to the point of beginning. zaept a triangulatrt+cM Of land between Lin ota�J arid-12 ir�an d Auditors Subdir'" Subdivision vinio07, lieram-pin t�'�r 307,�rch.point n41.1 reset northerlyollocom: Beginning at a from the northasaterly ..Dint in the dividing line he nforesnid Lots 3 and 12 a diotan�e of 79.9 feet to an "I ;otrer of Lot. 4 .n said Subdivision; thence northerly along the dividing Dint In said dividing line; thence eta right angle eanterly alon;d the dividing line aeturm !:aid Low 3 and 12, a distance of 57 feet to another n41e point in said dividing line; theme acuthweatcrly in a otr•nieht ling 97.3 feet core or lean, to t o point of beQinnirha• �rnept t2►st pert embraced within Tract A, {LLGISIF3mm LAND SURVEY tom• 1596, Files of R=IIiotrar of Titles, County of iLnhrrcpin. ALSO 'Auditor's Subdivision Number 307, Hennepin County, Lllnnesotn", ion •in xeept that 'art of ari Ylot 10 described the Scan f line. of said ¢ Lot 0t n`diattnn a of 43.4 feet Lomer on point in the North rand South aoent-clime Of 7 Sectionµpg, txnty, Minnesota": t mst _ .'owMahip inn ota".1wize L,, thence South a he the North and L center line of said Section 2, a diatsnoo of 114.3 feet to the Northeest corner o t in saaid Auditor's Subdivision Number 307; thenc.-e Font along tine North lines nC naa diotzakee ofs11� fretof 5to atpointo tuin�t2re extension offthse South theme North parallel with the North and South center link of sr.id Scetit- 2. West along said extended South line of said Lot 8 a distance of 46.6 feet to the ou►nt of beginning. ALSO line of said Lot 8; theehon ". _t' , ltcrv►ePin Cvhrhtl. Nrrurc•.:. �", Lot 13, icons Subdivision Number 301, _ r of ,ccrpt that part dencribc%l as follows: L1e¢irning at cue mont ror-thwrstcrly corner of said lot 13 (which corMr is also the northeasterly the east luhe lot i of said Auditor's subdivision); thrnne Fsrat alorha the Nor•tlh line of said Lot 13 a diat.nnce of 25 feet; these South pnaid enalenfite of said lot 1 a distarxx. of 15s .75fto LO art line of acid Lot iterly t of %ain of d Audit.or'n Subdivie -out-h line of sion; thence North along saiWt 1; the west dgemt line 57175 r[ score diatanc:e of 25 feet, more or 1 hint thereof. or less. to tee point of beginning. a11 a.ocording to the recorded { 1i TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Adminstrato DATE: October 6, 1987 SUBJECT: Woodhill Avenue - Project Progress Attachment: A. Special Assessment Waiver Agreement - City of Orono/t-;-odhill Country Club/M.C.M. Associates B. Proposed Resolution Receiving and Calling Hearing on Improvement C. notice of Public Hearing ISSUE 1. Acknowledgment of information regardinq agreement between the City of Crono/Woodhill Country Club and M.C.M. Associates regarding their share of costs related to the upgrade of Woodhill Avenue. 2. Establishment of the public hee:irg date for the special assessment hearing for the upgrade of Woodhill Avenue. ."TRODUCTION - As you may recall a-ontingency of the final su5division`for McDowell passed on September 28, 1987 was that they were to enter into an agreement regarding their fair share of costs for the upgrade of Woodhill Avenue. Based on the agreement the parties have closed their land sale on Monday, October 5, 1987. DISCUSSION - After a review of the _project it was determined by staff that the appropriate share between Woodhill Country Club and John McDowell was a total of 75% of the total cost of the upgrade. Between the parties they agreed that Woodhill would share 3/ 16 of the price and McDowell wou 1,3 share 9/ 16 of the price. This represents a waiver of the special assessment. In order to get this upgrade project under way for construction in the spring of 1988 it is necessary that a public hearing be scheduled and suggest the November 23, 1987 Council meeting at which time the other three benefitting property owners can vresent a case and at which time the Council can determine their appropriate share for the upgrade. Based on the 75110 that has been agreed to by McDowe 11 the staff's recommendation that the City fund 10% of the cost (approximately $6,200 maximum) which is its foregone share cf the maintenance over a 20 year period and up to the balar,ce of 15% he assessed over the other three property owners based on ;.he amount of frontage they have on Woodhill Avenue. Should Woodhill have to begin to use this as their primary access it would require further upgrade of woodhill Avenue which would by necessity need to be bone by the Country Club. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information regarding the agreement between Woodhill Country Club and the City as to their share of the upgrade together with establishing November 23, 1987 as the public hearing date for Project 87-1. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council accept the information from the staff regarding Woodhill Avenue, adopt Resolution # receiving and calling hearing on improvement and establish November 23, 1987 as a public hearing for the project feasibility and special assessment for the upgrade of Woodhill Avenue. Ayes _, Nays — AGREEMENT OF ASSESSMENT A.ND WAIVER OF IRREGULARITY AND APPEAL THIS AGREEMENT is made this 5th day of October, 1987, between the City of Orono (hereinafter referred to as the "Ci.t.y") and Woodhill Country Club, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, and MSM Associates, a Minnesota general partnership, (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants"). In consideration of the action of the City Council to approve the final subdivision of certain real property legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, prior to the City's final determination of costs and assessr..ents associated with the Woodhill Avenue upgrade and in consideration of the benefits conferred by such upgrade, the Applicants agree to pay a fair share of such costs as set forth below. The improvements to Woodhill Avenue (hereinafter referred to as "the Project") include an upgrade to a 22 Foot standard From Orono Orchard Road east to its connection with the private road to be constructed to serve the Woodhill Ridge development in accordance with information outlined in the City Engineer's Report for Woodhill Avenue Street Improvement Project 87-3, dated September 23, 1987. In consideration of the City's action, Woodhill Country Club agrees to pay 3/16ths of the cost of the Project up to a maximum of t11,565.00. MSM Associates, also in consideration of the City's action, agrees to pay 9/16ths of the cost of the Project up to a maximum of $34,695.00. Although the final specifications of the Project have not been determined, the foregoing agreements assume a maximum Project cost of $61,680.00. In the event the Project costs exceed t61,680.00, neither the Woodhill property, nor the tdSi4 property shall be assessed any more than the respective amounts set forth above. Finally, the Applicants expressly waive objection to any irregularity with regard to the improvement assessments and any claim that the amount thereof levied against the Applicants' property is excessive, together with all rights to appeal in the costs. CITY OF ORONO By James R. Grabek Its Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENENPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 5th day of October, 1987, by James R. Grabek, the Mayor of the City of Orono, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENENPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of October, 1997, by , the of Woodhill Country Club, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the nonprofit corporat Notary Public MS14 ASSOCIATES By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENENPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of October, 1997, by the of MSM Associates, a Minnesota general partnership under the liws of Minnesota, on behalf of the general partnership. Notary Pub is 4562w RESOLUTION) OF THE CITY COUNCIL N3. A RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND CALLING HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to a motion of the Council on August 10, 1987, a report has been prepared by Glenn Cook, City Engineer with reference to the improvement of Woodhill Avenue east of Orono Orchard Road, and this report was received by the Council on Seotember 28, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $61,680.00. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 23rd day of November, 1987 in the council chambers, 1275 Brown Road South at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 12th day of October, 1987. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, tiayor : 10887.1 NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CCNCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Orono will meet in the council chambers, 1275 Brown Road South at 7:00 p.m. on November 22, 1987, to consider the making of an improvement on Woodhill Avanue east of Orono Orchard Road, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the property abutting on such street. The estimated cost of such improvement is $61,683.00. Such persons as desire to be h-yard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Dcrothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper the weeks of November 2 and 9, 1987. '�� �� q f1•r�vy y,v: itJl the Gty Co' . :1 :he ctty'0116rono M11 meet to the cot-0 r3r6en.'1275 &overt Road S-lh at 7 0In .n :loverrtber i 23. 1987. to Consider the oils' rt 1 an Imorovernont on woodtu il onew orchard Road, Wf&uO `10 M"W ols da luutea_ Sen 29 0 -es pr000mo to be a%"93 d lot such tmprove- .a„y IS the property abutting on such street he eallrnele0 Cost 01 such ss Castro toberilim ard .e1.0()0. such i» ✓ (h reference to the pruoowd Irtfprovement 10 a heard al INS rtteelrng.- ' . ' . fMrotM M Halkn. G Clerk },iyished in The Laker ay onoer on Nov 2 irJ 9.- 19871 �?GJ 16l?87 U L Affidavit of Public-ttion State of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is at. authorized agent and employee of the publishe of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Mir nesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which ar I stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requir ments constituting qualifications as a qualifie newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statu: 31 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, amended. B.) The printed which is attached was cut from the columns of SL newspaper, and was printed and published once ea week for - successive weeks: It was 'first published Monday. � � r the L- day of -- N 4V 19 and was thereafter printed and published evt_ Monday, to and including Monday, l the t day of �r�;,�i 19 / I � - thorized A Au g Subscribed and sworn to me on this — -� day of ' `�1L__ �_. 19...E 2 By- r _...,....Wtary Pu a'K L 8E9R�H ti0?:.7Y PU:UG Gitikf�0?� t^,A i% U, C0UYTY r rTrt^'n t-trrn A"t 3. isy �•�-- -'Rate'fnformaHart (1) Lowest ciasslfled rate paid by commercial users for com wa apace. 57 34 oor :r n (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above Rlatter $4 54 per (3) Rate actually charged tot aDovo matter So 54 per inc, Each addiltonal succossive weep $3 03 per 'n h WOODHILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENT MAILING LIST - 11/9/87 02-117-23 24 0001 David J. Lindstrom 1315 Woodhill Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 02-117-23 24 0003 Victoria H. Raiche 280 Orono Orchard Roan South Wayzata, MN 55391 02-117-23 21 0009 1-j y Jane McClarenK 190 Orono Orchard Road Southo,-+ �� Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ll'1�' 02-117-23 21 0007 Michael & Darlene Blazek 1230 Woodhill Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 02-117-23 12 0001 Woodhill Cour.cry Club 200 Woodhill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 02-117-23 24 0007 John D. McDowell 4045 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 02-117-23 21 0007 11P1�� Mark & Mary Fox �b 1230 Woodhill Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 1? -rC. I''I �l eS 0 ;C" . a Z i 4 1,3 r y r� -01 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Ss. CITY OF ORONO ) I, Dorothy M. Hal'_in, City Clerk, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, hereby Avenue certify that o ,otice of. Public Hearing concerning was mailed to the attached list of property owners on November S '187 In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of November, 1987 r i Zhy M. llin, Ci:y Clerk (SEAL) H City Of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 12th day of October, 1987, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Woodhill Avenue. WHEREi S, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearin-3 was held thereon on This 23rd day of November, 1987, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opporutnity tc be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CGUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OROVO, MINNESOTA; 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted 12th day of October, 1987. 2. Glenn Cook, City Fngineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the Council this 23rd day of November, 1987. Jame-s R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M Hallik, Ci y Clerk ,1 1 1 r,%-.-...a-I- , CITY of ORONC Post Office Llux 66•Crystal Hay, Minnesota 5532i•Municipal Office On the No; th Snore of Lake Minnetonka June 7, 1988 Mr. Henry Kingman Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Subject: Road Improvement - Woodhill Avenue Dear Mr. Kingman, At the Council's November 23, 1987 meeting they directed the City Engineer to undertake a feasibility study for the improvement of the public portion of Woodhill Avenue. As you may recall Woodhill Country Club together with John McDowell had agreed to pay a total of 75% of the improvements. The course of action that was chosen from thi-, feasibility way estimated to total about $55,000 for the improvements. On April 25, 1988 the City Council approved the specifications for the project. This -.teas subsequently bid and the City is now in receipt of the results. The total for the construction portion was approximately $47,900. This represents a reduction in i:oodhill's share of the costs front about $10,300 to about $9,000. As discussed on the phone, Mr. John McDowell has verbally indicated his desire to pay his portion as a lump sum and it is assumed that the Woodhill Country Club would be paying its portioil it a likewise manner. Unless the City hears to the contrary, the City will be sending a bill for about $9,000 to the Woodhill Country Clut for its share in August of 1988. Attached please find a copy of the agreement uetween Woodhill Country Club, John McDowell and the City of Orono. Should you have any questions or comments, please free to contact me. Sincerely, ��aPkE . Be ardson City Administrator Enclosure CC; mavnr and City Council L Y BUILDING • IONING - 473 35' • A 0%VN IS TR A TION R FINAhCF - 47 3-7 158 • PUBLIC WORKS - 173 7354 ASSESSING i, City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2219 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT OF WOOD HILL APPLICATION NO. 1163 WHEREAS, John D. McDowell and T.V. Markle, Vice President c t-;oodhi 11 Country Club (hereinafter "applicants") on May 22, 1987 filed Class II? subdivision application with the City of Orono (hereinafte "City") for approval of a 5 lot plat of a property legally described c Exhibit A attached to this resolution and hereinafter referred to as "tt property"; and WHEREAS, after due publisheu and mailed notice in accordance wit Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono zoning ar. Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing c June 15, 1.987, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concernir this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on July 13, 1987, tl Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of t` applicants, noting the following findings of fact: The property is located within the RR-lB Single Family Rur�. ..-'sidential zoning district requiring a minimu.a of 2 acres c contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2 The property consists of approximately 37.5 acres. Lot 1 contair 2.2 acres of dry contiguous land; Lot 2 contains 2.03 acres of d: contiguous land; Lot 3 contains 2.50 acres of dry contiguous 1-and; L( 4 contains 2.63 acres of dry contiguous land; and, Lot 5 contains ? acres of dry contiguous land. 3. Outlot B cons .sts of approximately 20 acres and is not propose for residental development and will be combined with contiguous lan, owned by Woodhill County Club. 4. Lo:. 3 shall achieve access pia an existing private drivewc easement to the south and Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall be served b} private road that shall access from the nu-th at Woodhill Avenue. 5. A single family residence can be constructed on all five log without the need for further variances. 6. Septic testing has confirmed that all lots have suitable soils ai areas for on -site sewage disposal systems. The wetlands and ste, topography have placed limits on available, flat, more gentle slop, areas for septic development. Page 1 of 4 City Of ORONO RESOLUTION Or' THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2219 iique character of the heavily wooded, and steep property has required special consideration by the City in with road design and lot development. sloped dealinc 8. Lot 2 does not meet the required lot widtY. to the rear of the front yard setback line, the applicants have asked the City tc consider the fo- .owing hardships: a) the need to preserve adequate areas in building envelopes of adjacent lots; b) minimize tree removal; c) provide feasible grades for drives to house locations. 9. Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall be served by a private road that has beer designed to minimize the impact of the construction but yet provide e safe use level for the -,:blic. Lot 3 shall achieve access via ar existing private drive which wil- also minimize the impact on the property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or morf of the f inding , noted abz)ve, the City Council oft the City of Orono hereb, api.ro,,- the preliminary plat application of John D. McDowell and T.,.' Markle, Vice President of Woodhill Country Club per plat drawing by Thoma. S. Bergquist dated June 26, 1987 and further grants a variance to th, -,tandard that woul�2 require all lots have frontage on a public road wit} the creation of the private road and usu of private e-iveway and pe: :section 10.02, Definition 77, grants a width variance t.- Lot 2 because th( lot does not meet the required 200 feet width at rear of required fron' yard, subject to the following condi*ions: 1. Prior to the issuance of building perm.�ts for new construction the final plat must be filed with either the Hennepin•. Count Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office, road base install - and approved by City, and, if required improvements are not completed the developers must execute a developer's agreement and post a lette of credit (150% of cost of remaining improvements). 2. Required improvements: a) Woodhill Avenue - The improvement of Woodhill Avenue shall b- ( completed as a public project. Developer;'applicant shall execut, r an agreement that will affirm his/their share in the cost of sai( road improvement. City to determine the amount of the paymen- upon receipt of final costs for said road improvement. Woodhi1' Avenue shall be upgraded from ? 6 feet minimum pared width to a 2: feet minimum paved width. b; Private road to be constructed per standards s,-�tforth it Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 and 5 for rc id serving 3-6 lot! except for changes in design recormne-.ded by City Engineer in hi. - letter of Juiy 16, 1997 an `ached tc this resolution. Page - 4 City Of OR,ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2219 c) Fencing provided for septic test sites prior to any land alteration. Applicant to contact City upon installation of temporary fencing around all septic areas. 3. The f o l lowing list of final submittals i. ,ist be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: Final Plat Submittals A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' eact side of internal property lines. c) Dedication of additional right-of-way for Woodhill Avenue per City's request to provide area for cul-de-sac at east end. d) Designated wetlands to be shown on the plat as "drainage easements" - wetland within Lots 4 and 5 at 957.8 elevation and wetlands within Lots 2, 3 and 4 at the 960.5 elevation.. e) Designate 20' wide drainage easement over drainageway from pond to south lot line of Lot 3. B. Other documents required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owne:;:Q, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. 1)) The applicants must pro-Ide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Execution of the following forms and easments required by the City. Please contact the Building s Zoning staff if you nave any questions in the execution of these documents:, 1. Flowage and Conservation Easein-2nt - over all designated wetlands and drainageway within Lot 3. 2. Underlying Road and Utility Easement over road Outlot AN. Page 3 of 4 Al City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2219 1,1 I c T - , ry,,,,LLr OFFICE . 3. Road Maintenance Covenants - if deve;lo idr considered other covenants for road--,vpk-9ep_-.and maintenance of private road, please see tRatjjC, g, ,q an original executed copy for review aa4,-,fi1ing with VIILYII IL _ �JYV.t the plat.---rr..T_tn' v� ,IL1+L11 1r1 vh 1V-, 4. Road Name Request - please see that'ltfi`r��"hc�Yc�s are submitted. Road name approval is a sepaytdt'e Council action and should be submitted for Council's consideration as soon as possible. 5. Developer's Agreement - to include all improvements not completed by final plat approval. 14o lot gr,luinc or road construction can begin until all grading and revised road plans have been approved by the City. 6. Execution of agreement that will confirm your payment for cost of improvement of Woodhill Avenue. C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $1,300.00 a) Park dedication fee per current schedule: $200.00 for each residential lot at 5, Total Fee $1,000.00. b) Final plat fee - $150.00. c) Filing fee for plat and associated documents $150.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held July 13, 1987. Pago 4 of 4 51388.1 . RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WOODHILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of Woodhill Avenue, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement published in the Laker/Pioneer Newspaper the week of May 9, 1988 and Construction Bulletin the weeks of May 2 and 9, 1988. AND WHEREAS, it appears that Hardrives of Maple Grove is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Hardrives of Maple Grove in the name of the City of Orono for the improvement of Woodhill Avenue according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City 'le rk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has teen signed. Adopted by the City Cou-,7il this 13th day of June, 1988, _.�nea t. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk WOODHILL AVENUE PROJECT -COST ALTERNATIVE SELECTED Contsruction Cost $42,273 Continuing 4,227 $46,500 Legal, Admin. Capitalized Interest 9,300 $55,800 FINANCING Alternatives MSM 31,388 woodhill 10,462 41,850 3 property 8,550 owners City 5,400 $55,800 69f BID Hardrives $36,991 1,110 $38,Q0I 9,880 $47,881 AS CONSTRUCTED PER_BID I II III 26,933 26,933 26,933 8,977 8,977 8,977 35,910 35,910 35,910 - 4,500 7,500 (1500 per (2500 per owner) owner) 11,990 7,490 4,490 $47,900 $47,900 $47,9A0 CITY WTM#*cvr- 3 Yost Office Box 66•Crystal 13ay, I On the North Shore of Lake Min.-tetonka NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the Council will meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 28, i989, at the Council Chambers of the City of Orono, 1275 Brown load South, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the Woodhill Avenue Street Improvement. The following is the area proposed to be assessed: Property abutting Woodhill Avenue and Lo s 1 through 5 Woodhill Ridge in the north 1/2 of Section 2, Township 117, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot, piece, or parcel of land is $ You may at anytime prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the entire assessment of such property with interest to the date of payment, to the City of Orono. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter, pay to the City the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such paymerc -gust be made before November 15 or interest will be chargec. '_hrough December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide riot to prepay the assessment before t`�e date given above the rr.te of interest that will apply is 8 prLcent per year. The sight to partially prepay the assessment is not available. BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 • ADM4NIS7RATTO14 A FINANCE - 373.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473.7359 ASSESSING The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $49,814.19. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following procedure will to followed: 1. The city will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits. After each witness has testified, the contesting party will be allowed to ask questions. The procedure will be repeated with each witness until neither side has further questions. 2. After the city has presented all its evidence, the objector may call witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desires. The same procedure for questioning of the city's witnesses will be followed with the objector's witnesses. 3. The objector may be represented by counsel. 4. Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied; however, they may be considered and argued to the council as to the weight of items of evidence or testimony presented to the council. 5. The entire proceedings will be tape-recorded. 6. At the close of presentation of evidence, the ob `^* may make a final presentation to the council b; `•e evidence and the law. No new evidence may be pr,,? -'-+ at this point. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the mayor or clerk. Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owner by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. When deferement of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in that law, all amounts come due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of this law and the ordinance adopted under it may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the city clerk for the prescribed form for such deferral of payment of this special assessment on his property. /s/ Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk WOODHILL AVENUE - SPE!:IAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL 8/23/89 PID PnItCEL ADDITION RATE TOTAL NAME/ADDRESS `L-117-23 24 0007 41640 $27,895.95 $27,895.95 MSM Associates, 4045 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 02-117-23 24 0001 41640 1,660.47 1,660.47 David Lindstrom, 1315 Woodhill Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 02-117-23 32 0009 42840 1,660.47 1,660.47 Jane McClearen, 190 Orono Orchard Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 02-117-23 21 0007 42840 1,660.47 1,660.47 Mark & Mary Fox, 1230 Woodhill Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 02-117-23 12 0001 41302 9,464.70 9,464.70 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 7,472.13 7,472.12 City of Orono, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 31689.2 City of ORONC- a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING WOODHILL AVENUE ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and heard and passed upon all otjections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of Woodhill Avenue, legally described as follows: property abutting Woodhill Avenue and Lots 1 through 5 Woodhill Ridge in the north 1/2 of Section 2, Township 117, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: _. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereto, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment again-,t- the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 5 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1990 and shall bear ; nterest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner, of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the ass^ssment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount o: the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31, of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before 'ovember 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists 01 the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid ove - the sarne manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council this 28th dal of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cleik James R. Grahek, Mayor 81789.2 TO: Mayor and City Council COUNCIL MEETING FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato W'� AUG 2 81989 DATE: August 17, 1989 SUBJECT: County Road 15 - Assessment CITY OF ORONO Atta:hments: A. County Road 15 Financing Memo Dated 5/17/88 (Memo Only) S. Notice of Assessment Mailed 8/11/89 C. Assessment Roll Dated 8/24/89 D. Proposed Resolution ISSUE - 1. Holding public hearing prior to potential assessment. 2. Determining if an assessment will be undertaken. 3. If assessed, the amount to each property. INTRODUCTION - Of the total estimated cost of $535,000 that was the City's share of road construction, curb and gutters, right- of-way acquisition, sidewalks and street lighting, the amount to be assessed is only $118,040.94 for the stre=t lighting. DTSCUSSION - As noted ir. Attachment A a proposed financing was to be done through an assessmen'- of properties where the residential rate was to be half that of the commercially used rate. As noted in the spread sheet this amounts to $200.00 for a 50 foot typical residential lot and $1,200.00 for each 100 feet of frontage on commercially used lot. The project cost totals were $121,906.80 and capitalized interest is being charged between the actual payment by the City last year and the interest bet>>een then and now. The issues related to the assessment are as follows: a. Residential and commercial split. b. Total a;aount of the assessment. c. Amount of capitalized interest included between 198E and the fall of 1989. d. The term of the assessment. a. # of year b. Interest rate It should be noted that the Westonka Beautification program while it was adopted has had no further funding or proposals for 1 funding as to its implementation. ALTERNATIVES 1. Hold the public hearing. 2. Adopt the resolution as proposed. 3. Amend and adopt. a. Amount b. Commercial/Residential split c. Whether it is commercial is defined as used or zoned d. Term and interest rate of assessment 4. Choose not to assess. 5. Table. RECOMMENjA.TION - It is recommended that Council adopt as proposed with art interest of 8% over a 10 year term. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by that the Council having held a pub '.c hearing on the matter adopts Resolution #_ as the assessment for the County Road 15 Lighting projec'.. Ayes Nays _ cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director 51788.1 7T4C."E1JT i TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson; City AdrrinistratoP" I DAT:?: May 17, 1988 SUIJECT: Street Lighting Public Hearing - County Road 15 Attachment A. County 15 Memo Dated 4/29/88 B. County 15 Memo Dated 4/21/88 C. County 15 Memo Dar.ed 3/21/88 D. Notice of Public Hearing - Special Assessment County 15 E. Street Lighting Plan F. Hennepin County Letter Dated 5/11/88 ISSUE 1. Hold advertised public hearing regarding assessment for street lighting on County Road 15. 2. Determine if the project is to go ahead. 3. Determine the appropriate financing for Cosnty Road 15 including ar special ssessment dependent upon the public hearing. 4. If proje is to Go ahead, approving contract amendment with the County. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 25, 1999 meeting the Council estar,1ished a public hearing for May 2 1988 regarding the possibly ,ssessment of a street lighting pr7oject on County Road 15. ':urrent financing contemplates assessing only for the street lighting portion of the projec.. DISC';SSION - Staff has been working since the last meeting to determine if t:ie County would reduce its administrative cost for ths_ street lighting plan. Normal contracting administation r:iarge is 13%. Initially the County felt that an 8% charge would over their inspections and administrative costs. The City propose: that that amount be reduced to approximately 5% and which reduces th-� charge to $3,406.20 for a total charge of $5,677. The County has indicated a response next week. If this reduction if agreed to the total for the street lighting project is $119,217. 1 add. �1 engineering expense. The stree`_ ..y..�.ing spacing propose hich is a little closer in the commercial area (appro.im_::!1y 120 feet apart and a little further in the residentially area 150 feet is in line with the spacing to be used in Mound.) ALTERNATIVES. - Issue 1. gold the public hearing a. Conc'l the public hearing b. Continue the public hearing Issue 2. Determination as to project a. Choose to go ahead with the project b.. Choose not to undertake the project C. Table Issue 3. Financing of project a. Finance under special assessments in total b. Finance out of C.L,:y General/MSA Funds c. Conbination of special assessment and General/ MSA Funds a able Issue iertaken approval of contractor _.prove contract addendum to County 15 contract b. fable 'XCOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following conclusion of the public hearing that she Council order, by a 4/5's vote, t}- amendment of the contract with the County to commence t construction of street lighting project on County Road 15 as outlined in Attachment n. It :a further recommended that the Council initially assess $97,009 of the $119,5�10 of the street lighti .�oject together with financing the halanc.� of the County ..oac: 15 project half out of MSA and half out of General Fund. PROPCIED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council directs the construction of a City owned lighting system on County Road 15 per Attachment C by approval of Attachment F subject to possible reductions of the administrative charge and tnar this is to be financed through a special assessment tots?;nq S9 ,000 on the project with $7.00 per 1-:ront foot tvr resiuentially used property and $14.00 a frorb foot for ^omvc:r^ially used property and that the Council fund ihe balance County Road 15 project half out of MSA Funds am a If out of General Funds. Ayes _, Nays _. Below is an outline of the process should the Council d oice to undertake the assessment for the street lighting project. As noted before in order to order the project, as this was not a petitioned item, would require 4/5's vote by the Council. Public i:earing Order Project Project Construction Project Completion Special Assessment Hearing The proposed cost fcr front foot is as follows: $7.00 per front foot - Residentially used property $14.90 per front foot - Commercially used property As noted in Attachment C the residential figures are below that being charged by the City of Mound for its assessment. Should the Council choose, thr staff would recommend that this be assessed over a period of ten (19) years at approximately a 7.5- 8.0% interest charge to be determined at a subsequent assessment hearing. For a residential property that is 100 front feet this would amount to a total assessment of $790.00 or an annual principal payment of $79.30 per year plus at 7.5% an interest payment the first year of $52.00 decreasing to approximately $5.00 plus the 570.0' :ncipal payment for the tenth year. Consideration would t !en for those owners who have double frontage. Based on the revised numbers for administr-.:ion from the County the financing for the project would look as follows including the approximate decreases of lost income if the City decided to go wit`i the total of its share out of MSA funding. Street Lighting (increased City costs) Cons`ruction & ROW Financing Special Assessments MSA/General Maximum allowable MSA($401, 822) $119,397 384,000 S503,397 97,000 406,397 (44,500) estimated PiSA loss if '".SA used for maximum allowable Staff has reviewed the 1 i --ting plans particularly a hey relate to the possible reduction mid a--:ch light that is rem(, ad from the system saves about $1, For example if the two lights that are r t of 19 were _ it would save about $2,300.00. (See circled lights on At' lent E) Any redesign, however, in the spacing for the ba'_a, oe the project would nece s i'_ate some 2 CIT POU otfioe Box 66•.::yscal Bs On the North Shore of Lake Blinnetoy NOTICE OF TEARING ON PROPOS?D ASSESSMENT T W QM TT MAY CONCERA: SSc� ry E�� Notice is hereby given that the Counc4-I will meet at 7:00 on Monday, August 28, 1989, at the Council Chambers or p.m. the City of Orono, 1275 Brown Road Sou; o pass upon the assessment for street lighting iz . ovement on County proposed Road 15. The following is the area proposed to be assessed: The South 1 /2 Section 17, Township 117, Range 1-3 i L 2 Township 117, Ran and one North _/2 Sec..ior. 0, _ 23 and in particular all property abutting County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) beginning at the western border of Orono then easterly to a distance 320 feet east of County Road 15 (Shadywood Road) all property abutting County Road 19 (Shadywood Road) 563 feet north of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and 622 feet south of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). The amount to be special]., assessed against your particular lot, piece, or parcel of land is Y You may at on ct the assessment to the county anytime prior to certi°icati auditor, pav the entire assessment of such property with interest to the date of payment, to the City of Orono. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter, pay to the City the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made oefore November 15 or interest will charged through December 31 of the succeed; yea If I decide not to prepay the assessment before ste g_"en -nerve the rate of interest that will apply is 8 P. : per year. The right to partially pre^ay the assessmt:�i.- s not available. 1Q Dlh( 3 ZONING — 413.1157 • ADMINISTRATIQy & FINANCE — 473 358 • PUBLIC WORY-3 — 473-7359 ASSESSING :CBS The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's of`ice. The total amount cf the proposed assessment is $118,040.94. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following procedure will be followed: 1. The city will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits. After each witness has testified, the contesting part-Y will be allowed to ask questions. The procedure will be repeated with each witness unt'_1 neither side has further questions. 2. After the city has presented all its evidence, the objector may call witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desires. The same procedure for questionin; of the city's witnesses will be followed with the objectoo's witnesses. 3. The objector may be represented by counsel. 4. Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied; however, they: may be considered and argued to tr.e council as to the weight of items of evidence or testimony presented to the council. 5. The entire proceedings will be tape-recorded. 6. At the close of presentation of evidence, the objector may make a final presentation to the council based on the evidence and the law. No new evidence ray he presented at this point. An owner may appeal an assessment to disc ict court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the ci:.y within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the mayor or clerk. Under M :_..esota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the council u..=y, in its discretiO7, defer the payment of this special assessment for any hjaestead property owner by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. When deferement of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in that law, all amounts come due. Any assessed property owner meeting the law and the ordinance adopted under it may, requirements of this within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the city clerk for the prescribed form for such deerral of payment of this special assessment on his property. Isl Dorothy M. Hallin .-City Cleric _ - - 2 m �a CSAH 15 STREET LIGHTING - SPECIAL ASSRS8 T CBRTIPICATION ROLI. 8'24i89 - -- -- - --Total Asp, - PIT parcel Lot Block Addition Feet Rate Comm. Res. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- __17_117_ajj1 0002_j1317 -_. _- Unplatted_177:117-23 50.0 12.00 . 600.00 17-117-23 33 0004 41317 Unplatted 17-117-23 150.0 4.00 600.00 17-117-23 33 0005 41317 Unplatted 17-117-23 140.0 12.00 1,680.00 _l7_117_23_33_000¢_ 41317 Unplatted 17-117-23 _ 170.0 12.00 17-117-21 33 0007 4130 Unplatted 17-117-23 150.1 4.00 600.00 17-117-23 34 0003 4242U 1 9 Townsite of Langdon Pk 132.0 12.00 1,584.00 _- 17�}17_23_34_0004 _42420 _1^__ _ 9 Townsite of-Langdon Pk__ _. _ 132.0 12.00 _-_.1, 584.00 17-117-21 34 0005 42420 2 9 Townsite of Langdon Pk 132.0 4.00 528.00 17-117-:3 34 0006 42420 2 9 Townsite of Langdon Pk 132.0 4.00 528.00 `17_117-23_34 _OOG7 _42420 .__-__-3__ 9 Townsite of Langdon Pk 264.0 12.00__-__3,168.00 17-1'.1-23 34 0009 42420 4 9 Townsite of Langdon Pk 6.0 4.00 24.00 17-117-23 34 0012 42420 5 9 Townsite of Langdon Pk 132.0 12.00 1,584.00 _17-117=21_34.004401777 _____8______ 3 Navarro _ _ 81.8 4.00 327.20 17-117-23 34 0045 01777 9 3 Navarro 84.1 4.00 336.40 17-117-23 34 0046 01777 10 3 Navarro 84.1 4.00 336.40 _17-117-73_34 004701777 - Navarro ___.__....__._ 140.0 4.00 560.00 17-117-23 43 0086 42740 8-9 20-21 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 100.0 4.00 400.00 17-117-23 43 0091 42740 16 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 12.00 600.00 _-17-117_21 _43.0092 42740 16 __ 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 12.00 600.00 17-117-23 43 0093 42740 17 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 12.00 600.00 17-117-23 43 0094 42740 16 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 4.00 200.00 17-117-23._43.0095 12710 _ 19- 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 4.00 200.00 17-117-23 43 0098 42740 24-26 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 185.0 12.00 2,2210.00 17-117-21 43 0099 42740 6 Nav :re Heights Henn Cty 1U2.2 12.00 1,226.40 -17-117= 43.0107 __42740 11-14 7 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 100.0 12.00 1,200.00 17-117-23 43 0108 42740 15 7 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 12.00 600.OG 17-117-23 43 0109 42740 16 7 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 12.00 600.00 _17-117-21_43_9110__42740 - __17_____ __-7 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 12.00 600.00 17-117-23 43 0111 42740 18 7 Navarre Heights Henn Ct; 50.0 12.00 600.00 17-117-23 43 0112 42740 19 7 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 50.0 12.00 600.00 17=117:i23.,3 _0113 __42740__20-22 _ __7 Navarre_ Heights Henn Cty 150.0 12.00 ___1,800.00 17-117-23 43 0114 42^40 23-24 7 Navarre Heights Venn Cty 100.0 12.00 1,200.00 17-117-23 43 0142 42?40 22 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 65.0 4.00 260.00 -_1j-117-23_!4.0006 _42420 5 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 245.0 4.00 980.00 17-117-23 44 0007 42420 19-20 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 96.0 4.00 384.00 17-117-23 44 0008 42420 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 25.0 4.00 100.00 _-1L-112=21-4"009__-_A2420 _ _ 3 .Townsite -of Langdon Pk 90.0 4.00 360.00 17-117-23 44 0015 4i420 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 110.0 4.00 4t0.00 17-117-23 44 0074 43600 Wiley's Navarre Addn, La 57.5 4.00 230.00 _17_1i7-23_44.0075__43600._ 17 _Wiley's Navarre Addn, La 4.6 4.00 178.40 . 17-117-23 44 0076 43600 1p Wiley's Navarre Addn, La j8.8 4.00 235.20 17-117-23 44 0079 43600 Wiley's Navarre Addn, La 30.0 4.00 120.00 _177117_23_44_0085_43168. _Tract A RLS 1433 ___ 370.0 12.00 4,440.00 - 17-117-23 44 0067 41317 Unplatted 17-117-23 700.0 12.00 8,400.00 17-117-23 44 0094 00369 Outlot C Lafayette Ridge 647.0 4.00 2,588.00 __17-117723.44 0099 42420 __. 5 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 35.0 4.00 140.00 17-117-23 44 0100 42420 5 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 1,045.0 12.00 12,540.00 17-117-23 44 0101 42420 5 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 345.0 12.00 4,140.00 17=117=23-!!_0102_42420_ S 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 75.0 12.00 900.00 20-117-23 11 0002 41320 Unplatted 20-117-23 545.0 12.00 6,540.00 20-117-23 11 0015 42420 4 Townsite of Langdon Pk 85.0 12.00 1,020.00 _ 20-117-23 11 0017 42420 2 4 Townsite of Langdon Pk 60.0 12.00 720.00 20-117-23 11 0018 42420 4 Townsite of t.angdon Pk 140.0 12.00 __ 1,680.00 ._ /+n�4IMti-OT0- Cg11H 15 STREL�T LIGH1�'ING--SPWfJ . SSESSMElJT CERTIFICATION ROLL 8/24/89 2- - id Tract D RLS 14227 535.4 12.00 6,424.80 20-117-23 11 0026 41320 Unplatted 20-117-23 565.0 12.00 6,780.00 20-117-23 11 0031 01244 1 1 Orono Hills 202.0 12.00 2142f.00 140.0 4.00 - 560.00 - - - 20-117-23 12 0023 42720 2 Navarre 50.0 4.00 200.00 20-117-23 12 0027 42420 11 6 Townsite of Landdon Pk 125.0 4.00 500.00 6 tiw-i sits o? I.angdon Pk - 125.0-4 .00 -- - - 500.00 -- - - -- 20-117-23 12 0033 i3170 RLS 1422 184.6 12.00 2,215.20 20-117-23 12 0034 43170 RLS 142_2 315.3 12.00 3_t783.60 20=II"17f"3-"---dY4-81 1 _ 1 Lehman Lagoon _ 91.0 4.00 364.00 20-117-23 12 0057 02491 2 1 Lehman Lagoon 125.0 4.00 500.00 20-117-23 12 0024 42720 Navarre 140.0 4.00 560.00 20=Ili bal8-�2420 _ _ 1 7_;f nuts of Landgon Pk 486.0 12.0C 5,832.00 20-117-23 21 0025 42420 5 7 Townsits of Landgon Pk 325.0 12.00 11900.00 20-117-23 21 0026 42420 Townsite of Landgon Pk 200.0 4.00 800.00 _ 20-I15=2�'f1-bb�8 4�T�0 _ 7�� Towiiiiti _ of Landgon Pk 100.0 12.00 1,200'.00 -- -- - -`- --- 20-117-23 21 0029 42420 7 7 Townsite of Landgon Pk 240.0 12.00 2,880.00 20-117-23 21 0033 42420 7 Townsite of Landgon Pk 365.0 12.60 4,380.00 20-Lf�-�l3a0��73 -1 --- -�Townslts o! Landgon Pk 65.0 4.00 �- 260.00 --- --� - - 20-117-23 22 0002 42420 1 8 Townsite of Landgon Pk 10.0 4.00 40.00 20-117-23 22 0003 42420 1 8 Townsite of Landgon Pk 60.6 4.00 242.40 20-117- 4 2120 _ 8 Townslte oof_Landgon Pk 76.6 4.00 __ 306.40 20-117-23 22 0005 42420 1 8 Townsite of Landgon Pk 50.0 4.00 200.00 20-117-23 22 0006 42420 8_Townsite of-Landgon Pk 73.1 4.00 292.40 20=II7--23 22 000 2420 - _ 8 Townsite o! Landgon Pk 135.0 4.00 - -- 540.00 - 20-117-23 22 0008 42420 2 8 Townsits of Landgon Pk 125.0 4.00 100.00 --------- ------------------------ 12,995.7 104,886.00 17,020.80 TOTAL ASSESSMENT $121,906.E0 81689 Clay of ORON/ -r-�-ac c 7- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A P1?SOLUTION ADOPTIFG STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT ON COUNTY ROAD 15 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the street lighting improvement on Fennepin County Road 15. The following area is proposed to be assessed: The South 1/2 Section 17, Township 117, Range 23 and the North 1/2 Section 20, Township 117, Range 23 and in particular all property abutting County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) beginning at the western border of Orono then easterly to a distance 320 feet east of County Road 19 (Shadywood Road) 563 feet north of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and 672 feet south of County Road 1-5 Shoreline Drive). NOW JEREYORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO , MI NNESI )TA : 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each trict of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in ea,-, ' annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, t .rst of the installments to be payable on or before the first day in January, 1990 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 i._r cent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution until Dec_mber 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when Sue shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner, of any iperty so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of , assessment to the county auditoC,•- <• ••r. Fay the whole of the asses:.,nient on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except City Of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment Is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property "-.ax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council 28th day of August, 1989. Jaines R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. fig lin, City Clerk '7; AUB 2 8 M i I Minmw ow rnr s�ie LL C_7[y 0 c_6R "'r\ CITY OF OP-0"6 CPq 7/Q QAA41Alkl Nam. o c/out R(� �4 i CAI A P !� /v-0AU/4 q)�7,5-.0n 0)Af y ct Po s � ASS �S M � � frT�lU� t�"�P c o u nary Rd A •t.� p c� , F � rr eN T (c Of l JAI I � �R Q p Rom/ '_c of --H EV 71 C U ray TO rt � s c P� �/ © 6 7- A-1 M �N�C t Ru Ape P (� or µY tnr� c L T 4 p� L"- A CC 6 9S lug TOE �Anc� M � �� �1y u�N OF _Q nlAT�� pt-itlDENTIAL P ikop �- f) Re y C, QSj St jo(,CV p j§t pcd- w Nn u.l ouco j)tA/6Flr FA-G#A 'TLL9 6 CEO M tt u �u t n/ LL' tq 6 u 1'N �' �1 N TAN 6 t4tALP PAY r Co sus, jak ,gT Ar71dAl ntvA sub_ p t U S c �� A(C 7 , IU A ' �S�Sl0 At � r � � � �T 116HT1N ?t��4'T cr!C FROw► tAy PPSP8k Ty. As p LAA[Ar l# 6 170 A tJ< <--P my �7UT N o l� 6' c1 �,' 'i-lqr s P A � P R� ��� � SIC � �Y �' ° n�q PROP&P�f � � II oo rv& AN (g6C&,Ct c ' d COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORUl idf.'II MEETING AUG 281989 HELD AUGUST 14, 19819 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. CITY OF ORONO The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten, Peterson and C,lllandn; Co+incilmember Nettles was ab--ent. Tne following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mab+usth, Public Works Director ^erhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Cit, Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett, and ^ity Recorder Schefrler. CONSENT AGENDA* Councilmember Goetten requested removal of consent item #k26. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that in regard to item ##24, he had received Mr. Wear's written approval. Therefore, it would only be necessary to initiate eminent domain proceedings for the Reisergord property. It was mo%ed by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to a0prove the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item ##26, which was removed and discussed in the order it appears on the agenda. '-+cation, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. PUBLIC INFORMAZION MEETING LIFT STATION #10 FINANCING AND LIFT STATION #10 FINANCING RESOLUTION #2671, ORDINANCE #70, 2ND SERIES City Administrator Bernhe -dson brief ly explained that the Metro Waste Cont-ol Commission project realigning the interceptor allowed for the replacement -)t Lift Station 410 with a gravity line. There has been concern regarding the capacity of Liit Station ##10 and ti,, �, p--oject will allow for increased capacity. Financing for this project is projected to be through connection charges of properties that are currently unsewered. Ms. Elaine Rohling, owner of property located in Orono, indicated that the property she owned was landl cked and questiored whether this sewer project would affect her. Public Works Director Gerhardson told Ms. Rohling that he would meet with her to discu:.s the landlocked status of her property and that the sewer pro,iect wo-ld net affect her property. Mr. Steve Johnston:, 900 North Shore = -e West, questioned whether he would have to pay the connection. charge. Public Works Director Gerhardson answered negatively. Councilmember Callahan quest.ioneu whether the City would receive any funds for this project from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Gerhardson replied that phis particular part #-he project would be fu:,ded entirely by the City of Orono. i MINUT99 OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGJST 14, 1989 LIFT STATION #10 CONTINUED wAs moved by Councilmember f,oetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolutirn #2671 establishing a connection charge as the appropriate long-term metr,od for fir,ancir.l this improvement and adopts Ordinance #70, Series, to amend r he fee schedule _o include it as a connection charge. Motion, A;es= 4, Nays=C, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTE-' It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the July 24, 1989 Regnlar Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. John Hollander was unable to attend this meeting and there were no other cc *lments fr-Nt^. the public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1331 !METRO WASTE CONTROL CON"iSSION 3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2673* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resc -ion #2673, approving the final suhdivision for the Metro_.olitan Waste Control Commission. Motic)n, Aves=4, Nays=O, Motio.i passed. #1424 WINDWARD MARINE 1444 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN RESOLUTION #2674 Mr. T.i.m Rivers was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that Mr. Rivers wished to revise his previously approved proposal to construct a shop area on the Tanager Lake portion of his property. Thy original plan showed the shop building located on the nor+- de of the property, next to the residential area. Mr. Rivers low requesting approval :>f a side yard setback on the sout:. of the property so the building .could be located next co the commercial property. Mr. Rivers explained that he preferred to locate L.ie building nearer to the ccmme�:c_al pry-nerty to avoid a cluttered appearance. Councilmember P `erzon recollected that Minnetonka Boat Works had objected to Ar. ^ivur's proposal at the Planning Commissic,. Meeting. She asked if anyone kn,,.w the basis for the objection? Zor.ing Administrator Mabusth repl••1 that she had nor received any further information from Minneto,'a Boat Works. Councilmember Goetter said that she t.houqht the plan was MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETIN3 OF AUGUST 14, 1989 ZONING FILE #1424-WINDWARD MARINE CONTINUED excellent, especially since har1cover was being reduced from the original prop -)sal. Goetten did indi however, that she had the same concerns about safety and rossing of H-ighway 15. She asked to see the plan amended t show an accesG 'o the crosswalk. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution ##2C74, approving th? renewal variances and commercial site plan for Windward MaT- Motion, :Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1425 WARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOW' ROAD VARIANCE/SUBDtVISTON Mr. James MacKinnon, Attorney, was present on behalf of the Ferrells. City .-I-ninistrator Bernhardson provided a brief history of this appll'�:cition for -i lot area variance and lot combination. Mr. MacKinnon provided a brief history of the Ferrells' property and the City of Orono's change in zoning requirements. Mr. MacRinnon said that the City's o�:dinance disallowing buildability of single owner substandard .i6jacent lots was a form of discrimination with no basin. He sa�u that he was requsting :Approval for one additional lot, rather than two l(ts. Mevor Grabek recollected that due to 'he history and 1-,cation of the loc he had previously -ndir.at jJ that he wc,ilc: :approve one additional lot. He ques, _,:)ned staff as to whether the resulting lot size would confor..i to the neignboring lot sizes? Gaffron confirmed that lot: in that area ranged in sizc from 1 acr. to 2 acres and that there were 3,14 acre lcts on Cygnet P1L;.. Councilmember Goetten_ said that she too had always indicated that she would bF willing to approve one additional lot. Councilmembers Peterson and Cailahan concurred. It .4as moved by Councilmember Goetten, secc-ded by Councilmember Petsis,;ri. to conceptually a p ove the lot area variance for 'card and Mary Ferrell �,.ith 5tai. o draft a Eorrial approval resolution. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE #72, SECOND SERIES Assistant Planning and Zoninc Administrator Gaffron poirted out the specific areas of this Ordinance where the City way have proulems. Caffron said that the Ord'--nce may make: it difficult, in certa.in cases, to maintain tt,e satbac',s from drsinffield sites. Co-- •.:ilmember t3oetten said that i'_ was the original intent of this ordinance amendment process tc carefully examine the type of accessory structures that people were putting on `Aeir lots. she t,,-_eved that. especially where small lotr are concerned, a 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1989 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONTINUED 30' setback for accessory structures was appropriate. Councilmember Callahan questioned why swimming pools would be exempt when considering lot coverage. Gaffron said that the Punning Commission was concerned with the visual impact of structures covering area. Most pools are ground level and would not have any visual impact. Mayor Grahek noted, however, that most pools are surrounded by a fence. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Ordinance Amendment for Oversizec? Accessary Structures. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT ORDERING PLANS i SPECS - WELL #3/HIGHWAY 12 City Administrator Bernhardscn explained that it was necessary to do test drilling to determine which aquifer can be used. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to proceed with the water well testing. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. PAY REQUEST #1 - LIFT STATION 10/43 It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Cc•inc_'lmember Goetten, to approve payment M1 for Lift Station 10 and 43 projects. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: L.M.C.D. MAYOR'S MEETING Mayor Grabek reported that the attending Mayors had indicated they would like more control over the LMCD Representatives, because they felt they were not kept adequately informed. The Mayors also felt that there were too many meetings and that it was difficult to have representation at each meeting. The Mayors also questioned their ability to recall their respective LMCD Representative if they were not performing in a satisfactory manner. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: COUNTY ROAD 51 PARKING RESOLUTION f2675 City Administrator Bernhardson Exrlained that Staff has _. recommended extending the "No Parking reet 200' further east than initially proposed. Public works Director Gerhardson said that the City was sti 11 trying to work with Hennepin County to widen the parking area on the south side of County Road 51. M:-. Thomas Anderson, 3550 North Shore Drive, said that he 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 51 PARKING CONTINUED was concerned about the sight lines to the west and the difficulty of crossing County Road 51. He said that the new curbing worsened the sight lines because there was only 5' between the curb and driving lane. Gerhardson confirmed that the parking area was only 51. Mayor Grabek questioned whether the "No Parking" area should be extended west toward the Hendric-'•on Bridge. Gerhardson said that it would be necessary to get more parking width in that area so that vehicles can pull off farther away from the driving lane. Mayor Grabek suggested that area be posted "No Parking" until such time that the parking area is adequately widened. Councilmember Callahan suggested that this matter be brought back for re-evaluation at a later date. Councilmember Goetten concurred. Bernhardson suggested that the re-evaluation be scheduled for next July. Mr. David Singer asked what the City would be re-evaluating. Councilmember Callahan replied that the City would make sure that the parking area along the side of County Road 51 is widened. Mr. Singer commented that he had measured and found a trailer extending two feet beyond the parking lane into the roadway. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt and amend Resolution #2675, designating "No Parking" along County Road 51, including additional footage west of the area initially proposed until such time that parking area is adequately widened with a review of the situation in July, 1990. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. UNIFORM CURFEW ORDINANCE 71, SECOND SERIES City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the City would like to amend the "semantic." of the Curfew Ordinance so that it would read "14 years and under" rather than "under 15". Councilmember Goetten a>pressed concern about midnight being the curfew for 15 year old children. Bernhardson replied that the midnight curfew had been established for many years and was consistent with other cities. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Ca 1 1 Ahan, to adopt Ordinance 71, Second Series, for the purpose of clarifying this ordinance, not changing the intent. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays=O, Motion passed. LMCD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFTS-SHORELINE/PUBL•_[C SAFETY This was an informational item ani there was no motion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1989 FACILITIES MEETING - COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION City Administrator Bernhardson recommended September 14th at 7:00 p.m. for the joint meeting to discuss the facilities. Bernhardson noted that he would need to set a date for a budget meeting as well. BOND SALE RESOLUTION #2676 City Administrator Bernhardson requested approval to recalculate the capitalization interest. He explained that there would be a delay between the time of construction and receipt of the assessment payments. Bernhardson estimated that the recalculation would increase the amount of the revenue bonds to issue and sell by appre7.,imately $200,000.00. Councilmember Goetten indicated that she would have no objections to the recalculation as long as Bernhardson pro,-ided a memo indicating what the exact recalculated figure is. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2676, establishing a date to issue and sell General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1989. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT ART CENTER RESOLUTION #2677* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2677, which incorporates by reference the stipulation and the terms agreed to by the parties. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. 1990 BUDGET LEVY RESOLUTION #2672* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, that Council adopts Resolution #2672 establishing the final proposed tax levy and expenditures for the budget year 1990. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. JOHN WALDRON 1951 CONCORDIA STREET AMEND RESOLUTION #2407 TO CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION RESOLUTION #2678* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2678, amending and clarifying Resolution #2407. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. MINNESOTA CYCLE TOUR* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmn mber Peterson, to accept the information garding Minnesota cycle tour. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. EARL NORWOOD-REFUND RESOLUTION #2679* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL FETING OF AUGUST 14, 1989 NORWOOD REFUND CONTINUED Peterson, to approve Resolution #2679, approving a refund of the second sewer unit assessment for the Earl Norwood property at 1360 Vine Pl.ce, in the amount of $3,561.94. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ASSESSING SERVICES* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to authorize contracting with Rolf Erickson for Assessing services for the period 1 September, 1989, to 31 December, 1989, under the terms set forth in the draft contract. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. AUTHORITY TO INITIATE EMINENT DOMAIN* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2681, initiating eminent domain proceedings on the property identified therein. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. WATER CONSERVATION RESOLUTION #2680* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2680 regarding water conservation regulations. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION Councilmember 3oetten noted that there were two people in attendance at the County Road 115 Informational Meeting. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: County Road 116 Informational Meeting; Stubbs Bay Informational Meeting; Deer-Bow/Arrow Permits; Milfoil Compostinq; Goose Removal; Public Works Garage Fire; Summary of Receipts, Disbursements & Balances, June Year -to -Date; Electronic Funds Transfers for July 8 - August 4; and Goals. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett indicated that he had no report. LICENSES* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the following license: One Day Setup Permit: Smith College Club of Minnesota At: Art Center of Minnesota September 8, 1989 9:30 - 2:30 p.m. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. 7 MINUTES OF THE GRONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1989 BILLS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, 'iot: on passed. ADJOURNMENT 8:10 P.M.. It was moved bl Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Gcetten to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 8:10 p.m. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=G, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City C',erk James R. Grabek, Mayor s E��NO AUG2 81989 017Y OF 00O MO To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: August 23, 1989 Subject: #1405 Thomas & Phyllis Colwell, 2640 North Shore Dr - Final Plat - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Preliminary Subdivision Resolution No. 2655 Exhibit B - Permit for Installation of Septic System Exhibit C - Agreement for Removal of Accessory Structure Lot 1 Exhibit D - Final Plat Exhibit E - Resolution Approving Final Plat The applicants have fulfilled all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 2655 that granted approval of the 3-lot plat. A new septic system has been installed to serve the existing house on Lot 2. Applicants have executed an agreement insuring that the detached accessory structure on Lot 1 shall be removed if a building permit has not been applied for within one year of the date of final plat approval (August 28, 1990). This specific agreement enclosed in your packet is not the final draft as staff has requested minor changes in the wording of the agreement. Applicants' attorney has agreed to complete the necessary changes for execution by the applicants. The enclosed resolution approving the final plat is submitted for your review and action. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF COLWELL ADDITION F_LE NO. 1405 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 of a three -lot plat by Phyllis D Colwell and Thomas G. Colwell, hereinafter subdividers; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-lB zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdividers has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all requirements of Resolution #2655. 2. Dedication on the plat of rights -of -way for public roads shown as County Road 51 and County Road 84. 3. Dedication to the City cf a Flowage & Conservation Easement providing formal limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainageways described therein and shown on the plat as "drainage easements". 4. Execution of an agreement by the subdividers that would require the removal of the detached structure nn Lot 1 if a building permit for a principal structure/residence has not been issued within one year of the date of final plat approval (August 28, 1990). 5. The subdividers have contracted to complete the installation of a new septic system (Orono Permit No. 002130) to serve the existing residence on Lot 2. 6. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $300.00. Page 1 of 3 7. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat easements and covenants in the amount of $150.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: the City Council of the City of Orono hereby ap�;rovec ttie plat of Colwell Addition, Hennepin County, Minneso-a; subject to the following condition: 1. Outlot A, Colwell Addition is to be legally combined with Lot 3, Colwell Addition. Owner of combined Lot 3 and Outlot A to grant access easement in favor of Lot 2, Colwell Addit:nn. 2. At time of a future subdivision of Lot 1, Colwell Additi( ccess to Lot 2, Colwell Addition shall be relocateu LLo north property line in order to achieve access via a private road. Owner of Lot 2 must apply for a driveway permit from the City of Orono for the relocated access/curb cut. 3. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono w'th the Registrar of Title's Office on or before February 28, 1990 together with a L:ertified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the covenants and easements noted above. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 28th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was this 28th day of August, 1989, by Jam Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the Ci municipal corporation and said instrume of the City. acknowledged before me on Notary Public My Commission Expires Pa •e 3 of 3 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI: NO. 2655 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 2640 NORT21 SHORE DRIVE FILE NO. 1405 WHEREAS, Phyllis D. Colwell and Thomas G. Colwell (hereinafter "the applicants") or April 20, 1989 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for a division of a three - lot residential plat of a property legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A, attached Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property") and; WHEREAS, after du,- oubl�shed and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Oro..) Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on May 15, 1989 and June 19, 1989 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on July 10, 1989 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the applicants, noting the following findings of fact: 1, fhe property is located within the RR-1H Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 19.91 acres, 6.81 acres consists of wetlands. 3. The proposed pla, contains three lots each meeta.ig the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement and the 200' of width at the tear of the front yard setback line. 4. Each of the lots has been found to contain adequate area for both principal and alternate ssptic sites. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Counci 1 of the City o`_ Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Phyllis D. Colwell and Thomas G. Colwell per the survey dated February 20, 1.989, revised Jt.ne 13, 1'j89 by Ted Remna of Schoell and Ma,lsor., In--., subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 4 1. Out 1 of A is combined Lot favor of Lot 2. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -655 to be legally combined with Lot 3. Owner of and ')utlot A to grant access easement in 2. At the time of a future subdivision of Lot 1, access to Lot 2 shall be via the new private road that will serve new lots created with the division of Lot 1. 3, The applicants shall agree to execute a covenant that would agree to remove the detached structure on Lot 1 if a building permit has not been issued within one year of the date of final plat approval. 4. Private driveway to serve Lot 1 must be placed so that a 26' setback is maintained from the wetland defined at the 933 elevation. 5. Existing h:.use on Lot 2 to be served by a new septic system. Such system is to be installed prior to final plat app oval. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS V- ollowing list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zo. g Administrator two weeks prior to ':ne regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and; fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar conies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Ted Remna of Schoell and Madson, Inc. dated February 20, 1989, revised June 13, 1989. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines - omit along the sides of the lot lines adjacent to wetlands. c) All wetland areas to be shown as drainage easements. Include wetlands not included in original lot line rearrangement with property to the east. d) Dedication of right-of-way as shown on preliminary survey, limiting the maximum right-of-way width to 66' of widt:^ for County Road 84 and County Road 51. Page 2 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO. 2655 H. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All. owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicants must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed Flowage & Conservation Easement over the wetlands defined as drainage easements within the plat. d) A separate covenant for Lot 1 agreeing to the removal of the detached structure if a building permit has not been issued within one year of the date of final plat approval. C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $600.00. a) Park dedication fee per current schedule: Lot 1 at 5+ acres = $100.00 Lot 3 at 2+ acres = 200.00 Total Park Fee = $300.00 b) Final plat fee = $150.00. c) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this loth of July, 1989. am s R. Grabek, ayor ATTFl5T rr thy M.', iallir., City Cler Page 3 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF TAE CITY COUNCIL NO. ,. 55 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this loth day of July, 1989, 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 Put l i c _ K. SC'i+ FFLER NEN..iNN COUNTY Mr comm�s cn �xGir„6.2•03 My Commission Page 4 :),-_ 4 C17Y OF ORONO 1335 Brown Rd. South • P.G. Box 66 Crystal Say, Minnesota 55323 ;R12;-473-7357 LITE ADDRESS: :-40 ESCRIPT1C}f+k.-1 1 i-L: -1 A-tIiacj PERMIT b PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number Date Issued' c',vtn 2-f WATER :tt ' 1: 0 NORTH SH Ji E OR SEPTIC: SYc1 T EM Sewer �t Water Permit Type QRAINFLD b TAW... ::r-:wer °, Water Work Type RESIDENCE :MARKS: SFIMMAPP' Su r c na rge- - - - - - - 1-5Q Total i=e? •.55k) . SO 'ONTRACTOR: OWNER: -- Applicant -- FETER-'30N ELMER J tad 54713151 �OLWELL PHYLLIS Rfi L BOX L�6 Ni iRTH SHORE OR J[i Jtull MN 5.5 3•�; t 1"ONO MN SS" 9 1 (612) 471-8161 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAi THE REAL IMPROVEMENTS �? SPECIFIED AND AGREES .TO .DO ALL,.IORK IN STRICT''COMPLIANCE WITH ALL--GITY OF- J Il "Il 111 i 7r;u i N ' - - ANo TATE OF M INNESO TA SU ILD i NG COO nL ;t,?Rti i�iv i . 47-, 6 U AGREEMENT ' THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this _ day of August, 1989, by Thomas G. Colwell and Phyllis B. Colwell, husband and wife ("Colwells"). RECITALS: A. On April 20, 1989, the Colwell: filed a formal subdivision application with the City of Orono ("City") for division of a three lot residential plat of a property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"). B. At the City's regular counsel meeting on July 10, 1989, the City approved the Colwells' premilinary plat application subject to certain conditions. C. One such condition of final plat approval was that the Colwells agree to the removal of a structure located on the property under circumstances hereinafter described. D. The City will not grant final plat approval without such an agre;:ment . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and as an inducement to the City to grant final plat approval of the Property, the Colwells agree as follows: In the event a building permit has not been issued for the construction of a primary residence on what is to be platted as Lot. 1, Colwell Addition, within one year of the date of final plat approval of Colwell Addition, the Colwells will. within sixty days after the end of said one-year period, remove the two-story barn -shaped garage currently located on said lot at Colwells' sole expense. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Colwells have duly execi,ited this Agreement the day and year first above written. `Thomas G. Colwell ell PhyYilis B. Colwell 0839Y e. COUNCIL MEETING au G 2 81999 CITY OF ORONO To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 23, 1989 Subject: #1326 Ronald Lauer/Wayzata Country Club - Subdivision #1407 Leo Hauser, North Ferndale Road - Final Subdivision 'oproval The two applicants have combined their subdivision into a single final plat as discussed previously and as approved by Council via preliminary plat approval resolutions #2657 and #2658, on July 10, 1989. Both applicants have completed the requirements for subdivision. Prior to the filing of the plat, Mr. Lauer will execute a Developer's Agreement for the culvert/drainage work on the Brooke Nelson property on Chevy Chase Drive. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends f.nal plat approval per the attached resolution. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , to approve the plat of Hauser Lauer WCC Addition for Leopold Hauser, Ronald Lauer, and Wayzata Country Club, on North Ferndale Road per the attached resoluti-on. Ayes , nays A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF HAUSER LAUER WCC ADDITION FILES NO. 1326 i 1407 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 cf 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 applications for a subdivision by Leopold and Helen Hauser. and Ron Lauer/Wayzata Country Club, the subdividers; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 1989 the City Council approved Resolutions #2657 and #2658 granting preliminary approval for a plat at 475 North Ferndale Road, containing properties owned by Leopold and Helen Hauser, and by Wayzata Country Club; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have combined their two separate subdivision applications into a single plat to be known as Hauser Lauer WCC Addition; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat contains three lots each exceeding the 2.0 acre minimum lot area requirement. Lot 2 requires a variance to the 200' lot width requirement as measured at the rear of the 50' front yard abutting North Ferndale Road; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all other standards of the RR-1B zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use a-- a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of further variances; and WHEREAS, all three lots have been demonstrated to contain suitabie sites for primary and/or alternate drainfields to serve the proposed single family residences on Lots and 3 (Lot 1 contains an existing house); and WHEREAS, the existing driveway curb cut serving the existing residence on Lot 1 shall be shared with the proposed driveway to serve Lot 2. Lot 3 shall be allowed a separate curb cut for direct access to North Ferndale Road; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, two separate light -of -way outlots are shown on the plat for dedication as private roadway, such outlots being designated on the plat as Outlots B and C. Outlots B and C contain the southerly portion of an existing private road serving properties to the west and north of the proposed plat; and WHEREAS, private road Outlot B shall rer Ain owned in common with Outlot A. Outlot A is an 11.2 acre pa _cel intended to remain the ownership of Wayzata Country Club •.nd intended to continue in use as golf course area. Any futice residential development of Outlot A shall require Council appi-val; and WHEREAS, private road Outlot C shall remain owned in common with Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolutions #2657 and #2658. 2. Dedication on the plat of 33' of right-of-way for the public street known as North Ferndale Road. 3. Granting of road and utility easements over private road Outlots B and C. Outlots B and C arF intended to remain in private ownership, and shall be maintained by the property owners who benefit from existing easements over said outlots. 4. Dedication on the plat of a drainage easement being 25' in width along the southerly lot line of Lot 2 to accommodate the existing drair.ageway on that property. 5. Execution of a Developer's Agreement providing for installation of certain improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. 6. Payment to the City of Park Dedication Fees in the amount of $200.00 for each of Lots 1, 2 and 3. 7. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat easements and other documents, in the amount of $300.00. Page 2 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Hauser Lauer WCC Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following condition: 1. A variance is hereby granted for Lot 2 to the 200' lot width standard. 2. Lots 1 and 2 shall share the existing driveway access to North Ferndale Road. Lot 3 shall be allowed a separate driveway curb cut to North Ferndale Road, the location of such curb cut to be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. Outlot A shall continue in golf course use, and any future residential development of Outlot A shall require City Council approval. 4. Outlots B and C shall remain in private ownership and shall be maintained as a private road by the benefitting surrounding property owners. Nothing in this resolution is intended to prohibit the owners of Outlots B and C and the neighboring property owners benefitted by access easements over Outlots B and C, from forming a property owners' association to jointly own and maintain Outlots B and C. 5. Prior to filing of the aforesaid plat, Mr. Lauer shall execute a Developer's Agreement for construction of drainage improvements required as part of the subdivision. 6. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before February 28, 1990 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the documents as noted above. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Page 3 of 4 Dated this 28th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of August, 1989, by U.mes 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 4 of 4 � J To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members COUNCIL MEETING ' Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members AUG 2 81989 City Administrator Bernhardson ��y /�p/� From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administr�ll�i OF (MONO Date: June 14, 1989 Subject: #1417 Northern States Power Company, 3960 6th Ave N - Conditional Use Permit - Publi, Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - A) Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) Area Required = 5 acres Area of Property = approximately 15 acres (5+ acres of dry, remaining acreage is wetlands) Front/Rear Setback = 100' for principal residence Proposed = 851+ (closest structure is located to the immediate south on south side of Sixth Avenue North, approximately 151' to residential lot line on south, includes 66' of right-of-way plus 85' street setback) Note that this is a setback for the total improvement involving substation. The fencing is located 85' from the street. B) Section 10.27, Subdivision 3 (as amended in Ordinance 29, Second Series) - Conditional use permit required for electric power substation. Required = 50' (setback required frog all lot lint-s adjacent to residentially zoned property) Proposed = 1501+ C) Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 - Non -Encroachments - 6' high fence cannot be located in required front yard setback. Required = 100' Proposed = 85' Variance = 15' or 15% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application D Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Wetlands Map Exhibit Exhibit E - F - Cook's Report of 6/12/89 Survey L. 7 G Exhibit G - Site Plan (Location Plan) b Exhibit H - Existing Topography Exhibit I - Proposed Grading Exhibit J - Elevations Exhibit K - Landscape Plan 13 Zoning'Alle ll.141414UO3 June 14, 1989 Page 2 of 4 ' Review yap � rrt : RIqlication - The Northern States Power Company has been searching the western area of our City in an attempt to locate an appropriate site for the proposed power substation. The rate of growth 4n the western portions of our City has created a major need for increased electric capacity. The property is surrounded by a railroad on the north, wetlands to the east, county road to the south, and the Hunt Farm residential. development to the south. The majority of the 15 acre site is wetlands. The substation consists of a single transmittina r„wer at 50' in height, generator and transmitter structures at approximately 15' in height, and adjacent power line substructures at 15-20' in height. The total (refer to Exhibits G & J) is shown at 691xll4' on Exhibit G and 65'x110' on Exhibit J. The substation will be placed on approximately the same site of the original house. It would appear that the existing drive will be used to serve the substation. Both Exhibits G & J suggest that power lines will be leaving the site via the north connecting to existing power lines that run adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Applicant should confirm if there is just a single power line leaving the substation or if others are proposed. As this use is proposed in our large lot rural area, staff's concerns have been centered on the issue of impact upon the adjacent or nearest residential properties. The following questions and issues need to be answered or resolved by the City prior to approval: 1. Noise impact. A) What kinds cf sounds (frequency and intensity) are omitted from su�-+station while in use - will adjacent residences 150' away be able to hear when in use? What kind of maintenance is involved with substation use? a) What types of vehicles are to enter site? b) Schedule of maintenance or inspections? 2. Visual impact. A) Existing drive to serve substation is located immediately opposite the residence on the south side of County Road 6. The drive to serve substation can be moved 175-200' eastward to reduce visual and noise impact on residence. Applicant to confirm if this is feasible. Zoning File #1417 June 14, 1989 Page 3 of 4 B) Applicant can provide an earthen barrier to residences to south and west with following grading options: i. Final grades of proposed substation are proposed at 978.3 on the east and 979 on the west. Applicant can excavate area to 970 elevation and use fill to create berms on west and souI:-i side of station. OR ii. Move substation eastward to 970 elevation. Install substation westward of the 970 (-levation, excavating to the 970 elevati,7n. Applicant is 4dvised of the 26' setback f._om the adjacent wetland at approximately the 964 elevation. The setback must be maintained during construction. Berming can also be provided with the additional fill resulting from the excavated material. C) In reviewing Exhibit K, the landscape plan, it would appear that some of the existing trees are to be removed with the installation of the substructure. Many of the existing plantings are mature trees. The City would encourage applicant to maintain as many as possible of the existing plantings. To ensure the visual barrier to the adjacent residential properties, the earthen berms adjacent to the substat n on the west and south side can also be provided with plantings. Applicant is to advise if this- creates a problem for the operation of the substation. Staff has discussed the applications with only one of the affected property owners, representative of the developer of Huntington Farm. As of this writing staff has received no written cormentary or received any calls from other adjacent residents. The applicant will have various technical representatives at the meeting to answer any questions residences or members of the Commission may have concern ng the proposed application. If the application meets with the appzcval of the Commission, such approval should be conditioned on the following: 1. Applicant to obtain the appropriate permit from the City of Orono for the proper abandonment of the residential well on the site. 2. Applicant to provide appropriate erosion cont-ol (silt fencing) prior to the installation of the substation through construction until ground cover is restored. 3. Berming to be provided along the south and west sides of the substation. The City to encourage evergreen plantingG within the bermed area. 3 Zoning File #1417 June 14, 1989 Page 4 of 4 4. Applicant to relocate access drive 175-200' eastward and to install substation at 970 elevation. 5. Applicant shall install fencing around substation so that fence meets 100' setback from street lot line. Additional Review Memo for, Planning Commission Meeting of July 17, 1989 - Additional Exhibits - Exhibit L - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit M - Graphic Demonstrating Need for Substation Exhibit N - Procedures - Spill Prevention & Control Exhib?.t 0 - Action Notice of Planning Commission Exhibit P - Mitchell Letter of 7/11/'i`+ Exhibit Q - Staff Sketch Relating D`.•tance from Transformer to Adjacent Resident's Lot-; Exhibit R - Staff Sketch - Amendment of Landscape Plan Exhibit S - Location Plan Exhibit T - Grading Layout - Sheet 1 Exhibit U - Grading Layout - Sheet 2, Sections Exhibit V - Landscape Layout Brief Review of Proposed Project as Amended - The proposed facility has been moved eastward, relocating the driveway approximately 190' to the east and the west side of the facility is now located 90' from the existing driveway that served the former residence. The proposed facility will now be placed at the 973 elevation. The transformer and console range from 12-20' in height above the 973 elevation. An "H" shaped structure of tubular steel will be approximately 40' in height with a 10' additional footage for a lightening rod. The entire base of the facility will be constructr-d of. 4" of crushed rock top surface and several feet of granular fill beneath. No new poles wil'. ',- installed. The existing poles in the area will be employed - installation of new wiring/lines. The transformer is to be u� tl3 for converting or transforming the high voltage from heavy distribution lines into feeder lines aUequate for distribution purposed. Visual impact has been minimized by moving the facility further east and providing additional berming and landscaping. Please review Exhibit E, Mr. & Mrs. Mitchell's letter that opposes the installation of substation. The City has received no other comments from adjacent neighbors. Comments of other neighbors in opposition to the project have been recorded in your minutes of the June meeting. Zoning File #1417 July 13, 1989 Page 7 C. Landscaping an, .:r.g. Provide a typical section showing landscaping ciaia�ert to fencing, specify type of plantings, applicant to ".plain why berming cannot be provided, provide a more detailed site plan showing adjacent houses and undeveloped residential lots within the Huntington Farm plat, show existing and proposed driveway, locate house on south side of Sixth Avenue North in relation to the proposed driveway location, locate existing mature trees and proposed landscaping and specify landscaping. Applicant's response - The applicant has moved the facility further east taring advantage of the lower elevation and cutting into t`•- Dank creating 7' banks or berms along the west side. review Exhibits T & U. the facility and driveway are no lon4er immediately opposite the residence on the south side of Sixth Avenue. The transformer is approximately 2•:0' from the northeast corner of that residence. Please review Exhibit Q, the nearest residential unit within the Huntington Farm subdivision is located approximately 379' from the rear of lot line of the building pad (Lot 9). Review Exhibit R, staff recommends that the berm be continued along the south side of the facility shielding the property to the south of Sixth Avenue North and to extend the beam along the west side in a northwesterly direction shielding the visual and noise impact from the residence on Lot 8 in Hunt Farm. This extension should be about 60' in length. Evergreen plantings would be the only acceptable type of year-round landscaping for the facility. We would ask for 2 stagered rows of 6' high evergreens within the berm areas. Both berm and land- scaping will serve to deflect and absorb sounds from the operation of the transformer and fans. Note both driveway and facility will maintain a 26' setback from the w,stlands (964 elevation). 'rhe fence has still. been shown at a 99' setback from the front/street property line and must be placed 100'. Applicant to provide information as to why it cannot meet the 100' setback. .,l D. Substantiate need foripower station in present location. Please review Exhibits ► & M, the area of concern has been defined in the graphi,7s suhmi:_ted on Exhibit M. Based on the peak demand in th-i .:rea of concern, based on the graph, it appears that we ha, - already reached the level of maximum at the given capacity. It would appear that by 1990 we will exceed existing capacity at a 12,000+ KVA level. 69 KV transmission lines have been denoted on the map. As was noted at the meeting, access and the proximity to higher densities adjacent to the Luce Line made these areas most unacceptable. Roger Hargraeave will be present at the meeting to discuss the needs for the area in greatt= detail and hopefully provide more readable maps for discussion purposes. Zoning File #1417 July 13, 1989 Page 8 Eileen Hassel contacted staff to advise of a location that might provide less of an impact on adjacent residential.. The site was adjacent to the Busy Beaver Day Care off of Highway 12. The applicants visited the site and determined that it was out of the area of concern and not adjacent to the 69 KV transmission lines. Options of Action Available to the Planning Commission - If the application for a conditional use permit is to be denied, the Planning Commission must relate to the necessary findings set forth in Section 10.09, Subdivision 6. If approved, the approval recommendation should contain some of the following: "to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for Northern States Power Company to install a elf ctrical substation at 3960 Sixth Avenue North" Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Power substation is approved at a 69-138 KV capacity with a resulting distribution voltage of 13.8 KV. Applicant is hereby advised that the granting of this conditional use permit conveys no vested rights and that any attempt to increase the capaci}y of this substation requires a separate conditional use permit review. 2. At the tics of application for a building permit for the substatio,:, the applicant must provide cross profile/engineering plans for driveway and profile of base to be installed at facility. Applicant is to submit an amended landscape and grading plan designating a berm extending along the south side of the facility for approximately 69' graduating with 4:1 slopes as it approaches the entrance drive. Berming is to be extended along the west side of the facility in a northwesterly direction for approximately 601. Landscape play to be amended providing 6' high evergreen plantings in 2 rows of staggered plantings. Relocate fence to meet 1C9' setback from front street line. 4. Cooling fans of transformer to be placed so as to reduce noise impact on adjacent residential properties to west and south. 5. All construction/excavation to be 26' from the adjacent wetlands defined at the 964 elevation. Zoning File #1417 July 13, 1989 Page 9 6. Applicant to provide erosion control plan for City staff review prior to issuance of building permit. 7. Upon approval of the Planning Commission, the applicant is to proceed with the formal application with the Minnehaha Creek Water --tied District. Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - August 24, 1989 Please refer to revised List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Application 1. Applicant's Addendum Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Wetlands Map Exhibit E - Coik's Report of 6/12/89 Exhibit F - Existing Topography Exhibit G - Survey Exhibit H - Location Map Exhibit Z - Landscape Plan Exhibit J - Elevations Exhibit K - Gradi t.q '31an Exhibit L - Cross Profile Exhibit M - Graphics - Demonstrating Need for Sub -Station Exhibit N - Procedures/Spill Prevention & Control Exhibit 0 - Action Notice of Planning Commission Exhibit P - Mitchell's Letter Exhibit Q - Planning Commission Minutes of 6/19/89 Exhibit R - Planning Commission Minutes of 7/17/89 Exhibit S - Planning Commission Action Notice Exhibit T - Staff's Sketch Relating Distance from Transformer to Adjacent Residents' Lots Amended Setback Variance for 6' Fence (Plans submitted for current review) Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 - Non -encroachments. Six foot high fence cannot be located in required front yard setback area. Required = 100' Proposed = 95' Variance = 5' or 58 (actual power transformer/console 120') Once again, the City's position will be to require applicant to meet tre 100' setback for a 6' high fence. No v riance will be granted for the 5 acre site. Final plan must be amended to include the 100' setback. Zoning File #1417 August 24, 1989 Page 10 Review of Amended Proposal - Both June and July meetings of the Planning Commission were well attended by the affected neighbors of the NSP proposal. Questions raised by both the Planning Commission members and neighbors were pertinent to the review. Many of the earlier questions were answered by the applicant at the July meeting. The Planning Commission was satisfied that the ordinances/standards of the City had been met with the amended proposal by the applicant and adopted staff's approval option in the recommendation as set forth on Page 8 of this memo, conditions 1-7, but added that it would be to applicant's benefit to resolve the concerns of the neighbors prior to the Council meeting finding no basis nor direction in the ordinance to resolve the neighbors' concerns. In the formal motion, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to schedule an informal meeting before staff was to schedule the application before the Council. A meeting was scheduled with the neighbors in early August. The plans submitted with this review have been revised to reflect the neighbors' concerns. The applicant advises that several plans have been submitted to the neighbors. Staff has yet to receive any additional comments concerning the revised plans. Brief Review of Current Proposal - The power station has been moved approximately 40' westward, now placed at the 975' elevation at a finished proposed elevation of 976'. Berms along the west and south side of the facility range from 5-6' (9761-981'+). The transformer/console is located 315' from the closest residential lot in the Huntington Farm Plat and 235' fr )m the closest house to the south (review Exhibit T). Applicant must once again be reminded that all excavations adjacent to wetland area at 964' elevation must be 26' from designated wetland. Note that applicant is also providing berming extending from the west side of the facility northward to the west property line to tie in with the landscape screening. Please note that the applicant has fulfilled most of the requests made in Condition 2 of the staff's recommendation. Berming has been extended along the south side of the facility extending to the south side of the dii.veway. Note also that the plantings requested along the berm areas adjacent to the facility have been omitted in place of the proposed landscape plan. Please review the amended landscape plan (Exhibit V. It is staff's understanding tnat tte neighbors have had considerable input in the placement of the facility in relation to the saving of existing deciduous trees in the area. Note that the evergreen plantings have been strategically placed to protect the views of the two residential lots to the west and to the south. Zoning File #1417 August 24, 1989 Page 11 The actual facility has been reduced in size from 100'x59' to 901x551. Once again, it should be stated that no new power lines will be installed with the installation of this facility. Existing lines to the north and south shall be employed. The enclosed resolution reflects the remaining conditions set forth in Items 1-7 in staff's recommendation, and in addition, would add the following: 1. Applicant is asked to grant a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands defined at the 964' elevation. 2. Applicant must apply to the Hennepin County Department of Transportation for a driveway permit prior to installation of the drive. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) FILE #1417 WHEREAS, Northern States Power Company, (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 3960 Sixth Avenue North within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter 'property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit to permit the installation of a electric power substation per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 3 (A). :'OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1417. 2. The property is located in the RR-lA Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 acres in area. The property consists of 15+ acres, 5 acres of which is dry contiguous land. 3. On July 17, 1989, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as amended and recommended approval based on the following findings: A) The rate of growth in the western portions of the City of Orono has created a major need for increased electric capacity. The applicant has demonstrated that the existing capacity will be exhausted by the year 1990 at the current rate of use and growth. B) The property is surrounded by a railroad on the north, wetlands to the east, County road to the south, and the Hunt Farm residential development to the south. C) The property consists of 15 acres. Page 1 of 5 Zoning File #1417 July 13, 1989 Page 5 Review of Current Submittals - The action notice of the Planning Commission (Exhibit O) spelled out directives for the applicant asking for additional information. Staff shall use that action notice as an outline or "check off" to insure the concerns expressed by both neighbors and Commission members are addressed. A. Noise impact. Applicant was asked to provide information as to intensity of noise. will adjacent residences, approximately 150' away, be able to hear when in use? Applicant's staff made a City of Eaga p.m. Applic Staff was un the cooling : detected at 1 similar to a 200' from th detected, bi :sound was n; sound was le the leaves a transformer the approprii about 150' t 325', it rei relate to de provide as n staff experio wi 11 be take 'lr.nv (n�tn 1 response - Members of the Building & Zoning site inspection of a similar facility in the z. we visited the site at approximately 2:00 ant advised that it was a high impact use time. able to discern the sound of a transformer as ans were in use at that time. The single sound hat time was the sound of the fans that sounded large-scale air conditioner. As we moved 150- transformer, the fan sounds could still be t if a car or plane passed by the area, the t deteched. If one stood behind trees, the asened and could not be heard if the wind blew rid that was at approximately 250-300' from the ite. A-plicant provided a decibel meter and at to locations, decibel readings were taken. At ie decibal reader read 46. At approximately d 40. Because the average person doss not :ibal readings, I have asked the applicants to ear a demonstration at the Councii Chambers as need with the sounds at the site. A recording i at approximately 250' from the transformer and hu on thP_ South side is approximately 240' from the transformer and the nearest residential lot line to the west in the Hunt Farm plat is approximately 3751. A decibel reading will be taken of the sounds reproducted over the recorder. The City would ask that the fans be installed on the facility so to provide the least noice impact to adjacent residential properties to the south and west. How do we resolve the performance standard established in our code for noise control? "SubdiN ision 3 - Noise. Any use established shall be so operative that no noise resulting from said use is perceptible beyond the boundaries of that property line of the site on which such use is located. The standard shall not apply to incidental traffic, parking, loading, construction or maintenance operations." Zoning File #1417 July 13, 1989 Page 6 flow does this apply to a power station operation? How have we dealt with the apparent been of heavy distribution or heavy transmitting lines throughout the City? How has the City dealt with the noises omitted from other approved uses ..e. day camps, schools, day care centers, Van Dale, Washington Scientific? How are the obvious, associated sounds from these uses any different? How does the additional berming and landscaping that provides greater sound barriers affect your recommendation? How does the relocation of the facility affect your recommendation? B. Environmental impact. Substantiate State and Federal controls over operation of power stations, clarify issue of use of PCBs, need for maintaining vehicles on site, type of vehicles use on site, and method of refilling. Is there a need for creating dikes around the facility? ` Pr_ Applicant's response - Please review Exhibits -e & N. Per Exhibit N, the applicant is subject to all State and Federal controls relating to the use of specific chemicals/fuels. Applicant has advised that a mineral oil is used, and the oil is not classified as a fuel, but as an insulator. It is filled off the site and brought to the site. There is no such thing as a filling schedule as the original amount will last the life of the transformer from 30-40 years. In cases of a mishap or accident, the procedure spelled out in Exhibit N directs what muAs take place under such ccrditions. In both Exhibits � N, the applicant discusses the special granular base and gravel fill placed within the fenced use area. There are standards for various degrees and types of spillage, leading to the most extreme requiring removal of contaminated base noting that the spill is a mineral oil and supposedly nor. -toxic. Please review the procedures for all types of accidential spills. The applicant noted at our first meeting, that there is no need or plan to ever maintain vehicles on this site. The facility will be serviced once a week by a pick-up truck of 1/2 to 1 ton. The inspections of the facility will be conducted by the same type of vehicle, possibly a passenger vehicle. At this type of limited facility, there would be no need to create a dike around the facility. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. i The visual impact of the structure Ly the placement of the facility on existing and proposed plantings. The the power substation will not require will be lessened the site and by installation of the installation of additional power poles in the area. All existing poles shall remain and be employed by the power substation. E) The noise impact will be minimized by the setbacks from the residential properties, the use of existing topcgraphy and berming, and existing and proposed plantings. F) The applicant has demonstrated that the installation, use and maintenance of the proposes facility will have no negative environmental impact on the surrounding wetlands and wildlife that inhabit the wetlands. 4 The City Council has con�,i!ler-�d this application including the findings and rezommenda:-ians of the Planning C.--)mmission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council fi ids that granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of the power substation will not be be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 3 (A) to permit the installation of a power substation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed power substation is approved at a 69 KV capacity with a result ng distribution voltage of. 13.8 KV. Applicant is hereby advised that the granting of this conditional use permit convevs no vested rights to the applicant and that any attempt to increase the capacity of this substation requires a separate conditional use permit review. Page 2 of 5 -- City of OROTNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2. Final site plan must relocate 6' high fence to meet 100' setback from front/street lot line. 3. Cooling fans of transformer to be placed so as to reduce noise impact on adjacent residential properties to west and south. 4. All construction/excavation to be 26' from the adjacent wetlands defined at the 954' elevation. 5. Applicant to grant Conservation and Flowage Easement over designated wetland. 6. Upon application for a building permit, applicant must provide the following: A) Erosion control plan. B) Hennepin County driveway permit. C) Permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Any revisions requested by the MCWD must be reflected in the final plans submitted to the City. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expize on that date (August 28, 1990). 8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of Northern States Power Company its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the p_-operty. Page 3 of 5 City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. r.dopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grahek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of August, 1989, by Jar,.es 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 C:ty. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 cit-T T of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF :IENNEPIN ) On this day of F 198_ before me a Notary Public within and for said cknown,toersonme olbe appeared t::e person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198, before me a Notary Public within and for said Corn nowto personally to abeedred the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ORONO GENERAL. LAND USE APPLI N � r✓• --------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3960 6th Avenue Borth - �.•or.o, tli'! 55355 20 113 23 33 0001 Property Identification. Number (P.I.D. ) 3' 118 23 22 0001 Please check one - Property A abstract or Additlifts? (tor Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to appli;ation if not included on required survey. APPLICANT NORTHER(1 STATES POUER COt1PA;lY Phone (home) 537-2204 Name David J. Fisher - Administer - Est to Real hone (work) 330-5921 Address 414 Nicollet tlall City 1'.1pls. Zip 54401 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 972-5056 Name Glen 3 Doris Cummings Phone Address Route 2, Box 426 City Del ano Zip 5532C Date Property Acquired Optioned to ',JP 4-9-39 (month/year) I (W) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Ren.ewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After -the -Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshu.-e PRD/PID - see tee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS 3150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ cons.ltant fees) $250.00 Vacation _ $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoninv $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District R-Single Present Use of Propert ,- Vacant Land Residential Other (specify) -------------------------------------------------------- DE„SCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: A permit is rc-t--sted to install and operate as 640/1330 Electric Siihstation —. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. C�moleted Application Form. 2. C#--tified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you car. obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamied, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressad to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if 1&nd alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 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 by Zoning Department that Lan,; "se Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to rrovide -ill information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of tnis arpl=ration, and certifies that the information supp-l-Led is true and correct to the best of his/her .knowledge. !'GRTFf'Er'."1 `ST T 'S PO':I 01 'P4';Y Applicant's signature '"12+• ���--- Date A ministratory Real -state OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to th-;.s application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the prope-y by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and -'verification of this request. iIOR Rfl gATENP014ER IiPAIJy Owner's signature Date � � � -�`-� -__-r—_______ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mi n sfr•a�or = T' aT—ts ate Applicant must have a1� submi'ttaels lnt£o the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commissior 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 S Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Northern States Power Company (NSP) has applied :o the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate and maintain an electrical substation at 3960 - 6th Avenue North. The facility is erred to as a 69-13.8kV substation which means the source for the substation will be a 69kV line with a resulting distribution voltage of 13.8kV. In this case the source or 69kV line is the existing line which runs through the proposed site between the railroad on the east and the Huntington Farm development on the west. The 69kV source will ente substation -And be transformed into two 13.8kV feeder lines which is considered to be distribution voltage. One feeder ^e will exit the substation as an underbuild on the existing 69kV line and run i, the iirection of Highway 12. The other feeder line will connect to the existing pole line on County Road 6. This substation will not require any additional pole lines in the general area of the substation. The location of the substation has been revised in order to optimize the natural terrain as a means of buffering it from the surrounding area. The ground elevation of the substation will be about 7 feet lower than the existing building site and driveway. The proposed driveway will be from the east of the substation which will allow for the proposed landscaping and existing trees to provide the desired noise and visual buffer to the surrounding area. The equipment within the supstation, including the transformer, contains non PCB mineral oil. the surtace within the fenU"U drea is designed and constructed to absorb any oil leak or spill in the unlikely event of such an 62989M1.djf Page 1 of 2 occurrence. NSP has, on file with the MPCA, a procedure for oil spill cleanup. A copy of that procedure has been provided to the planning staff. The security fence around the electrical equipment will be 69' by 110'. The fence will be six foot high chain link with a three strand barbed wire top. The tallest structure within the fenced area will be a 40 foot high `H' shaped structure made of tubular steel with a 10 foot lightning god on top. The substation equipment has a low profile design with a height of 12 to 20 feet. The noise generated by the substation transformer is best described as a hum, similar to an air conditioner condenser, with a decibel rating of 46 at a distance of 150 feet and 40 at 325 feet. With the elevation variations, landscaping, buffer distanrcs and background noise in t:ie area, the transformer noise will not be an intrusion to the surrounding area. NSP is proposing 4 is substation for the purpose of providing a more reliable source of power to this service area. The present load situation and projected growth of the area requires this facility. We hope the Planning Commission as well as the residences of Orono understand the need for th's project. We also hope you have confidence in NSP as a trusted and responsible corporate citizen. We have representatives present that will deal with any technical questions that you may have. 62989#1.djf Page 2 of 2 RUN DATE 05/23/89 HENNEPIN wuNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OK4ERS LIST PAGE 12 BATCH 006 38 29-118-23 32 0006 38 29-118-23 33 0001 38 29-118-23 33 0008 PROP ADON 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 03960 SIXTH AVE N 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MIER NAME MIN COUNTY PK RESERVE DIST F J THOMPSON ETAL BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY TAXPAYER MIN COUNTY PK RESERVE DIST GLENN CUMMINGS BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY NAME/ADDR 3960 6TH tVE N LONG LAKE tiff 55356 38 29-118-23 34 0008 38 29-118-23 34 0009 38 30-118-23 41 0011 PROP ADDR 03740 WAYZATA BLVD 03800 WAYZATA BLVD 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME CLIFFORD L nTTEN MAYONA V CIRSPINSKI HENN COUNTY PK RESERVE DIST TAXPAYER CLIFFORD L OTTEN GARY V KIRT HEtf4 COU1ITY PK RESERVE DIST NAME/ADDR 2265 H WAYZATA BLVD 28060 BOULDER BRIDGE DR �k LONG LAKE MN 55356 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 30-118-23 44 0005 38 30-118-23 44 0006 38 30-118-23 44 0009 PROP ADDR 00830 HUNT FARM RD 00885 HUNT FARM RD 00840 HINT FARM RD �- OWNER NAME N R FRASER A S H FRASER HUNTINGTON FARM HOME (*iNERS RICHARD A EILEEN HASSEL TAXPAYER H R FRASER A S W FRASER LAKE REGION PROPERTIES INC LAKE REGION PROPERTIES NAME/ADDR 830 HUNT FARM ROAD 1055 E WAYZATA BLVD 1055 E WAYZATA BLVD } LONG LAKE HN 55356 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA fit? 55391 \ 38 31-118-23 11 0003 38 31-118-23 11 0010 38 32-118-23 22 0001 PROP ADDR 00745 ORCHARD PARK RD 00760 HUNT FARM RD 03960 SIXTH AVE N (' O TER NAME J K POUND d M J POUND K A D MITCHELL F J THOMPSON ETAL TAXPAYER JOHN K POUND A MELODY POUND KIM & DIANE MITCHELL GLENN CUtWINGS - NAME/ADDR 745 ORCHARD PARK RD 12304 12TH AVE N 3960 6TH AVE N LOf4G LAKE MN 55356 PLYMOUTH HN 55441 LONG LAKE MN 55356 r 38 32-118-23 22 0002 38 32-118-23 22 0003 38 32-118-23 2Z 0007 PROP ADDR 03825 SIXTH AVE N 03825 SIXTH AVE N 00740 ORCHARD PARK RD OWNER NA.NE FRED HOLASEK JR ETAL FRED HOLASEK JR ETAL J A IIETMAN TAXPAYER FRED HOLASEK JR FRED HOLASEK JR JOSEPH A HETMAN NAME/ADDR 3825 6TH AVE N 3825 6TH AVE N 740 ORCHARD PARK ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 32-118-23 24 0004 PROP ADOR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JFNER NAME LISLE VICKEtMAN JR ET AL TAXPAYER ORCHARD PART: FARM INC TOTAL BATCH 006 00016 ( NAME/ADDR 3980 HATERTtw+N RD MAPLE PLAIN 114 553S9 r 11) r ' '1ii�� ' I • ( SI Ll I I el 104-1 -'7 -N Bo1 ��1e stroo Ono G 9onesmo PE JoSeMC Arvj&l,kPPE Rosene 9.aaaro A LMbenj PE er R<raro E TurnvE Anderlik & Associates Gem R Dusan PE GR:rn R Coo. PE Thomas NoWr&PE Roten G Scmowrd. PE Marvin L Suvasa, PE Engineers & .Architects June 12, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: 139-1417 NSP Substation Dear Jeanne: Ktin A Gobon PE R[haro UV Foster PE Donald C 9u0ga'a PE J•ny A 9ouKksn PE Mart A Harson PE Ted K F,-1 PE Mchao T Rau:mann PE Rnperr R Ple"ere PE Davd U LU.cQ PE Thomas W Pt4mon PE McnaN C Lynn. PE James R Mauna PE Kennen P AnCeMon PE Kr,M A 9achmann PE Mar. R hsTs. PE RCCen C Russet. A r A Tromis E Angus, FE Howaro A Sanord, PE Daniel J Edgerton PE Marx A See PE Pnap J C:sweK. PE Mart 0 VAOL PE ihamas R Anderson A 1 A Gary F Ry4~ PE Chaves A ErKYson Leo M. Pasne+sxy H~ M CRson Susar M Eberle! CPA We have reviewed the preliminary plan submitted for the Northern States Power SubsLation on County Road 6. We would recommend the foilowing plan modifications. The Station site should be lowered to elevation 970 to reduce the visual impact. The entrance road should be relocated east (175'-200') to improve site distance and avoid conflict with residential property across the street. Berming should be provided around the station. Silt fence should be provided around the disturbed area during construction. The well on the site should be properly abandoned. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:df 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 u Laps- — r Vt -1-1-1 r, ` \ N. AM% / li \\\\��V' r`A,a IN A1 r.s� 0 i -- ---- i i r I looms loom 00 4 I AREA OF CONCERN �' M►10�2- —Irr------_---_—_ Lam_ anus R.af------ � .� •� .-� .mayY lea � r _ t=__ Ia1 I A a .. ✓ a �71 � cap. as7 !1 " EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES ECONOMICALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION EXISTING DISTRIBUTION LINES i PEAK DEMAND (KVA) IN AREA OF CONCERN Thousands of KVA 14 12 10 8 4 2 L 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 YEARS (est) (est) NSP DISTRIBUTION CAPACITY IN AREA OF CONCERN IS 11,800 KVA. DISTRIBUTION CAPACITY INCLUDES A NORMAL AND ALTERNATE SOURCE FOR MAJOR CIRCUITS. ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT 100 Washington Square - 14th Floor Northern States Power Company Minneapolis, Minnesota SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN SUBSTATIONS -GENERAL November 20, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Definitions 1 Introduction 2-3 Possibility of Future Oil Discharges 3-4 Preventive Measures Implementation of SPCC Plan 4-5 5-7 Instructions for C- ainment & Clean-up 7-10 of Oil Discharges SPCC Plan Authorization; and Reviewal Date 11 DEFINITIONS Spill Event - a discharge of oil into or upon nav- igable waters or adjoining shorelines in a quantity sufficient to cause an oil slick or sheen on the surfac, of the water. - Oil of any kind or any form includ- Oil ing, but not limited to, petroleum product., fuel oil, sludge, oil re- fuse or o`_! mixed with water. - Includes, but riot limited to, leak - Discharge ing, emitting, emptying, dumping, spilling, pumping, or pouring. Navigable Waters - For prr.ctical purposes, these in- clude every stream, lake or waterway in the United States. DISK 101,DPO-B-1)/SPC1 - 1 NSP SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN (SPCC PLAN) Substations-Goneral Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) issued a "Petroleum Pollution Prevention Regulation" in 1974. NSr prepared an SPCC Plan to conform with this regulation dated July 10, 1974. This is a revision of ghat plan. The regulation required preparation of an S`CC Plan for all above-gro.ind single oil storage containment of 660 gallons or more, or acigregate oil storage of 1,320 gallons or more. Since transformers, regulatoos and oil circuit breakers may be considered oil storage facilities under the regulation, all substations should be considered as having oil storage equal -c 'eater than these minimums. NSP's Environmental and P.e,- Actvities Department (ERAD) is responsible for all environmental incidents t, the proper agenci.:s The EPA and U.S. C.,)tst Guard require notification of any oil discharge that threatens water. In Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Ac;ency (PCA) does not require preparation of a plan; however, they do require notification of any oil discharge that exceeds five -allons and/or threatens water. Other states in our service a.:: -:a are notified of reportable discharipa. This pl,=,n will take into cons:aeration the regul 's of both the EPA and the state environr._ntal agencies. This plan covers all NSP (Minnesota Company) substations including the Cooperative Power Association (CPA) owned substations, which we operate and/or maintain, and mobile substations at substation locations, with two exclusions: 1. Fifth Street Substation 2. Substations at power production plan'-.s, except the fG1.lowing peaking plants: Blue Lake, Granite City, Inver Hills, and west Faribault. The installation of structures or equipment as described in 40 CFR 112.7 (c) are not practical at p:ch substation loca- tion. However, NSP's complement of manpower and equipment is immediately available for response i.i spill situations to control and remove any harmful quantities of oil discharged. DISr i/(DPO-B-2)/SPC2 - All inqui• ..es concerning this plan should be brought to the attentioT, of: T. G. Spargo (612-330-6220) Superintendent, Substation Operations Electric )ist.ribution Standards & Eng. Dept. 100 Washington Square - 14th Floor Minneapolis Possibility of Future Oil Discharges Future oil discharges could be the result of five possibili- ties: equipment. failure, personnel error, transportation, vandalism, and sabotage. A. Equipment Failure A loss of oil (in excess of associated with the failure cal equipment. Structur-' f ined to thu =op of such mechanical relief device. structural weak point of n the cover and side wall. cases, virtually all of the equipment. B. Personnel Error five gallons) is seldom Df oil -filled electri- damage is usually con- :pment, near bushings, .cess holes, and the tank - the meeting of. Consequently, in most oil has remained in the The possibility of oil discharges due :.o human error is remote. The transfer, testing, and sampling of oil is performed by three-man crews supervised by experienced personnel. People are constantly in attendance during oil handling opera- tions. Any discharges will be small and subject to rapid detection and clean-up. C. vandalism There will always be the remote possibility of spill events occurring iron vandalism; absolute protection against vanda:_;s entering a subtation or shooting dt oil -filled electrical equipment is vir- tualli, impossible, Nry rcrr,,-unds its substations wit: :yclone-type se A fences constructed of six feet of fabric x: inches of barbed wire to discourage unauthori: ntry. The facilities that contain the larger oil -filled equipment are usually located ir. in;iabit:..7 areas which should deter van- dals. Most of the _;rge equipment have the a14rm systems indicated under sibstation trouble alarms or, page seven. It is also likely that vandals tend to possess small caliber firearms which are less capable of puncturing electrical equipment. DISK 10/(DPO-B-3)/SPC3 - 3 - U. Transportation Care is exercised during the transportation of oil - filled equipment. Special care is taken when hand- ling damaged equipment. Preventive Measures Preventive and early -warning measures may be categorized into three areas: substation inspection, substation trouble alarms and substation design. A. Substation Inspections 311.' substations are periodically inspected by :�•erators, troublemen or other experienced person- nel. The frequency of inspection is dependent on station size and significance; it may be daily, thrice weekly, ov weekly. Additionally, main- tenance crews, electrical mechanics, and various supervisory personnel frequent the stations. All personnel are trained on the important- --)f report- ing any abnormal conditions, includi oil dis- charges. Signs posted in the subst,�ions alert personnel to report all substation oil discharges in excess of five gallons to ERAD for follow up. B. Substation Trouble Alarms Most oil -filled electrical equipment is equipped with oil level gauges. Oil -filled transformers are equipped with both level and gas pressure gauges. In larger substations, these gauges are connected to remote alarm systems which will alert personnel in the trouble dispatch centers that the trans- former has developed a problem. Personnel are then promptly dispatched to determine the casse of the alarm. Any substantial loss of oil in energized electrical equipment results in the automatic shut- down of the equipment and electrical o,itages to our customers. In either case, we receive an early indication of problems that stem from an oil discharge. C .bst:: ` ion gn abstations, inherently, have been designed with many features teat minimize the possibility of oil discharges reaching navigable water and/or c;round water. 1. The pnysical dimensions of substations are usually large in relation to the volume of oil. DISK 10/(DPO-B-4)/SPC4 - 4 - 2. The level terrain in substation yards will discourage oil discharges from flowing rapidly or far. 3. Substation yards have a ft-ur-inch crushed rock surface, as well as several feet of granular fill, that serves as a sump to contain and/or absorb oil discharges. 4. Larger oil -filled transformers, in many cases, are surrounded by concrete -block curbs and/or walls that will restrain lateral movement of oil. 5. Substation yards are enclosed and locked, thus discouraging unauthorized people and vandalism. 6. Many larger substation yards have automatic night-time lighting that aids detection of oil discharges in the darkness and, addi- tionally, discourages vandalism. Implementation of SPCC Plan A. - A person, or persons, has been designated in each division or district to be the SPCC Plan coordinat- or. He is responsible for the supervision of the SPCC Plan. These people inspect the substations at reasonable intervals and record each inspection in the station log book. B. The coordinator's name (see page 17) and telephone numbers (business and home) have been posted in each trouble dispatch office. C. A copy of the NSP Enviroamental and Regulatory Activities, Department's (ERAD) poster titled NSP ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORTING has been posted in each trouble dispatch office and each substation. T•.,,-. poster contains the telephone numbers for ERAD ._ing normal working hours and a 24 hour number of the system dispatcher in the System Operations De- partment of General Office in Minneapolis. In either case, ERAD personnel are notified of the environmental incident. D. During normal working hours all oil discharges are to be reported to ERAD by either the SPCC Plan Coordinator, the dispatcher, or the person making the initial report. If the dispatcher or coordina- DISK 10/(DPO-B-5)/SPC5 - 5 - for natities ERAD, they should proceed to Step E. Be prepared to provide the following information to ERAD. 1. Name of person reporting, title and phone number. 2. Substation name and location. 3. Equipment discharging oil. 4. Has loss of oil resulted in equipment failure or customer outages? 5. If equipment is still energized, determine the approximate tank oil level and determine if loarl carrying ability is threatened. 6. Should equipment be taken out of service? 7. If oil discharge is still in pro- gress, is there any means for stopping the flow? 8. Estir_zted quantity of oil discharged. 9. Advise of action taken for oil con- tainment and clean-up. 10. What is the distance to water bodies or sewers? 11. Is assistance needed? E. The Environmental and Regulatory Activities Depart- ment (ERAD) is to be notified of an oil discharge during normal working hours (7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) on ',)e following telephone number. 612/330-5972 During non -office hours all oil discharges will be reported to the system dispatcher in the System Operations Department in the General Office in Minneapolis on the following 24 hour number: SYSTEM DISPATCHER -- 612/330-6210 When calling patcher will and location. the 24 hour number, the system dis- ask the caller's name, phone number, DISK 10/(DPO-B-6)/SPC6 - 6 - per square foot. If the oil content of the soil is one gallon per ten square feet or less, do not disturb the soil. If the oil content of the soil is more than one gallon per ten square feet, excavate all oil sat- urated soil as soon as possible. Spread the saturated soil on the substation drive- way, substation yard or on other adjacent substation property, if possible, at a rate that does not exceed one gallon per ten square feet of covered area. Example - if 200 gallons of oil saturates the ground, excavate the saturated soil and spread over an area of 2,000 square feet. Biodegrada- tion of the oil in the soil will then take place. 6. If the soil is tested and found to contain over 50 PPM PCBs, the soil shall be re- moved, placed in a 55 gallon drum, properly labeled, and shipped to Minneapolis Store, for disposal. 7. If you need assistance to contain the oil spills, or in the clean-up of oil spills, call one of the following personnel. They have the expertise and access to the nec- essary equipme:lt. Ken Anakkala Office - 612/330-5791 Home - 612/427-3699 Al Couture Office - 612/33U-6566 Home - 612/561-6278 Jack Fournier Office - 612/330-5874 Home - 612/561-3365 Joe Meyers Office - 612/330-5873 Home - 612/789-1169 B. oil Discharges Not Contained Within the Substation An oil d;scharge in a substation that enters a water system or sewer. 1. Repeat steps 1-7 in part "A" above. 2. If the oil reaches water, an absorbent material specifically designed to recover oil from water is available. It is producted in booms, pil- lows, and sheets, and is available at the fol- lowing :ASP locations. DI.K 10/(DPO-B-8)/SPC8 - 8 - The caller will be instructed to stay by the phone while the system dispatcher notifies ERAD personnel via pager. This pager, which has an LCD readout, will give the caller's name, phone number, and location where he can be reached for details of the discharge. F. Th,: Environmental and Regulatory Activities Depart- ment shall be responsible for notifying the E.P.A. District Office, state agency, or the U.S. Coast Guard should any discharge occur into navigable waters. Instruction for Containment and Clean-up of Oil Discharges Oil discharges and the ensuing clean-up procedures may be divided into two categories. A. Oil Discharges which are Contained within the Substation A discharge. in a substation will probably be con- tained on NSP property and is not apt to enter a water system or sewer. The major concern is the possibility for oil to eater the ground water. The probability of this occurring is dependent on several factors; (1) amount of the discharge, (2) area of cc-~taminated soil, (3) t7pe of soil under the crushe rock surface and fill, and (4) depth to the grounc water. Ground water contamination can be minimized by the following procedure: 1. Stop the oil discharge by operating valves, sealing holes or any other possible m-ans. 2. Plug all drain and sewer entrances in tho area. 3. Constritct dams or trenches to restrain lateral movement of oil. 4. Pump discharged oil, where possible, and place in drums. An oil sample shall be forwarded to the NSP testing lab for veri- fication of PCB content. If it's found to be less than 50 PPM, proceed to step #5. If more than 50 `'^M, proceed to step #6. 5. Ascertain how m�_y gallons of oil were dis- charged to the soil. Determine how many square feet of soil were contaminated b-, oil. Calculate the oil content of the soil DISK 10/(DPO-B-7)/S1-C7 - 7 - Power Plant and Phone Storage Location Black Dog Chemical Storage Room 612-330-6123 Mezzanine Floor High Bridge Outside Stock 612-221-4175 Room Door Sherburne County Warehoousthe 612-261- 4i00 East Plant A. S. King 1. Pond House 2. Coal equipment Bldg. 612-439-7622 3. First Floor Boiler Room Pathfinder Nuclear Fuel Vault 605-V339-8275 Monticello No. 2 Warehouse 612-295-5151 Minnesota Valley No. i250 Stock Room - 612-564-3328 Below Office Prairie Island No. 3 Diesel 612-388-4767 Generator Room Riverside No. 900 Stock Room 612-330-5995 Red Wing Store Room Below Office 612-388-4761 Wilmarth Screen House 507-345-6733 French Island Quonset Building Near 608-782-6526 Plant Discharge Structure G.O. Stores Stockroom at Chestnut 612-347-9518 Service Center Terminal SuL. Storage cabinet located in- 612-645-8215 side the gate at Terminal Storage yard (for use during spills in storage yard). Aldrich Sub. Carpenter shop in west end 612-330-6271 of brick wilding (ground level). DISK 10/ (DPO-B-9)/SPC9 - 9 Two Minneapolis based distributors of absorbent materials are: Sewall Brothers 421 Wilson St., N.E.- 612-331-4395 Minneapolis, MN. - 612-535-9063 (after hours) Mr. Gordon Pelzek, home phone - 612-544-3293 Mr. Bill Sowden, home phone - 612-420-7848 Crest Associates Mr. Jerry Black 2095 Pillsbury Ave. S. 612-872-8668 Minneapolis, MN. 55404 DISK 10/(DPO-B-10),/SPC10 - 10 - SPCC PLAN AUTHORIZATION AND REVIEWAL DATE Prepared by • :% �k . H. J. Ma:::� Certified by T. G. Sp go, S erintendent Substation Operations - Registration #5341 Facil; Various NSP Company SubstFtions Per-)n. A Responsible for Supervision of SPCC Plan: "SPCC Plan Coordinators" ;,iv, Rowan Northwest 612/255-8680 Cna_les Hewitt Fargo 701;235-1729 Marvin DeGree Minot 701/838-9888 Toyed Schreiner Grand Forks 701/795-5247 John Prosser Hia atha 507/454-3630 Bernard Sporre Keystone (Faribault) 507/334-4321 Jerome Westphal Keystone (Mankato) 507/625-5621 Dean Greer Sioux Falls 605/339-8314 Dan Kegley Metro East 612/221-4314 Loren Palmer Metro West 612/3,7-7304 Reviewal Dates of Plan - July 10, 1974 February 15, 1977 May 29, 1981 March 30, 1983 November 20, 1986_ DISK 10/(DPO-B-11)/SPCll - 11 - !401 %OKING FILE NO. 1417 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PIANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 6/27/89 -----------------------------------------------•---------------------------- TO: Davis J. Fisher COPIES TO: Mare PPcerson 414 Nicollet Mall 414 Nicullet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Glen & Doris Cummings Rt 2, Box 426 Delano, MN 55328 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit ------------------------------------------------------------•--------------- DATE OF MEETING: 6/19/89 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to provide additional information as follows: A) Noise impact. Provide informations as to intensity of noise. Will adjacent residences, approximately 150' away, be able to hear when in use? B) Environmental impact. Substantiate State and Federal controls over operation of power stations, clarify issue of use of PCBs, need for maintaining vehicles on site, type of fuels used on site and method of refilling. Is there is need for c-eat:inq dikes around the facility? C) Provide a typical srct?on showing landscaping adjacent to fencing. Please specify type of plantings. Applicant to explain why berming cannot be provided. D) Provide a m--e detailed site plan showing adjacent houses and undeveloped residential lots within the Huntington Farm plat, show existing and proposed driveway ( locate house on Eouth side of Sixth Avenue North in relation to proposed driveway location), locate existing mature trees and proposed landscaping, and specify type of landscaping. E) Plan;.inq Commission has asked apt-,:- - . to substantiate reed for po;.ar station, need to locate in western __tion of ti.= rity. Can power station be located in the eastern portion of the City? Please contact Jeanne biabusch in order to discuss the aboie referen^ed directives in more detailed. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upor receipt of addit; 1 information. Dea.'line for the Jul-1 17, 1989 meeting is July 7th or August 11th for the August 21, 1989 meeting. 70 To. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission �.hairman Kelly Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernharuson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Admini From: Kim & Diane Mitchell 12304 - 12th Avenue North Plymouth, MN ::5441 Property address: Date: July 11, 1989 760 Hunt Farm Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Subject: #1417- NorteLn States Power proposed electric sub-stati: 3960 - 6th Avenue t )rth My wife and I are the preF nt owners of the residential property at 760 Hunt Farm Road whi,-h immediatel, adjoins the proposed development site to the West. Our building plans are designed for a single-family dwe4linj with an estimated market value of four hundred twenty five -housand dollars. Due to the topography of our lot, our ground second floor -elevations are many feet .tbove the proposed sub -station str.uccure. We have no alternative but tc locate the house wit:: the rear elevation directed towards the proposed suD—station structure. We became owners of this property with assurances that there would only be "open space" and possibly single-family development to the East. The proposed sub -station comes as a complete surprise to us. Need,.ss to say, we are adamantly opposed to tha proposed location of this sub -station. The noise and lack of maintenance to the sub -station grounds, as is the case with the present sLb-station located at Highway 101 and the Luce Line cLrrontly, will have an adverse i, -ct on the health, safety and welfare of the residents in Oron: he detriment to the real estate values of the resident. ;roperties surrounding this proposed sub -station a of reams Ern to me. As Commission member Hanson noted, he not p,irchase a residential property next to a sub -station as w.. his decision sometime ago ,-ihen seeking prope ty near the lc, at - on of the sub -station in Wayzati. In that case, t:ie sub-stati_.i was before the development of re—dential property, not afterwards. oftentimes people L.ch as NSP come upon a site which they consider best sui.table for their deeds and then have trouble.-jeing motivated to locate alternate sites. Find the location, have it approved and then be done. I cannot belie- that there are not MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, �nR9 ZON-14N7 :,?.[LE #1416-ECCLES CONTINUEL` c.-.re.- that could be placed so as to meet the setbacks. At this poJ:it the applicant indicated that he intended to vary the garage rrom what he was currently pir ing. There were no comments from the public reg riling this natter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Acting Chairperson Bellows, seconded b} Planning Commissioner Brown, to table this application to allow the applicant an opportunity to bring back the actual plan for construction of the garage. Motion, Ayes=3, John3on, Nay, due to his preference to reach a compromise now with the applicant regarding size of tht. garage, and allow applicant to proceed. #1417 NORTHERN STATES POWER 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PZPMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:05 P.M. Mr. David Fisher, Peterson, Representatives f for this matter. CO. 10:50 P.M. Roger Hargreaves and Mr. Marlow r Northern States Power, were present The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. '•oning Administrator Mabusth explainea ti.s, the applicant is seeki,r a c,)nditional use permit to construct an electric power substation. The prf-,perty contains 15 acres -,f which approximately 5+ acres are dry. A front/rear setback variance of 15' will be required. Mr. Fishes- paid that the substation wz,s required in order to meat the grow, demand for service in his area. He said that staf.''s recominerdation to relocate the acce-s drive, posed a problem. He said that the substation will require regular meter readings hhich . ould be done by a vehicle similar to a pick up truck. However, show ' there be a major problem, another vehicle would be brought in on a "low -boy" which will require a very shallow slope and miximum turning radius. Mabusth asked how often this situation may occur? Mr. Fisher said hopeful'y it would never happen, but rl•_uld it happen, it would be necessary to access the s,:.jstation in order to restore pnw?r. Act_na, Chairperson Bellows r stioned why the slope of the land would be so important when t service vehicle must cress a railroad cro!3sing in order to access the substation property. Mr. Nocer Hargraeves said that the change in elevation would be diffic.._ It due to the curve it t:.e iveway and the fact that the drio•.way wolilri not have th-o same 11ual.ities as a highway. Bellows questioned whether the access crrx14 be str_iighLened out. .+r. Fisher said that facing the substation as proposed would Laci 1 L _ate hook up to the existing lines. If the driveway• were 12 Page .. any other suitable locations in the Western suburbs which will not have such a detrimental impact such as this one. At the last public hearing, the Luce Line was mentioned as a site along with a location in an industrial park. While people use the Luce Line for recreation purposes, their own immediate property values and risks to their health, safety and welfare are not imposed upon day in and day out.by an electric sub -station. With proper screening, these alternate sites seem much more practical and feasible than the site being proposed. These alternate locations would seem to be the least of the evils presented. We strongly urge the officials and staff of the City Of Orono to disapprove this proposed location for an electric sub -station. We thank you for your time and consideration of this very important issue. Sincerely, Kim & Diane Mitchell 760 Hunt Farm Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Bus. 780-1170 Res. 545-8327 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CC0`a!'a' ;;TON MEETING JUNE 19, 1989 ZONING FILE #1417-NSP CONTINUED straightened out the substation would face a different direction. Planning Commissioner Johnson questioned whether there would be a need for additional. overhead lines? Mr. Fisher responded that the current single phase line extending along County Road 6 would need to be upgraded to three -prase line. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked Mr. Fisher to confirm t1e actual height of the pole. Mr. Fisher said that the pol, would be 40' high with a lightening rod that would extend an additional lV . Ms. Eileen Hassel-840 Huot Farm Road, questioned how the land being used by NSP was zoned for this type of use in the midst of residential zoning? Mabusth explained that NSP's use of this property e,as a permitted use in this zoning district with a conditional use permit. Mr. William Fraser-830 Hunt Farm Road, ,laid that the proposed structure would be an eye sore and would ha,e a negative impact on his property value. Acting Chairperson Bellows asked about the noise impact? Mr. Hargraeves replied that a hum would be audible, but that the screening would reduce the 'impact on neighboring properties. Bellows asked what other properties NSP had looked at as alternatives to this particular site. Mr. Hargraeves replied that two sites near the Luce Line were considered. The site had to be one that currently had a heavy duty line and was in the area where service needed to be increased. Ms. Hassel asked why the Luce Line and Baker Park locations were not chosen? Mr. Hargraeves replied that the DNR would not allow the substation to be built along the Luce Line. He was uncertain as to why the Baker Park location was omitted. Mr. Stephen Pflaum inte.:jected that to the best of his knowledge Baker Park -..as government land and it would take nearly an act of Congress to allow the park land to be divided. Mr. Fraser questioned whether there would be any possible contamination of Painters Creek Watershed District? The issue of PCB's was also discussed. Bellows asked why an environmental impact study had not been done for this substation? Mr. Fisher replied that such studies were only required for high voltage stations. Bellows directed staff to work with the concerned residents due to the fact that irreversible damage to the area could occur. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he too was concerned about the possibility of decreasing real estate values and the noise. Planning Commissioner Brown said that the noise of Highway 12 itself would be louder than the hum from the substation. 13 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1989 ZONING FILE #1417-NSP CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Johnson indicated that he had mixed feelings about this application in that the environment was a concern, but the proposed use was low intensity for this area. He asked how the Highway 101 substation compared to this one? Mr. iargraeves explained that the Highway 101 substation was larger. Brown suggested visiting the site to get a better understanding of the level of noise that would be generated. Mr. Fraser asked to be provided with data that would prove that the substation was needed. There were no further comments from the public r-garding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Acting Chairperson Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson to table this application and aglow the applicant time to work with staff to fully answer and document the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and the residents. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1418 ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLICE HEARING 10:50 P.M. - 10:52 P.M. Ms. Lucy Tayor, Mr. William Fenho ldt and Mr. Paul Hagen were present as representatives of the School District. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Building Official Jacobs provided the Planning Commission with a brief synopsis of the School District's proposal to construct an addition connecting the Middle School with the Elementary School. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval_ of a conditional use permit for school use. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #i419 J.K. BOWERS 2905 CASC.O POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:52 P.M. - 11:05 P.M. Mr. Bowers was present for this matter. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed 14 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1412-MARY L. PETERSEN CONTINUED It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of this application subject to conditions 1 through 5, with the exception of condition 2 which he recommended include outlot C at a width determined by City staff to be used :-is a walking access to the Luce Line. Johnson asked about desirr,ating construction time of the pathway. Mabusth suggested that such information be provided by Public Works Director Gerhardson and the Park Commission. It was further suggested that the Park Commission be asked to render a decision as to whether or not the City of Orono would be interested in taking the Outlot. Mary Petersen indicated that she had no interest in developing the walkway as a part of the subdivision. Motion, Ayes=4, Nay=O, Cohen abstained. Ms. Desyl Petersoi noted that there is a roadway that crosses partially on her property that is currently being used as an informal access to the Luce Line. She further noted that the area being proposed for the walkway had a steep slope that G Auld make access difficult. #1416 JEFFREY ECCLES 3025 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCE CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:17 P.M. TO 7:20 P.M. Mr. Eccles was present for this continuation of a public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant had revised hip proposal and was now asking for a 26' x 26' garage with a 15.2' side setback where 30' is required. The location of the septic system, well and driveway limits alternative sites for the garage. There were no comments from the pudic regarding this matter and the public hearing w�r.s closed. It was mo-,-�d by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissiuner Moos, to recommend approval of application #1416, based on the findings that there is very little impact on the neighborhood, no additional runoff, no expressed objections by thy_ neighbors. Approval would be conditioned upon the proposed garage being located in the same location as the existing garage. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1417 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:21 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. Mr. David Fisher, Mr. Marlow Peterson, Mr. Ro^er Hargreaves and Mr. Gary Roskos. Mr. Fisher explained that Northern States Power Co. was 2 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1417-NSP CONTINUED requesting a conditional use permit to construct, operate and maintain an electrical substation. The facility is referred to as a 69-13.8 KV substation which means that its source will be a 69 KV line with a resulting distribution voltage of 13.8 KV. The source line is the existing line which runs through the parcel from Highway 12 and the Huntington Farm Development. The 69 KV source line will enter the substation and be transformed into two 13.8 KV feeder lines. one feeder line will exit the substation on the existing line and run in the direction of Highway 12, the other feeder line will connect to the existing pole line which runs along County Road 6. The substation will not require any additional pole lines in the general area of the substation. The location of the substation has been revised ... (see Mr. Fisher's memo 62989#1.djf ). Chairman Kelley inquired as to the size of the trees NSP intended to plant. Mr. Fisher said they would be approximately 2" in diameter. Mr. Phil Roe, Hunt Farm Road, asked about alternate sites that were considered and what factors those sites had that made them undesireable? Mr. Fisher said that sites alonS the Luce Line had been considered but were undesireable because of the close proximity the substation would have to the Luce Line. He said that the proposed location is in the "heart" of the area in which they need to provide power. Mr. Kim Mitchell, said that he was building a home near the site for the proposed substation and questioned whether the substation would interfere with his 2nd story view. Chairman Kelley inquired as to the type of trees that NSP intended to plant as screening for the substation. Mr. Roskos replied that they intended to plant White Pines, Ash Trees and a variety of deciduous trees. Mr. James McKinnon, a member of the audience, asked for a comparison regarding the expected decibles at specific footages. Mr. Fisher said that at 10:00 a.m. the substation would not be audible above the sound of noise generated from Highway 12 and County Road 6. Mr. Roskos added that the sound from the substation was a low, constant drone, similar to the sound of an air conditioner condenser. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth reported that she had an opportunity to visit a substation and the sound most noticeable was that of the cooling fan. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Mitchell if he had visited a similar, existing substation in order to better understand the noise level. Mr. Mitchell replied that he had visited the station located at Highway 101 and the Luce Line. Kelley asked NSP in that substation was comparable to t:ie proposed substation? C MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1417-NSP CONTINUED Mr. Roskos replied that the Highway 101 substation was much larger and located more closely to the residential area. Kelley suggested that Mr. Mitchell have NSP accompany him to an existing substation location to help him better understand what is being proposed. Mr. Bill Fraser, 830 Hunt Farm Road, recalled that at the June 19, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting, NSP was asked to provide data regarding the effect the substation would have on property values. Mr. Fraser said that he had spoken with residents living near the Highway 101 substation and they had indicated they would choose not to live in the vicinity of such a facility. Mr. Fraser also said that the location for the proposed substation was an area rich with wildlife. He said that. there are Trumpeter Swans that nest in the area every couple of years. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Fisher whether he had information pertaining to property values once a substation is constructed. Mr. Fisher pointed out the fact that there are homes of comparable value along the 494 freeway built almost directly beneath a 345,000 volt line. A subdivision in Bloomington, River Bluffs Estates, has a 115,000 volt line running through it as well as a substation located in the arep. Mr. Roe indicated t.nat he would like to hive NSP provide a third -party op4 'on as to the effect of the substation on his property value. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Roe whether he would be willing to pay to have this done? Mr. Roe asked whether NSP and the City would accept the findings of such a study if he agreed to fund it. Mr. Dick Hassel, 870 Hunt Farm Road, pointed out the fact that at the time he subdivided this parcel of land, the City tock many measures to insure that the enviroment would be protected. Mr. Hassel said that it was disappointing that a representative from NSP had not approached the neighbors in the area to inform them of the proposal. Chairman Kelley concurred with Mr. Hassel and asked NSP how involved they became with a particular community prior to construction of a facility? Mr. Hargraeves offered to provide the Planning Commission and public with information pertaining to the process in which this particular location was derived. Chairman Kelley said that there was no need to provide that information at this point. The issue at hand pertained to NSP meeting directly with the affected neighbors so that they would feel comfortable with this proposal. Mr. Hargraeves asked if it was not the purpose of this public hearing to do just that? Kelley said that there should have been a meeting several months 4 14INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1417-NSP CONTINUED ago with the neighbors to allow them to express their concerns and better understand NSP's proposal. Mr. Hargraeves indicated that it was not a policy of NSP to meet with each individual neighborhood prior to constructing a facility in their area. Planning Commissioner Cohen concurred with Chairman Kelley. He informed Mr. Hargraeves that in this case, it may not be a matter of what NSP's policies are, but rather what policies that the City of Orono has that NSP may need to follow. He said that all of these issues should have been discussed with the neighborhood prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, rather than carrying on in great length with these issues during the meeting. Mr. Hassel volunteered the use of his home for the joint meeting. Mr. Fisher said that he had contacted an individual resident of this neighborhood and talked at length about this project. He reiterated Mr. Hargraeves statement regarding NSP's policies. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Fisher if NSP would be willing to meet with the neighbors? Mr. Fisher replied that such an arrangement would be fine, however there were questions that would most likely be asked that would be impossible to prove. Mr. Fisher also noted that the revisions to the proposal that were made subsequent to the June 19, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting were a direct result of input from the neighbors attending that meeting. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Fisher when they hoped to begin construction on this substation? Mr. Hargraeves answered that NSP hoped to have the substation operating by June, 1990, because the need for the service was that strong. Kelley asked how long it would take to construct the substation.. Mr. Roskos replied that it would take approximately 3 months. Kelley asked if waiting one month, in order to allow for a neighborhood meeting, would interfere with the construction schedule? Planning Commissioner Johnson opined that he would like to see this matter moved on to the City Council and require NSP to meet with the neighbors in the mean time. Mr. James MacKinnon indicated that the impetus for NSP to respond would be better if the Planning Commission delayed their recommendation until the neighborhood meeting occurred. He said that the substation would have a lasting impact on the neighborhood and that s,,-h a delay would not interfere with NSP's construction schedule. Mr. Tom Koepsel c•-..ad with Mr. MacKinnon. Mr. Fisher asked wn.,her it would be necessary to have a representative fr-)m the City and/or the Planning Commission in 5 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1417-NSP CONTINUED attendance at the neighborhood meeting? Chairman Kelley and Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth agreed that a City representative and Planning Commission representative should attend the joint meeting. Planning Commissioner Brown volunteered to represent the Planning Commission. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown asked about distribution of the staff memo to the concerned neighbors. Mabusth replied that the memo was available to anyone that rquested to have a copy. Brown asked NSP whether they could provide a model of the proposed substation? Mr. Roskos said that only a drawing would be available. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson 3,:!conded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend apprc,., of this application, subject to NSP meeting with )-ae neighbor rior to the proceeding to the City Council meeting. Motio, ::yes=4, Brown, Nay due to his belief that Planning Commission approval should be given subsequer- to the NSP/neighbor meeting taking place. Building and ZoninS Administrator asked that a member of the Hunt Farm community visit an existing substation to listen to the sound. #1424 JIM RIVERS (WINDWARD MARINE) 1444 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE i COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Cert4ficate of Maiiing were duly noted. Building and Fire Inspector Jacobs explained that the applicant intended to relocate the 4500 s.f. structure to the south side of the lot. Jacobs reminded the Planning Commission that the applicant had made a previous application (#1263) similar to the one presently being proposed, that was approved in 1988. Jacobs said that the applicant would require a 5' variance to relocate `;ie structure. However, the proposed relocation would eliminate the need for the 5' variance granted in application 41263. Planning Cummissioner Brown questioned the reason that Mr. Rivers wished tc relocate the structure? Jacobs said that the State Building Code requires that fire resistive walls be provided without any openings should the building remain close to the lot line. Kelley questioned why Mr. Rivers would not be required to meet such standards if the structure were only 5' from the south lot line? Jacobs indicated that Mr. Rivers would s� ZONING FILE NO. 1417 CITY O? ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Ctystai Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/25/89 -------------------•-------------------------------------------------------- TO: David Fisher COPIES TO: Marlo Peterson Northern States Power Company Roger Hargreaves 414 Nicollet Mall 5505 County Road 19 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 7/17/89 VOTE: 4 For 1 Against Planning Comdission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below 'NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Conditions 1 through 7 of the staff memo dated July 13th were noted by members of the Planning Commission that approved the conditional use permit. In addition, they asked that you arrange fo: a meeting with the affected property owners to discuss the various issues of concern that should be addressed by applicant as some of the issues raised where not pertinent to the City's review. The Planning Commission encouraged you to work with the applicant to refine the site planning for the power substation. The informal meeting must be held prior to scheduling your conditional use permit before the Council. Staff must ask that your final revised plans for the Council's review be submitted 10 days prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting for the month (the Council meets on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month). Please contact my office if you have any further questions on matters discussed above. 7 COUNCIL MEETING AUG 2 81980 CITY OF ORONO To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaifron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 22, 1989 Subject: #1425 Ward & Mary Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance - Resolution* At your August 14th meeting, Cc, 1 voted 4-0 to grant conceptual approval for 'he proposed bu_ site of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing house on a 1.0' parcel. Council further directed staff to draft a resolut-,7 it approval. Such a resolution is attached for Council's review _,nd adoption. Proposed Moth,;n - Moved by , seconded by to adopt Resolution No. granting a lot area variances to Ward and Mary Farrell at 340� Watertown Pnaa , to create one new building site. Ayes nays A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO !MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION ON A SUBSTANDARD LO" OF RECORD PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 6 (A) i (C) FILE #142r WHEREAS, Ward and Mary Ferrell (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3405 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: PARCEL 1 That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 13W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 263 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to a point directly Nort: of the point of beginning; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0009); and That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section , Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Comment .g at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 6 rods to the center of the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to the South line of said Section 22; thence West to the point of beginning; excluding the public road. (A',so known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0010); and PARCEL 2 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1088 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-1 18-23 44 0008); and Page 1 of 10 PARCEL—3 That parr of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 1.18N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a po.Lnt on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1228 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0007); and WHEREAS, for discussion purposes, the property has been defined as 3 separate parcels as described above and per Exhibit A attached; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) pursuant to Section 10.03, Subdivisions 6 (A) & (C) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a combination of Parcels 2 and 3 described above, consisting of 1.89 acres in area where a 2.0 acre lot area minimum is normally required for corstruction of a single family residence; and approval of the separation of the aforesaid 1.89 acre parcel from the commonly ,awned adjacent 1.01 acre parcel (described above as Parcel 1) containing the existing residence. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono: FINDINGS 1. This application was rev _ewe 1 as zoning file #1425. 2. The property is located in the RR-lB single family rural residential zoning district. 3. The RR-lB zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 2.0 dry buildable acres in order to construct a single family residence. Page 2 of 10 4. At the time the ar.-)licants purchased3 the property in August 1948, the propety contained ai)proximately 4.19 acres, undivided, and contained only the residence located at 1425 Watertown :toad. At the time applicants purchased the property, no Township of Orono zoning district nor ' of size standards are known to have been in effect. 5. On September 12, 1955, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, Platting Code, requiring that all lots to be created shall have a minimum lot width of 100' at the building line, 30' at the street line, and 15,000 square feet minimum area. 6. On March 11, 1956, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 10 establishing the "Residual Zoning District" in which the applicants' property was located, al lowing priv residential uses. 7. On February 10, 1958, the Council adopted Crd;nance No. 15, to amend the platting code, requiring that building lots created by new subdivisions must be at least 25,000 square feet in area, and at least 120' in width at the building line. 8. On September 22, 1958, the City Council approved the request of Mr. Ferrell to construct a second residence on the undivided property. The request was granted subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrell was issue, a building permit to construct a new residence on October 13, 1958, whi.;h residence is now known as 3405 Watertown Road. 9. Sometime during 1958--1959, Mr. Ferrell subdivided the property so that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate 1.29 acre parcel, the new house at 3405 Watertown Road was Located on 1.01 acre parcel (Parcel 1 per Exhibit A), and 2 additional parcels (Parcels 2 and 3 per Exhibit A) were created between 3405 and 3425 Watertown Road. 10. On October 12, 1959, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 22 establishing a minimum building lot size of 1 acre ' minimum 140' width at the building line for all building lots. Ordinance No. 22 also allowed the Council at their option to grant variances to existing lots in single separate ownership that do not meet these standards. Paqe 3 of 10 11. On September 14, 1967, the Council adopted the Orono Zoning Ordinance designating the R-lC zoning district in which the property is located, requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140' minimum width. 12. On January 1, 1975, the current zoning ordinance came into effect, rezoning this pioperty to RR-lB, rural residential zoning district, requi.ing a minim!un lot size of 2.0 acres in area and 200' minimum width. 13. Mr. Ferrell has retained ownership of Parcels ', 2 and 3 since their creation as a result of the 1958-59 subdivision. 14. In 1985, Mr. Ferrell applied for variances to construct a residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission, after numerous reviews of th- application, recommended denial of variances to construct single family residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, but recommended approval of 1 new building site using the combined Parcels 2 and 3. 15. On May 8, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution #2637, denying the variance request for 2 new building sites, but waived the normally required 6 month delay for resubmittal of a variance application to approve 1 new building site to be created either by combining Parcels 2 and 3 or by rearranging lot lines in conjunction with a legal combination to create 1 new building site. 16. On June 28, 1989, Mr. & Mrs. Ferrell applied for variances to combine Parcels 2 and 3 into a single lot of 1.89 acres to construct a single new residence, leaving the existing residence on Parcel 1, of 1.01 acres. 17. On July 17, 1189, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended denial of the lot area variances c,i a vote of 3-2, finding that approval of the lot area variance would set a precedent in the rural zoning district by creating a substandard lot. 18. The applicants maintain that trey divided the property in 1958-59 at the request of th,:n Mayor Herb Ross. The zoning code ir effect at that time did not necessarily limit development to only 1 residence per building lot. M" Ross would not apparently have been laaally bound to request that a division be completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958. Page 4 of 10 19. The applicant maintains that the property was divided such that new homes could be built on each of Parcels 2 and 3 according to City codes at the time of division. The exact date of the filing of the division has not been established. If it was prior to October 12, 1959, both Parcels 2 and 3 would have been conforming lots under the code in effect at '_.nat time. 20. The applicants have provided soil testing, proposed septic system designs, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 and 3 which indicate that technically, primary and alternate drainfie-d sites can be provided to serve a residence on a combination of Parcels 2 and 3 meeting the required sanitary setbacks. In reviewing variance applications, technical feasib.i.lity is one of the criteria considered by the City. The City also considers, as a matter of policy, the potential adverse effect of higher density housing on the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse effect on the general health, safety and welfare. 21. The applicant maintains that when the zoning was proposed to be changed from R-lC (1 acre) to RR-lB (2 acre) in 1974, he attendc3 the public hearings and was told that his lots would still be buildable under the new zoning. This occurence has not been documented by the applicant, nor can it be verified by the City. Minutes of the public hearing indicate only general comments were made regarding existing lots of record. Regardless of what was said at those public hearings, the zoning cede adopted by the City Council would be binding. 22. Mr. Ferrell was notified in writing by the City staff in 1981, upon inquiry, that under the current code, no building permits for a new house would be issued, and that no apparent basis existed for the granting of variances. 23. The 1984 zoing code currently in effect includes Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) which prohibits the "transfer or sale of non -conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a continuous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under the same or common ownership" unless specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the zoning code. No performance standards for approval of such transfers appear in the code. Page 5 (,f 10 24. The C-uncil finds that granting of the proposed variance to allow one new building site on a lot of 1.89 acres will not set an adverse precedent for the following reasons: A) The property exists as individual lots of record, and the application is for variances to construct a residence on existing lots, and does not hold the same weight as would the creation of new substandard lots. The extent of the variances requested is not excessive for the RR-lB zoning district; at 1.89 acres in area, the proposed building lot meets 94.5% of the 2 acre standard for the RR-lB zone. C) The density of 2 septic systems on a total of 2.9 acres (including the existing residence) is not excessive because the applicant has provided documentation that primary and alternate drainfield sites exist on the 1.01 acre parcel with the existing house and on the 1.89 acre new building site to support future septic needs. D) Although the property is currently used as a conforming residential building site, the applicants would be deprived of reasonable use of the property if not allowed 1 additional residence. E) The applicants have demonstrated sufficient hardships to justify granting of the requested variances. F) The magnitude of the precedent set by this approval would be insignificant when considered in relation with the entire rural zone of the City. 25. The granting of the proposed variance to construct 1 new residence will not require the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the standards set forth in the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot. The applicant has demonstrated that both the existing lot and the proposed building site can maintain suitable on --site sewer and water systems. 26. Grinting of the variances will not have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. Page 6 of 10 27. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood will not be diminished by adding 1 structure on a combination of Parcels 2 and 3. 28. The values of surrounding properties will not be adversely affected by adding a structure on the combination of Parcels 2 and 3. 29. The granting of the variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a :.unstantial property right of the applicants. 30. The granting of the variances will not serve mainly as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrat , hardship or difficulty. 31. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendat`_ons of the Planning Commi z, reports by City staff, comments by the appl, , and the effect of the proposed variance on the healt: ety and welfare of the community. 32. Th:e City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to Other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B), pursuant to Section 10.03, Subdivisions 6 (A) and (C) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a 1.89 acre parcel identified as a combination of Parcels 2 and 3 legally described elsewhere in this resolution, and further _grants a variance for the existing residence to remain on a lot of 1.01 acres where 2.0 acres is normally required, subject to the following conditions: Page 7 of 10 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall complete the legal combination of Parcels 2 and 3 into a single tax parcel. 2. The address for this buildable lot shall be 3415 Watertown Road. 3. A separate driveway access to Watertown Road is approved for the proposed building site. The location of such access driveway shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to driveway construction. 4. Applicant shall pay the standard Park Fee of $350.00 per the current fee schedule prior to issuance of a building permit for the new building site. S. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 28, 1990). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 8 of 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNRP_:A The foregoing instrument was this 28th day of August, 1989, by Jam Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the Ci municipal corporation and said instrume of the City. Jame acknowledged before me on R. Grabek & Dorothy M. ty of Orono, a Minnesota nt was executed on behalf Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 9 of 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On •.his day of , 198 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his ,~heir) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 10 of 10 COUNCIL MEETING / ,) To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members AU G 2 81989 City Administrator Bernhardson C From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning 9111nQ1to Date: August 21, 1989 Subject: #1429 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit Zoning District - LR-lB, sewered, 1 acre Application - Request for variance and conditional use permit to replace existing residence with new residence, including excavation in 0-75' zone to create a walk -out. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 7/18/89 Exhibit B - Staff's Letter to Applicant of 7/21/89 Exhibit C - Applicant's Information Packet Submitted to Planning Commission Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/13/89 Discussion - Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of Jiily 13th. Briefly, applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence on this property and replace it with a new residence that meets the 75' setback, but requires a hardcover variance to remain at the existing 33.7% in the 75-250' zone. He proposes to use a "grass paver" pavement system to accomplish this. Additionally, integral to the project is an excavation along the lakeshore bank to create a walk -out configuration. Planning Commission at their July 17th meeting voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the request for various reasons, including: 1. Lack of hardship to justify this magnitude of variances. 2. Excavation proposed is excessive in relation to the need to protect lakeshore banks. 3. Hardcover at 33.7% in 75-250' zone is excessive given the lot size. 4. This situation is not so unique as to justify an exception to the City's lakeshore grading policies. uAiWM .lDHUTI Zoning File #1429 August 21, 1989 Page';,.?, tbAl 2' Applicant requested and has been provided with copies of the pertinent ordinance sections and Comprehensive Plan excerpts relating to woLk in lakeshore areas. The ordinances generally prohibit walk -out excavations such as that proposed, requiring a variance (supported by a hardship) to do so. The Comprehensive Plan generally indicates that grading in lakeshore bank areas should be avoided. Applicant is aware of the City's history of denial of recent similar applications, but feels his property has unique circumstances which justify his request. Staff Recommendation - The Planning Commission recomr,endation for denial appears to be consistent with the general philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the City's past practice 1;, similar situations. Applicant has requested to make a short prte!e►tation to the Council at your meeting, and has provided oxr.ellent graphic depictions of what he proposes. Staff will drakt a resolution reflecting Council's final action, for your next meeting. JUL`� MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING-h8eUST-17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1424-WINDWARD MARINE CONTINUED remain the same as proposed in application #1263. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0- Motion passed. #1425 WARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. TO 8:35 P.M. Mr. James MacKinnon, the Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Ferrell, were present of their behalf. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. As a condition of their approval, the City Council agreed to allow a waiver of the 6 month time period normally required to re -apply for a variance. The applicants are now requesting a lot combination that would create a 1.89 acre new building site and leaves the existing building site with 1.01 acres. The 1.89 acre parcel has four septic drainfield sites and development of this lot, in staff's opinion should not be a problem. There is concern about the 1.01 acre lot which has only one alternate drainfield site. The City's policy in the past for commonly owned parcels in an unsewered zone has been that Council approval is required to subdivide the parcel. Mr. MacKinnon also provided a history of the property. He said that the Ferrells were assessed and paid taxes from 1958 to 19�'6 based on the assumption that both lots were buildable sites. He said that this issue had become very emotional for the Ferrells. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearinc, was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes=2, Cohen, Moos, Brown, Nay, Motion failed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend denial of th4- application due to the possibility of setting a precedent b1 approving the creation of a substandard lot. Motion, Ayes=3, Kelley, Johnson, Nay, Motion passed. #1428 RALPH D. BURGESS, JR. 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:37 P.M. TO 9:15 P.M. Mr_. and Mrs. Burgess were present for this matter, as well as Mr. Larry Berg, their attorney. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were 8 ZONING FILE NO. 1428 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE. OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/18/89 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. COPIES TO: Larry Berg 205 Inland Lane Fredrikson & Byran, P.A. Plymouth, MN 55447 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 7/17/89 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission members gave various reasons for their recommendation, including: 1. Lack of hardship to justify magnitude of variances. 2. Excavation proposed is excessive in relation to need to protect banks. 3. Hardcover at 33.7% in 75-250' zone is excessive given the lot size. 4. This situation is not so unique as to justify an exception to lakeshore grading policy. Applicant's next scheduled meeting isconfirmed as: City Council Monday, August 28, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are a,railable from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 1INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING *HGBS-T 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1428-BURGESS CONTINUED duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants intend to remove the existing residence and replace it with a new home. The key issue involved with the application is that gradinq in the lakeshore area will be necessary to create a walk -out. Mr. Burgess had several sketches depicting the existing and proposed house, as well as a model of the proposed house. Mr. Burgess said that 35' of shoreline washed away in the 1987 "super -storm". He said that the City Engineer and Mr. Gaffron had visited the site to determine the various ways ir which the bank could he restored. The City Engineer had recommerded to Mr. Burgess that retaining walls not be used if at all possible. An alternative would be to put a geotechnical fabric every two feet and rebuild the bank up to a determined slope. Mr. Burgess said that he planned to rip rap the shoreline approximately 3' above the hic;h water mark. Mr. Burgess noted that the existing house encroaches the 75' setback line by 35'. The proposed house would be :_ocated behind the 75' setback. The new house would also be de:iignr•d to conform in height with th3 neighboring residences. Mr. Berg said that the applicants proposal was an ecological improvement due to the elimination of hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. There would be no interference with the natural direction of runoff and the rate of runoff will lessened. Chairman Kelley asked about the particular hardships involved with this application? Mr. Berg replied that carving out the area for the walkout was part of preserving the lakeshore area from further erosion. He said that the Burgesses were addressing water quality concerns. Mr. Berg also noted that this proposal had no adveise ef`ert on the neighboring property, but rather the opposite. Mr. John Rodgers, a neighbor on the nor`.b side o- and Mrs. Burgess, said that the portion of the B izgess's sh,: .ine that caved in altered the water quality of his lakeshore. la his opinion, a steep slope would be detrimental as it would allow such erosion to occur again. Mr. Rogers was also in favor of the reduced elevation of the applicants' new home. He said that the new home would be an asset to the community. Mr. Burgess said that the neighbor to the south, Mr. Thomas Lowe, had indicated that he had no opinion, for or against this proposal. Chairman Kelley said that the excavation of the lakeshore area was the primary issue. Planning Commissioner Cohen concurred. Mr. Burgess asked why the excavation was such a difficult issue? '�A-4 ►- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17, 1989 ZONING. FILE #1428-BURGESS CONTINUED Cohen said that such an issue was difficult because of the City'r policy to discourage excavation for walkouts. Approval of this application would be precedent setting. Planning Commissioner Brown said he did not see an adequate hardship to justify approval of the variance. He felt that the bank could be restored without the need to excavate for the walkout feature of the proposed home. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he appreciated the restoration. of the bank and the Louse being set back behind the 75' setback line. However, he disapproved of excavation within the 0-75' zone. He also relt that given the size of the lot, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area could be maintained at 25%. Planning Commissioner Moos also felt that the proposed excavation was excessive and cculd find no hardship for doing so. Mr. Burgess said that City staff had indicated that conformance was important. He said that he did net understand how the Planning Commission could deny excavation within the lakeshore area without providing an adequate explanation as to why. In his opinion his proposal addressed the ecological concerns of the City. He believed his proposal was a substantial improvement from what currently existed. Mr. Berg said that there was no legal basis for rejecting a hardship on the grounds that there was an alternative to a particular proposal. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Manning Commissioner Cohen, secclndid by Planning Commissio�ier Moos, to recommend denial of this application due to the proposal interfering in the 0-75' setback zone and no adequate hardship demonstrated to do so. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. (At this time, 9:15 p.m., Planning Commissioner Cohen departed.) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #1427 ALAN CARLSON, 3140 WATPRTOWN ROAD SUBDIVISION Mr. Alan Carlson was present for this sketch plan review, as was Mr. Gary Peterson, his Developer. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that there was 41.6 acres of land that Mr. Carlson wished to subdivide. Mr. Carlson said that he puichased Dr. Panuska's property 10 . ._ CITY Of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota W23 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 21, 1989 Mr. Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. 205 Inland Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Requested Background Information Dear Mr. Burgess: Per your request, I am forwarding a number of items providing a background of the City's current philosophy and policies regarding lakeshore areas. Please find the following: 1. Resolution #2649, denying variances for fill and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone for Terry Sadler at 1396 Baldur Park Road. Of the 7 � st of 5 precedent applications I noted in the memo to the Planning Commission, I believe you have information on all but Sadler. 2. Section 10.55, a copy of Orono's current Flood Plain and Wetlanes Management Ordinance which includes regu3,-.ons for work in lakeshore areas. 3. Section 10.22 of the Zoning Code, regulating lakeshore setbacks, hardcover and tree removal, as well as grading work. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 through 21, of the Zoning Code, discussing grading prohibitions and requirements. 5. excerpts from the 1980 Community Management Plan, sections regarding basic Community philcscphy, goals and policies, and the environmental protection plait. 6. The following past ordinances 1Lading up to the current Zoning Regulations: a. Ordinance #63, (low-lying lands) b. Ordinance #98, (grading for new buildings) C. Ordinance #99, (required grading plans) BUILDING A ZONING - 473.7357 • ADMCVIS7RATION A FINANCE - 471.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473.7359 ASSESSING Mr. Ralph Burgess July 21, 1969 Page Two d. Ordinance #125 (protection of marshes, wetlands and lakeshore areas) e. Ordinance #138 (permit compatibility with LMCD requirements) f. Ordi #155 (requiring 75 foot lakeshore setback g. Ordinance #167, (rip -rap of shoreline) h. Ordinance #179, (development of sensitive lands) i. Ordinance #213 (regarding flood plain management) j. The 1975 Zoning Cody sections which preceded the current sections 10.22► 10.03, Subdivision 19 through 21, and the flood plain sections. Finally, you may wish to contact the DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and perhaps discuss with certain of thF, people involved in t±-e mid-70's ordinance revisions, tnei:': philosophies and intent when the codes were adopted. Please let me know if there is additional information 2 can provide. Sincerely, Michael P. G fron Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. MPG/ls Enclosures cc: Mark E. Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 13, 1989 Subject: #1428 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lB, sewered, 1 acre Application - Request for variance and conditional use permit to replace existing residence with new residence, including excavation in 0-75' zone to create a walk -out. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications (variance & conditional use permit) Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Letter of Request Addressing Hardships, Hardcover Issue, and Excavation in 0-75' Zone Exhibit E - Applicant's Submittal Packet Including: 1) Elevation Views, Proposed House 2) Existing & Proposed Site Plans 3) Landscape Plans 4) Existing & Proposed Hardcover Pertinent Code Sections - 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (Average lakeshore setback variance). 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Lakeshore hardcover, and grading. (Proposal exceeds 25% in 75-250' zone, proposes a reduction in 0-75' zone. Also proposes excavation within 0- 75' zone.) 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 (requires variance for grading and excavation within 75' of the shoreline). 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 (conditional use perm t for grading on lakeshore property, also in excess of 100 cubic yards). Pertinent Facts 1. Applicant proposes to remove the existing residence and replace it with a new hone. Due to wet basement problems with the existing house, his intent is to construct a walk- out type residence. He proposes to reduce hardcover in the 0-75' zone, moving the house back to meet the 75' required setback, and excavate in the 0-75' zone to create a walk- out. Zoning File #1428 July 13, 1989 Page 2 of 4 2. Applicant has prepared numerous exhibits which provide an excellent depiction of his proposed grading and construction. Additionally, applicant has provided a detailed letter indicating his reasons for this request. Applicant has met with the City Engineer and staff regarding this proposal and was advised early on that similar requests for excavation in lakeshore zones have been generally denied in a number of recent applications. Mr. Burgess was also given the background on some of the most recent similar applications. 3. The existing house encroaches approximately 35' into the 0- 75' zone. Applicant would remove this structure and the entire 0-75' zone would revert to non -hardcover status. 4. Applicant proposes to maintain the existing level of hardcover in the 75-250' zone, at 33.7%. In order to do this, he proposes to use a "grass paver" or porous pavement system to gain access to the proposed detached garage, which would house vehicles used only on a sporadic basis. 5. The grading in the 0-75' setback zone is intended to increase the stability of the lakeshore bank, eliminate the need for a lake access stairway, and provides the ability to create a a:alk-out. The proposed grading would result in removal from the site of approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material. Applicant notes the existing residence sits relatively high above the lake compared to the properties in the neighborhood and he feels that the walk -out excavation will not be out of character with the neighborhood nor be visually obtrusive as viewed from the lake. Discussion - In treatment of recent similar applications, the City Council has generally relied on the direction and philosophy found within the City of Orono Community Management Plan. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Plan, Chapter 3, states a number of general policies for Natural Resource Management, including the following: 9. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Also in the Environmental Protection Plan, Urban Area Policies for Natura'_ Resource Management include the following: "2. Retenti iatural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanizati isible from the lake." Zoning File #1428 July 13, 1989 Page 3 of 4 The Community Management Plan, Chapter 4, the Land Use Plan, also states a number of land use policies which include the following: "6. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach, or flood plain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation and shoreland areas will be preserved in so far as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface run-off and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material, stone or rip -rap shoreland protection will be encouraged." In general, the City's philosophy towards alteration of bluff or steep bank slope lakeshore areas has been to allow alteration only as necessary to protect the shoreline from serious erosion. Excz�vation for the creation of walk -outs has been discouraged and danied in a number of recent applications including the following: Terry Sadler, 1396 Baldur Park Road - Denied lakeshcre filling and retaining wall. (1989) Roger and Becky Berry, . Baldur Park Road - Denied permission to excavate in 75' zone to create a walk -out. (1989) John Waldron, 1951 Concordia Street - Denied request for 0- 75' excavation to create walk -out in conjunction with repair/restoration of lakeshore banks. (1988) Todd Waters, 3061 Casco Point Road - Denied after -the -fact permission to excavate 0-75' lakeshore yard to create a walk -out. (1987) William Mrrnik/Halley Homes, 2715 Pence Lane - Denied permission to excavate within 0-75' zone to create a walk- out. (1988) In general, the following would appear to be general reasons for past denials of walk -out excavations at the lakeshore: 1. Loss of existing stabilizing ground cover and root systems. Loss of natural soil structural stability. Zoning File #1428 July 13, 1989 Page 4 of 4 2. Potential for increased rate of run-off and decreased quality of run-off to the lake (although not every grading project results in these long-term Detrimental impacts). 3. Short-term erosion concerns during construction period. 4. Detrimental visual impact created by altered shoreline configuration. 5. Loss of natural vegetation and screening (visual impact). 6. Walk -out excavation typically exposes a greater building surface to viewers from the lake, resulting in greater visual impact. Please carefully review the applicant's letter of request and hardship statement, along with the exhibits presented. Is there any single factor or combination of factors that makes this lakeshore property and the proposed grade changes so unique that approval of the land alteration is justified? Note that the applicant has stated to staff that he will likely not proceed with the construction project if the land alteration is not approved. Also, do the proposed decreases in hardcover and removal of existing structure from the 0-75' zone provide a trade-off that justifies the lakeshore alterations? Staff Recomendation - Planning Commission is requested to carefully review the information submitted. Any recommendation for approval, partial approval, or denial, should be supported by specific findings. I---CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICN--------------------------------------- ---- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Z6:1�0 WES7 Lpt�:AYF-7 ��_ C)F-O^10 Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- .APPLICANT Phone (home) d-- Name �(-Q . Phone (work) 2oS Address CitynL�( ti�CI�T;-i ziD`�S --------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone Address City zip Date Property Acquired �!O��N��E'.���%�S (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee Aftar-the-Fact Fee - Double Current application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use X $200.1. 0 f ) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more X Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/YID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIOWS $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation with Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY L `� Present Zoning District Present Use of Property X Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ��-E°�c �c-n Ty F�iTAc t-}D L-e-TEf— REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. 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) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of. survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed :ontours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Flat Map. 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 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 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 Date J",A.z �� � �'�-- OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reascnable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and vim' f ication of his request. owner's signature 1 ( ZED Date -------------------------- ---------------------•---------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plannir_3 Commis.3ion 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 & Zoninq Office of this change prior to the meeting. Receipt CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) ----------- -------------------------------------- -------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address LG10 �JEsz L'PF� I t✓ '� � Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 24- 0043 Please check one - Property abstract or )_ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------- APPLICANT Phone ( home ) 4-13 - 4- V. Name �LaLpN �• �VJg--. Phone (work) SSc�)-S2.CO Address: 20S I�1�A�lD LArl�. City: QL` MCUTN Zip: S5443 ------------------------------------ OWNER (if different than applicant) Pncne (home) Name Phone (work) Address: Date Property City: Zip: Acquired NOVEMe>E:e_ Away (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ---- ------------------------------------------------ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District 1 g Present Use of Property X Residential Other (specify) ----------------------- -------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: PLEASE TO Prl'TPrC+•i --------------------------------------------------------------------------- L � VARIANCES REQUIRED _ Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: PLEPrSE- 72_ET--=1'� Tc ALE 77E,_, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCPSPTION OF UNUSUAL PRJPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: ;2-Er tE-P To LC TEP-' . ------------------------•---------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. 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 al.'. information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agret:s 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' Date J ur1E 23 tg b 9 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 member3, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verifica n of 1is,,Fequest. (`� 3 Owner's Signature Date —`ice ---------------------- -------------«-------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 dayj before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r 1. •1:L'.•• •, �• -�' • r * `w r. �•t .r..,f• , ►�ii� i" �,�,f3�•: • � -� Yi •.�„ r .,, • - y'. F.' i �' �.' �- •• • t-. r �. _ .� � �� .i • •• • . •t rr.,yl��''�_ • {_ __ �rr't -j '- 'i 1r, ••• `: :• •.;' t •� .r .A •. • j M _ _ :� .�. ��'.�t t'��•;•�/r •r � -t 'ice •fir • ��, ,S • �M � � • r• t.:•; �'�•ri.•I �r �-'� �: %,.'' ..fit j' `�`�4 �' � .,,•'•'. :Z....-•.`,S. ,•�. �'. � � •t•, ,�•��. d • . nl- � �.� �i� ir,7l-it i rd"'�''•�-• �' f••1'� ^�•• �j•��t Li'�� 1 �� I 1• h _ f 'f�••''1 _ 4. ♦�. 11 .} / .•L • _ .. • is .:+ S r � "• � .. t '• .7� �•r � - .. 1M�f ��-a � e. - 1t _T . •a •, .�; •i.•vt / . �f 1 ��{� ! t �: r ��'� FI'_ • r ' .'wl. + r • �, � ' .'.. _Ct •. ` '.. - I - •ram. �, y� • •� •��' t ,s�..S`':' �. r�a:' � �. �• i � �r,, r - f •.i �.:'':� .. .. 1'y ��.o `b�" _t. �. i r " ! : `J ti• -ss1-`for - /• ,�hr�'y�' =� ` mac• vm Al �1�• `wYl On ,/ �/ �J �.'b` .^—..z I .r •�� .J r .! (: � r` � :ems � �0;•• ?�,? '� �� �1 � • i. �, -`y' - � -• � iS•N•o 4.r v..r . f•) � I S O tvso t xb co,r.� _ �� _:'}� `J }► tqS -': r. ' • �w{t ', yl� r''� j zee st .b� '—t t► J �s� «, •�• `^J N `a• i --4_� �;��. �� n . T �tj"y �'01y t 1t + .•�tp v RUN DATE 06/23/89 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1 38 21-117-23 21 0001 38 21-117-23 21 0002 38 21-117-23 21 0003 PROP.ADDR 2606 WEST LAFAYFTTE RD 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME E M& J L RODGERS JR D M& D K GILMAN S S& V L HAMILTON TAXPAYER ELFANOR & JOHN L RODGERS JR DAVID & DONNA GILMAN S S & V L HAMILTON NAME/ADDR 2606 WL'ST LAFAYETTE RD 2600 LAFAYETTE ROAD W -'Q1 'WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EYCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0007 38 21-117-23 21 0010 38 21-117-23 24 0043 DROP ADDR 2605 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2607 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME BRADFORD L BLANKENSHIP MARY HANNAH RALPH D BURGESS JR TAXPAYER MOLITOR & ASSOCIATES INC MRS JOHN D HANNAH RALPH D BURGESS JR NAME/ADDR 4530 W 77TH ST SUITE 219 2607 W LAFAYETTE RD 205 INLAND LA MN 55447 EDINA MN 55435 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PLYMOUTH 38 21-117-23 24 0044 38 21-117-23 24 0045 38 21-117-23 24 0047 PROP ADDR 2630 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD li OWNER NAME TAXPAYER THOMAS P LOWE ETAL THOMAS P LOWE DONALD F LAYMAN 'TAL LYMAN LUMBER CO DREW D WHITESIDE DREW D WHITESIDE ' NAME/ADDR 2630 W LAFAYETTE RD 337 WALKER ST 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0048 38 21-117-23 24 0049 38 21-117-23 24 0050 PROP ADDR 2635 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA OWNER NAME H MAC GREGOR LYMAN DONALD A LYMAN D J CLARKIN & K J CLARKIN TAXPAYER LYMAN LUMBER LYMAN LUMBER D J CLARKIN & K J CLARKIN NAME/ADDR 300 MORSE AVE 337 WALKER ST 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA -- EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COU14TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE t.0 ��ff BY �T _ 1 FOOD EN01NE'= .ING CORPORATIOM 2765 NIAGARA LANE • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55441 U.S A • PHONE ,612) 559-5200 • TELEX 23-8149 June 23, 1989 City of Orono Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator RE: 2610 WEEST LAFAYETTE ROAD, ORONO, PID NUMBER 21-117-23 24 0041 Dear Mr. Gaffron: As you know from previous discussions, we wish to tem�­e the existing house, garage and all hardcover from the above men- tioned site and replace it with a new home, garage and hard- cover. The existing structure and hardcover are not in compliance with tho existing Orono City Zoning Codes relating to hardcover and lakeshore setback encroachmen�:. We believe that she proposed new home and site improvement, while still not in compliance with all existing codes, will be a significant improvemen '-o the property and will address the hardship issues. Enclosed are our completed applications for variances for hardcover and grading in the 0-75' setback zone. In addition to the other submittals required with the applica- tions, we have enclosed six (6) copies of information pre- pared by Arteka Landscape Architects, showing the existing property and structures with topographical contours, with a transparent overlay showing the proposed home and garage with revised land contours. The information also includes hardcover calculations made by Arteka showing the existing hardcover in the setback zones compared to the proposed hardcover in the same zones. We have also had a model of the proposed improved site made for your convenience in viewing and conEidering this mat=er. We have also had large scale overlays and drawlags made which we would like to show you and your associates as par' - of our explanation of the proposed improvements. City of Orono Planning Commission June 23, 1989 _ Page Three,„ B. The amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone will essentially remain the same at 33.7%. The drainage in this zone is essentially not toward the lake, but flows toward the basin to the Northwest of the property. C. There will be a net decrease in the otal hardcover of 1,498 square feet. Excavating in the 0-75' Lakeshore Setback Zone The walkout excavation is related to the existing bank erosion stabilization needs, not only as a convenience to the utilization of the property by allowing a walkout lower level. The walkout then becomes an important second living level of the house ins- �f only a basement. A. The walkout excavation would be in conformity and character with the majority of the neighboring residences. S. The walkout excavation would allow a second lower living level, which compared to a two story above gr tnd home, allows a home considerably lower in el ration that is in better conformity with the neighboring residences and shoreline appearance. C. The shoreline bank is 250' long, and although other methods of stabilization exist, the partial exca- vation, along with repairing part of the bank with ,�o Fabric layers and planting of vegetation, would ::Tffe= the following: �. Blend in harmoniously and in conformity with neighboring residences. b. The p posed combined excavation, bank stabili- zation, planting and sodding, along with rip - wrapping of the shoreline would prevent further bank erosion. The proposed corrective measures would protect the balance of the shoreline ecology and would provide a pleasing and harmonious visual impact of grass and vege- tation as seen from the lake. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR RALPH D. BURGESS, JR.. IN LOT 11, SHORE HILLS HENNEPIN COUNTY, M►NNESOT C z� I 1 •s&73: , RsSp.oO, 1 ' 1 v�l 1 99� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40Our / i l; doaswaoj''� s as�. sw t o A, V 1 1 1 1 1 1 I fix IS71N 4 G�vR�c, Z � 1 '9�•''- � ZkM ly r- h I / / A V.N ,tst 000 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 �111 1 9qL 99Z.5 IJotis oiSwYf33�1 t 1 Y;nry ^a9Y 9Ya'tl ' moo„ N k �\ 949.7 ,��\ % �\ t I 11 ► 1 l 1 I 1 �y o 1 I 1 C ,r Is / A 1 1 I 11 1 1 I I I q 1 I 1 ,13 9�fi1� )i I I l i I �6AL DESCRIPTION Ai4' of Lot 11, Shore Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the Southeasterly 15 feet, front and rear. I hereby certify thatthis topographic survey was prepared by me or under Illy direct supervision and that 1 am a duly registered civil engineer and land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. a S I _.I c,�I -- I„ . In$ % A / ) 7-J, � �rMople 1.•saz3: / /J� R,50.00• u R A4 _ o \ cw«aJ) 1 911:,•j' 1 / o / 41 / / Scale: 1" : 30, Date : 7-28-86 R---j -1-2r.- Ira t.rAo. Datum. Mean Sea Leve: e""'# r""` 91J.:: Spot Elcivation t;_•'^: Boundary information is from survey by others. x w P i GAL DESCRIPTION Aii of Lot 11, Shore Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the Southeasterly 15 feet, trout and rear. I hereby certify thatthis topographic survey was prepared by me or under Illy direct supervision and that I am a duly registered civil engineer and land surveyor- under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota m Survey for RAL.PH D. BURGESS, JR. LEGEND O WOW MONUMEPT •AP. fowEX PoL6 A. FLANTIMCs AREA MINIMUM GUILOIMQ SETSA.CK LIN6 6 GAS MAIM T uNDfWf61TOUMD TCL6PNOW6 CASLO >f SANITARY SEWER W WATBR MAIM -Q OVEft1IF Potr164 LINE .'tl3?tiriC ERSc of SMUMI.lOUS 0f {vib •:: OJy O` ar � L I 6-1,6• LE,JI. DESCIIIM101 : All of I.ot 11, SHOAL HILLS. N.—spin County, ttinne.ota. -cept the s�ulh..etsrly I, f.•t, front .nd rest. Subject to sm-sents and re•trlctions of record. If any. 'LATIr ICATIou I Mr•by crllfy to P•Iph D M.r9ea .1t that 11 ' 1. • trw •M c act yl.t of • aurvaY of the above d..Cr ltwI property tha[ ..Id • rv.y •huN• lMrloc•tlon u! .I1 building•. • uc tor•• and otMr I.prweewnt. .Itu1t•d a .•lJ yr..l.a.. •II •ppl ic.bl• .etbck Iln.. and .Il • ..n Is rlyht.-of-wy and any • cr "charm• r (roe the pr• .n. Chet • e knw.n to the under ig-1, that are 1-ibl. on tMopr..l.s. or [hat •r• .f [.cord. N /fib: 1. Au b..rinv •nwn . ..d. ]. Currant .l nf.un but ldlnys•. thack lines .huvn • • fro. the (I•y 'I Orono 1. S•nit.ry leusr and 11ter rin dst• .hovn ... It.. the City of Orono. 4. rI. In data eAuv� 1. f[or Ml nneyaKu local Or. 5. tk,d.ryro,,Id to l.phow c•hl. d.t• .hovn 1• free n. N. T.Iap11OM Co. Lector. 6. All ut lllty d•t• .ho l- ha.ed u v.li•bie Inferrtlon. T. Call ut Lli..y co.lynlea for , field loch low prior to any a •vet ton. tie Thar• • ant. on tM•Pre.l.•. a• per the title opinlon by 1'reAr lk•onn• •yron de <.d ll/4/•S. 9. TM p[[er.uyerty comaln. S/..t)0 • ary.r• f..t or 1.15 • close TM area cannot La du I_ ..telly because the property has take enure Nhlch [• 1[r.qu I. ----W— ovLtaM UIu rawrl a.,nc '' EPyp Of GrrUNINOUS L . G9.Lf c a of !• wn•w'aaa '. _aY 1 .aG � w N� r r 1` ♦s.o �'1 LEGAL DESCRIPf10H1 All of 1.01 11, SHORE HILLS, Hennepin County. P1nn.sota, except too 5uulheesterly front end tact. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. if any. ,-L7,TIFICATIO14 I hereby cart t[y to Palph O. d.rges•, Jr it,, thla la • true 'r c t plat of • .urvey of tM •tKrve deserlbad property test as ld Survey shw. Cher location of .11 but Iding.. structure• and other imp—moota situated o meld pranloom. all applicable setback lines and all a..emenl., rlyhl.-of-..y and any a wcharnt• n or frw the premises that • • knwn to the under•lgned. that arenv lelble on the premiss. or the, are of record. 1a i Mor aAUAa la—s 1. All ba•r ln4a shwn • med. ]. Currant minlan Intl ldln4 aa.tback It... Shaun • a (mew the I It, .t �runu 1. Sanitary ae.er and ..ter —I. deta shwn • a from the City of Orono. e. 11. Min do,. eh— is fror Minneyscu locator. 5. IAlderground telephone clole deta shwn Is (mew II.M. Telephone Co. Locator. fi. All ut I"ty data •hov1l la ba.ed u vallebl• In forest ion. �. Call ut ll l:y conlrnlaa for e I field 1-11un. prior to any a •vat ion. h. There • eaeements on the promises as per the title opinion"bay 1'r.drlk.onn. Byron dated 11/b/05. 9. 1he pcuperty contains S4.400 • &pare feet or 1.25 • The area cannot In doter•t nod ...ctly because the property has lake •Lure vh lch i• Irraqular. rw,.uarlr,n. C. E. COULTER 8, ASSOCIATES, INC. .l De ptiER .r real" •U'l Pvt4w YO I— 1 u a — .Ima11... l alp •IAWMf 11H is.. N Inl fr.r1 01 w..(f0 to - -- PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED SURVEYORS •aa a Io. ro) � .0 —��� •I W1t.lD M .I"itl.1. ..�a C— IKI.— w'— u, 1—.-1• Y7[ I rJ IRio ",a. „o SSUO LYNOALE AVE Su MINNEAPULIS, MINN 55000 - - 200-)/302. —Tr-r— .7�- TELEPHONE • 612-/2A-0770 - -'- - , I,La ■a. ]-S-)l sMfEr 1 Or 1 , f \\ Fi C1 ice,. 4A Yo (.tT - AA4-y,v r-=Lcn�oK I V/ew l-A-ge j JW POSE e-est��ct' SFGTicf� c CLOe4� R�INT �-,.�crTe,•�s w.ra I� I p-oposed house I� Lake M)nnetadri S�LTbN � GLOSE� i`�IN'!" West Lafayette ROad \ I ':. .. Lake M W ML4 Li �Yns.tonka 55r Ftl�Tr lb-F oad West Lafayette R �� I' Lak. lirNto�. — Laks . ' etanka West Lafayette WId Lake ABra emre � wn,®nr�.lnwn���n�s�®nnrnn� West LataYeK= er/sue Rowe itt �L.+te /emetonke w-Fo, fleim NORTH Lake Minnetonka 11.1 Hardcover Cakuk bO175 Ana ExbOW Proposed d-75' 75'-250' 250'• 0,75, 75250• 250'. .. MMIM Oslo'.+ i•!A '1 J'7 ;. -.�'y dd"—J asp 317 so AdoMs* '! I TJ �► O i If` 1 Paft decit .`, If O ! c Yt Y AMwdxCW*r i 'MY 'i a+ Y Y Yrd"wer TOtW SF .i- s s zu S. �Fh YCA Zom -a_ y -4= H n.'A V �. 1 X Hardcover 'a z o , -. _. _ �}:� _ ' � yr- �•�1.�e:-� rrr� -a-tg �j) A.=y MR. me AMOS Left Aftmeanks Area house garage driveway sidewalk patio deck landscape hardcover Total SF SF in each zone % Hardcover Hardcover Existing 0=75' 75=250' • Calcul 250'+ 154A 15P ations Propose 0 =75' 75-250' G sr 1Cc^O 5F n417- 0 C-P i 250'+ v,2 5F O SP M,%DS tP ZSZ. S�: 14 9Z2 `� i',-1 o r 5 �P g ��� 5P 17922 �% d=; 1�7 Y �� 1 '- To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 21, 1989 Subject: #1429 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Road - Varianc,-/Conditional Use Permit Zoning District - LR-lB, sewered, 1 acre Application - Request for variance and conditional use permit to replace existing residence with new residence, including excavation in 0-75' zone to create a walk -out. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 7/18/89 Exhibit B - Staff's Letter to Applicant of 7/21/89 Exhibit C - Applicant's Information Packet Submitted to Planning Commission Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/13/89 Discussion - Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of July 13th. Briefly, applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence on this property and replace it with a new residence that meets the 75' setback, but requires a hardcover variance to remain at the existing 33.7% in the 75-250' zone. He proposes to use a "grass paver" pavement system to accomplish this. Additionally, integral to the project is an excavation along the lakeshore bank to create a walk -out configuration. Planning Commission at their July 17th meeting voted 5-0 to recommend denial of the request for various reasons, including: 1. Lack of hardship to justify this magnitude of variances. 2. Excavation proposed is excessive in relation to the need to protect lakeshore banks. 3. Hardcover at 33.7% in 75-250' zone is excessive given the lot size. 4. This situation is not so unique as to justify an exception to the City's lakeshore grading policies. Zonincr File #1429 August 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Applicant requested and has been provided with copies of the pertinent ordinance sections and Comprehensive Plan excerpts relating to work in lakeshore areas. The ordinances generally prohibit walk -out excavations such as that proposed, requiring a variance (supported by a hardship) to do so. The Comprehensive Plan generally indicates that grading in lakeshore bank areas should be avoided. Applicant is aware of the City's history of denial of recent similar applications, but feels his property has unique circumstances which justify his request. Staff Recommendation - The Planning Commission recommendation for denial appears to be consistent with the general philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the City's past practice in similar situations. Applicant has requested to make a short presentation to the Council at your meeting, and has provided excellent graphic depictions of what he proposes. Staff will draft a resolution reflecting Council's final action, for your next meeting. CITY OF ORONO P . O . rn " - 6 ZONING FILE NO. 1428 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crys MN 55323 473—•7357 Date of Notice: 7/18/89 TO: h i. Burgess, Jr. COPIES TO: Larry Berg 205 Inland Lane Fredrixson & Byran, P.A. Plymouth, MN 55447 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 7/17/89 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission members gave various reasons for their recommendation, including: 1. Lack of hardship to justify-iagnitude f variances. 2. Excavation proposed is excessive in rel ion to need to protect banks. 3. Hardcover at 33.7% in 75-250' zonE Ls excessive given the lot size. 4. This situation is not so unique as to justify an exception to lakeshore grading policy. Applicant's next scheduled meeting isconfirmed as: City Council Monday, August 28, 1989; meeting, starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the ofcic -la,—ing Commission minutes, they are available- from the City h2c aster review and approval by the Planning Commission. -�UL`( MINUTES C7 THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.ABOUST- 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1424-WINDWARD MARINE CONTINUED remain the same as proposed in application #1263. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1425 WARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. TO 8:35 P,X. Mr. James MacKinn:n, the Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Ferrell, were present of their bthalf. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. As a condition of their approval, the City Council agreed to allow a waiver of the 6 month time period normally required to re -apply for a variance. The applicants are now requesting a lot combination that would create a 1.89 acre new building site and leaves the existing building site wit-1 1.01 acres. The 1.89 acre parcel has four septic drainfield sites and development of this lot, in staff's opinion should not be a problem. There is concern abou* the 1.01 acre lot which has only one alternate drainfield site. The City's policy in the part for commonly owned parcels in an unsewered zone has been that Council approval is required to subdivide the parcel. Mr. MacKinnon also provided a i,` gory of th ,• property. He said that the Ferrells were assesses id paid taxes from 1958 to 1986 based on the assumption that boy lots were buildable sites. He said that this issue had becor very emot-.ui,al f--. the Ferrells. There wire no comments from the public regarding this matter and the pu-lic hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes=2, Cohen, Moos, Ftown, Nay, Motion failed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Frown, to recommend denial of this application due to the possibility of setting a precedent by approving the creatici f a substandard lot. Motion, Ayes=3, Kelley, �ohnson, Nay, Motion passed. V Z28 RALPH D. BURGESS, JR. '410 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD ►RIANCE/CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT ?-UBLIC HEARING 8:37 P.M. TO 9:15 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Burgess were present for this matter, as well as Mr. Larry Berg, their attorney. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were 8 MINUTES OF T. ANNING COMMISSION MEETING *UGUZTT 17, 1989 7.ONIZIG FILE #1428-j3URGESS CONTINUED duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants intend to remove the existing residence and replace it with a new home. The key issue involved wit'.i the application is grading in the lakeshore area will be necessary to create a walk -out. Mr. Burgess had several sketches depicting the existing avid proposed house, as well as a model of the proposed house. Mr. Burgess said that 35' of shoreline washed away in the 1987 "super -storm". He said that the City Engineer and Mr. Gaffron had v? sited the site to determine the various w .ys in which the bank could ti_.3 re6._^red. The City Engineer had recommended to Mr. :urgess that retaining walls not be used if at all possible. An alternative would be to put a geote,_hnical fabric every two feet and rebuild the bank up to a determined slope. Mr. Burgess said that he planned te- rip rap the shoreline approximately 3' above the hi �h watr � Mr. Burgess noted that the existing house encroaches t:ic back line by 351. The proposed house would be located i 2 75' setback. The new house would also be designed to co,. in height with the neighboring residences. Mr. Berg said that t"­ applicants proposal was an ecological improLement due to the eliminaL=on of hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. There woulc: be no interference with the natural direction of runoff and the rate of runoff will lessened. Chairman Kelley asked about :e particular hardships involved wit~ `I.; s applicatio-,? Mr. Berg replied t;. .`_ carving out, the area :he walkout was part of preserving the lakcsf—re area fron, further erosion. He said that the Burgesses were addre3sing water quality concerns. Mr. Berg also noted that this proposal had no adverse effect on the neighboring property, but rather the opposite. Mr. John Rodgers, a neighbor on the north side of Fir. and Mrs. Burgess, said that the portion of the Burgess's shoreline that ca•ed in altered the water quality of his lakeshore. In his opinion, a steep slope would be detrimental as it would allow su..h eresi:--i to occur again. Mr. Rogers was also in 3vor of t_.:_ re-k-;.-ed el^vation of the applicants' new home. He said tl .,} Lhe ne. .-.;me would be an asset to the community. Plr.. Burgess; said that the neighbor to the south, Mr. =hoc.as Lowe, had indicated tFat he had no opinion, f or or against this proposal. Chai:.inan Kelley said that the excavation of the lakeshore area was the primary issue. Planning Commissioner Cohen concurred. Mr. Burge-; asked why the excavation was such a difficult issue? -�u Lh MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FETING AUGUST 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1428-BURGESS CONTINUED Cohen said that such an issue was difficult because of the City's policy to discourage excavation for walkouts. Approval of this application would be precedent setting. Planning Commissioner Brown said he did not see an adequate hardship to - .,stify approval of the variance. He felt that the bank could -e restored without the need to excav-te for the walkout fea_ure of the proposed home. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he appreciated the restoration of the beak and the house being set back behind the 75' setback line. However, he disapproved of excavation within the 0-75' zone. He also felt that given the size of the lot, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area could be maintained at 25%. Planning Commissioner Moos a so felt that the proposed excavation was excess-.ve and could find no hardship for doing so. Mr. Burgess said that City staff had indicated that conformance was important. He said that he did not understand how the Planning Commission could deny excavation within the lakeshore area without providing an adec-ite explanation as to why. 7n his opinion Lis proposal ad zed the ecological cc,:icerns of the City. He believed his pr• 1 was a substantial i p-ovement from what currently existed. Mr. Berg said that there was no legal basis for rejecting a hardship on the grounds that there was an alternative to a particular prupcsal. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial of this application due to the proposal interfering in the 0-75' setback zone and no adequate hardship demonstrated to do so. Motion, Ayer Nays=O, Motion pissed. ,.'t this time, 9:15 p.m., Planning Ccmmissioner Cohen departe .) SKETCH Pi.:l REVIEW #1427 ALAN '..ARLSON, 3140 WATFRTOWN ROAD SUBDIVISION Mr. Alan Carlson was present for t::is ske•. -h plan review, as 4as Mr. Gary Peterson, his Developer. Building and Zoning Piministrator r __ explained that there was 4:.6 acres c land that Mr rlson wished to s-bdivide. Mr. Carlson said that he purct-ase(? Dr. Panuska's property 10 CITY of ORONO Poet Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 21, 1989 Mr. Ralph D. Burgess, Jr. 205 Inland Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Requested Background Information Dear Mr. Burgess: Per your reauestr I am forwarding a number of items providing a ba ckr;round of the City's current philosophy and policies rega Aj..s.V lakeshore areas. Please find the following: 1. Resolution #2649, denying variances for fill and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone for Terry Sadler at 1396 Baldur Park Road. Of the list of 5 precedent applications - oted in the memo to the Planning Commission, I believe ..i have information on all but Sadler. 2. Section 10.55, F :opy of Orono's current Flood Plai-,: and Wetlana� Management Ordinance which includes regulations for work in lakeshore areas. 3. Section 10.22 of the Zoning Code, regulating lakeshore setbacks, hardcover and tree removal, as well as grading work. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 through 21, of the Zoning Code, discussing grading prohibitions and requirements. 5. Excerpts from the 1980 Community Management Plan, sections regarding basic Community philosophy, goals and policies, and the environmental protection plan. 6. The following pint ordinances leading up to the current Zoning Regulations: a. Ordinance #63, (low-lying landE) b. Ordinance #98, (grading for new buildings) C. Ordinance #99, (re(- -red grading plans) BUILDING & ZONING - 473.7357 ADMCVISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 a PUBLIC WORKS - 473•7359 ASSESSING Mr. Ralph Burgess July 21, 1989 Page Two d. Ordinance #125 (protection of marshc., wetlands and lakeshore areas) e. Ordinance #138 (permit compatibility with LMCD requirements) f. Ordinance #155 (requiring 75 foot lakeshore setback. g.-rdinance #167, (rip -rap of shoreline) h. Ordinance #179, (development of sensitive la.ds) i. Ordinance #213 (regarding flood plain management) j. The 1975 Zoning Code sections which preceded the current sections 10.22, 10.03, Subdivision 19 through 21, and the flood plain sections. Finally, you may wish to contact the DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and perhaps discuss with certain of the people involved in the mid-70's ordinance revisions, thei_ philosophies and intent when the codes were adopted. Please let me know if there is additional information I can provide. Sincerely, Michael P. G fron Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. MPG/ls Enclosures CC: Mark E. Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator_ Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 13, 1989 Subject: #1428 Ralph D. Burgess, Jr., 2610 West Lafayette Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-1B, sewered, 1 acre Application - Request for variance and conditional use permit to replace existing residence with new residence, including excavation in 0-75' zone to create a walk -out. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications (variance & conditional use permit) Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Letter of Request Addressing Hardships, Hardcover Issue, and Excavation in 0-75' Zone Exhibit E -- Applicant's Submittal Packet Including: 1) Elevation Views, Proposed House 2) Existing & Proposed Site Plans 3) Landscape Plans 4) Existing & Proposed Hardcover -rtinent Code Sections - 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (Average lakeshore setback variance). 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Lakeshore hardcover, and grading. (Proposal exceeds 25% in 75-250' zone, proposes a reduction in 0-75' zone. Also proposes excavation within 0- 75' zone.) 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 (requires variance for grading and excavation within 75' of the shoreline). 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 (conditional use permit for grading on lakeshore property, lso in excess of 106 cubic ya::ds) . Pertinent Facts - i. Applicant proposes to remove the existing residence and replace it with a new home. Due to wet hasement problems with the existing house, his intent is to construct a walk- out type residence. He proposes to reduce hardcover in the 0-75' zone, moving the house back to meet the 75' requiied setback, and excavate in the 0-75' zone to create a walk- out. Zoning File #1428 July 13, 1989 Page 2 of 4 2. Applicant has prepared numerous exhibits which provide an excellent depiction of his proposed grading and construction. Additionally, applicant has provided a detailed letter indicating his reasons for this request. Applicant has met with the City Engineer and staff regarding this proposal and was advised early on that similar requests for excavation in lakeshore zones have been generally denied in a number of recent applications. Mr. Burgess was also given the background on some of the most recent similar applications. 3. The existing house encroaches approximately 35' into the 0- 75' zone. Applicant would remove this strLcture and the entire 0-75' zone would revert to non -hardcover status. 4. Applicant proposes to maintain the existing level of hardcover in the 75-250' zone, at 33.7%. In order to do this, he proposes to use a "grass paver" or porous pavement system to gain access to the proposed detached garage, which would house vehicles used only on a sporadic basis. 5. The grading in the 0-75' setback zone is intended to increase the stability of the lakeshore bank, eliminate the need for a lake access stairway, and provides the ability to create a walk -out. The proposed grading would result in removal from the site of approximately 4,000 cubic yards of material. Ap-'�cant notes the existing residence sits relatively high above the lake compared to the properties in the neighborhood and he feels that the walk -•out excavation will not be out of character with the neighborhood nor be visually obtrusive as viewed from the lake. Discussion - In treatment of recent similar applications, the City Council has generally relied on the direction and philosophy found within the City of Orono Community Management Plan. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Plan, Chapter 3, states a number of general policies for Natural Resource Management, including the following: 9. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Also in the Environmental Protection Plan, Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management include the following: "2. Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake." Zoning File #1428 -July 13, 1989 Page 3 of 4 The Community Management Plan, Chapter 4, the Land Use Plan, also states a number of land use policies which include the following: "6. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach, or flood plain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation and shoreland areas will be preserved in so far as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface run-off and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited. I: areas of soil or wave action erosion, material, stone or rip -rap shoreland protection will be encouraged." In general, the City's philosophy towards alteration of bluff or steep bank slope lakeshore areas has been to allow alteration only as necessary to protect the shoreline from serious erosion. Excavation for the creation of walk -outs has been discouraged and denied in a number of recent applications including the following: Terry Sadler, 1396 F_ldur Park Road - Denied lakeshore filling and retaining all. (1989) Roger and Becky Berry, 1392 Baldur Park Road - Denied permission to excavate in 0-75' zone to create a walk -out. (1989) John Waldron, 1951 Concordia Street - Denied request for 0- 75' excavation to create walk -out in conjunction with repair/res::oration of lakeshore banks. (1988) Todd Waters, 3061 Casco Point Road - Denied after -the -fact permission to excavate 0-75' lakeshore yard to create a walk -out. (1987) William Mernik/Halley Homes, 2715 Pence Lane - Denied permission to excavate within 0-75' zone to create a walk- out. ( 1988 ) In general, the fallowing would appear to be general reasons for past denials of walk -out excavatio. t the lakeshore: 1. Loss of existing stabilizing ground cover and root systems. Loss of natural soil structural stability. Zoning File #1428 -July 13, 1989 Page 3 of 4 The Community Management Plan, Chapter 4, the Land Use Plan, also states a number of land use policies which include the following: "6. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach, or flood plain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation and shoreland areas will be preserved in so far as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface run-off and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited. I: areas of soil or wave action erosion, material, stone or rip -rap shoreland protection will be encouraged." In general, the City's philosophy towards alteration of bluff or steep bank slope lakeshore areas has been to allow alteration only as necessary to protect the shoreline from serious erosion. Excavation for the creation of walk -outs has been discouraged and denied in a number of recent applications including the following: Terry Sadler, 1396 F_ldur Park Road - Denied lakeshore filling and retaining all. (1989) Roger and Becky Berry, 1392 Baldur Park Road - Denied permission to excavate in 0-75' zone to create a walk -out. (1989) John Waldron, 1951 Concordia Street - Denied request for 0- 75' excavation to create walk -out in conjunction with repair/res::oration of lakeshore banks. (1988) Todd Waters, 3061 Casco Point Road - Denied after -the -fact permission to excavate 0-75' lakeshore yard to create a walk -out. (1987) William Mernik/Halley Homes, 2715 Pence Lane - Denied permission to excavate within 0-75' zone to create a walk- out. ( 1988 ) In general, the fallowing would appear to be general reasons for past denials of walk -out excavatio. t the lakeshore: 1. Loss of existing stabilizing ground cover and root systems. Loss of natural soil structural stability. Zoning File #1428 July 13, 1989 Page 4 of 4 2. Potential for increased rate of run-off and decreased quality of run-off to the lake (although not every grading project results in these long-term detrimental impacts). 3. Short-term erosion concerns during construction period. 4. Detrimental visual impact created by altered sho:t:line configuration. 5. Loss of natural vegetation and screening (visual impact). 6. Walk -out excavation typically exposes a greater building surface to viewers from the lake, resulting in greater visual impact. Please carefully review the applicant's letter of request and hardship statement, along with the exhibits presented. Is there any single factor or combination of factors that makes this lakeshore property and the proposed grade changes so unique that approval of the land alteration is justified? Note that the applicant has stated to staff that he will likely not proceed with the construction project if the land alteration is not approved. Also, do the proposed decreases in hardcover and removal of existing structure from the 0-75' zone provide a trade-off that justifies the lakeshore alterations? Staff Recomendation - Planning Commission is reque3ted to carefully review the information submitted. Any recommendation for approval, partial approval, or denial, should be supported by specific findings. CITY OF ORONO - GMIERAL LAND USE APPLI N �,., -------------------------------------- - ----- ---- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Property Ieentification Number (P.I.D. ) Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ---------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone (home) 473 - 4-1 -� 4-- Name ZR(-9aUPSS J�- . Phone (work) 55c5 —S2 Co Address ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address Phone City Zip Date Property Acquired 1 �CJ c ���E',� 7 S (month/year ) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -- Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After -the -Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/Industrial Use K $200.00 f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or flocdDlain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more X Grading, seawall, retailing walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant f�-:s) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation with Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning $100.00 App?als Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property X Residential Other (specify) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Fk-7TFrc HAD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- j=UIRED SUB1ITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. 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) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing aicd proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevatio• (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (sec s' ff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this application: u_eastz! attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified cL this application- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The applicant and Property w(,er must sign this application. Please remember that your application ;.s not complete if the above information has not been included. -------------------------- Certification by Zoning Department that La.1d Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide a:.l i.nformation 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. \` I Applicant's signature I. �� I-^ - Date OWNERS :;.LGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the p-ooerty by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of -this request. Owner's signature 1, c 1'-�� `_ - Date ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Appiicants 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 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Rece• of CITY -OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION F'- e rl �; Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) .d= =� Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) ------------------------------------------ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2Gly Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) Q -1 \- -23 2-4- 0043 Please check one - Property abstract or )_ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ----------------- - APPLICANT Phone (home) Name �AL-p� p• �V�55 •. Phone (work) rj200 Address: 2C� � Irl�arl0 LAt,1� City: QLYMOUTIA ---Zip_ 554.*� ---- ------------------------ ------ ---------------------- OWNEF (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_._ Name Phone (work) Address: _ City: Zip: Date Property Acquired NOVEM5EI-/`�)8S (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land----------------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------- pRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District L�>- k 5 Present Use of Proper—., ?C Residential Other (specify) ------------------------------------ ---------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: PLEASE �E{=£.� TO p~7-TprC+•i- LEEIE VARIANCES REQUIRED _ Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Rear) Setback Variances (_ Front Side Other HARDSHIP nescribe undue hardship or prac'-ical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of ,oning regulations: PLEP,5E ;c. R---Fc�ED `; , -------------•-------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property condition:, preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: PLEP ,:�.E 2Er To _ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property owners L._s-- r owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 346-3271). 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. Cer-1--i.ficate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographi,7 survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners _.3t). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of --nis application. 8. Additional items as may be requested b_ City staff. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance applicatior is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Var,;.ance Appl.icatior, 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 inusual expenses incur_ed in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. -� Applicant's Signature Date Ju-,lc OWNET SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowic. _-is and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, 7onsul.tants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and v.;.-.-ificatx9n of is request. Owner's S _gnature 4-Ij ���_ '. Ja`3- Date - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -•- - - - - - - - - -•- - - - - - Applicant must have all submittals ?ntc the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plannin4 Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each n -.nth. Applicants must be pre -sent a a 11 scheduled rev w meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. Ir. an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrange _,.ts to hive an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the b,ailding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the me^t4,,,, ���•ss-•`. i.t-..�• "�: •• •j ••►• r •f I j�• 'Sri. r• •+• [_•' I' t ••_ - ^_ ?las• r.• �.�'� 'act a'� r;:- � � :�•' a. ,i � •II... / � n F s � f� a�IJt �-I�• r r4`'^�', `• - r •j •. —•spa t. �•�i. �/_ - ."'i'�;. 7 `� - -�T` �': 1�+ �i - Aq RL 2. lie !}1jj tiw %�S�!: 'e• lt`.1 � ' f • •, •• tj �'a •r •� ... ti �� �' i - d. jam,: � T L � - i �'^ /,fit" � �.�... -..� t • • 'T • .. :r1r ✓ � tt 1 :_ •' • _`'{_ `�: j%Q'r� �'.��, ..� 1 .� 'r. •rt r �', •' •' •• :'fit. - I _ ,. �� ,•-lli��_ ca` V. �\ I � .! !_ Its .,..� ,♦.•. i•• 1.7 1j, ,r , S\ i-�f�} � \. � {S,Y•v b��j • t/i " • • .t AO � T/ V 36 kl !—� on cis !' •.,: (1 ter- r � � •' � ..` � • e„ 30 t ►� • •L /� NO .. �' '; •jil i is J �65� yyV s•;}c, ' RUN DATE 06/23/89 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 2.1-117-23 21 0001 38 21-117-23 21 0002 PROP.ADDR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME E M& J L RODGERS JR D M& D K GILMAN TAXPAYER ELEANOR & JOHN L RODGERS JR DAVID & DONNA GILMAN NAME/APDR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2600 LAFAYETTE ROAD W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 21 0007 38 21-117-23 21 0010 PROP ADDR 2605 WEST LAFAYETTE RD 2607 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME BRADFORD L BLANKENSHIP MARY HANNAH TAXPAYER MOLITOR & ASSOCIATES INC MRS ,lOHN D HANNAH NAME/ADDR 4530 W 77TH ST SUITE 2192607 W LAFAYETTE RD EDINA MN 55435 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0044 38 21-117-23 24 0045 PROP ADDR 2630 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME THOMAS P LOWE ETAL DONALD A LAYMAN ETAL TAXPAYER THOMAS P LOWE LYMAN LUMBER CO NAME/ADDR 263U W LAFAYETTE RD 337 WALKER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117--23 24 0048 38 21-117-23 24 0049 PROP ADDR 2635 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME H MAC GREGOR LYMAN DONALD A LYMAN TAXPAYER LYMAN LUMBER LYMAN LUMBER NAME/ADDR 300 MORSE AVE 337 WALKER ST EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAGE 1 38 21-117-23 21 0003 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD S S & V L HAMILTON S S & V L HAMILTON 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0043 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE RD RAL.PH D BURGESS JR RALPH D BURGESS JR 205 INLAND LA PLYMOUTH MN 55447 R. 38 21-117 -2 3 24 004 7�- 2655 WEST LAFAYETTE RD d DREW D WHITESIDE D'-'EW D WHITESIDE ' h �' 2c55 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 N, 38 21-117-23 24 OorO Aj 2650 MAPLERIDGE 0 D J CLARKIN & K J CLARKIN D J CLARKIN & K J CLARKIN 2650 MAPLERIDGE LA �•-- — EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS iT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEDARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE_-��407BY =ODD EN�1P,i=��IA�G CORPORATION 2765 NiAGARA LANE • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55441 U S A • PHONE 612) 559-5200 • TELEX 23-8149 June 23, 1989 City of Oro.io Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Mr. Michael P. Gaffron A3sistant Planning and Zoning Administrator RE: 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD, ORONO, PID NUMBER 21-117-23 24 0043 Dear Mr. Gaffron: As you know from previous discussions, we wish to remove the existing house, garage and all hardcover from the above men- tion-,d site and replace it with a new home, garage and hard- cover. The existing structure and hardcover are not in compliance with the existing Orono City Zoning Codes relating to hardcover and lakeshore setback encroachment. We believe that the proposed new home and site improvement, while still not in compliance with all existing codes, will be a significant improvement to the property and will address the hardship issues. Enclosed are our completed applications for variances for hardcover and grading in the 0-751 setback zone. In addition to the other submittals required with the applica- tions, we have enclosed six (6) copies of information pre- pared by Arteka Landscape Architects, showing the existing property and structures with topographical contours, with a transparent overlay showing the proposed home and garage with revised land contours. The information also includes hardcover calculations made by Arteka showing the existing hardcover in the setback zones compared to the proposed hardcover in the same zones. We have also had a model of the proposed improved site made for your convenience in viewing and considering this matter. We have also had large scale overlays and drawings made which we would like to show you and your associates as part of our explanation of the proposed improvements. City of Orono Planning Commission June 23, 1989 Page Three B. The amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone will essentially remain the same at 33.7%. The drainage in this zone is essentially not toward the lake, but flows toward the basin to the Northwest of the property. C. There will be a net decrease in the total hardcover of 1,498 square feet. Excavating in the 0-75' Lakesnore Setback Zone The walkout excavation is related to the existing bank erosion stabilization needs, not only as a convenience to the utilization of the property by allowing a walkout lower level. The walkout then becomes an important second living level of the house instead of only a basement. A. The walkout excavation would be in conformity and character with the majority of the neighboring residences. B. The walkout excavation would allow a second lower living level, which compared to a two story above ground home, allows a home considerably lower in elevation that is in better conformity with the neighboring residences and shoreline appearance. C. The shoreline bank is 250' long, and although other methods of stabilization exist, the partial exca- vation, along with repairing part of the bank with Geo Fabric layers and planting of vegetation, would offer the following: a. Blend in harmoniously and in conformity with neighboring residences. b. The proposed combined excavation, bank stabili- zation, planting and sodding, along '.th rip - wrapping of the shoreline would Frevenc further bank erosion. The proposed corrective measures would protect the balance of the shoreline ecology and would provide a pleasing and harmonious visual impact of grass and vege- tation as seen from the lake. (_•S&z3', R , ,50.0 o l 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 ( u TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR RALPH D. BURGESS, JR. I LOT 11, SHORE HILLS HEN14EPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA i K���• E><IS71��V _ q4,•— } 24 �f�wwas • . .. ♦ cw�w� ' 911 t ,WraA ( 91,1 y16 I 1 ; I qq5} \ 1 1 1 1 I I 2.,* 91119r Scale: I" = 301 Date . 1-28-86 t.jA.— Datum: Mean Sea Level 9417.2: Spot Elevation LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of Lot 11, Shore Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the Southeasterly 15 feet, front and rear. I hereby certify thatthis topographic survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly registered civil engineer and land surveyor under the laws of tIW State of Minnesota. COFFIN 8 GRUtllti.;:ii, INC. Note: Boundary Informatlon IS from survey by others. Mark S. Gronbery Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, 1,+nd Surveyors and Plan,it•rs Survey for RALPH D. BURGESS, JR. N �o LEGe4o O IR.N MONUMENT •/r. ►owER roLe ►A. rLA.ITIACk AR6A MINIMUM 6UILOW4 seTIMACK LINT 4 — — OAS MAIM T I11,10"6ROUND M&P11046 CAEL• ss sANIrARy seweR WATER AWN .I oVOWeAO rotD6R 1.111E jWSW& E06e or 6t-rl1MINOW L•SS oit[' 4.65 i. tea' to r-Y; • � J j A;1 v M p / rl✓ LEGAL DESCRIPTION, All Of Los 11, SHOD¢ HILLS, Woos Dln County, Y.1on... accept 'Iu Sout M.. tally 15 tat, front And IA.,. fubl..t to ••saeAnts And •seer lctlona of ••cord. • .. CCOTIT ICATMI I horelry eartlfY to talph H. burgess. J.. that ti. a la • tr-r sml a act pl.t o[ a auraaY of tM sbova de Ac[!bd prop rt Y' I'—sa ld 1urv.y rhwn lhatl«•tlon of •11 Wlidl��e. •trot tuNa and otM[ IeDrwe We " rltu•lad o Nld preol Na. All •ppl lc•b1a setback lines and •11 aaAarnt r. right r-of-wy •^d any an. wclwn[• on or frw tM praeteea that A • town to the underelyne•. that Are vie lt+1. on the p..oL- or thAl •r• of record. WAYS: 1. All be•rin9a ehwn al n4 A.•sued. 7. Cur[ent •In Iron bul ldethack lines shwn A e frw the Illy o! Uronu 1. S•nit Ary • end •.tar -In d— rhwn ere frw tha t'lly of Oro,w. A. (�A ra In dATArahwn is froe, Mlrtne9.rcu loci tor. S. U,deryrwu,d t.l.phone cAnle'let. ehwn 1. frw II. Y. Talephom Co. Loc.lor. 6. ell ut lllty dA t. ehwn lA trNJ o v.11.bla lnf—tlon. 7. C•ll ut lllty conpnlas for —act feels t«At Ion. prior to Any • vAtlon. !. TMre • —1, on the pr-1-1 Aa pr tM tatl. opinlan try I'[.drlkeonn• Syron dated 11 16/6•,. 9. In. p[uprty --in. 5A.{00 • Aq .ra feat or 1.15 • The tr dotorel ned •rattly he .... a the y:oprty has lake ehure .hlch Ia 1rre9u1ar. I IttA[i1 -Wra''Wer r1N auerr l.nu,O. .ItTetf NO MlrMle n 1-1 G_ 4!N .t a tADq W Oft" SwIlOnww — - I Y A MAy AistAlrYO C. E. COULTER a ASSOCIATES, M. Lem TMf LAWS a TMA ATArs a YrwNu '���� PROFESSIONAI. REWSTERED SURVEYORS to.'.r ....o+r ..,.,..r oirlrLtoar ell, •II./M iM-eJU TO I -A P- L= lop \ � Y v / I � 1 / I _ .. I -A yO ctr NON ,=L4loK West Lafayette. All 4.4 W!G 1 Lake Admil nk. �cGT�GN c _ GLC�-� R�INT proposal ---_— Sill nIW WIflS, ' Lake M�netart. ►n+v�[p +fr-rc I ff, 95�t-� �------+- --ter --�--------- Like Minnetonka r ,..ne�err I i j I .M" .... l l ! I '1 6.GTI4N c GLZWz a' Ft)iNr _ �� c4n4cr,kv"b v D ANMWonka 7I MM Laka Area Existing Proposed 0'75' 75250' 2Sa- 0'-75- 7s-250' 2S0. 10y90 eft" IY.: �► y s� Y par*" i drftvwey o! 3t I H• c 1r M I -.. llidOW&O Patio f dock �Y O i J C�J! Y Awmd cape :1. 10 Vr Y o ♦ �. Y Nardc orar Total $F ... y'.,� s w i o f -7rs :•.tY 10 Hardcover +e Z f VT �F. . „ r Z. 'ram R7Y?� �:G �2lti id�a� bra Area house gcrage� driveway sidewalk patio deck landscape hardcover Total SF _ SF in each zone % Hardcover Existing Proposed a -75 75 250 250 t OL750. 75L2501 2504 D 9-�F bc-0 -SF D 5r' 1C� SF 4 9F iB�G Sr 15� Sp ;5413 5a -ZISZ 5P Acr. rF 12� s'r O SF ZA-7 tp 234 5F i o 3� SP i 2!o �r tt,(cEIO 5� I 5F O Sp t1,70i tp 2I?- ,gig; SF IF COUNCIL MEETING AUG 2 81989 CITY Of ORONO To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Cnairman Kelly Planning Commission Members City Administra�:or Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: August 17, 1989 Subject: 11433 Loren Butterfield - 3925 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permits/Variance - Public Hearing EXHIBITS A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Cook Letter of March 24, 1989 D - Survey of Property Locating wetland Area F. - Cook Review/Report Per Councils directives at the time of preliminary approval of Mr. Butterfields subdivision application (#1366), applicant was advised to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit for the removal of peat from the southern wetland prior to the City granting final approval of the plat. Glenn Cook's memo co ers the review of this application (Exhibit E). Additional Cos ents and Planning Coss:ission Reco endation - Aug."--c 25, 1989 Additional Exhibits - Exhibit F - Resolution #261C The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the conditional use permit/variance application of Loren Butterfield subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Glenn Cook's review (Exhibit E). The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the approval recommendation. zArl im nM= QMORO 40 Y113 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL SOWING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PkMKIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1433 WHEREAS, Loren Butterfield (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the -.-�perty located at 3925 Watertown Road within the City of Oroc.:. (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follow-,: Exhibit A (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, Secti%,.. 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Orono Resolution #2610 (Condition No. 15), the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to permit the annual excavation/removal of peat from the wetlands located within the property on the south of the Luce Line Trail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1433 2. The property is located in the RR-lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 5 acres of area, 2 acres of which must be contiguous. The property consists of a total of 20.56 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1989 and recommendE.. -proval of the proposed variance and conditional use permit, based on the following findings: A) Per Orono Resolution #2610, Condition 15, the applicant was directed to file a conditional use permit for the annual removal of peat used in the commercial growing of plants on the property. B) In a report dated August 17, 1989 by Glenn Cook, he noted that "the continued excavation of the wetland . . . on a limited scale (300 cubic yards) will have a minimal effect on the marsh". Page 1 nf 5 C) In that same report, Cook notes that the excavation will enhance wildlife habitat. D) Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of peat has been removed from the wetlands over the past ?0 years with- out any negative impact on the wetland or the wildlife habitat. E) The excavation of ponding areas will enhance wildlife habitat and improve water storage. 4. The City Council finc .. that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to t and do not apply generally to other property in this honing district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic condit',)ns, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other dange_ to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the continued annual excavation of peat from the wetland on a limited scale will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely _ffect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.55, Subdivision grants approval of a conditional use permit per Section 10.,j3, Subdivision 19 and per Orono Resolution #2610 (Condition 15), subject to the following conditions: 1. The annual excavation of peat from the wetland located to the south of the Luce Line shall be limited to 300 cubic yards. Page 2 of 5 2. Applicant must obtain an annual land alteration permit from the City of Orono specifying amount of peat to be removed, a plan for the work to be completed that year, and a plan for erosion control. j. Upon final approval of the proposed platting of this property (Application #1366), applicant shall agree to execute a Conservation and Flowage Easement that shall set forth the special conditions of this conditional use permit. If applicant has not filed for final plat approval by the 3eadline date of March 27, 1990 (per Orono Resolution 12610), applicant shall execute a Conservation and Flowage ::asement with the City no later than June 1, 1990 or this conditional use permit shall be null and void. •1. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and rust be exercised by application for a building permit for the retaining walls within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (August 28, 1990). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees :o the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of .he property. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Ha in, City C er Property Owner(c) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) James R. Grabek, Mayor The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of August, 1989, by James R. Crabek & 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 4 of 5 pr000T Tue,ll.l tl On for torn V, out to rl if lr' 1n tn! Soutn.f It Ovalt tl OI secLlOn )i-11e •27 Mfnnfpin Count.. MITI no Sota If ISTIMC LEGAL OESCRI►110x In at part Of the xortn..st j..rtel Or the $OLth.f!t O\artlr •11SCr lead a, f^•Ilo.l: esg lnnlnq At a Rolm to 0.e1 feet felt )f a C..aI e,a" feat SO,," !/ in nO r...... Corns 01 s.ld r.Oltn..tt OVert.r: tnlnCf ltrin 79.01' (... S19 feet to Ina 11111rl Vf cfrnA0 IfereorlF Cn.ntt Roao ` as): t ran,f So.t of /stl11/ along tale Cerleri t IO . DOlnt l'a'6 root :n :In fro. the !'ortn Ilse of Said .th..!t Quarts e nured percardlcular to l+to Korth line). thence vast to Ine •Olnt of ,trinnleq; .,So net 7.r! Quarter Cf in* 9O1.tR.ffl Q uArt.1 Of 1Cr1,eA +f f0110.1: 6eClnnlnq it a point on the Wftt I lnA of sold rnrtn•a st OL art N or eM Soxlh.lsl Ouster dlft- ant l7e,-2S 'eft Souln of tnf rOrtn•fft <ornlr. O/ laid SoYlh- .fit Ouar or; thfn(f !Oulh Ilorq told Ile!! Ilnf A 11fl1nCe 0/ lnonca fu t A9S /let: thence Rdren A59. It2' feet; ;herd. W!t 495 fH t to the tolnt o1 e991nnlnq, ALSO all the part of the 'Ott half of f4i•1 !o\tn•eft Oufr- ,or co lcrtlel of Iolloa : BeCtnntnq tt 'no Too-tn.est Car n.• 01 S.td South. eft Ou.rt/r: inert! rer!h Sion( the Vf!t Iln! O/ t u o Soltn.eft O\Irtor . nett once of 1 NO.� tea wire or Utf to A tClnt9575 1f.t Toutn o. tn♦ tor!n.all ctrner of t Atd Soltn.e!t Ouartfr: !nonce Eafl odrallfl .Itn the Sot -In I lne (f tale Se rt n.at101ftlnt7 of +9S fHf: !hl nce xortn Der+1111 •Itn the Veit Ilne O/ 111d SOuthgft Ou.Itfr a olft.nce If A 9.] left .c rf (. felt to t point e1e.62S left South O1 tit !o rin Iln. Of lald SOuIn.H l Ou. nlfr; inert • Eat[ p+r.I1.1 .'in ene `.Dorn Ilne of f... Soutn.aft Ou/rttr a OIS[In (f nl 2S.S fflL: thin(! $Ol:lh [Irallfl •Ire [nf \ett Ilne 01 said �Outh.ffl ou+r[er to tnf South Ilnf Cf ,..it Saul n..It O\.Itel. tnerCa Waft along the TO urn Ilne oI told Soutn•fst Ouster to lna to l at Of oe�lnnln9. •.Copt n19hy/1 And right -of -.at or the Electric Tnort Una rattle ILL 1n Se ct l on 2, ro.ninlp 11e 'Orin. fang. 21 x.!t of the Stn erinCtpal Mfrldlae, •Fnf ,ere df tc rlptldn x.r pa Ch.nq.d to reflect the Iln/l t titl. o,lnldn In at Is to to prlcared. .. Outlet A. xILLAVAI FARM, SCalf- I Inch r 110 leer O.tf Deter it; :2. I,nF . " c Iron —It" a To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelly Planning Commission Members City Acministrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: August 17, 1989 Subject: #1433 Loi•en Butterfield - 3925 Watertown Road - Conditiona' Use Permits/Variance - Public Hearing I=IBITS A - Application B - Property OwnerE List C - Cook Letter of March 24, 1989 D - Survey of Property Locating Wetland Area E - Cook Review/Report Per Councils directives at the time of preliminary approval of Mr. Butterfields subdivision application (#1366), applicant was advised to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit for the removal of peat from the southern wetland prior to the City granting final approval of the plat. Glenn Cook's memo covers the review of this application (Exhibit E). *u-;�3 60, =ono CITY CP ORONO - G n3RAL LAND USE APPLICATION 11491 --------------------- ----------------- ------_- PROPER2m CATION� Site Address c7 V ., .r.-ram .�.-✓ 4 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? -_ r: (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included y -r on required survey. - ------------- ------------------------------------------------------- I Phone - - -- (home) - APPLICANT Name .' Phone (work) 3 1'.ddress / City IA Zip.S -r !` --------------OWNER ----- --------------------------------------------- (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address Phone City Zip Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------- PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After -the -Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Commercial/industrial Use $200.00 f) Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' fakesho1 PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTSBR APPLICATIONS $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation with Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning $100.00 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 derail: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 3501(you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey 'existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 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 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 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 s knowledge. .rue and correct to the best of his/her � � '�7 Applicant's signature lt� Date / 0 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknow:edges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature ----------------------- Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unatle to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 12/01/88 BATCH 010 38 05-117-23 22 0004 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OH NER NAME M G A S R FILBRANDT TAXPAYER MICHAEL FILBRANDT - NRIME/ADDR 3960 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MI 55359 38 06-127-23 11 0004 PROP ADDR 040SO BAYSIDE RD ONMIER NAME O t M CONNELL .� TAXPAYER GARY D COINELL I NAME/ADDR 4050 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 r 38 31-118-23 44 0004 PROP AODR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ONNER NAME THOMAS E REIERSGORD ETAL TAXPAYER THOMAS E REIERSGORD / NAME/ADDR 4500 M 44TH ST MPLS MN 55424 38 32-118-?3 32 0003 PROP ADOR 03965 HATERTOFN RD O►NER NAME DAVID N STUBBS ETAL TAXPAYER DAVID N STUBBS NAME/ADDR 3965 MATERTONN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 HE►RIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOR►fATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OVNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 22 0007 03960 BAYSIDE RD MICHAEL G FILBRANDT MICHAEL FILBRANDT 3960 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAI11 MN 55359 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH 010 00012 NAME/ADDR 38 32-118-23 33 0004 3855 WATERTOWN RD / CATHARINE A CRAM 3760 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0002 04025 MATERTOYRN RD J S A P 0 RICE JEROIE STANLEY RICE 4025 14ATERT04N RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 44 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J S RICE 3 P DRAKE RICE JEROIE S RICE 4025 HATERT0114 RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0004 03955 HATERT0111 RD TERRY L KUTZ TERRY L KUTZ 3955 NATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06 117-23 11 0006 CURTIS & ELIZABETH LEVANG,� CURTIS & ELIZABETH LEVANG 4010 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 33 0005 NOT ASSIGNED CATHARINE A CRAM ✓ 3760 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT N0. PI43S401 PAGE 29 38 05-117-23 22 0009 03830 BAYSIDE RD BETTY MINER ET AL LANDIIARK CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 248 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 41 0003 04045 HATERTON RD EARL N DORN ETAL EARL N DORN 4045 NATERTOH N RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0001 03940 HATERTO►N RD ROBERT TAYLOR ETAL ROBERT TAYLOR 3940 HATERTOIN RCAD MAPLE PLAIN ►N 55359 38 32-118-23 33 0001 03925 HATERTONN RD LOREN BUTTERFIELD LOREMI BUTTERFIELD RT 2 BOX 43 MAPLE PLAIN ►N 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0005 S M & C A HARRIS ST€VEN M HARRIS 385 TURHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 r'S r•-r 1= — — _. .P F F• • •- 1 .1 - 'e i=, hJ ES T F' 1 i rJ �. .-. '' t_l r� Z r'. T E :_, P Ctea G. 2wW.roe► AL Motel A. Goraar, Pg. rh6Mar W. Peter -an. At 0170e1 A [rattan v $onestreo vooe� V. Sastre. ?:. P!. NMUS W.'O.W, ►i. Aknatf C. l%nM. Pt :;Wald C. Jvr-arat At jam a P. 'A41DM:. I!. i.ta IA. Powel,ty warr+r, PA. Ortut :O:ecr C Anae'!X lr00.•3:a •%. ts". M Al. :r-r/ A. I.'Waen. Pt srnn." P AnarrSGA, P!. Sutan PA. i.`r+un Rosene ~Grim L ur'ef. PL r.13m A. HeMW. P6. Ctin A. 3XnM sr.. "I. 'dent A :M -sin. Pt. fed IL Reis. st rur...4. g0OL P!. An deli; k yGrn R. cc:r. I L A,Mae1 T a2utTJnn. P!. Reserr C. Tuge[, A 1 A. irartlas t Nw^ P« xaotr: R. Pfellen6 ►g. Tar*li !. M-'" ►L Associates ,' Win^ IS' :1vra �. L::�Ot.. PL NawJy A S:n!arai P!. namol L ur *13. Engineers & Arthltects March 24, 1989 2 ow City of Orono D @ P. 0. Box 66 2 C�j9 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 II, Attn: Mr. Mike Gaffron Re: 139 - 1366 Butterfield Dear Mike: We have reviewed the proposc,� :.u7terfieli Subdivision. The property owner is currently using the pond i+. :.. ': and the wetlands in outlot A and 3 for agricultural purposes. The pond in Lot 1 has been c:aated by placing a berm across the vest side of a ravine. The pond has been excavated to a dopth of shout ten fee". the drainage area flowing to the pond is approximately 3 sees vhjzh would not noraally be adequate to keep water in a pond of this size. The property owner has diverted drainage to the pond from his greenhouse operations to provide more water The pond in Lot 1 serves a minimal purpose in the overall drainage scheme. 'It would recomend that the a drainage easement be provided over the pond. We would also recommend that the property cvner be allowed to use the pond water foc agriculture purposes as he has in the past. The Wetlands in outlot A and B have been excavated ove_ the past 30 years to provide planting soil. it appears that about 3000 cubic yards of Peat has been removed from the Wetlands. The excavation of ponding areas will enhance wildlife and improve water storage. We would recommend that the excavation be alloyed for agricu tural purposes. It may be desirable to place a limit on the volume to be excavated in any year to 300 cubic yards. A conse ration and flowage easement should be provided over the wetland area in outlot A and B. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTRO0, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRCG 2333 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 CiaiL��l�'�"3``:�•�;.. .�.riT,i :... :.!•`Yq�t`q':.•1.v = 'Sy. �.:J l; t. „r; w->.• _ •i, t�• 0. � .:•.1 rJywssiC. -. „r:..; .:>r rr,.� �1'/�.••{?tN rr :mp., `�. EXHIBIT...of Apw 1rePeMd SaN19111.0 for ,:'•1;:'. \ INN 1. Satterfield - t■ tet Setlowlt Orerter of SeHIM W.11t•: . __. a��, .'•j\\ efNlNt Cw1I. Nlwu:o . tt\\ '.`�"� H•{ w��t+l_�fiAQ''.,:.@�?�.�''aiF`;�:�'; i::. ••\\�:>;+�,�+�}7.`-�`ta���e�•r''�Ltt�t3'��.:'+�!'"���,. •"`S'iy�-.':'Y'r. f2ltlleE ifYl ttSctlatlM:• • nhis•r aeertt•1 / LOT I at• K au•. F LO I AF f.ara.•.r --Iy, toot ►art • .a :a.a of /ttartlf of too Se►trfsl Harter dolt" laea as lolleq: /ettoriq at a plot /M.ft Zeal tact of a IaJet t tes n/,a food Cr too owto.eat em"afr of sae Soet►•tett aeYlar: taorae Sono 2/Y3• tut 2.1/ sets to ter costullet tf ►ourtwo ta".tfwmariy carwtf as" to. aSl; t tr.ce Satiraatarlf •teat sale crterllr to a arar U/./ last !a ate Ire let rrta Its of said Sa"bM" Ilawtor ' Ietaar." aerareolcol&r to told Mete llrl. taros[• cost to Ice saln of astlorlM: "I SL tall ►art N fel1 ■orl/belt *rNIN cr tow laatleet$& 4aarttr Mlcrt►od a1 follNs: $Miter" It a Perot et Ube wet Ilse of told rerleaeat [tarter of too Seilo.oal evaraar :ISI• - ool /7/./IS trot SNte or too aefta.ett Carter of '.old loale- afn Ourtlr: ueeca !eau Reef uu cart 11M a :Iua•ce Of 17f.7125 stet: lMaCa fate t1i ot: tNaca ter to a)1.)lis reel: teooca Veit 415 #eat to tale Colo[ of Mtlet lot; ' •ISO all that Part of tee Colt Malt or Idle tatla.olt Oatar- ' ter .caurlaea, a6 Wlaws oc'etc losses at -time M Seat•1t'>:o[=p_-. yof.�a:_foata.eN•SrertKl:tMrce:INrtraaw aw'valt•Uor loate.ocl•Mrur-e'/lstawce'of Y2f0,1'too, mare ee-lots;-. to a flint 1717.!)7! Ifel Settw •/.lM terto.ftt Cerrlr e/ I61: Saeth.tlt Quarter; tha•ce tut parallel vita the Socth - list or told Seato.etl trader a dlttoaco of fit (*It: toeaCe oor lu 1o►el UI Iles tot tall 1t•/ of Wd SortSuott teorter J dl{tonC! tf 1)1.) #aft etre t. 1111 to / Pelol /7/.t2S at Sou16 of t N Mel• 11N 01 Cal/ SIYIa.elt tMrler: thgrcl last parallel rich the Sertw Ile of tale le•etow ll Owner a OIIU•co et 2S,S feet; hies[• Sealh laralleJ alto toe Crft IUf or Iold !ertaeelt OrartK to lM Sant floe cr tat: Seotoerst Otarur: Ibe C/ ►est •sett lM start llr or I Srftoettl Otertar to tr Vela e1 oeSUeelot, 'eateet a ltowll aad rlt.t-e#-eta[ of tee IJac talc Smeet LIM 1411.61. ale If SaCtlot It. IMooata Its eertb, aatp 27 he Of tM Sea ►rosctral MrINr._ • ho etc- NsirlrtlM ea/I N to.atN •• r•t le'• CM f1Y1 Iltlf elt.t« that 1. to to Mec ••eo. ALSO. -flptiall A. NIUMNAt Piton. '���riw'Lr�itlf� '�rs�tS-r•��1�`',�!"-_:w� v ���`i,�k�:x'`�ao.�=� N� &07- 1./IV �S c6fllt t +•'thole•. IK. fwr uo►• :ems' Se. •free 1, fta-1— tiw, t•.•, of nw•seto \\ S!alf: t I.ch . IN feet Oalf raceate, 21. IfM ••n.• \ L we amp l atr ' _ ou" _ . .ct�"►U \ _ n <! xf:ff 1R.ilr:�ki t; +it �`irwt_ : +� `"'li.�•i. �yfr!cr Lee l..ae t i der. r•tell \ . Bonestroo Otto G Sones000 PE JoseonC AAMrtksene PPE Rosene &ate A PE aKnara E tu�rxr PE Anderlik & PE lame, ` CE enn R Cootook PE G TP.omau E Nc�eihurK PE Associates Robes G x PE Marva Savaq L SorvaN PE Engineers & Architects August 17, 1989 City of Orono 1335 Brown Road So. Orono, MN 55323 A.ttn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: 139-1366 Butterfield Dear Jeanne: Kr-th A Gaoon PE MKr'ar C Sys J CasHe! PE RKhara `At FOSir PE JanYt R Maun, D ww"s. PE Donaa C S t9val PE KrnneM P ArvXr mas R !narton A i A Xny A 9WOW PE Keth A 9KhrtNM PE Gary F Rysanar PE Mart A -anson PE Mark R RORt PE Chan! A ErKkwn Tea K Rra PE Owen C RuSSek. A 1 A LCO M PawNSky MKhan T Rat.tnann PE Thomas E Ane" PE Haan M Olson Robert R P"" PE Hovalo A Sarrora. PE :uW M14 EOe" C PA Davd O loskota. PE DaneJ Eagrnon. PE -nomaf %;J Peterson PE Mart A Sm PE He have reviewed the Butterfield appliLaticn :and would recommend that the conditions outlined in our March 24th letter be followed. The pond in lot 1 should be retained for storm water purposes and a drainage easement should be provided. The continued excavation of the wetlands in outlots A 5 B on a limited scale (300 cu yds) will have a minimal effect on the marsh. The excavation will in fact enhance wild life habitat. Proper erosion control procedures should be set up around the excavation areas. The owner should provide a plan for the work to be completed. If you have any additional questions please contact this office. lours very truly, BONESTTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:df 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Pau, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2510 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY Ai'PROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 3925 WATERTOWN ROAD APPLICATION NO. 1366 W!'09REAS, Loren Butterfield on December 22, 1988 filed a formal subdivisic,r, application with the City for approval of a 2 lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the ^*ty of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 17, 1989, at which time all persons -:-siring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on February 13th and March 27th, 1989, the Ororo City Council considered the subdivision application of Loren Butterfield, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is l.o�ated within. the RR-1A Sina _e Family Rural of Res nimum of 5 acres buildable ala d withiDistrict, each newly requiring lot,l of which 2 acres must be build contiguous with the building site. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 20.56 acres total area, of which approximately 18.07 acres is considered dry buildable. Of the 20.56 total acres, approximately 5.37 acres are located on the south side of the Luce Line Trail right-of-way which is owned by the Department of Natural Resources. 3. The proposed plat contains 2 lots and 3 outlots. Proposed Lot 1, containing 11.44 dry buildable acres, is intended to remain with the existing residence and greenhouse conditional use that exist on the property. Lot 2, containing approximately 2.4 acres of dry land, is intended as the proposed new building site. Both Lots 1 and 2 are located north of the Luce Line Trail. Outlot A, located on the south side of the Luce Line Trail, is intended to remain withLot 2 s additional acreage making up the 5 acre dry buildable requiremen c. Outlot B, located on the south side of the Luce Line Trail, is intended to remain in common ownership with Lot 1. Page 1 of 6 City Of OR ) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUN,�iL NO. Z ^ 10 4. Lot 2 is proposed to gain access to Watertown Road via an easement over Outlot C, a strip of land 28' wide along the east lot line of the property. Outlot C is intended to remain in the same ownership as Lot 1, due to the potential for a future subdivision of Lot 1, and due to the location of the existing buildings adjacent tc Outluc ('. The setback line existing property contains approximately 248.9' of frontage on Watertown Road, and has a defined width at the 100' froroximately 192' of approximately 430'. Proposed Lot 1 will have aFF of frontage on Watertown Road and a defined width of 380'. Lot 2 requires a variance because it does not have frontage on a public road. Lot 2 has an east -west width dimension of 350' and an average depth of 300' at the intended building site. 6. Lot 1 requres a side setback variance for existing accessory i structures whiwill, as a result of the subdivision. be located l' from proposed Outlot C, where a 10' setback is normally required for structures. 7. Outlet C is Trn delopmentofzed as being nexist g vacant property to suitable the for access for futu east. B. Two distinct wetlands exist *r. 3 within r h = a° endaries of easements. Lot 1 and Outlots A and B will be subject tc, the apF F 9. Due to the increased traffic anticipated by development of a residence on Lot 2, the existing access to Watertown Road within Gutlot C, which will be shared by the owners of Lot 2 and the on Lot 1, must be urgraded Engineer, to create a safe green) --use operation access per the recommendations 10. A total of 33' of right-of-way southwest of the center line oft on Watertown Road shall ri hte ofe wayated on the plat if has n t been dedicatedthe title previously. verifies tha': such 9 11. Proposed Lot 1 contains more than 5 acres in contiguous dry buildable area and is not sub:�ct to testing for future drainfield sites as part of the subdivision process. Pr:liminary soil borings uitable sit havt been completed for Lotw2 andhin indicthe ate tedtb�undariesLot 2r mound systems likely Additional soil borings and percolation test are required for Lit to verify specific drainfield sites before fiial plat approval will be granted. Page 2 of 6 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2510 12. A single family residence can be constructed on Lot 2 meeting the 100' minim,:^+ setbacks from the north line of Lot 2 and the Luce Line Trail right. -Df-way line, and meeting the 50' side setbacks from the east and Best property lines of Lot 2, without the need for further variances. NOW, T"IEREFORE LE IT RESOLVED, that: based upon either one or more of the findings :voted above , the City Council of the Ci-v of Orono hereby approves the preliminary Fiat for Loren Butterfield at 3925 Watertown Road per the survey (attached as exhibit B hereto) by Coffin and Gronberg Inc., dated December 22, 1988 revised January 1, 1989, subject to the following cond.tions : 1. A "special lot combination" resolution shall be filed for Lot 2 and Outlot A specifying that the 2 parcels must. be sold as a unit. 2. Likewise a sr ecial lot combination for Lot 1 and Outlot B shall be required. 3. Outlot C shall act as a private driveway access serving Lot 2. The owner of Lot 1 shall remain t,e owner of Outlot C as a condition of subdivision approval, due to the proximity of Outlot C to existing buildings on Lot 1 and for long range planning purposes for this and neighboring properties. An access easement over Ou-tiat C granted to Lot 2 shall be executed by the owner of Lot 1 and Outlot C. 4. Tht- driveway access where Outlot C intersects with Watertown Road shall be upgraded per the recommPI'd itions of the City Engineer to provide a p-rpendicular, level access :ntrance, prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. A 9' variance is granted for setbacks to the east lot line of Lct 1 for the existing greenhouse buildings. The setbacks normally required for thcse structures would be 10' from the side lot line. 6. Lit 2 shall be granted a variance hecause it does not have frontage on a public road. 7. For principal structure setback purposes, the north line of Lot 2 shall be considered the front lot line, the east and west lines of Lot 2 will be considered side lot lines, and the southwest line of Lot 2 abutting the Luce Line Trai_ right-of-way is considered the rear lot line. Page 3 of 6 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO, '7610 8. The applicant is advised that any future subdivision of Lot 1 may require a w4 •d Outlot and cul-de-sac since a subdivision would create a I al for as many as 3 residences being served by a single acc -)ad. Applicant is further advised that it is the City's pol. 1 consolidate accesses when feasible for safety purposes. 9. The only structure allowed south of the Luce Line shall be a gazebo type recreational structure located within Outlot A, to be located at least 50' from the Luce Line right-of-way and meeting all other normal accessory structure requirements. 10. Subdivision approval will not be granted until complete on site sewage treatment soil testing information is provided, showing that primary and alternate drainfield sites exist within the boundaries of Lot 2. 11. If the title opinion indicates that right-of-way for Watertown Road has never formally dedicated, plat drawings shall indicate a dedication for 33' of right-of-way southwest of the center line of Watertown Road. 12. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the plat drawings, with easement widths conforming to the sketch attached as Exhibit C. 13. A drainage easement shall be shown on the plat drawings over the pond and channel in Lot 1. A drainage easement d?-)^ument shall be executed by the applicant, such document shall specify that applicant retains the right to withdraw water from this pond for agricultural purposes. 14. A Conservation and Flowage Easement shall be granted over the wetland in Outlots A and B, and shown on the plat drawings as "drainage easements". A Conservation and Flowage Easement document shall be executed by the applicant, such document shall reference conditions of the easement as being contained within the Conditional use Permit resolution, for the use of this wetland area. 15. Applicant shall file a conditional use permit appli of the wetland in Outlots A and B, upon receiving pre approval. Final plat apgrova1 shall not be granted uz that the conditional use permit hIRW been reviewed and 1 31f1la� City Council. IIDNnoD A113 3H0 NOIOS3a to Paymen : A )II"OPINIVAJ 0.00 for thelot compris )� I Page 4 of 6 .,r use p lat t ime the ing City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. '610 The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin and Gronberg Inc. attached as Exhibit B hereto. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines, or as modified in the attached sketch, Exhibit C. c) Designation and dedication of the wetlands as drainage easements on the plat. 2. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a ) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein 3ha ll sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed drainage easement and Conservation and Flowage Easement documents as noted in Conditions 13 & 14 above. Contact staff regarding format and legal description require- ments. d) Signed and executeO access easement over Lct C in favor of Lot 2. e) Signed and executed "special lot combination" resolutions for Lot 2 and Outlot A, and for Lot 1 and Outlot B. 3. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $250.00. a) Park dedication fee per current schedule: One new residential lot at 5 acre density = $100.00 per lot; total $100.00. b) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00. Page 5 of 6 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2,310 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 27th day of March, 1989. A1'1' -T tbi othy Ha in City Clerk Edwarrd Callaham, Jr., Acting Mayor � STATE OF INNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of March, 1989, by Edward Callahan, Jr. and Dcrothy M. Hallin, Acting Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. -1.r Notary 1 NJTAZI Uc.ic - MIN ..-:orA HFNN:iF114 Cc-Wy My ccrrml.a:u:. explre%6-8-93 My Commission Expires Page 6018f 6 lIJNnOD A110 31-11 30 NOI101OS38 OxI0HO Jo sna TO: Mayor Grabek and Council Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: August 14, 1989 SUBJ: #1435 - John & Gail Nafus, 2580 Dunwoody Avenue Variance -Public Hearing COUNCIL MEETING AUG 2 81989 CITY OF ORONO Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.25, subd. 6B, Required setback for sideyard adjacent to street Required = 15' Proposed = 14' Variance = 1' or .06% (43' from travelled road) Review of Hardcover Facts - Section 10.22, subd. 2 250'-500' setback area = 9,150 s.f. Allowed = 2,745 s.f. or 30% Existing = 2,770 s.f. or 3C.38 (Note: No change proposed within this setback area) 500'-1000' setback area = 12,050 s.f. Allowed = 4,496 s.f. or 35% �xisting = 660 s.f. or 5.1% ^posed = 1,408 s.f. or 11% (Note: No variance is required as a result of the proposed improvement) List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Certificate of Mailing Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit E - Floor Plan Exhibit F - Section Fxhihit G - Elevation Exhibit H - Survey Review of Application - Applicant proposes a 34' x 23+' storage addition to the rear of the existing house. Please note that this is not a garage addition, but a storage addition and will not require a new curb cut onto Casco Point Road. No hardcover variances will be required as a result of this improvement. Note, per the survey, that the addition will be located 43' from the travelled road at Casco Point Road shown at a 100' total dedicated width. Please review applicant's addendum, Exhibit D, that reviews the e Zoning File #1435-Nafus August 14, 1989 Page Two of Two rdships of the applicant. Briefly they are as follows: 1. Existing garage serves as storage area requiring family cars, etc., to be parked outside in driveway. 2. Husband is volunteer for Mound Fire Department and in winter time cars being stored out on the driveway create major problems for responding to emergencies in adequate time. 3. Garage had to be located to the east side of the rear because of the view windows along the western portion of the rear of the house. In addition, side and front yards do not have adequate area within the defined building envelope. 4. Location of house on lot prevents addition from meeting the one additional foot setback area. Once again because of the location of the viewing window and integrity of roof line. 5. Applicant notes no negative impact upon adjacent Orono Park. 6. Proposed location of addition does not require removal of any trees. Options of Action - Denial - If application is to be denied please refer to Section 10.08, subd. 3, and as amended in Ordinance 24, Second Series, 7/14/86. Approval - Subject to the findings and hardships notel by applicant. Approval is suLject to the condition that no new curb cut be allowed for this property as a result of this addition. All new curb cuts must be approved by the Public Works Director. Property is already served by two curb cuts. Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - August 24, 1989 Page 3 Discussions arose as to the conflict between the floor plans and the staff notations on the survey as to the exact dimensions of the garage. Staff has reconfirmed the garage is 24' and measures 14' setback from the street/side lot line as shown by the surveyor. Applicant seeks a 1' variance as originally stated in the staff memo. Although the building is proposed as principally a storage building, it will house automobiles that are not used daily in addition to the maintenance and yard equipment. Planning Commission advised the applicant to seek approval of an additional curb cut for a driveway to the new addition. Staff reminded the Planning Commission that there were already two curb cuts that serve the property and that the matter of approving a new curb cut must be resolved and approved by the Public Works Department. Applicant was advised that if the property was already served by two curb cuts that this request may result in the loss of one of the existing curb cuts. Staff recommended that the approving resolution for the variance include a notice to the current owner and any future owner that any attempt to create a driveway to the new storage/garage addition would require approvals from the Public Works Department. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation. city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE #1435 WHEREAS, John and Gail Nafus (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2580 Dunwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "t.ze property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning :ode Section 1.0.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a garage/storage addition, 24'x34', to the rear of the residence to be located 14' instead of 15' from the right-of-way of Casco Point Road requiring approval of a 1' setback variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1435. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1/2 acre in area. The property consists of 22,000 square feet. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The proposed addition will be located 43' from the travelled road portion of Casco Point Road. B) The garage had to be located to the east side of the rear because of the view windows along the western portion of the rear of the house. C) Side and front yards do not have adequate area within the defined building envelope to meet the setback requirements for the proposed 211x34' addition. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ,;OUNCIL NO. D) The proposed location of the addition does not require removal of any trees. 4. Tie City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commissiun. reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and she effect of the proposed variance on the health• safety and welfare of the community. 5. the City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are pecu..:. r to it ane.. do not apply generzlly to other property in thi_ zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a _ire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary t-) alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and =.ntent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B; to permit the construction of a 241x34' garage/storage addition to the rear of the house requiring a setback variance of 1', subject to the following conditions: 1. The owners are hereby advised that a new curb cut at Casco Point Road must be approved by the Public Works Department and that such a request may necessitate the removal of one of the two existing curb cuts at Casco Point Roar? and Dunwoody Avenue. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are perrnissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council Approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 28, 1990). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of tt- terms and conditions of this variance shall. constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted hereir, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4. Via undersAigned applicants have read, understood and hereby aqree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of August, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of P 198_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the persnn(3) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acr wledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. INHIBIT A That parr of Lot 4, Blo_k 7, Townsite of Langdon Park described as follows: Begin- ning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence Northwesterly along the Southwest- erl� line of said Lot 4 a distance of 123.24 feet; thence deflecting right 100 de- grees 12 minutes a disl.arice of 150.00 feet; thence deflecting left 16 degrees 33 minutes to the Northeasterly line of the Southwesterly 250.00 feet of said Lot 4; thence Southeasterly alonq said Northeasterly line of the Southwesterly 250.00 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Lot 4; thence Southwesterly along said Southeast- 0, erly line to the ,point of beginning; 1 . kd.,! rTY OF ORONO VARIAIQCy APPLICATION =nit4ai Application Fee S150.00 ($50.00 per each additional var' e) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from or'--31 application) - - After -the -Fact Fees (Double applicaticn fee) ------------------------------------------------------------ ?ROPERTY LOCATION Site address C) 5, ) oy r,c" Cn3 `-I A Property Identification Number 'L ?lease check one - Property abstract or torrens? - ittach legal .description to application it not included on - _equired survey. ___ ____ -ANT ___ _____ -------------- --- --------------------------------- (home) � L-L 3 Nam A I..l._ ���, 1 j`� o� ka Phona (wor'ti) Address : � s o o n ;. n ,.g o 'A 4 u City: W 0, y Z _ '.. ------------------------------------------------ 1--------------------- )wNER (if dif:e_ent than applicant) Phone (home Name Phone (work) Address: Ci`-r Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-RESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property i� aes.d -3l Other (specify) -------- ------------ o DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated C,;VC oo nstructicn Cost S Describe request in detail.: P VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Lot Width Hardcover Setback Vas lances ( Front V---Sic.%S7�Q4?m2L Rear) Other EU RDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty result'_.^.g from strict enforcement Of zoning reculatipns: - " ''1 ---------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- DESCXIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: -------------------------- REQUIRED ------------------------------------------------- SUBHITTTALS !J Completed Application Form '1�. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' iyou must obtain this list from Hennepin County Depar—�ent of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamned, legal sized envelopes (f10) ore -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). L4� Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed eie itions) if any changes in existing grade are propcsea. Plat :dap (obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please at-�:h a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this e c�tioz. Additional items as may be requested by City scazf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above infor-aat'-cn has not been 4-iclv'ed. "ertif cation by Zoning Department that Variance Application is cor-plete. Zoning Gf f.`ial' s Signa zure Date APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or irequested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or lunusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that information sup_olied is true and correct to the best of his/her e?pvlJ cars ; Signature �s 1..� n sb: Date 7 /24 (�7 Th., he%.y ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonah'a entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Ccmmission member , and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verirication thi re e t. Owner's Signature Date ------------------e --------- ------c ------ --y Applicant must have all submi als into the Cityof-ices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a Scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Z�:sni..g Office of this change prior to the meeting. r { .I.. ; y 11 ,, �_�` -.. '. J 1tCL-/1• .. Well •-•y i:.anl, ..v .v . ..i.. 1 w) •ff 0 oil . MiNIV P F To ly I k4 E Leo' .•' g ' ,O• F (0 7 s 6� lb 'O Sit@ l O f � 14 gd \Q rk\ I l�ol fix• rb Af P` D O IDS susow,il t�c,� ,.,n,urts NQl1lw uS•1 P,,,T Of WINSNICsl p 0. LOT I,SPRIIIG PARM 2N0 �. PUP&1/ / i. 2 Pi y `Fr• 1(ASTEii « 1 �'r lot �. cAsco Na"' POINT 40.0 • • grbf WORSHIP'S SUODIVISIOn •o \ ,) ° S r n _ • Q(` 1. SPRING .ARM 2"D CIV I'. �/�/ (tV� �(/ //� �e� 1 c�Q� j � �V i fl� •t ��f . qy� 0V CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENI:EPIN CITY OF ORONO ) I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Rearing concerning the matter of #1435, was mailed to the attached list of property owners . In Witi.ess Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 2nd day of August, 1989. Jane a Bosma I CITY OF ORONO - NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold public hearings in the Council Chambers at 1275 South Brown Road on Monday, August 21, 1989 to review the following land use applications: 1. #1430 Morse Homes, 4127 Oak Street, seeks hardcover and a setback variance for the installation of a tram within the lakeshore yard to facilitate access to lake and an average lakeshore setback variance for a proposed gazebo and deck within the 75-250' setback area. 2. #1432 Julia Whitney, 4470 Forest Lake Landing, seeks a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area for the proposed reconstruction of a new residence. 3. #1433 Loren Butterfield seeks a conditional use permit for the property located at 3925 Watertown Road for the removal of peat within a designated wetlands. 4. #1434 Gary Barr of 3034 Casco Point Road seeks a conditional use permit for a guest house or second residential unit on the property. 5. #1.435 John & Gail Nafus of 2580 Dunwoody Avenue seek a side street setback variance for a proposed attached garage addition. 6. #1436 Robert Mitchell, Jr. of 1101 Ferndale Road West seeks approval of variances (hardcover and lakeshore setback) to construct a second story on the existing home. No further expansion of the existing building envelope is proposed. 7. #1437 John B.A. Idstrom, II of 2580 Fox Street seeks a setback variance for an accessory building/barn that is proposed in the front yard in front of the prinr.ipal residence. 8. #1438 Mrs. Philip Pillsbury of 12, > itt's Point Road seeks height and setback variarnc ­ proposed wall within the street/rear yard of her. _df<L.snore property. 9. #1439 Lawrence E. Ldnghans of 1366 Rest Point Road seeks approval of an after -the -fact conditional use permit and hardcover/lakeshore setback variances for reconstruction of retaining walls and the instailation of new retaining walls within his lakeshore yard in addition to constructing a deck over the foundation of a hoat house that was damaged in the severe storm of July 1987. 10. #1440 First National Bank of the Lakes at 2445 Shadywood Road seeks a side setback variance and approval of a commer-:ial site plan for the proposed installation of a canopy to ::e located over an existing drive-in lane and partially over a new proposed lane located in the side yard. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available for review in the City offices by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission a. mt -- Je ne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator To be published the week of August 7, 1989. aq i I/a r i aL n C e. N at r f E Cl a it C ct nz to S S+ Y a u k i N cLe j U C o -$. J i �ye Sores. i'o /lei5 I,c.� :�oocl Wk j - 1 ILr C G S b- 7 O c �.�a � C. V 9- + C S"+ U 1,� T . (T� S C'.. CA y e- + S O e) O 1& OC k, .3) Ge1 c1 oC.1 rl` qT+4�tCA � O �l0LLS �!.—J �U noE Sao, I Vi ew OF 01-0.•,0 GC �arK H �v.r o w., �ea U �' �-.,� •-ten `r�i } rem ao -)O� vP__ +u e.rm0 U4L , S) N ae\C-1 C, j �pw�, Z- T CAn L�t�r otor- f- ; cw o.� �.t� f' I, o v �- C ca r -� b V- m O V (L cl pub (�r,�'0 ,S+re��'S� 1O���1, L .S -1' r e (�' O W S L O Sr•c}' ckcccS-S .�nrtiO's i I G jJ o J r i twg1/ 1,-�'�'t�n4 s+o ray n (� ra.S e.n+ 1 v,cgF u r a Cc..&3 ` o V i L..j tJ i Cab .Znd +-(0•r ,� OL 1 S� j ^_ _. t' b f : �•1 C:J d.tb * L a.:... .• ��Y�iJ'.w =.� i .....t . �.+r�;:�M� .. - ' N . q -/ kl '. 0 1 � k f 3 +o b SfaLi 40LAti J . .Jr I Q C� /40 N �2 apvd . ;A led C�4 A [' r 3,7 S �O li U)'v Q 3 �a ea 1 (� t 50 o6 sc•ry �;,,�,r .01 N� 4Vol b" L.. 0- r G Co \ CP dos �r ifa•doorf asoo!/. sou' /�su Am4 91 so 1 f'./f, / t, 859 t 3.I / 'I ell weMove SIDEWALK bs 59. FT. t4of 5% FT. y� NAR lc VE0. -- -'— II.O'1• I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the bound- aries of the following described property: That part of Lot 4, Block 7, Townslte of Langdon Park described as follows: Begin- ning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence Northwesterly along the Southwest- erly line of said lot 4 a distance of 123.24 feet; thence deflecting right 100 de- grees 12 minutes a distance of 150.00 feet; thence deflecting left 16 degrees 33 minutes to the Northeasterly line of the Southwesterly 250.00 feet of said Lot 4; thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly line of the Southwesterly 250.00 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Lot 4; thence Southwesterly along said Southeast- erly line to the point of beginning; and of the location of all existing buildings, if any, thereon, and of the existing location of all visible hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other im- provements or encroachments. COFFIN 6 GRONBERG, INC, t Mark S. Gronberg MN. Lic. No. 12755 Scale: 1 Inch 30 feet � Y Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners a Iron marker found yyyy� I Long lake, Minnesota o Iran marker set ( r Date July 12. 1989 Bearings shown are based upon an 3 assumed datum COUNCIL AIEETW / AUG 2 81989 1'O: Mayor Grabek and Council Planning Commission Chairman Kelley CITY OF ORONO Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: August 14, 1989 SOBJ: #1438 - Mrs. Philip W. Pillsbury, 1200 Bracketts Point Variances -Public Hearing Pertinent Sections of the Ordinance - Section 10.03, subd. 15C - Height of wall adjacent to Bracketts Point Road: Allowed = 3.5' or 42" Proposed = 4' or 48" Variance = 0.5' or 6" or 14% Section 10.23, subd. 6B - Sep %ck adjacent to Bracketts Point Road: Required = 50' Proposed= 3' from property line (15' f r(,- travelled road) Variance = 47' or 4% Review of Hardcover - 75-250' setback area = 3,160 s.f. Hardcover = 7,821* s.f. or 25% 250-500' setback area = 5,248 s.f. Hardcover = 532* s.f. or 2.1% *280 lineal feet of 8" wall included in -ver calculations List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Resol>>tion A2025, appr vine, ght variance for 6' wall in 1986 (applicat?.on #1027) Exhibit E - Site Plan Approved with Application 41027 Exhibit F - Elevation of Serpentine Wall Exhibit G - Current Site Plan Review of Application i1027 - Zn 1986 the Council approved a 6' high "serpentine" brick wall within the street yard adjacent to Bracketts Point Road and County 15 'review Exhibit E, note that wail was approved along County Roar.' 15 up to the west side of the existing drive serving the hous--, In granting approval, Council advised that the remaining -portions of the serpentine wall were to be insf '.ed at Zoning File #1438-Pillsbury August 14, 1989 Page Two of Two the legal 3.5' height. The applicant failed to proceed with the installation of the wall because the variations in height would impact the integrity of the design and landscape theme for this odd -shaped property. Review of Current Application - Please review Exhibit G, the revised plan requests approval of a 4' high sepentine wall installed per current site plan. The applicant's architect has presented several hardships and concerns that the owner has now that she has lived in the residence for over 4 years. Briefly, they are noted as follows: 1. Heavy traffic on County Road 15. This appears to be the only residence located directly on the corner and security becomes a major concern. 2. The site is low and there is no bank to discourage people from walking onto property. Thera have been instances where owner has been disr•ipted at cud ;ours of the night from persons with car problems on w'chin this vicinity of County Road 15 and Bracketts Point Road. 3. The street lamp ill in_*:�.. Liic enLiLe corner and the applicant's residence. Natur, _ plantings have been installed to provide screening from the he?dlights and the adjacent lights of the street. The problem is '.;hat there is no physical structure to prevent people from walking from the road onto the Property. The applicant propiseL, the installation of a 4' high serpentine wall running, 280' along the north pro-erty line, County Road 15 property line, Bracketts Point Road and the south property line, per E%hibit G. Once again the new proposal does not create a vision or sighting problem for any of the public using the adjacent roadways. The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent neighbors notified of the variance application. options of Action - Denial - please refer to the necessary fi.neings in Section 10.08, subd. 3, also as amended it. Ordinance 24, Second Series, 7/14/86. Approval - based on the hardships and findings noted above. Approval is subject to the condition that the applicant obtain a building permit prior to the installation of the 8" wide serpentine retaining wall. -Ndditional Comments and Planning Commissic,_ emendation - August 25, 1989 Page 3 The Plannin, Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed h�3ight variance and setback variance for the 4' serpentine wall. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the approval recommendation of the Planning Commission. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C) AND SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) PILE #1438 WHEREAS, Mrs. Philip W. Pillsbury (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property loca::ed at 1200 Brackett's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the appllc:�nt has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and Section 10.23, Subuivision 6 (B) to perlr.it the installation of a 4' high wall within the required front/street yard where only a 3h' high wall is allowed and located approximately 3' from the street lot line of Brackett's Point Road where a 50' setback is required. NOW, THEREFORE, PS IT RESOLVED by the City Council of ron Ainnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1438. 2. The proper.', is located in the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore ResiC.,.tial Zoni.7 District requiring 2 acres in area. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the followin7 findings: A) The locz, . � of the wall will present no hazards or sighting pr- cros for users of County Road 15 or Brackett's z Road. B) The property is located on a Y. y curved intersection of County Road 15 and security has become a major concern for the applicant. Page 1 of 4 C) The property is at the same level as the County Road and s.irrounding properties have steep rising banks to discourage pedistrians from walking onto property. The applicant has noted instances where persons with car problems within the vicinity of the intersection seek help at her residence at odd hours of the night. D) The street lamp illuminates the entire corner and the applicant's residence. Natural plantings have been installed to provide screening from the headlights and the adjacent lights of the street, but the problem is that there is no physical barrier to prevent people from walking from the road immedi.r.;�.r ' y onto the property. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDM '._JD CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the installation of a 4' high wall within the side street yard of 9 property where only a 3h' high wall is allowed and to be plat 3' from the street/side lot line instead of the required 501, su.,act to the following conditions: 1. Applicant or applicant's representative m• htai,i a building permit for the installation of wia.- retaining wall. Page 2 of 4 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 28, 1990). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meef-,.ng held on the 28th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of August, 1989, 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 Commissic sires Page 3 of 4 J.CITY UP Oi,,JNO - VARIANCE APPLICATION It 1LT2 s r �# Initial Apoi_cat'-on Fee $150.00 ($SG.00 per each additional variance) - Renewal Variance Fee S75.1- (no change from original application) After -the -Fact, Fees (DouJle application fee) ---------------------------- I PROPERTY LOCATION ISite Address 1200 Bracketts Point Road Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 11-117-23-32-0001 Please check one - Property abstract or x torrens? Attach legal-escription to application if not included on requiredsurvey------------------------------------ ------------------------ - APPLICANT Phone ( home) 473-8682 Name Mrs. Philip W. Pillsbury Phone (work) Address: 1200 Bracketts Point City: Orono Zio : 35391 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER (if different than aoclicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: Date Property Acquired May 1, 1986 (month/year ) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ------------------------------------------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District LA-1A Present Use of Property Residential Residential Other (specify) _ _ ------- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 48,000.00 (approx. Describe request in detail: Height variance for proposed location of sere wa within rear/street/yard VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( Front Other Hardcover Side x Rear) 3ARDSSIP Describe undue har#134i nor practical ' faculty resulting from st-ic-- enforcement of zoning regulations: Heavy traffic on County Road 15. ^c1•• residence directly on corner. security is a concern. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'ESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditicns preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: Lot borders County Road 15, site is low ..nd there is no bank to discourage people from walking onto the property- S 1 mn f 11'4 illumin r g rrorner. ----------�{----------------------------------------------------------------- .yEQOIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 130' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). .. 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. Topographic surrey (existing and proposed elevations) if any c^anges in existing grade are proposed. I5. Plat Map (obtained with property cwners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. i8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. {------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17he ^he Applicant and Property Owner must sign t.iis application. Please remember that your variance applica;._cn is not complete if the a:.ove -nrormation has not been included. ----------------------•----------------------------------------------------- artification by Zcnina Department that Variance Application is complete. aning Official's Signature Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PPLICANT' S S IG X iTQRL' ie applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or squested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fens and/or :usual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that ze information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her .:owledge . 1 _ plicant's Signature -��� �,�� �_ .� ( .StX�� 1.1 Date '.+HERS SIGNATURE e owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further trorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, ents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- on and verification of this re�uest. ier's Signature u��� �� S���L yc, Date ---------------------------------------------------------- )licant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the inning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the .rd Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled riew meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is Able to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an :1horized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning 'ice of this change prior to the meeting. ! RUN DATE 07/24/89 'BATCH 008 38 11-117-23 23 0006 PROP ADDR 01491 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME R H EVAUS TAXPAYER R H EVANS NAME/ADDR 1491 SHORELINi' DRIVE WAYZATA IN SS391 38 11-117-23 23 OU16 PROP ADDR 01480 GREEN TREES RD OIVIER NAME C i S PLATOU TAXPAYER CARL A SUSAN PLATOU NAITE/ADDR 1480 GREEN TREES RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 11-117-23 32 0013 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME CORINNE GRIFFITH PILLSBURY TAXPAYER CORIMNE 0 PILLSBURY NAME/ADDR 1300 TCF TOWER MPLS HN 55402 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INF, -TON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LI ' 38 11-117-23 23 000. 01489 SHORELINE OR ELVER S CONOVER 3 WI ELVER S CONOVER 1489 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 32 0001 01200 BRACKETTS POINT RO CORIINIE GRIFFITH PILLSBURY CORINNE G PILLSBURY 1300 TCF TONER MPLS M 55402 38 11-117-23 32 0018 01220 BRACKETTS POINT RD ELLA P CROSBY ELLA P CROSDY 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RD WAYZATA I11 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 19 38 11-117-23 23 0015 01510 GREEN TREES RD J J 3 J TURNBLACER JOHN J i JOANN TURNBLACER 1510 GREEN TREES RD WAYZATA 121 55391 38 11-117-23 32 0010 01265 ERACKETTS POINT RD MICHAEL E LYIN III i WIFE MICHAEL t JORJA LYNN III 1265 BRACKETTS POi11T WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 008 00008 ,41 # .94 Q.J� 8 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEAR: THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS DF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIONP TO THE BEST DF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 7 DATE `f/ BY �� t\_ r. �. / I �til �hf-• y?� � - 1 i :•,� qn, V� LL �n _ �! F 1'11P ibc ees:'b �5091 f�s, ; �K£Zt5 rr P F r e"' 6qj — I1�—�G S: ,`�' f e• OWC �_ > > r 3ry� ` /19 IT,..e4 aPh L i ' ry r, ter✓, dq .'� �•,�r" �!0 .. �� u. '' '� _- _' i_ � __ th•, - - - . r. y�- " D_'r Cit of ORONO 'V RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL < N0. 2024 OF ewe • A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIAACE TO •� WNICIPAL ZONING CODE 4' STion 10.03. SUBDIVISION 15 (C) EC FILE 01027 WHEREAS, Corinne G. Pillsbury (hereinafter "the applicant") ,may is the owner of the property located at 1200 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as SR follows: ' Those parts of Lots 1 and 10, and of the abandoned parts of ' Center Avenue and of the County Road as laid out on the plat of E� Rearrangement of Orono Point described as beginning at the point''_.` of intersection of the Westerly line of Lot 3 extended and the --fir `j extension of the North line of the South 100 test o! Lot li thence Northwesterly along the extension of said westerly line of Lot 3 to its intersection with the Southerly line of County Road No. 7 as now laid outs thence Zasterly and Northeasterly alonq the Southerly line of said road to its intersection wit" the extension of the North line of Lot 1; thence East to the Northeast corner. of Lot 1; thence Southerly along the Easterlp of the "r line oLot feet intersection ii ne Of Lot 1; thence n to he poiNorthth the of South100beginning I all in Rearrangement of Orono Point, according to the plat; tnereot on Zile or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said County; (her- "Le. :he 'prope-ty')t and WHEREAS, the applicant hay ,.plied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sect' -on .0.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to permit the construction of a 6 foc.t h.gh wall within the street yard 4acent to ,% major distanceeof 1251feet hwhere only at is not aaJ3 to 3% foot wall is allowed. thoroughfare for a wed NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, k:,nnesota r FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1027. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The proposed variance, as amended by the Council, will create no P.arards or sightinq problems for users of County Road 15 or bracketts Point Road. pnge 1 of isv • • . r. r w.....�. •„r. .., �F ML PF N City of ORONO C I T Y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2024 OF �V. ORONO 4. The property in located on a busy curved section of County Road 15 requiring screening Prom noise and car lights along the major roadway. 5. A privacy fence in excess of 3h feet has been located adjacent to the County Road and Brack.tta Point Road for many years on the property. 6. The structure is unique and to decrease ttu height within a single section of wall would destroy the integrity of the structure. 7. The City Council ties considerou this application including the findings and recommendations of -ho ;1anning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposad variance an the health, safety and welfare of the ki community. 8. The City Council finds that the conditionb agiating on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to o'-Zez property in this toning district; that granting the:variancol",�­. would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard oz other danger to nisiqhboring,propoarty; would not merely serve as % convenience -to the applicant,, but' As'. necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship, or., dif f icu Ity, is H necessary to preserve a substantial property!- rif:ht- "of the applicant;-and would be in k*epinS with.the spirit end intent 0!V the Zoning 'Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. COOCT-PSIONS, ORD= AND COWITIONS t. Based uoon one or more of the above !findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Se..tion 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) to amend applicant's original rroporil and to permit the zonstruction of a 6 foot high wall within tne street yard of the property adjacent to Brackett& Point Road for a distance of approximately 55 feet or up to the north side of the entrance drive, subject to the followit,g conditions: 1. Authorities 9,7anted by this variance run with the grog arty not with thm applicant, but are permissive only and mus, be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of C uncil approval, or this vmr4.ance wi 11 expire on that date (July 28, 1987). Page 2 of 4 VIM OC LdT 1 ',ZS� .9S q "�• Air ar O�+ A � ✓ ' � • Xt + ..i�Awa1 Mee • jt f vik,OIL 4b\ . fd+ , L ►..i v CAL �`.ti.��_ AOofr +booft 351 •1 ri Lb C �r S!• 1 Ss5 6 / N or. \\ asp coolH Rd 15 st zs� •.•Z r �0. 4y/ , G•"r...�Ol•ar 4d • , 4001, � • � � � % . •ems �; f a• w• N O e _ Z p \/' �� � - '� r � fi°�1 • � ! l #r e1- aal � ~ n° l LO is- 41 L bb. IV . yy1 1 j .-r J..wrw•Oub �{ � • i O I 'y �' 1 J • 3S� i to ci r, ''� sss r► lm^' gas � Z � �0 i P.O r� / ocf / WEST NC2T..r Li,..E of LOT •>_ -252.9 \ h tp WI Ak be SDI* Cal c. W e:•. ��. _ sip —-247.75 WEST- / ! u2 duo ra rvOCTH LINE OF SOUTH 100 Fl.CT OF LC+T 1 / . COUNCIL MEEnNC; ' / AUG 2 81989 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson CITY OF ORONO From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Date: August 23, 1989 Subject: #1406 Dennis F. Kumlin, 2665 Fox Street - Road Nare Request Staff has reviewed the five name choices presented by applicant. Staff finds "Gander Road", the third choice, the most acceptable finding n.) conflict with existing road names within the City nor within adjacent cities. Upon formal approval by the Council of the road name, applicant will be responsible for payment of a 6top Sign and Street Name Sign. This payment must be submitted before staff can place an order for signs. Total Payment = $150.00 ($75.00 street sign/$75.00 stop sign - this fee includes the installation of both signs by the City.) �L£6LOML qsL� 'a '0 ra • Al: . 33 lDT N• �• Lit= LOT, 21 . SOT 20,< P• f3 r ,`)i _ - a F • A -. •, .:i a `�' •• t .. , ., • � . -K s..._ .. r{�M-.�-1.11�st r 1 . ; r ' 3i " �33yaii 2 � � `�•\ c`.• + - « r.i--•.�1�='�� tl/N�Y!vFC YF IF'n:•n - •7'a.; t-` _ :r 't.a •rrr♦ -.i. _ r 1 a :ram. �. `� �s`'ia:'r%•1' rfs`(^ - _yj isv4'v�!.:i' 36.25 si! Mc �S.'hA" •• _LOT: 9vie LOr. ze47 _ .^ 1. •~ � ►• :!Mt. 1 '� fit +� +j .. r O � MyiA -•".r. L:: r .a,!�1Mw �•,'-�••.7i w:S� J_ a , �. �y �.ir 1't 1 � � / •�� r «. • .. - �^ A CY�11 rrr: ..'� =s r /w•+•2: wY:�.,} 31 �_ t: ! J2 •� nt so 'se 13�.15 \}�• : i'• : 7 ► .• • 4 LOT 10 •. f ow //723J, C4 2. ( ff O nt in 103 61 l r 1 _.. 3-a ..,.�._ — - • p - •! _ t ,�a. - _ ; [ -- + = + - + _ nt re oaf �A�{' r •1' ».q .� -. • �Y S � •• •-. -Ifr! •r-- a• �i � r 33 - l7t st \•�` •• rr _OV��' •t st w t, i Z-3 "IS.- 2, a. T h E (,$) 0, BE (A) r r, q w,�0`. LOT 2T (t�•- - v. r i�_ �aV !� � AIVER R. FREEMAN - 'COUNTY SURVEYOR 7: -- HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINK' _ L I 19 8TACA ROSTER FOBTlRST St/ _,•,�_40.2' FOUNTAIN AVE N NO _--� FOUNTAIN LA Pl .------..-.�_.]0•le .B•24 POUNTAW ►L STP -._. FOUR OAKS RO EO FOUIW IS AY! FOR CT CNN ...-............. ....... 4AJE FORDO CNN .__..._.�..._.___ .. FOX PL MH ..._ .._ ..�.. ... !e-•L3 PDX RO LL---._.•-.. .._ 'D-sA • FOX ADD aM.._._... .._.._.... 46.5 rOX ST NO ....r___..... _ _ . 4c-z" FOX ST OR FOX ST NW AN...._ ....--..-......._� FOX TR LL .._.._. .......-..-�iWe 2O SA ROX N1LL OR CNN _. __.._...... FOX HOLLOW OR CNN FOX MEADOWS LA EO FOX A16GE CT EO FOX RIDGE CT WS/ FOX NIOGE DR WS/ FOX RUN CIR E/ ._.....-...._J rOX RUN AO wC . •--•-..- FOX VALLEY CA COP --- 40J6 FOXBORO AYE WV ..-_..------- _.-. 2A- IE FOXBORO CT WY .---... ... -_.-_- A-IE FOXBORO LA WB _ FORD PTa00 UK _ _-._ 3A-32 FO:IOLOvECIR VT ............... 484E FOXGLOVE ST OPN _._ _.... 3D-4A PDXNILL AVE 'WY _ _.... __ 2A-IE FOKNILL AVE N NO - 20-3 28-5e FOXUNE QR COR .. IA-? FOXPDIMT CIA eRN ...._... .___-. SCJ1 FOXFpIMT RO SON _.. ._..... -. SC-4e PORRIDGE RO OR _.._ 2C•13 PORRIDGE RO STP __._ . FOXTAIL CT LL SO -SA FOXTAIL DR LL-.__....__--..... SD•SA FOXWODO CT N8_ .._..._.- _... _ ___ IC• t l FRAILLN 3T NS ----- ._.._-.-.__.._ 70•e1 RRAILER ST NE Ht .. ......_.__ _... SO• tC FRAME AVE %MT ...____..... _... 3A-12 FRANCE AVE N SC ..._... SC-158-t, FAANCE Avg N 80 ___.. 40.4 4C-E FRANC.'- AVE N GV .... .. 38.25 FRANCE AVE N RB ............ - SG 1 f FRANCE AVE s eL...._--._ $0.44 FRANCS AVE S ED ...._ _4GJ3 SC -AI FRANCE AVE S MPL ----- _. SO.2S SC-33 FPANCEAVE 3 3L..__.. __.._. 5643 FRANCE BLVD CRT ....._ ... sr-40 FRANCE CIO CRT _..___-_ SB-e0 PRANCE Pt BC ...._.._... 4A-11 FRANCESCA AVE N NO .__ _ ._ 2WSE FRANCHISE AVE AV _ _ tC•54 FRANCHISE AVE LY _.. _... !&.0 FRAMCNtSE WAY LV _. 1C•b FRANCIS ST SIR _........ , 3A•44 PRAHA ST MW _ 48.2E FRANK ST STP _.T. ... Af.2E "44 FRA► aLAN0 ST MT ...._... ._- 4A-21 F'RANKUN AVG PRAWLIN AV! $L - ----.-_ FRANKUN AVE STP _..-- IDiI FRANKLlN Avg E MIL FRANKUN Avg SE MPL...._.....___. SO.2g PPAMKUM AVE W UK .-SO-26I0-2e FRANKLIN CIO g EP .-......--. MAO RRAMKUN CIA $E PR.... 04 ? R FRANKLIN LA A......_.--_.._.�_-- FRANKLIN PL FRANKLAN NO MO FRANKLIN ST 4"1 FRANKUN ST Y11 ... _.. ..._.._ SO.3C PRAMKUN ST MW WT ^- ._--.- 3C•2t8 FRANKUNlT SW wT _.__...._._.30•tte FRAMKUN TtA UK.._.. _.._.-.......SO-te PRANKUNTASEM .._......_.___ SMI PRANILBOMAVE STI .....-._- 3C-21 FRAM►O NO EP . .... - -. SAJr ;E-4& rWIPPATN LY .-...._.-____. FRALEP ST Ng EB ....._._..__...___ w IC FRA2ER WAY LV 18.10 PRIAM ON US ___-.......-._....... ONgARST NO _ 3A-U S63" FRED STP ..._.___..- d29 Fagot" CT NB . ----- _ _ FREDERICK AVE SL - FRIDEPICK PKWV NOW FREOEPK:KRO NA$ .__.._.-. FRUMPRCK ST MW ._.___-...T� FRlogNICK ST %SP ..._._........ 1C•il FREDERICKS' OR FREEBORN AVg "I -. 3A-12 FPegLANO Ave N 40-.....-_._._. ie-SB FREEMAN AVE OEL 1&14A FREEPORT AVE AA ._._.._--.-.- 2A'tg FAEEPOOT CT 0" IA -I! FRlgPORTlT1Y11VER -.EGI FREEWAY OLVO OC - --�WO, 10.to FREEWAY 040 MN _. -.-.S" FREgWAY NON MN .SA-a1 FREEWAY RC S MM 1A-Al R(QOMNT AAVE v E IC4e PNEMM T MMMW . ...._....30.2e FREMONT AVg SW ...... --._ .... _30-2e FREMONT AVE N BC_...... ---- . 10- to- 'A•'@ FREMONT AVE N 60 -_.... .1O• t0 FPEMONT AVE N MPL ........_id•IE.t62e FREMONT AVE NW PR .--_._-.. -_-3A.4r FPEMONT AVE S OL ._...-. '-4E 8 FREMONT A"P S ePN _.___:28-S1 28-4E FREMONT A. S MPL. FPEMOMY AVL S RR FREMONT CT N SP .._..._..--_ ---- .._.. IC-10 FREMONT PI. DON ._....._.___......_-_1C.S1 FREMONT ST AK _._....._ t0-2 FPEMCNT ST Sw WT T ._....._--.30.238 FRENCH LAKE RO CN .._____-... A•4 FRENCH LAKE RO OP PRE4CN LAKE NO E OYN rNENCN LAKE no. OYN ... _... FRENCNMEN RG HO... .__ . _ _ 1`•SB FRESNO ST NW e3F --. ....... _-.--iG•1 FRIAR OR EP .--- .....- _.. ------ 184E FRIAR LA MK .. .____....-...-SA�'I FPiOLEY ST PR :.. F111NOSMPLA EON FA,ENOSHI►LAN CHS ------- SB.-ABA FRIESLAND AVE -VY __._.. 2A-It FPISSIE AVE MIN FROMMESCIP MK..._....-....._.-__1042 FRONT AVE AK ...... 10.2 FNCF T AVE 41) ....... ..--....._..-_ICJS FRONT AVE STP .--- .............__. 4C•21 FRONT ST PPS ... ........ ....._-......10.12 FRONT ST cION _............... .....-...10JS FRONT ST wD ........-_-.-.. SA.31 FOONTENAC AVE Ov .. _.._..........46-25 FRCNTENAC, Pt STP ._.... ..._...10.2? FOONPEO LA BPN . -, _...._.... 4C-S? FNOMTIEA TN GIN...--...- ............._ 484/ FROST AVE MW .....- __... __ ._ WIN FROST ST SSP SID-" FROST POINT CIA SE ON --- !"? ,AT ST FN -..__ ... .._ . .. 3B-2r FROST RV _... ...... ....-- ]O-tE.3A-2f FRY ST STP --- 30.2r FULBRtOHT GA SE FOR _.... IA.48 FULHAM ST LO . - .. .2&2f rULNAM 31 AV FULNAMST STP as -it rULLeR Ave STP _.._ - SA45 FUULP PO EP ...... FULLiR ST ED - -..... :. S" FVLLeP ST Stoll ., _..._- ., _ _. 40-44 SC-2-24 q.rofsritMK -- .... .... FURLONG AVP MN _-- 3" FUPMAM ST A.E I.T ... 40. 10.4G3A FUMASS CT NOW C-21 PUPNeSS ST MW tc.21 115.2E WUP04M ST STP ._ is-2E FWOCT LL - - ...... .... 10-SA G OCT Q _ .. _ __.... _ t8.10 0 ST COR 0 ST LP D ST No ._.---- OAAGE IA LL a sA GAs"Prr CIO EO .. _.............-- -. _ 4C-S GAS" Tot to -_.----- .... 'GSo GABLEAAVG Se NOT __._ __.._ 29 GASPICLOO STP OAOWELL LA NO tt "OE AVG LY -- _ 1C-ro GAGg WAY LV ._ tc- To SC40A GAIL! RO MTR _ --__� ULAXIE AVE IG..... ...-. IA48 OALAAiF AVE W AV IC-SdLIA-10 GALAXI! CT W AV ........__....-___ to -so GALAAIE WAr OALA.XV DO C► ......... ..---_.... ST LY .__..__._-_ SSo- 1 GALEDGNtOA ^•_ GALE PO *0 __.. ____ .. --_ GALEM OR WV -. _. _.._.- •. IA- t! GALENA AVG LV.,.- 18 10 _....--____ GALENA ST Ne...._....... .. S0-e+ GALL AVE NOW .._... _. _..... .. G21 GALLAGNIN Oft EO .-_...«.. .- SC-41 GALLANAO RD M NMo ..__...____..- GALLUPCT AV ___.... 1`6B GALAM BLVD CNN GAL►+N LA SNP ... _........ - .__...._..2A4e GAL" LAAE RO SMR-_...... GALTIEA CM AV ._.._...____.. __ 1D•1 0 GAVIEN ON BAN .. _.. _.... _ - GA: nap PL BAN__.... ._�_.._ GAL TIED OIL SV _IO�•1i QALTIIR ST RV %"T`to ST STP .....---- -^- OAL-IEP ST SV �. 10•+t __.r GA►WN AVg RASP J.....---_••_- ,C•3g GALWAY CIA 90M GALWAY CIO wE GALWAY CT AV ...... .,_- ... . ..._... tQ-Se GALWAY ON ED..._--._.-.-38'AI GALWAY NO MO_-__ 38.n OALWAT RO GAMBLI OR SL ._._..... _ 40.2E GAMg FARM ROE ]AME FARM AD N MTR _-_. -_- SO.22A GAMECOCK TO OR _.___ _. _ 3"1 OAMEPAPM RD IMO._--_•._._=� WUA G AMNON OR LV GAMMON NO STP -......_-3045 GAMMON WAY AV _._..........._-- 10•6E GAMMON WAY LV-_.....__...__... 'C•:O (JAMBE AVE Mre___.._____..,.- IA GARCIA WAY LV ._...---..._..--.-___ 1G10, OAROENAV! EO__..--___ -.---•. 3AJ' GARDEN AVE PH __........ _ _ .......... 3A-2 r GARDEN BLVD 00 _.. _- _..._ _-]A•21 GAPOEN CIP OL ..._...._...._..._-_'G�e QAROENCT 00 GARDEN CT WO GARDEN ON BRN GARDEN OR WE..... GAROEMOLEN V GARDEN LA COA ._... _._ _......_. 30-`__.284@ GARDEN LA MO .__.....�-- -- GA POEN LA MM GARDEN LA SNK...__....._.. GARDEN LA WBL GARIDEM LA w81 GARDEN RO SMA __....._....__-_... GANOEM ST CA ..._.._-----••..-•-._ 6•S7 GAPOEN TO EO GARDEN WAY LY ...... GARDEN VIEW DO AV .-....... 40.57 4A-4E GARDENA AVE OR _--........._... _. 4D-'1 GAROENA GA FR ..._ __ .._.... .. _40. 10 GAROEMA LA FA .. . _....__.40 o GANOINgm OR M WOL - --_.--....... 10.13 OAMMMETTE OR S WOL .__..._ 10. 13 GARDENVIEW CT AV .-_.. GARDNER LA OL _ .. . _ 3C 13 OAROMER ST JO ...... _.. - 1T GAPONEAST WAIF _--. SC-23.IC-24 _ GAAFIELOAVE r•`4A _ . . 'C-Sr GARFIEL.D AVG S BL ..20.42.28-AE GARFIELO AVE S CN.... _. -...._.-_ IA-4 GARFIELD AVE 3 MPL GARFIELOAVE SNP ...... �....•_'BJI GAPFIELOCM EP .......--._......_,_IG40 GAPPIELOST AN .__..___.-.__...,_._-20-1 GAPFIELOST STP •_...___ 'BJg GARFIELD ST M! MPL OAALAMO AVE AV _......._ --..... -0-5E GAALANO LAN MG ._.-_..._..2CJA IA-4 GAPLANO LA N PL .... _......_ 10-1E.;BB-fo GARNER AVE LY _._ _...... __ GARNER CT AV _. _ !&So GAMAP WAY AV ...-- ... -. 8.34 GARNET CT NAM _ . .. _ •C-4B GARNET OR EO C-SO GANNET LA EO ..... •GSO JAPNET PT to. CSO GARNET ST Mw AA - - 4- GAPPE- AVG AV .. __.. 10 s4 OAPRISONLA COR _....-..__.-_ GAAAISOM LA 90 ...... 44A41 �. -- WPPISON RO COO �_......___.... - . 4A� GAP"ON ST SON DAAINSDM WAY EP ........ ........ IAM GARWOODNO OP ._ _ _ 3C 2 DART AVE LTT .._.-_.. .....--: GARY BLVD CO -- ---. 33A� _-._- GARY Oft SPK _2052 - GARY PL ST7 ._.---_.....--. 24 GARY ST MW ER .. _..-.....-�-. _. 21 OASTONAVE SV GABTON AVE WBT GAT! PARK NO EO_..-• JO-M GAT113 ST NW ER ....--- -.. __ SG I GATEWAY OR STP ._ -._.-.4G2► GATEWAY ST SE M ..... _.._____..- 584I GATEWOOO CIA MA ..._. .. 2A-40 GATEIIVOODON UK ..... ..... _.. GAUNTLET ^T AV GAUNTLET CT LV ._._ _-.._.. .._._ GAUTHIEA 1!R OAVOTTECT AV GAYM04 ST OAK _..._. .. -. IA.0 GAYW000 OR MIL GlGGLFK T104A OR IIW _. .- .X.32 ..._ -_ . OILCO OR EP "MST MW DgMRO RO EO _ __yam -- .-AAA OENEPEUX OIL HAS....- GEMES PO SRT „r__ GINESSEE STP OEMESSEE AVE AV ....�-•-.-20.2g OEMES3E1 Avg LV . ___..-_....... 1♦� OEMESSg! CT AV Ge"ItSSEE CT LV _.._- GlNESW WAY AV -- G&M9VA AV! N NO . _... __- ,_ 28 A OIMEVA AVE N 00 .. _ _ _........._ 2C'2e OEMlVAAVG S CO QRMGVA WAY AV ep" OR MW AM ........... -. 2A•1 GgMBM octa CRT _�.___-_]A•e0 Oe"ftLL► NO MO -- •� GENTRY AVG Al 00 GENiNT NO CMS_.---.•_- S ►M OEOOO! CT AV--- dEORG! ST Q _ 6% COUNCIL MEEThVG AUG2 81989 CITY OF ORONO 32489.1HD To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 24, 1989 Subject: Speed Bumps Request - Deborah Drive Recently the City of Orono received a request from the residents on Deborah Drive to place "Speed Bumps" in the road at the time of paving. I denied their request and therefore they are appealing my decision to the City Council. Their concernE are the amount of traffic and the type of traffic and speed. Although Deborah Drive is a private road, the City regulates and controls private roads like a City street. The concerns of the residents regarding type of traffic and speed can be enforced --►.\ and regulated in a manner similar to regulating public streets, that being designating "No Truck Traffic" and police patrolling ° and enforcement. I have discussed speed bumps with maintenance and emergency service personnel and have been advised that ambulance, police and fire are somewhat restricted in response to areas with traffic bumps. Ambulances are becoming more and more `�xuipp,.:d with electronic equipment which is severely affected by traffic bumps. Recommendation - To deny the request for traffic bumps on Deborah Drive and to direct staff to work with the residents to resolve the above mentioned problems. Proposed Notion - Moved by , seconded by , to deny the request for speed bumps on Deborah Drive and to direct staff to work With the residents to resolve the above mentioned problems. Ayes nays To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members l From: Bernhardson, City Administrator,'' %J Forwarr, recommending approval. �AITDM A01J33 Au`,�j,j8 �. John R. Gerhardson Public works Director City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gerhardson: As you know, the McCulley Farm Honj': -rs Association has black - topped Deborah Drive, a private roa6 ording to city specifi- cations and city inspections. G_igi. ?'y we were told by Glen Cook that our written specifications wire acceptable and we pro- ceeded on t:lat basis. In our specifications we call for four speed bumps. Much later I received from you a phone call indi- cating speed bumps would not be acceptable to the City of Orono. We are therefore requesting a review of yuur decision by City Council in order to allow the installation and naintenance of four speeu bumps on Deborah Drive as was originally called for in our approved specifications. The Homeowners Association is very adamant and concerned in this regard. Deborah Drive has always been a "cu'_ thru" road for all to use even though it is a private road and �-o marked. Now with black top in place it's become a "race way" too. Many of our residents have children who use, bike or wait for the bus on this road. Even before blacktop there has been several serious accidents. It is our greatest fear that the next acci- dent will involve our children, which are our most loved trea- sures and blessings, and because of this we can not rest nor will we rest until this deadly problem is resolved. In conclusion, we are asking that all the people involved, whether your parents or not, please consider our plea and allow us the installation of these bumps as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, MC LLEY FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION /k Thomas R. Betz 415 Deborah Drive Maple Plain, MN 55359 81789. 5 / i] COUNCIL MEETING TO: Mayor and City Council auc2 e 1989 FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator CITY OF ORONO DATE: August 17, 1989 SUBJECT: 1990 Strategic Planning Attachment: A. 1989 Strategic Planning B. 1989-1990 Administrator's Goal Setting C. 1990 Strategic Plan Draft D. 1989-90 Administrator's Goal Setting Status Dated 7/31/89 ISSUE - Determine short term objectives for 1990 tc be undertaken by the organization in advance of finalizing the budget process. INTRODUCTION - Annually the last three years the Council has established priorities for the coming year and has incorporated those in the Ndministratur's goal setting. Given the limited budgeting flexibility for 1990 coupled with the City having initiated a number of strategic planning objectives in 1989 there will probably be limited opportunity for new initiatives involving financial resources during 1990. Areas which could be undertaken during 1990 are outlined in Attachment C. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the items as presented in Attachment C. 2. Choose not to adopt. 3. Table until a later date when all Councilmembers :,re present. RECOMMENDATION - Given that not all Counzilmembers are expected to be present it is recommended that the C,�uncil table any final action until the conclusion of the budget process. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , secunded by r, that the Council having accepted the information indicating strategic short term objectives for 1990 tables the matter until conclusion of the budget process. Ayes _, Nays — cc: All Department Heads 1 f 0 , . . --" 11"W' q- 4 1,41 . 3, v " pacoet To: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Admi.nistrato N6t Date: September 6, 1988 Subject: 1989 Goal Setting ATTACHMENT A - Proposed Amendments for 1989 Goal Setting ISSUE - Review of changes discussed at the meeting on August 10, 1988, together with potential adoption of the goals and objectives for 1989. INTRODUCTION - Ac the meetinq of August loth, I indicated I woul'-? bring back the su:;gested rep. `(,ns for Goal Setting for 1989. DISCUSSION - I have noted try r,! .qnqes prcposed for the mission statement, etc. together witi_ hort tet . ) -; c:tives to be undertak•in for the balance of 19ou _,nd into 198c. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council ado t the attached material that is representing its Goal Setting for 1989. PaOPOSED MOTION: Moved by seconded by to adopt the ,':tached material that is representing the Council Goal Setting for 1989. Ayes , nays 9688.2HD Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/9/87 Revised 8/30/88 CITY OF ORONO 1988 STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 1989 MISSION STATEMENT - CITY OF ORONO OUR MISSION is to provi � appropriate services to persons within the community of Orono together with contract communities utilizing available resources in an effectivk— manner accoi.,plished through: - A continuous proQ:ess of objective analysis of past, current, and future trends c-insidering the specific events and unique physie-al surroundings that shape the mode and structure of the organization; - A positive, forward -looking management of personnel and other resources in a business -like, customer oriented delivery of services; - A select, well -trained, expert group of customer oriented employees individually motivated and ini.)rmed as to their responsibilities together with the organization s overall purpose and direction for delivering a quality product; - The aggressive utilization maintenance of all organizational resources; - The contracting of services both in and out, together with the sharing of services and facilities, to achieve the appropriate effectiveness of service. CITY OF ORONO EXTERNAL ANALYSIS - Increased private businesses delivery of traditional public services - Selected demands for service increases including mandates from external agencies such as solid waste management, comparable worth, tru— t�iin taxation and a restricted financial climate - Increase communication and information links - Increased duplication of authority in selected areas - Increased development pressure due to transportation link upgrade and saturated second ring development - Fluctuating State and gro%ing metropolitan economies - Pressure for juris,ict_on increase by multiFlir.ty of agencies (County, LMCD, Metro Council, etc.) - Increasing development/ re -development pressure on lak.eshore property Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/9/87 Revised 8/30/88 INTERNAL ANALYSIS - Expertise in Contracting business both in and out with other entitites both public and private - Strong history and orientation of responsiveness to local citizenry/cunsumers - Need to explore and develop altered delivery systems - Strong environ-ental commitment - Need to strengthen continuity of staff through *raining and on -going information management system - Need to strengthen the organizational image both inside and outside the organizataion I Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/9/87 Revised 8/30/88 CITY OF ORONO KEY STRATEGIC ISSUES 1. Ensure appropriate continuity and development of organizational members. 2. Dt:LC nation of community development direction and process for the next five years. 3. Appropriate utilization of contracting entities together with further exploration of improved sharing of services. 4. Provide for the effective marketing and delivery services. 5. Ensure appropriate communications and information .rovision together with improved community identity. 6. Development of an appropriate financial policy. 7. Determine direction following completion of City facilities analysis program. B. Achievement of goals for solid waste management through improved recyc ing efforts. Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/9/87 Revised 8/30/88 CITY OF ORONO 1987 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 1988 KEY ISSUE OBJECTIVES 1. Continuity and Staff Development - Maintain High Level of Continuity - Department Head Teamwork - Selective Hiring/Targeting/Flexibility - High Level of Staff Competency - In -House Training - Targeting Development - Overlap/Continuity Policy Body Staff - Management Information System 2. Community Development Direction. and Process - How Should We Develop? - Change Around Us - Storm Water Management - Commercial vs. Residential - Navarre - Highway 12 Lard Use Potential Corridor for Upgrade - Re -zoning - Process and Control 3. Utilization, of Contracting Entities Provider Police Building/Zoning Utility - Public Works Backup Recicient Fire (Police/Mutual Aid) Attorney Engineering Planning Inspection Private Consultant Assessing LOGIS Potential Administration Assessing Garage Street Maintenance Solid Waste/Recycling Contractual Service Provision Review - Financial - Legal - Service Capacity - Administration - Market 4. Market/Delivery High Level/Service - Realistic/Palatable Cost Market - - Other Communities - Within the Community - Means to Market - Alternative Delivery System - Targeting 5. Communication and Information - Effective Delivery/Identity - Type of Information - Required (State/Local) - Desired - Media - Cable - Newspaper - Newsletter - Brochure (Parks, etc.) - Market - Available Access - Information and Referral - Image - Means for Current Information 9688.2HD Draft 8/30/88 CITY OF ORONO 1988 Strategic Planning for 1989 1. Continue work with Ad Hoc Task Force regarding improvements, both short and long term, to Highway 12 Corridor. If deemed appropriate, undertake joint and/or encourage MNDOT Corridor Selection Study. Ongoing 2. Navarre Re -Development: * Final County 15 Progress 12/88 * Complete Master Plan Study 7/89 * Determine Strategy to Implement 9/89 * Determine Need for Separate Authority and/or Tax 1/89 Increment District 3. City Facilities: * Complete Phase II 10/88 * Determine Direction for Further Study 11/88 4. Stubb's Ha * Review Revised Feasibility Study 10/98 * Determine Financing Arrangements if Undertaken 12/88 * Explore Development Moritorium 2/89 * If Appropriate, Initiate Project 5/89 5. Storm Water Management Plan: * Ascertain Available Mapping 8/89 * Develop RFP for Study 10/89 6. Community Development Direction and Process: * Conclude Advisory Council Roles Review 11/88 * Review and Revise (see Prior 3/89 * Enhance Effective Control of Marinas 12/88 7. Community Transportation Plan: * Further Discuss Public/Private Street Issue 8/89 * County Road 116 As Needed * Highway 12 (see #1) 8. Improvement in Solid Waste Management: * Determine Additional Avenues/Efforts to Meet Goals 10/88 Curb -side Recycling * Review/Adopt, if Desired, Regulations Regarding Solid 3/89 Waste Management * Review Issue of organized Collection if Appropriate 9/89 9. Complete Financial Stratagy Plan 11/88 j�rraeoeur B TO: Mayor and City Council ` FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratov� DATE: February 15, 1989 SUWECT: Annual City Administrator's Evaluation Attachment: A. Evaluation Form B. Potential Areas for Goals Setting ISSUE - Initiation of process to: 1. The annual Administrator evaluation. 2. Determine further goals for the Administrator for the ensuing year. I::TRODUCTION - Annually in advance of the Administrator's anniversary with the City, Council and the Administrator have undertaken a process to establish goals for the upcoming year, together with review of the east year's performance and goal setting. DISCUSSION - Information is presented to allow for the Council review and discussion of this item during March and April. The process this past year allowed for individual discussions of performance by Councilmembers with the administrator if they desired together with their ideas for goal setting and that this be put together prior to the anniversary with evaluations being provided to the Mayor. In addition Councilmembers are invited to discuss the evaluation with. the Department Heads. (The Department Heads are requested by the Administrator to individually evaluate him with responses back to him for further discussion.) ALTERNATIVES - Policy a. Use the same format. b. Revise format or evaluation or process. Action a. Adopt as presented. b. Amend and adopt. c. Table. I RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the process be undertaken as presented for 1989 and that: a. Administrator meet individually with Councilmembers to desire to meet to discuss past years goal setting, evaluation, and ideas for 1989-90. b. That Councilmembers undertake their evaluations with inclusion of discussion with Department Heads if they desire with Councilmembers discussing their evaluation with the Mayor. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council adopt the above outline process for the 1988-89 City Administrator review. Ayes _, Nays _- cc: Department Heads 2 POTENTIAL AREAS FOR GOAL SETTING ;IN ADDITION TO ONES ALREADY LISTED AND NOT COMPLETED) 1. Community Development Highway 12 Sewer/Water Service County 15 Beautification Planning and Implementation Highway 12 Corridor Selection Commencement 2. Environmental Protection Replacement of Lift Stations J10 and #43 Recycling Program - Performance and Funding 3. Organizational Development 1990 Goal Setting 1990 Budget Process 1990 Legislative Program 4. Service Delivery Facilities - Next Steps Service Provision Engineering Services Legal Services Police Services Fire Services Animal Patrol Services Emergency PrepaOdness 1 May 1988 - April 1989 Q1AMcnMMI® l• COUNCIL-ADMINISrMTOR RE[.i1rioNSIFIp a. General b. 11espon9iveness to Council c. Keeping council Informed of significant issues z. ADMINISPMTOM - GW SerrING a. Establishing appropriate goals b. Performance to achieve (Name Opt onal) NU7 OMMMM UISATISFA[.`I[M EXPOCTED 3. CQlUNITY 1ZFI.ATIONSIIIpS a. nesponsiveness tD public b. Understanding of comeunity uniqueness t. OFaMANIZurIONAL 1•F11DEM111P a. Providing appropriate organization direction b. Developing subordinates C. Understanding of organizational operation d. Decision making i. IRMFV F(`,ANIZATIoM COOpM Wj(jN a. Neighboring communities b. Other public entities 6. TASK PE FOFfgWM a. Council meeting presentation/delivery b. Administration of organization TT-;UC xevisea tu/ uv/ a i Revised 08/30/88 Revised CITY OF ORONO 1989 STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 1990 MISSION STATOWNT - CITY OF ORONO OUR MISSION is to provide appropriate services to persons within the community of Orono together with contract communities utilizing available resources in an effective manner accomplished through: - A continuous process of objective analysis of past, current, and future trends considering the specific events and unique physical surroundings that shape the mode and structure of the organization; - A positive, forward -looking management of personnel and other resources in a business -like, customer oriented delivery of services; - A select, well -trained, expert group of customer oriented employees individually motivated and informed as to their responsibilities together with the organization's overall purpose and direction for delivering a quality product; - The agressive utilization and maintenance of all organizational resources; - The contracting of services both in and out, together with the sharing of services and facilities, to achieve the appropriate effectiveness of service when such organizations are willing to cooperate on a mutually —5enefiial basis. 1 Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/09/87 Revised 08/30/88 Revised CITY OF ORONO EXTERNAL ANALYSIS INTERNAL ANALYSIS - Increased private businesses - Expertise in Contracting delivery of traditional public business both in and out services with other entitites both public and private - Selected demands for service increases including mandates fro:. external agencies such as soild waste management, comparable worth, truth in taxation and a restrictive financial climate - Increase communication and information links - Increased duplica*, - .),z )f authority in sell.r."r_j areas - Increased development pressure due to transportation link upgrade and saturated second ring development - Strong history a--d orientation of responsiveness to local citizenry/consumers - Strong environmental commitment - Need to strengthen continuity of staff through training and on -going information management systems - Fluctuating State and growing - Need to strengthen the metropolitan economies organizational image both inside and outside the organization - Pressure for jurisdiction increase by multiplicity of agencies (County, LMCD, Metro Council, etc.) - Increasing development/ re -development pressure on lakeshore property Adopted 11/10/86 Revised 10/09/87 Revised 08/30/88 Revised CITY OF ORONO KEY STRATEGIC ISSUES 1. Ensure appropriate continuity and development of organizational members. 2. Determination of community development direction and process for the next five years. 3. Appropriate utilization of contracting entities together with future exploration of improved sharing of services. when such organizations are willi_nq to cooperate on a muttua_I Beneficiabasis. 4. Provide for the effective marketing and delivery of services. 5. Ensure appropriate communications and information provision together with improved community identity. 6. Development of ar appropriate financial policy. 7. Determine direction following completion of City facilities analysis program. 8. Achievement of goals for soild waste management through improved recycling efforts. 3 Ad. '1/10/86 Rev. J/09/87 Revised 08/30/88 Revised CITY OF ORONO 1989 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 1990 KEY ISSUE OBJECTIVES 1. Community Development Direction and Process - How Should We Develop? - Change Around Us - Storm Water Management - Commercial and Residential - Navarre - Highway 12 - Land Use - Potential Corridor for Upgrade - Safety Improvements - Fe -zoning - Process and Control 2. Environmental Protection - Protection_ of significant lake and other natural amenities 3. Organizational Development - Strategic Planning Direction 4. Service Delivery - Utilization of Contracting Entities Provider Po1T— Building/Zoning Inspections Utility - Public Works Back up Recipient Fire (Police/Mutual Aid) Attorney Engineering Planning Inspections (Back up) Private Consultant Assessing LCGIS Recycling Potential AdminiT stration Assessing Garage Street Maintenance Contractural Service Provision Review Criteria - Financial - Legal - Service Capacity - Administration - Market 4 5. Human Resources Continuity and Staff Development - Maintain High Level of Continuity - Department Head Teamwork Selective Hiring/Targeting/Flexibility - High Level of Staff Competency - In -House Training - Targeting Development - Overlap/Continuity - Policy Body - Staff - ManaGament Information Sys*nm 6. Market/De-ivery Level of Service - Realistic/Palatable Cost Market - - Other Communities - Within the Community - Means to Market - Alternative Delivery System - Targeting Communication and Information - Effective Delivery/Identity - Type of Information - Required (State/Local) - Desired - Media - Cable - Newspaper - Newsletter - Brochure (Parks, etc.) - Market - Available - Access - Information and Referral - Image - Means for Current Information 5 1. Draft 08/22/89 CITY OF ORONO 1989 Strategic Planning for 1990 Community Development A. Highway 12 1.) Safety Improvement - 199' * Review preliminary plan. 10/89 * Adopt if appropriate * Work with MnDOT on 01/99 right-of-way/frontage roads * Encourage stoplight Willow/12 07/90 2.) Long Term Solution * Encourage MnDOT undertake 10/89 feasibility study * Upcii feasibility study work 07/90 with MnDOT to undertake corridor selection study * Take appropriate planning 06/90 steps if needed in potential corridors B. County Road 116 * Monitor action by County as to its proposed construction * Review and if appropriate adopt 11/^9 a preliminary design * Review and if appropriate adopt 10/ 90 a final design C. Highway 12 Corridor * Implement projects ordered in 1988 * Determine utilities construction to be provided D. Community Transportation Plan * Public/Private street - 02/90 review policy * Undertake capital budget designated projects (see plan) E. Navarre Redevelopment * Determine desired direction 11/89 * Determine beautification plan 01/90 implementation if any * Complete Master Planning, 07/90 if appropriate * Determine need for Tax Increment 12/89 District 6 F. LMCD Comprehensive Management Plan * Review all drafts for issues and direction * Present desired changes to LMCD G. Storm Water Management * Ascertain available mapping * Develop RFP for study if appropriate H. Marina Conrol * tnitiate review 10/89 * Complete review 03/90 2. Environmental Protection A. Stubbs * Bay Establish policies regarding 11/89 the project * Determine if the project is 01/90 appropriate * Prepare plans and specifications 02/90 * Hold hearings and if appropriate 04/90 order project * Bond for project 03/90 * Commence project 05/90 * Complete project 11/90 * Assess project 10/90? B. Solid Waste Manangement * Review recycling efforts 06/90 * Determine if further solid 12/90 waste regulation appropriate * Review organized collection 12/90 appropriate 3. organizational Development * 1991 Strategic Plan 07/-09/90 * 1991 Legislative Plan 09/-11/90 * 1.991-::.`O1 Capital Budget 07/-09/90 * 1991 n-idget Process 06/-10/90 4. Service Delivery A. Golf course * Develop 10/89 * Determine 5 year direction 01/90 B. Assessing * Implement revised contractor/ 01/90 arrangement C. Financial * Complete financial strategic plan 01/90 D. Facilites Upgrade * Determine direction 10/89 * If undertaken commence construction 11/89 7 E. Service Reviews * Legal * Engineering 5. Human Resources A. Personnel Development * Formulate City Employee Development Policy * Explore performance incentive program * Explore IRS 125 * Comply with IRS Section 89 requirements * Implement Employee Recognition Program 6. Marketing GOAL SErrIrG IV SiD - 1967 Short Term Objective CPP! OF coo Draft 5/19/89 188 SIO - 1988 Short 'Perm Objective Revised 6/30/89 89 SM - 1989 Short Two Objective AND 7/31/89 MARE E. BEF241AR " Cr1T AOPCDL4IR10M 1 MAY 1989 - 30 APRIL 1990 AREA GOAL AREA OBJEC = 1. OQT[JNITY DEVEIOPME7r A. Highway 12 1. Utilities Sewer - Part I Install in® 188 S O '89 STO, '88 STO '89 STO ' 87 Flt) 1 •r: Sewer - Part II Install Water System Install Main Well (6 months) Tower (9-12 months) Plans Specs - Order Award Negotiation on Utilities (Long Lake - Medina) 2. Long Term Corridor Upgrade Feasibility Study MnDOT initiation or Group initiation Completion 3. 1992 Safety Improvement Preliminary plan approval B. Navarre Redevelopment Determine project scope/ direction C. County Road 15 Project completion Special assessments Beautification Plan Determine means to implement D. Community Transportation Update capital project Plan guidelines Bridge bonding program Continued analysis public/ private 1 DAM STATUS 09/01/89 Bids Close 6/30/89 Project Ordered 7/24/89 Negotiating Asmnt Terms/Develop Ag...4t 07/01/90 09/01/89 Project Ordered 7/24/89 04/01/90 2/l/90 07/01/90 09/89 11/89 09/01/89 6/30/09-Awaiting Response from MNDot Central Office on Consultant 07/07/89 Delayed until at least 9/l/89 01/30/90 10/90 10/01/89 Info meeting held 7/24/89. Awaiting Long Lake response to MnDOT 08/01/89 6/01/89-Held Joint Mtg 6/26/89 Discussed future direction 07/01/89 09/01/89 Hearing set for 8/28/89 10/01/89 07/89 09/89 7/10/89 Adopted l 08/89 7/24/89 Memo Private/Public/Driveways/Roads AM GOAL AM 1. COMKJNITY DEVELOPMINf Continued E. County Road 116 '87 3-M F. Storm Water Management 188 STd Plan '89 SYO 188 Sm G. Community Development 189 S1C) Direction and Progress 2. EWIRONMER . PRa'ID(.TION A. Stubbs Bay 189 S10 B. Solid Waste Management Preliminary plan review DATES SCA2VS 08/01/89 Set public info mtg for design review at 7/10 mtg Resident review 7/26 Public info 9/11 A.) Enhance effective controls 10/01/89 of marinas B.) Work towards service and results oriented "No Surprises" process Public Informational meeting 08/15/89 Meeting held 7/27/89 Determine assessment arca interest 11/01/89 Engage on appraiser 11/15/89 Consider financing options 11/30/89 Consider development moratorium 12/30/89 Boni sale 12/30/89 If AErcpriate - Initiate project - Project bid 03/90 - Commence project 04/90 - Assess project 10/90 - Complete project 10/90 Review organized collection 09/89 if needed Review program performance 10/89 Rebid contract for curbside 10/89 Review incentives to improve 02/90 participation 2 AREA GOAL AREA C JECPIVE 2. ENVIXIMNIAL PROIE TIGN Continued C. Metro Waste Replacement Completion Project Lift Station 10.'Lift Station 43 Replacement Bid award Public informational meeting - Financing Implement financing - Connection charges 3. ORGANIZATIONAL DENT A. 1990 Council Goal Setting Commence Complete B. 1990 Budget Process Assessment Board of Review Preliminary Budget guidelines Capital projects guidelines review Alternate Dates O8/01 - 08/15 Preliminary mill levy adoption (Truth in Taxation) 09/15 - 10/15 Hearing Budget adoption 10/25/89 Final levy adoption C. 1990 Legislative Program Review D. Team Building Staff Council j 3 DATES STATUS 10/01/89 05/22/89 5/22/89 Bid awarded Public informational meeting on financing set for 8/14/89 06/89 6/22/89 Pre -construction mtg. held 07/89 7/18/89 Construction commenced 07/89 1/89 05/89 Bd of Review held 5/11/89 6 5/24/89 06/89 Presented Initial Guidelines 6/12/89 Presented Revised Guidelines 6/26/89 08/89 09/15/89 6/30/89 May require action by 8/l/89 7/24/89 Adopted prelimianry max. levy 10/15/89 12/15/89 12/89 12/89 AREA 4. SERVICE DELIVERY '87 STO '88 STO A. Facilities Upgrade Determine if undertaking - Financial - Costs - Site - Public information meeting(s) If Undertaken Site acquisition, if any S^..lect architect Design Final plans/costs Plans/specifications '.nancing Ad awards B. Long Range Financial Develop balance of policy Policy C. Business Strategy Plans Police Golf Course D. Service Reviews Engineering services Legal services E. Assessing Service Replacement 4 DATES STATUS 09/01/89 6/29/89 Bus tour of facilities Tentative Mtg to 2iscuss financing/'Ibur needs to be set 12/89 07/01/89 7/10/89 Presented to Council 09/01/89 7/10/89 Initial options to Council Directed to assess ideas to make profitable 09/89 10/89 7/10/89 Council directed transitional arrangement plus explore contract and/or employment AREA 5. HUMAN RESOURCES 6. MARKLTIIG .y DATES STATUS A. Compensation Explore performance incentive 10/89 program Explore "Cafeteria Benefits"/ 07/01/89 IRS Section 125 Plan Determine Section 89 requirements 10/01/89 B. Employment Affirmative Action Program 07/01/89 6/89 No longer State requirement adoption 5 l 81789.13 TO: Mayor and City Council A FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 17, 1989 COJIML MEMO AUG2 81989 SOBJECT: LMCD - Intergovernmental Relations Draft CITY OF OR010 Attachment: A. I•MCD Comprehensive Management Plan - Intergovernmental Relations - Work Paper Dated July 19, 1989 ISSUE - Presentation of comments to Council on working paper regarding LMCD intergovernmental relations. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting a copy of the intergovernmental relations document was presented for your information. Subsequently a review was undertaken of the document by staff with the following discussion highlighting points of interest. DISCUSSION - The working paper provides a good primer of the authorities and issues related to the regulation and management of Lake Minnetonka. There are three initial issues for the City of Orono however, they are not emphasized to a great degree in the draft: A. DNR Shoreland Regulations - The impact of DNR's recently adopted shoreland regulations are not spelled out as to their relationship wish the authority of DNR, LMCD, and the Cities regulating lands up to 1,000 feet back from the shoreline. This may be to some degree addressed in the Shoreland Draft but would also be appropriate to have it addressed here. B. Marina Regulation - The draft discusses the cities ability to regulate onshore and LMCD has limited onshore authority with a passing reference indicating that cities do not have active program regulation below 929.4. As noted recently by Orono City Attorney the City does have statutory authority to regulate docks etc, at least to the extent that they would impact the shore activity. This inter re tat ionship of marinas has been a key concern of Orono for a substantial period. C. LMCD Contracting Enforcement With Municipalities - This issue was originally raised as a public safety issue. The authority to contract does exist but is just mentioned in this draft. It would be appropriate for the City to endorse the concept of LMCD contracting at least a minimum authority to cities for enforcement within a specified range in order to provide enforcement when Water Patrol and/or LMCD authorities are not 1 lable . tt�lxlee balance of the paper :deals with the options available for governance of the lake together with alternatives underneath each of the'issues. TTI I 1A,�Ap ropriate Authority - At present given its history and local control a continued LMCD would probably be most advantageous to the cities around the lake. B. Board Composition - Although presently composed of the 14 communities around the lake, an altered composition may allow Orono the potential of more Board members. At present the City is only 1/14th of the vote for 30 - 40% of the lakeshore. Alternate proposals could be as much as 3 of 9 or 1/3. On the other hand Orono would not be guaranteed any seats under that arrangement. C. Director Appointment_ - This may vary as to the composition of the Board but also does discuss the issues of using alternates and recalling of directors which were discussed at the Mayor's Meeting; July 19, 1989. ALTERNiV _ VES 1. Accept. 2. Discuss these or other issues. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that this be tabled pending the final draft of the paper prior to the public hearings on the management plan. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council table further discussion of this matter until conpletion of the draft paper on this matter. Ayes _, Nays _ cc: Gene Strommen, LMCD Executive Director Jo Ellen Hurr, Orono Represe!,tative Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator David Arndorfer, Arndorfer Associates, Inc. 12505 Echo Ridge Road Louisville, KY 40243 2 ff AGENDA 4"' INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Thursday, July 27, 1989 7:00 pm Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road Tonka Bay, Minnesrta 1. Items raised at the previous meeting - Discussion 2. Proposal to Combine Intergovernmental Relations and Institutional Arrangements - Enclosure 3. Discussion of the Intergovernmental Relations - Enclosure a. Existing Authority b. Discussion of Issues 1) Management Structure for the Lake 2) Modify the Existing Membership of the LMCD Board 3) Alter the Way Directors are Appointed 4. Future Meetings August 24, 1989 7:00 pm Tonka Bay City Hall September 28, 1989 7:00 pm Tonka Bay City Hall Cc-ober 26, 1989 7:00 pm Tonka Bay City Hall IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOUR AGENCY BE REPRESENTED. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND, PLEASE SEND AN ALTERNATE. July 19, 1989 PROPOSAL FOR COMBINING INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENIS Issues, in order of consideration: Intergovernmental Relations 1. Examine other management structures for managing the lake. No regional agency Hennepin County Suburban Hennepin Parks 2. Alternative membership of the LMCD Board. State agencies County agencies Present arrangement Modified arrangement Fewer members Additional representation Hennepin County Minnehaha Creek ,;acershed District Suburban Hennepin Parks 3. Modification of LMCD powers. Public Safety Fisheries, Wetlands, Water Quality Shoreland Management, On -shore Recreation Facilities Lake Access and Use Management 4. Ccordination in areas of overlapping authority in lake management and Shoreland management. Public Safety Fisheries, Wetlands, Water Quality Shoreland Management, On -shore Recreation Facilities Lake Access and Use Management 5. Clarification and improvement of the relationship between the LMCD and ocher managing organizations. Joint powers agreements (memoranda of understanding) Review and comment procedures Communication procedures 6. Improved data collection, record keeping and information transfer. Joint funding of studies Unilateral funding Information transfer 7. Improved coordination and communication. LMCD and DNR LMCD and Metropolitan Council LMCD and Hennepin County LMCD and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District LMCD and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LMCD and Municipalities Institutional Arrangements 8. Internal operations of the LMCD Staffing level Relationship between Board, Executive Director and staff 9. Plan Implementation - sccnario development Different funding levels Legislative change of powers No legislative change of powers July 19, 1989 DRAFT WORKING PAPER INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS LAKE MINNETONKA MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 East Lake Street Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 Prepared by: ARNDORFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 12505 Echo Bridge Road Louisville, Kentucky 40243 (502) 244-7140 and 5858 Glenwood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-2555 July 19, 1989 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The purpose of this working paper is present issues and background information for the analysis of intergovernmental relations bet -weer- implementing agencies and municipalities on Lake Minnetonka. This involves the relationships between the governmental units that are active on the lake and their relations with other governmental units horizontally and vertically. Also included are alternative Structures for lake management, powers and authorities, membership, how that entity relates to higher and lower authorities, as well as the powers necessary to adopt, implement and enforce the plan. Intergovernmental relations between implementing agencies and communities needs to be presented within the context of the existing and the future structure of lake management on Minnetonka. To agree on communicati,,^s networks, mechanisms for coordination and cooperation requires prior agreement on the need for coordinated management, existence of a regional lake management authority, and the division of powers. The management plan process, therefore, reevaluates the original decisions that established regional lake management on Lake Minnetonka. An analysis of existing statutes leads to the con Ausion that the legislature does not intend for lake management to be conducted by one single implementing agencies. The statutes grants vario:is units of government powers to implement lake management programs. The laws also provide for a variety of coordination and consistency mechanisms. Consequently, nei`her the repartment of Natural Resources (DNR), the Metropolitan Council, nor indi,,:.ival municipalities have exclusive control over lake or Lakeshore development It is apparent that the legislature intends that proper managenent of Lake Minnetonka depend on a working partnership between: Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park DiFtrict, LHCD , Minnehaha Creek Watershed DisL-rict, Individual municipalities. The purpose of the Management Plan for Lake Mii inka is to develop a consistent set of goals and objectives, acceptable to all partners in lake management. The benefits of a balanced partnership means: consistent goals :.nd objectives :eplac-ng poorly defined, conflicting or hidden agendas, the most beneficial use of the lake and its shorelands instead of fragmented, inconsistent resource utilization, and consensus instead of lawsuits. We do not believe that the statutes Provide for a senior partner, an agency with superior power than another. Instead each organization has their own legislative mandates to fulfill. 1 July 19, IA9 REPORT ORGANIZATION The analysis of legislation is Fresented first to identify the efferent agencies active in managing Lake Minnetonka. The presenration fccl:ses more on local units of government than :n the state and regional drograms. The analysis of specific issues begins with the need for lake management, then moves to the level and location of management. In 1967 the legislature, with the support of the local municipalities, determined that there was a need for a regional body to coordinate certain management activities on Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) was formed and its powers defined. In 1973, the legislature passed Chapter 378, specifically subd. 278.31 and 378.32, which en,.' -:es county boards to establish a lake management district. Those sections �-,ad very much like the L14CD organic legislation and appear to be modeled after it. The configuration of the L`SCD is also discussed. Other coordinating and managing institutional arrangements are presented and analyzed. These are based on models already in existence on other water bodies. Overlapping authorities are presented and analyzed. Within that context, the relationships between implementing agencies, from municipalities to state agencies, are discussed. This inci -he relationships between the governmental units that are active c lake and trA r relations with other governmental units both horizontally and vertically. Fina:_y, r-e paper examines the specific powers and authorities needed to implement: and enforce the plan, how the lake management entity should relate to other agencies with broader and narrower geographic authority. 2 July 19, 1989 AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVE The Introduction made reference to the legislature's intent for lake management in Minnesota, and specifically for Lake Minnetonka, is to establish a partnership between various institutions with legislative mandates. Individual state and regional agencies as well as municipalities have overlapping and sometimes distinct authority over the lake and its shoreline. Lake Management Districts, whether under the LKCD statutes or under the powers of counties are obvious mechanisms established to establish that partnership. LAKE KINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) was formed by the Laws of 1967, Chapter 907 as amended. The district has extensive authority that includes zoning of the lake to control activities and types of watercraft, water surface use of the lake (comparable to land use zoning on land), own real estate and property, as well as to develop a plan for the lake. With respect to lake use and lake access, Section 3 of that legislation gives the LMCD rather broad powers to: 1. regulate the types of boats permitted to use the lake (3.a.1) 2. set service fe- • (3.a.2) 3. regulate, maintain and police public beaches, public docks and other pubic facilities for access to the lake within the municipalities (3.b.1) 2) provided that any municipality by ordinance duly adopted within one year thereafter and specifically referring co such action may supersede the same within such municipality (3.b.2). [NOTE: We have not yet found evidence that any community took action on this provision within one year]. 4. limit the use of the lake at various times (3.c.1), and various parts of the lake (3.c.2). 5. regulate the speed of boats on the lake (3.d.1), and the conduct of other activities on the lake (3.d.2). 6. regulate construction, installation and maintenance of permanent and temporary docks and moorings consistent with federal and state law (3.f). 7. regulate de-icing sy_tems (3.g.1) 8. regulate commercial marinas and their related facilities, including parking and sanitation (3.h) 9. to undertake research to determine the condition and development of the lake and the water entering it (3.j). Secticn 3, therefore, empowers the LMCD to limit activities and types of watercraft that may enter and use the lake. These limits may include a. restricting the use of certain types of boats, or banning their use, b. impose temporal zoning, e.g., limiting use and certain activities to specific times of day or times of year, C. set speed limits d. control special events 3 July 19, 1989 Similarly, the L`1CD legislation includes the power over public beaches and other public facilities for access to the Lake within municipalities. This power, however, has never been exercised. Further, the LMCD has the authority to regulate docks on the lake including commercial, multiple, homeowner associations and private riparian docks. When this is coupled with the general authority over use of the lake, it means that the LMCD can zone the surface of the lake in the same way that a municipality may conduct land use zoning. Section 3.j. establishes the authority of the I.MCD to prepare the Management Plan for the lake. Other sections of the underlying legislation permits the district to hold real and personal property for its purposes and the power to enter into contracts (Section 6). Section 13, subd. 1 establishes the power to adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of its establishment and the powers granted to the district. Consequently, there are few restrictions on the 11110's authority to impose restrictions on the use of, or access to, the lake. However, there are other parallel authorities, the LMCD is not the only other agency empowered to be active on the lake in these areas. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Watershed Districts are established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 112. L_:e Minnetonka comprises a part of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, and therefore, is subject to the statutory powers of the Watershed District. The implications for access to, and use of, Lake Minnetonka are that the Watershed Board has the power to: a. regulate the water level in the lake, subject to certain conditions, b. acquire, operate, construct and maintain flood control and water supply works, c. acquire by gift, purchase, or right of eminent domain necessary real estate and personal property, d. control the use and development of land in the flood plain, greenbelt and open space areas of the district, subject to the limitation of section 473.877. [NOTE: That section limits the watershed district authority over cities that have their own watershed management plan]. The statute gives the watershed district authority to regulate placement of fill, modification of flood plain lands and dredging of the lake and adjacent flood plain lands. Thus, creation of new access points to the lake require a permit from the watershed district. HENNEPIN COUNTY Under Minnesota law, counties are have extremely broad powers; powers that parallel or usurp those of other governmental units wholly or partially within the county. The discussion below is offered as background since the county, with access to significantly greater funding alternatives, represents an important implementing agency for lake access and lake use decisions. 4 July 19, 1989 It should also be remembered that in Hennepin County, man- or most of these powers reside with the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park L Ord. 378.31 Water and related land resources management. Provides that it is in the public interest to establish a statewide lake improvement program to (Subd. 1): 1) preserve the natural character of the lakes and their shoreline environment as feasible and practical; 2) improve the quality of water of the lakes; 3) provide reasonable assurance of water quantity in lakes, where feasible and practical; and 4) to assure protection from human activities and certain natural processes. Subd. 2 grants powers to counties over lakes that are not wholly within a lake conservation district established by law (L4CD). All programs must be consistent with statewide and regional water and related land resources plans. This chapter generally parallels the authorities granted under the L14CD enabling legislation. The following compares the powers granted to the county and the power granted to the LKCD. Applicable Chapter Subd. Power County LMCD acquire lands for control works Subd. 3 None construct and operate control works Subd. 4 None change the course, current or cross section of waters Subd. 5 None improve navigation Subd. 5a Sect. 3 acquire land, equipment or other facilities for navigation Subd. 5a Sect. 6 contract with any watershed district or county conservation district for improvements under chapters 40 and 112 Subd. 6 Sect. 6 undertake research to Subd. 7 Sect. 3 1) determine the condition and development of the body of water and water entering it; 3(j) 2) develop a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution; 3(j) 3) conduct a program of water improvement and conservation; and Petition 4) implement the comprehensive p7. 'iminate water pollution consistent k tatutes. Partial receive financial assistance and jects or enter into contracts with Al or state agencies Subd. 8 3(k) maintain public beaches, publ:� docks and other public facilities for access Subd. 9 3(b) make cooperative agreements with federal, state, county or local entities for the purpose of effecting the provisions of this section Subd. 10 3(e, i) S6 5 July 19, 1989 Power require that any projects to change the course, current or cross section be approved by the county before submitting the application to the commissioner of the DNR Applicable Chapter Subd. County 114CD Subd. 11 None The powers of the L`1CD diverge from those granted to the county in some areas. The LMCD does not have the authority to acquire lands for control works; to construct and operate control works; to change the course, current or cross section of waters. It may, however, petition the watershed district or the county conservation district for these projects. Similarly, the LMCD does not have the authority to conduct a program of water improvement and conservation except by petition to the watershed district and the county conservation district. Its authority to implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution consistent with other statutes is only indirect; the powers relate to water surface access; use; dock construction, placement and use; and de-icing. The LMCD does not have review authority over dredging and filling as does the county. The statutory changes in the L`iCD enabling legislation necessary to make the county and LMCD powers parallel, under this chapter, need to consider the existence of the watershed district and its authority. If the authority over water level control remains with the watershed district, then the additional powers for the L14CD include: 1) implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution, and 2) review authority over dredge and fill applications. In these two areas, the watershed district has authority, but it seems reasonable to question whether the L4CD can truly accomplish its objectives without some change in authority in these areas. 378.32 Water Surface Use Regulations. The county board may adopt ordinances that regulate the surface use of waters situated wholly or in part within their jurisdictions, but not wholly within a single city or lake conservation district. However, if the lake lies within two counties, the ordinance must be adopted by both county boards prior to enforcement. Adoption by the DNR gives the county the authority to enforce such rules. Proposed surface use zoning ordinances shall be submitted to the commissioner of the DNR for review and approval prior to adoption. The commissioner has 120 days to approve or disapprove (Subd. 1). The authority of the county under this chapter and the IMCD are parallel, with some minor exceptions. The contrast is shown below: Applicable Chapter Subd. Authority County LMCD proposed surface use zoning ordinances submitted to the DNR for review and approval prior to adoption Subd. 1 Not cited regulate and police public beaches, public docks and other public facilities for access Subd. 2 3(b) municipalities can preempt the county policing Subd. 2 3(b) 1 yr 6 July 19, 1989 Authority regulate construction, configuration, size, location and maintenance of commercial marinas and their related facilities including parking areas and sanitary facilities to regulate docks and moorings to regulate de-icing and vegetation removal to regulate the type and size of watercraft to set access fees to limit the types and horsepower of motors to limit the time of use and the use of various parts of the body of water to regulate the speed of watercraft and the conduct of other activities to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use to contract with other law enforcement agencies Applicable Chapter Subd. County L"iCD Subd. 3 3(h) Subd. 4 3(f) Subd. 5 3(g) Subd. 6 3(a) Subd. 6 3(a) Subd. 7 Not cited Subd. 8 3(c) Subd. 9 3(d) Subd. 10 3(e) The 114CD does not seem to have the restriction that its ordinances be submitted to the commissioner of the DNR for approval prior to implementation. There is no specific citation to control of horsepower in the LKCD enabling legislation, but such controls would seem to be allowed under 3(c) and 3(d). 378.321 Public access restrictions The county board must allow the same types and sizes of watercraft and horsepower of motors i:o access and enter the lake as generally allowed to be operated on the lake. Special use exceptions that are not dependent on lakeshore or property ownership may be granted by permit. 378.401 to 378.56 Lake improvement district act. The lake improvement act defined under these sections post-date the LKCD enabling legislation. It appears that these sections are modeled after the 11MCD act as amended. The one restriction placed on a county district is that its plans and certain actions must be reviewed by the commissioner of the DNR prior to implementation. LAKESHORE MUNICIPALITIES The 14 lakeshore communities have broad powers to manage the upland areas of the lake. They have the fundamental authority to control development and land use changes through planning, zoning and formation of special use districts. The authority of cities over public waters is limited by H.S. 459.20 which grants the same powers to cities as is reserved for counties in Chapter 378, except that a lake improvement district has precedence over one formed by cities. 7 July 19, 1989 For Lake Minnetonka, this means that the cities may develop parks on the lakeshore, but may not have active regulatory programs below elevation 929.4 without the consent of the LMCD. At the same time, the LMCD has authority over parks and public lands used for access to the lake that has never been implemented. REGIONAL PARR DISTRICT (Hennepin County) The Hennepin county park reserve district may exercise the powers of a municipality under chapter 118, whereas the LMCD does not have those powers. As a municipality, the park district has broad authority over all types of shore -based recreation. Its powers over the water surface are more restricted. For example, it does not have the authority to police the lake surface. That power resides with the County Sheriff. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The Metropolitan Council's underlying legislation is contained in M.S. chapter 473. The council is established to coordinate the planning and development in the seven county area. Of particular interest to this subcommittee is the agency's powers for funding and review relative to recreation. The interest of the Metropolitan Council relative to regional recreation open space means lands and waters or interests therein that are determined to be of regional importance. On Lake Minnetonka, the lake itself has not been so designated. However, the public properties on Big Island and the proposed access redesign at the Highway. 101 causeway are so designated. The regional park proposed by Suburban H-nnepin Regional Park District also has been designated as regionally significant. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The Department of Natural Resources has the most extensive authority over recreational use of, and access to, Lake Minnetonka. Not all of the powers of the DNR are applicable to the LMCD since it is a state agency established by separate statute. However, review of the DNR's authority and regulatory programs over other local units of government help establish the limits to lake access and use controls. For lake access, two references exist in the Minnesota Statutes. 4:4-st is in chapter 97A.141. That section provides that the commissioner shall acquire and maintain access sites, as well as easements and r. f-way necessary to connect to public highways. An access site cannot exc•:cd seven acres and may only be acquired where access is inadequate. The second reference to public access is in 105.391 which gives the DNR the authority to limit access to wetlands if preservation oc protection is warranted. Chapter 105 Division of Waters, Soils and Minerals This chapter of the statutes grant the DNR similar, or even more extensive powers than those granted to the watershed district for dredging, filling, diversion or use of waters of the state. Included in the authority are: 8 July 19, 1989 1. the use, allocation and control of public waters and wetlands, 2. establishment, maintenance, and control of lake levels, and 3. the determination of the ordinary high water (OHW) level of public waters and wetlands. Section 105.42 establishes the authority and procedures for permits to work in public waters. Included is the authority to require that illegal actions be restored to the original condition (105.461). Chapter 361 Waters and Watercraft Safety The regulation of watercraft is contained in this chapter of the statutes. The definition of a watercraft is "any contrivance used or designed for navigation on water other than (a) duck boat during the duck hunting season, (b) rice boat during the harvest season, or (c) seaplane. The chapter provides for license fees and registration (361.03). The provision that requires a manufacturer's identification number is absent from this chapter. Thus, snowmobiles and all -terrain vehicles can be traced by the manufacturer's number but watercraft cannot. Other provisions of the act regulate the age of power boat operators, obstructions to navigation, swimming and bathing areas, scuba diving, water skiing, craft capacity, use of alcohol and controlled substances, safety equipment and lights. In addition, noise is controlled by statute to the extent that: 1) mufflers are required which adequately suppresses the sound; cutouts are not permitted, 2) noise limits cannot be exceeded under any condition of load, acceleration or deceleration, 3) new engines must meet the noise standards established in the act, 4) modification or operation, of engines modified to amplify or increase the noise level is not permitted, 5) sale and installation of parts that increase the noise level is prohibited, as well as operating a boat equipped with such parts, and 6) the noise limits are: a) boats manufactured before January 1, 1982 - 84 decibels, b) boats manufactured on or after January 1, 1982 - 82 decibels. Exceptions are provided for under permit to cover regattas, races, or trial runs. Enforcement of these provisions is given to the Sheriffs, conservation officers and county boards under 361.24. Section 361.25 gives the Commissioner of the DNR broad authority over local agencies that are involved in lake use. The legislation calls for promulgation of rules that include the following (as well as others): 1) placement and regulation of docks, piers and buoys, 2) moorings or marking devices, 3) other structures in the waters of the state, 4) equipment used in towing of persons on water-skis, aquaplanes, surfboards, saucers and other devices, 5) designation of swimming or bathing areas, 6) standards for operation of watercraft offered foL rent, lease, or hire, 0 July 19, 1989 7) use of surface waters including but not limited to: a) standards and criteria for resolving conflicts in use, b) procedures for local enforcement, and c) procedures for such other rules deemed necessary by the Commissioner. Section 361.26 provides for local ordinances in effect prior to January 1, 1972 to remain in effect until repealed or superseded by a rule of the commissioner. As implemented by Minnesota Rules, 6110.3000 to 6110.3800 (Water Surface Use Management), even more restrictions are imposed on use management. Under chapter 361.25 the Commissioner is empowered to regulate: a. type and size of watercraft, b. type and horsepower of motors, C. speed of watercraft, d. time of use, e. area of use, and f. conduct of other activities on the water body where necessary to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use. These regulations shall be imposed by a local unit of government. The goals of use management are: a. where practical and feasible, accommodate all compatible recreational uses, b. minimize adverse impact on natural resources, c. minimize conflicts between users in a way that provides for maximum use, safety and enjoyment; and d. conform to the standards set in part 6110.3700. The management standards are promulgated in 6110.3700 that apply to any government unit subject to the provisions of 361.25. Some of these are of interest to Lake Minnetonka whether or not they directly apply: 1. watercraft type and size, 2. motor type and size, 3. direction travel (if limited, then counterclockwise), 4. speed limits shall use one or more of these cutoffs: a. slow -no wake, in no cases greater than 5 mph, b. 15 mph c. 40 mph 5. time controls must use one or more of these periods: a. sunrise to sunset or sunset to sunrise the day following, b. 9:00 am to 6:00 pm or 6:00 pm to 9:00 am the day following, C. noon to 6:00 pm or 6:00 pm to noon the following day, or d. all 24 hours of the day. 6. controls must be in effect during one of the following: a. all year, b. Memorial Day weekend through Labor Dav weekend, or C. on all weeKends and legal holidays occurring within Memorial weekend through Labor Day weekend. 7. controls may be placed on watercraft based on specific water elevations 8. area controls may be imposed 9. conduct of other activities may be restricted if they conform to purposes of use management (6110.3200) 10 Dav the July 19, 1989 L`iCD has its own statutory standing; these regulations are in addition to, and do not supplant, the existing Lake Minnetonka regulations. To the extent that it is advantageous to utilize this chapter of the statutes, the provisions are available provided that the review and approval of the Commissioner of the DNR is sought and received. But the LMCD does not appear to need these authorities. AUTHORITY SUMMARY LAKE ACCESS With respect to access, there are parallel authorities that involve the DNR, Hennepin County, Suburban. Hennepin Parks, LKCD and the 14 local communities. Access has several dimensions including access through public and privaL%� boat ramps, as well as access from docks. Docks aay be private riparian, municipal, homeowner associations, at commercial marinas and yn_ it clubs, or water -oriented business. The DNR, Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Parks and the LMCD, and 14 local communities have the authority to acquire, construct, operate, and maintain public boat access to the lake. Presently, the DNR, Hennepin County and local communities maintain access to the lake. Suburban Hennepin Parks has access plans included in the proposed park on the Upper Lake. Presently, the I14CD regulates access over docks to the lake, whether private, homeowner association, commercial marina or ya..nt club. The Hennepin County Sheriff also approves dock placement to assure that a hazard to navigation is not created. The DNR and watershed district is involved under their authority over construction in public waters. The DNR has additional powers to regulate docks. Authority over ++pland parks on the shores of Lake Minnetonka is shared by the L-ICD, Suburban Hennepin Parks, Hennepin County and the individual cc,nmunities. Only the latter two are presently involved in operating shore -based access to the lake. LAKE USE Regulating lake use is presently the purview of the LMCD, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, and the DNR. These programs include lake surface use zoning, restrictions on watercraft and watercraft use, winter use of the lake and special events. 11 July 19, 1989 INTWOVERNMIYTAL RELATIONS ISSUES PERSPECTIVE The following issues are presented to stimulate dialogue between municipalities and agencies active in managing Lake Minnetonka and {ts shoreline. Managing organizations include: 14 lakeshore communities LMCD Watershed District Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Hennepin County Metropolitan Council Minnesota Department of Naturai Resources as well as other, lesser involved, agencies. The range of issues represent options available for changing the management structure -- if change is desired. Modification of legislative authority and joint implemention of existing powers are examined. Still others address means of improving formal and informal communication. The primary objective of this subcc.-_a'.ttee is to determine the management framework for implementing the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. And change in the working relationships between organizations is needed. Often, local organizations feel regional and state aithorities act unilaterally, are sometimes arbitrary, and too often leave local interests out of the decision -making process. Other agencies with regional and state-wide legislative mandates feel that decisions affecting the regional recreational users too often reflect local interests at the expense of the greater regional good. This subcommittee is charged with developing a framework that establishes and maintains meaningful dialogue and communication. To the extent that we succeed, the development of the Management Plan will be a turning ;point in relationships between the managing organizations. CONSENSUS Throughout the development of the Manage-nenc Plan we have been successful in ariving at a consensus on specific management objectives and implementation strategies. To date the discussions have involved technical topics -- public safety, wetlands, shoreland management, lake use and access. As complex as some of these issues are, they pale in comparison to the complexities involved in reversing the existing pattern of misinformation, misinterpretation and misunderstanding that has too often charaterized intergovernmental relations on Lake Minnetonka. Maintaining a consensus is ach'_e•reable -- but only with compromise. Subcommittee meetings a,-e conductid without a chair and without minutes. The Management Plan consultant facilitates discussion. Formal votes 'have not been taken. Issues and implementation strategies have been discussed and modified until all participants agree that the best choice has been made. This subcommittee will operate under the same procedures. 12 July 19, 1989 DISCUSSION OF ISSUES Consistent with the approach adopted at the beginning of the Management Plan process, this Working Paper presents a range of alternatives for each issue. Sometimes an alternative is offered only to be readily dismissed as a viable option. Other times a recommen;;stion is made in an effort to guide participants toward a consensus and an appropriate management framework. Frequently, members of the various subcommittees have suggested still other alternatives. Such suggestions are strongly encouraged. ISSUE 1. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR THE LAKE. This issue deals with the need for a regional coordinating agency on Lake Minnetonka and whether the LMCD should continue to exist. Later issues address modification of the existing structure of the District. The first decision needed is whether the LMCD should continue to exist. Other alternatives listed below include statutory alternatives should the LMCD be eliminated. ALTERNATIVE 1. No Regional Agency. Selection of this alternative eliminates the LMCD, its Code and other management practices. No other regional agency is substituted. The disadvantages of this alternative would seem to outweigh advantages. In 1967, the legislature passed the L14CD enabling act. In 1973 the legislature enacted the Lake Improvement District Act (Chapter 378.405 ff.) using the Lake Minnetonka model. Thus, the management approach founded in statute for ;�n ordinated lake management in Minnesota depends upon a regional management agency. This decision would result in less, not more coordinated management of the lake. The relationships between local units of government and the regional and state agencies lack the appropriate level of communication and cooperation. It seems more logical co select alto atives for enhancing communication rather than eliminating an organization charged with fostering coordination and cooperation. The most probable outcome of selecting this alternative would be for the Metropolitan Council to pressure Hennepin County to implement a Chapter 378 Lake Improvement District which is discussed as Potential Replacement 1. The DNR has independent authority to order Hennepin and Carver Counties -o form a lake improvement district. POTENTIAL REPLACEMENT 1. Replace the LMCD with a County Lake Improvement District. A second alternative avai' District. Under the Lake either the DNR or the Henne establishment a Lake Improvt_ the LMCD (Chapter 378.44). Counties would jointly and formation of a County Lake Improvement lent District Act (Chapter 378.405 ff.). the Carver County Boards can order tL,e =rict with effectively the same powers as Ls" nf Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin and Carver irion of the district. 13 July 19, 1989 Membership in the Board of that District, whether ordered by the DNR or formed by the counties, is determined by the County Board. Membership on the Board subject to the limitation that it "must include persons owning property within the district, and a majority of the directors must be residents of the district" (Chapter 378.51). The number, qualifications, terms of office, removal, and filling of vacancies is determined by the County Board at the time of formation. This alternative was reviewed by the Metropolitan Council when this management plan process was initiated. Should this subcommittee determine that a regional agency was not needed, the most probable outcome would be creation of a county controlled regional agency. POTENTIAL REPLACEMENT 2. Management by the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Another option available under the powers of Hennepin and Carver County is to enter into a joint powers agreement authorizing the Regional Park District as the managing agency for the water surface as well as county and state lands on the lake. Suburban Hennepin Parks is she implementing agency for county recreational programs and, therefore, :,)uld be a logical successor to the LMCD. If the County Boards entered into a joint powerf, agreement, then the Park )istrict could assume powers very similar to those of the L"tCD. Regulations and management practices would. be determined by tF,e Suburban Hennepin Parks Board. ALTERNATIVE 2. Replace the regional lake district with an alternative management structure. 1. Individual Agency Coordination This 4 returns the management of the lake and its resources to the pre-1967 management structure. It is the least structured in that no single agency coordinates manar vent activit s and fosters cooperation on issues of mutual concern. Indivi al agencies initiate cooperative programs and determine the level of public other agency involvement bas..d cn other Minnesota statues, rules and regula ns or based on existing regional practices. State and regional agencies may be more 1ik�ly to implement programs that meet the regional, rather than local, needs. Interagency agreements could be used to establish working arrangements on specific programs. However, voluntary working arrangeme^^s between the managing organizations are more likely to be developed on an ad hoc basis. P...:umably litigation would became an even more important means of conflict resolution. EXAMPLES: Most lakes in Minnesota and other states are managed in this mariner. 14 July 19, 1989 2. Primary Agencies A --roach This alter*-ar•--- struc::ure designates an existing agency with 3. ir*iic jurisdictiu. -he. entire lake to assume responcibilil.ty _ot :an_oing specific comp-._ of the lake. Emphasis is more on fastening cooperation and cocrdination. Au_, city and funding f^r specific programs relies on other agencies. The pric.ary agency may vary from program to grogram. Thai: is, Suburban Hennepin Parks could be designated to act as a Llearing house• and to coordinate lake access programs. The Watershed District could bE designated as the primary agency for implementing water quality, dredging, excaiation or filling of lake or the shoreline. There is a lac?- of a regional perspective for the like and coordination of all management programs that affect the lake. L'{AMPLES : The National Park Service acts as the clearing house for review and comment on Federal and State permits that affect Department of Interior interests. The State Historic Preservation Officer coordinates review and comment on Federal an'. State permits that affect historic, scientific or archeaological resources. 3. Lead Agency Approach A lead agency is one that is technically and administratively qualified to coordinate as well as implement programs under their existing jurisdiction. This means that there •ould be one lead agency designated for water quality, another for re ~r- use, still another for shoreland management programs. In the case o_ atonka, the Watershed District could take the lead in water quality pr:. Suburban Hennepin could take the lead in recreational matters, and the DNK for coordinating shoreland management. EEyAMPLcS: Various Federal programs are administered in this manner. 4. Compact Commission A compact commission is one which i, formed y two or more organization; through a form:.- pact. Most often it is established by two more organizations -qua! power and authority, but sometimes with different geographic jurisdictions. Most are for single-pu-pose agreements involving: o water pullu tion controls, o water supply allocation, or o flood control measures. For Lake Minnetonka, the 14 communities could enter into a series of agreements for management of various components of present LMCD operations. With legislai.ive approval, the communities could establish a compact governing tha operaciot. and funding of a water patrol for the lake. Other -ompacts coul: he broader. A new agency could be inrmed that had direct functi ral authority c-r•t planni-v, coordination, reg­ration, policy and implementation. The primary advantage is that the various authorities of local, reg.- al and state organizations coulL. be: pooled to provide a single agency with all applicable authorities All managing agencies, from muricipalities to the DNR, 15 July 19, 1989 would have less direct control over the rrograms. Programs could be limited to the lake surface or could extend over shoreland as well. This is method of decreasing the direct involvement of cities as well as the DNR in the management of the lake, depending upon the nature of the compact. Legislative action is required to implement this alternative. EXAMPLES: International Joint Commission - United States and Canada (many Minnesota -Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission - Minnesota and Wisconsin Metropolitan Interstate Committee - Minnesota and Wisconsin (Duluth -Superior Area) 5. Management Commission This is very similar to the Compact Commission, but in this case is one that is imposed under state authority. A management commission is established from state and regional agencies most directly involved in managing the lake. That commission establisheu policy and u_es state rules and regulations to impose restrictions on the lake and its shoreline. EXAMPLES: Lower St. Croix Management Commission - Minnesota, Wisconsin, National Park Service with the Minnesota - Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission acting as the non -voting chair ALTERNATIVE 3. Retain the 11MCD and concentrate on maintaining or enhancing its role. This would retain the LMCD, either in exist r modified form, as the primary coordinating and lake management agency. L .I.vely, it is the No Action alternative. RECOMMENLATION: Determine that the LKCD should continue to exist and concentrate on how to improve its structure, effectiveness and management practices. ISSUE 2. MODIFY THE EXISTING MEMBERSHIP OF THE LMCD BOARD. This issues addresses three alternatives: 1) adding other representation; 2) modifying the number of representatives; and 3) maintaining the existing structure. Others may be proposed by subcommittee members. These alternatives are not always mutually exclusive. One or more may be adopted. 16 July 19, 1989 ALTERNATIVE 1. Add other representation to the LMCD Board. The LMCD has been criticized by some managing agencies as not having a broad enough base of representation. Proponents for adding other representation generally recognize that the lake is a regional recreational resource and should have representation beyond local communities. Support for the alternative somes not only from state and regional agencies, but from some local officals as well. This i.s a highly desired alternative by some of those that seek broader funding for the LMCD. Indeed, there are indications that if there is to be increased regional funding of LMCD or the Water Patrol, there must be regional representation on the LMCD Board with full voting membership. Consequently, this alternative cannot be dismissed without serious consideration of its implications. Candidates for membership that have been suggested include: DNR Metropolitan Council Hennepin County Carver County Suburban Hennepin Parks Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Not all of these may be interested or willing to participate. Further, participation could be is a voting or non -voting member. It is unlikely tn.. the DNR or the Metropolitan Council should occupy a voting seat on the Board since their legislative mandates include review of decisions, programs and practices. Those agencies seem inclined to maintain se-,'-.ltion from decisions to enhance their review and approval functions. Board seats for Hennepin County (presumably, but not necessarily, lake improvement), Suburban H nnepin Parks and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are relatively easy to justify. Hennepin County is probably the source of most funds for operating recreational facilities on the lake. The major programs funded by the county include: 1) Water Patrol - at least half of the budget 2) operation and maintenance of the major access points on the lake 3) transportation funding for major access roads 4) buoy placement, signage and other 1.-ike recreational improvements It is doubtful if the combined contributions -- capital and operations -- of the 14 municipalities matches that of Hennepin County and the State. Thus, it may be beneficial to include the county on the Board of Directors. Further, if additional funding is sought from the county, then a voting seat on the Board may be desirable. Similarly, the Suburban Hennepin Park District already controls morn r.L +tional lands on the lake than any other organization -- with or without the proposed regional park. Its expertise in operation and maintence of recreation facilities could offer significant additional perspective to management of the lake. Additionally, the Park District is the local conduit to Metropolitan Council park and open space funds. 17 July 19, 1989 The Watershed District ;MCWD) has generally parallel authority with the DNR, but is limited to the watershed. Many of the watershed programs have an important and direct impact on the quality of the lake and its shoreline. Better coordination between the LMCD and MCWD has been cited in the fisheries, wetlands, water quality, on -shore facilities, and upland environmental protection subcommittees of this plan process. The scope of the Watershed District's authority, programs and operations make them an important partner in managing the lake. Legislative action is required for implementation of this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 2. Modify the membership of the existing board to include fewer members. This alternative has been suggested as a means of streamlining the operation, of the Board. On such configuration could be: Municipal seats - 6 MCWD - 1 Hennepin County - 1 County -at -large - 1 Any variation on these numbers is possible, but an odd number seems preferred if this option is selected. If the number of muncipal seats were cut from 14 to a lesser number, the seats could be assigned according to population within a 1/2 mile or 1 mile distance from the lake. Legislative action is required to implement this alternative. ALTERNATIVE 3. Provide for direct election of the LMCD Directors. This alternative could provide for: fewer members on the board election of directors based on districts include a county -at -large seat still include other agency membership The primary effect of this alternative would be to decrease the individual city councils influence over LMCD policy and decisions. That runs counter to the expressed desires of several mayors, but still needs to be considered as an option. Direct election is not provided for in Minnesota Statutes for County Lake Improvement Districts. County Boards appoint the directors as the city councils do for the LMCD. The strongest arguement for direct alection is the need for a more regional perspective in lake management. Major criticizism, sometimes justified, leveled against the LMCD is that too often decision lack the perspective of what is best for the lak- What is best for the lake is not always what is best for an individual �.4:unity. Accordingly, the argument offers, direct election provides the sxxplest and fairest way to better assure a regional perspective for lake management decisions. 18 July 19, 1989 ALTERNATIVE 4. Maintain the present L14CD arrangement. This is the No Action alternative. The membership would remain at 14 with appointment by the the governing bodies of the participating cities. This alternative weakens the position of seeking additional funding for lake management programs that include: 1) increased law enforcement presence on the lake, 2) improved monitoring of dredging and filling operations, 3) better enforcement of the LMCD Code, and 4) enhanced cooperation and coordination between managing agencies. RECOMMENDATION: Data indicate that approximately 65 percent of the boat owners using the lake live in lakeshore communities. Allocate approximately 65 percent of the Board seats to municipalities government and 35 percent to county government. Counterproposals are welcome. ISSUE 3. MODIFY SECTION 2, subd. 2 OF THE LMCD LEGISLATION TO ALTER THE WAY DIRECTORS ARE APPOINTED. ALTER..^NATIVE 1. Provide for staggered terms of directors. Presently, the three year terms provided by Section 2 of the LMCD enabling legislation all expire at the same time. It is proposed that the terms be staggered so that approximately one-third of the terms expire each year: Year 1 - 5 terms Year 2 - 5 terms Year 3 - 4 terms Should the Board be reduced in size by legislation, that act should similarly stagger the terms of office. Specific positions could be determined by the legislature or by lot. ALTER.`NATIVE 2. Provide for recall of Directors by the appointing body. Some of the mayors have expressed an interest in modifying the existing enabling act to provide for recall of directors ot. th.e I-MCD Board. Some mayors believe that the directo• -:lust vote according to directives received from the city council rather than be free to vote according to their own judgement in each case. This proposal reflects a divergence of :losophy in the role of the Director on the LMCD Board. This alternative reflects the views that the Director represents the appointing organizationas interest is first and foremost. A majority of individual organizational interests constitutes the greatest good for the resource. If there is a greater good, a regional perspective, it is subordinated to the interest of the municipality. 19 July 19, 1989 Another view of the Director's role is to assure that the lake is managed for the greatest good for the greatest number of users. When individual municipality's interest is divergent from a perceived greater good, then the Director has greater freedom if recall is not specifically available. Greater burden is place on the city to carefully select the candidate most likely to vote with the prevailing majority of council at the time of appointment. This dicotomy is slightly different from that experience by each legislator serving is a state with recall. To recall a public official, a majority of voters is required. In this case a majority of an elected body is required. On the other hand, each legislator is often faced with similar decisions that balance the district's good against that of the state. Care needs to be taken that the apparent reason for this decision is not to maximize parochial interests and truly will result in management for the greatest good. ALTERNATIVE 3. Alternates should be allowed to vote when the organization s Director cannot attend scheduled meetings. Since its inception the L"ICD Board has not allowed alternates. Some of the mayor's have expressed an interest in changing the policy to permit a designated alternate to vote on issues of compelling interest. Again, there is a dicotomy. On one hand is the belief that the seat belongs to the appointing organization and not to the director. The other view is that consistent involvement is required before informed decisions can be made. ADDITIONAL ISSUES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO THE AUGUST MEETING 20 81789.6 COUNCIL MEETING TO: Mayor and City Council , AUG281989 FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato CITY OF ORONO DATE: August 7.7, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Re -Development ISSUE - Establishment of a date for a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting at which the public will be invited. INTRODUCTION - Given the upcoming facilities and budget meetings in September it is suggested Lgat :he meeting on Navarre be held in the later part of October. DISCUSSION - Proposed dates are as follows: Saturday, October 7, 1989 Saturday, November 4, 1989 Saturday, November 18, 1989 ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt a date. 2. Table. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that October7, 1989, be established as the date for a joint meeting unless facility and budget meeting or Councilmember absence make it difficult. A morning meeting at the Freshwater Biological Institute would be with coffee dnd rolls. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council adopt October 7, 1989, as the date for the joint Council/Planning Commission meeting subject to Planning Commission approval. Ayes Nays cc: Planning Commission members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator John Shardlow 81789.4 l TO: Mayor and City Clerk `��1 FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratdtl\ a COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ?august 17, 1989 AUG281989 SUBJECT: 1990 budget Process CITY OF oaoNo ISSUE - 1. Determining date for a separate Council budget meeting. 2. Establishment of a public hearing date as required in the Truth in Taxation law. INTRODUCTION - The City has currently scheduled September 14th for the facilities meeting. Additionally it is expected that the budget will be presented to Council in advance of the September 11, 1989 meeting. DISCUSSION - It is proposed that the Council have their budget meeting to review the entire budget prior to holding the required public hearing. This would allow the Council to make preliminary decisions as to changes they would desire and have reviewed the budget prior to the public hearing. Alternative dates fot the Council budget meeting are as follows: Tuesday, September 19, 1989 Thursday, September 28, 1989 Wednesday, September 20, 1989 Tuesday, October 3, 1989 Thursday, September 21, 1989 Wednesday, October 4, 1989 Wednesday, September 27, 1989 Thursday, October 5, 1989 It is felt appropriate that the public hearing held in advance of a regular Council meeting and that with the requirement that the meeting be held prior to October 25, 1989 that it be done either at the October 9th or October 23rd meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt dates for the budget meeting and public hearing. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table until the September llth meeting. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt Wednesday, September 20, 1989, as the date for the budget meeting and October 9, 1989, as the date to establish the public hearing. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council adopts September 20th as a. meeting date for the 1990 budget meeting and that they adopt October 9th as the hearing date for the public hearing for the 1990 budget. Ayes , Nays cc: All Department Heads 82289.3 C / TO: Mayor and City Council . OuNat MEETING FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator AUG 281989 DATE: August 22, 1989 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Proposed Fee Ordinance Amendment 1 Attachment: A. Jeanne Mabusth Memo Plus Attachments - Double Fees Dated 8/22/89 B. Proposed Fee Ordinance Amendment Language ISSUE - Reconsideration of policy as to when persons should be doubled feed. INTRODUCTION - Earlier this year the issue regarding to whom ouble fees were applicable was raised as noted in Attachment A. The Council discussed it and directed that all persons regardless of status be charged double fees. This represented a change in interpretation although it did not require any ordinance amendment changes. DISCUSSION - As a Lesult of this change in interpretation the City has charged double fees to seven home owners who came in for after the fact permits. In certain instances, as noted in the letter attached to Attachment A, residents have became irate and indicated that they feel they are being harshly treated by the City when they were not aware the permit requirements particularily as they relate to minor home improvements such as re -shingling, re -siding, etc. The City had always interpreted the double fee to be used in the case where contractors are in charge of the project and because of the nature of their work should have known to check as to what permits were required. ALTi _ I ✓ES rol r-a - 1. Leave the current ordinance and policy as it is interpreted. 2. Differentiate between major violations and minor violattions with minor violations requiring something leas than a double fee. 3. Differentiate between double fees for homeowners and contractors. 4. Differentiation between violations that are for building code items and ones that are for zoning codes. 1 ACTION - 1. Take no action. 2. Amend the current ordinance. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council amend the ordinance to allow a one time grace period per resident for building construction related after the fact permits that do not entail any zoning violations. All after the fact permits requiring a zoning variance and all will be charged a double fee. Staff will prepare refunds since June of 1989 for the seven residents charged a penalty fee if Council approves the change in policy. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved b}' _, seconded by , that the Council adopt Ordinance # , Second Series as an amendment to the Fee Ordinance related to double feeing in selected cases. Ayes Nays cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director Tom 7acobs, Bui_':ng Inspector Michael Gaffron, ;t. Planning & Zoning Admin,.str.ator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk To: Mark E, Bernhardson, City Admin.: J�/����� Frog: Jeann e A. Mabusth, Building & ZL C ,�� Date: August 22, 1989 Subject: Request to Reconsider Penalty Fees fo,: Residents List of Kxhibits Exhibit A - Bernhardson's Memo of 4/14/89 Exhibit B - Bernhardson's Memo of 3/23/89 Exhibit C - Mabusth's Memo of 3/22/89 Exhibit D - Fee Schedule Exhibit E - Scheffler's Memo of 7/27/89 Exhibit F - Hickey's Letter of 7/17/89 Exhibit G - Computer Reed -out of Penalty Permits Issued to Residents Since Re -instatement of Policy 5/89 In May of 1989 Council directed that the current fee schedule that provided for penalty fees for all after -the -fact building permits and land use applications and that also did not distinguish between the "first time offender homeowner" and contri.ztor be upheld and enforced. Since that ruling, staff has issued approximately 7 double --fee permits. Per attached Exhibits E & F, the enforcing of this policy has resulted in open confrontation with residents who appear shocked that the City capitalizes on obvious "natural mistakes for novice homeowners" or even an established homeowner who first attemptn to do home construction on their own. The Scheffler memo notes that the majority of these resident penalty permits occur with residents re -roofing, re -siding, or replacing an existing deck. As for the simultaneous issuing of warning citations with the penalty permits, staff shall amend the current department policy for first-time offender residents. Anothar mechanism shall be developed to flag the resident's file. Staff asks that you present your original proposal in your memo of March 23, 1989 to the Council that would recommend a change in the current penalty fee policy and an amendment to the fee schedule that would provide staff with the authority "to waive the additional penalty fee for residential property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work and dc, not have a previous history of work without a permit". 41489.3 5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dark ;. Bernhardson, City Administrate ,* DATE: April 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Fee Ordinance Amendment Attachment: A. Fee Ordiance Amendment #62 Double fees Dated March 23, 1989 ISSUE - Reconsideration of policy on double fees. INTRODUCTION- Adopted at the Council's March 27, 1989 meeting was incorporation of current policy as it relates to the double feeing of property owners who are required to get after -the -fact variances. At the Council's April 10, 1989 meeting the Council directed that this be reconsidered and it is being brought back fcr your reconsideration at this time. DISCUSSION - The Council has indica - i that they did not feal that exceptions for double fees show_ s made for homeowners, as homewoners should be just as aware of the regi.,lations as should contractors. Additionally there was a feeling that in selected cases homeowners "become the cont actors themselves" hiring individuals to do the work for them. ALTERNATIVES - Issue #1 Dolicy A. Concur with informal policy as noted in Attachment A. B. Amend by treating all After -the -Facts in an identical manner. C. Amend to have waiver dor.e by Council D. Take no action. E. Table .ssue #2 Implemer ion A. Con'-'.n any policy on an informal basis. B. Formalize by incorporating the policy in the fee ordinance. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that upon reconsideration that the Council delete the amendment adopted at he March 27, 1989 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION: - Movel by _, seconded by _, that Council repeal the Ordinance No. Second Series relating to the policy of double fees for After -the --Fact variar- -s. Ayes !, Nays _ cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Fuilding & Zc,ning administrator 41089.1 ORDINANCE NUMBER , SE"OND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINACE NO 62, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED JANUARY 9, 1989, AND ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1989 FEE SCHEDULE kta City Council of Orono ordains: Ordinance Number 62, Second Series adc January 9, 1989, and entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the 196:, 'Cee Schedule" is amended to read: ZONING APPLICATIONS AFTER -THE -FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution 1306; (Applies to all application types including variances, conditional use permits, subdivision, zoning amendments, rip -rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permit_:, moving permits, business licenses• kennel licenses, all building permits and all general permits.) whenever any work, use or division of land for which a formal application is required has been commenced without first making such application and rp-eiving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall be made during the application process. Because of the extra administrative costs involved in the special investigation, the minimum application fee for a;Lter-the-fact applications shall be twice the fee setforth in the basic fee schedule, whether or not the application is thereafter approved or denied. This additional '.�e may be waived by staff fo_ resiar,tial propert,, wners who :lave not involved a contra, --tor in their work and do not have a previous history of work without a permit. Payment cf an after - the -fact al--lication fee shall not constitute approval or authorizatio. of the work, use,. or division of land, and shall not constitute a penalty or a waiver of the right of the City to institute civil or criminal legal actions against the applicant for commencing such work, use 3r division of land without the required prior approval of the City. After -the -.`:act Investigation Fee Amount: E q u a l to a n d in addition to the basic fee amount (total fee is twice the basic fee amount) Res. 1306 Th.s ordinance becomes affective from and atter its passage and publication. ?assed by the Council. this 23rd day )f March, 1989. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, flair Dorothy M. �?a- lli� City Clerk 32389.1 O!.� 6 TO: Mayor and City Council (� FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato � a DATE: March 23, 1989 SUBJECT: After the Fact - Charging Policy Attachments: A. Double Fee Memo Dated 3/22/89 B. 1989 Fee Ordinance #62, Second Series Page 4 - 5 ISSUE - 1. Determination by Council as to the policy they desire regarding residential property owners causing the need for after the fact variances. 2. Determination of means by which the policy, if any, should be incorporated. INTRODUCTION - As outlined in Attachment A, the City has had an informal policy regarding this issue which has had the tacit approval of past Councils. DISCUSSION - As this is informal, the Planning Commission was not aware and desired a clarification. Attachment 3 would be a logical place to incorporate any Council policy. ALTERNATIVES Issue #1 Policy A. Concur with informal policy as noted it Attachment A. B. Amend by treating all After the Facts in an identical manner. C. Amend to have waiver done by Council. D. Take no action. E. Table Issue #2 Implementation A. Continue any policy on an informal basis. B. Formalize by incorporating the policy in the fee ordinance. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the current policy be continued and incorporated in the City's Fee Ordinance with the 1 following language on page 5: This additional fee may be waived by staff for residential property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work and do not have a previous history of work wi.thout a permit. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the Orono City Council amend Ordinance Number 62 of the :second series to incorporate the policy regarding double fee payment by residential property owners. Ayes _, Nays 2 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Application Type RIP -RAP Staff Review (normal rip -rap) Unusual Rip -Rap: a) New installation b) Repair existing APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION (of Administrative decision) INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPLICATIONS Minimum Project Valuation: $256,000„00 Application Fee: SURCHARGE FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS Per Fee Schedule setforth below: Professional Time Clerical Time Legal/Engineering Consultants Mileage/Copies/Postage/Etc. Applicable Fee Code Section No Charge $100.00 + CUP review Staff permit = $100.00 $100.00 10.06, Subd 3(D) 0.1% of project valuation ($250.00 minimum) plus $5,000.00 deposit for legal/ administrative expenses OF APPLICATION FEES Section 10.11 $ 25.00/hour $ 1.5.00/hour Actual Billed Cost Actual Cost &KQ-tV Ak4Z-U-r e AFTER -THE -FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution 1306) (Applies to all application types including variances, conditional use permits, subdivision, zoning amendments, rip -rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permits, moving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses, all building permits and all general permits.) 4 4 A 1) e) ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Whenever any work, use or division of land for which a formal application is required has been commenced without first making such application and receiving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall be made during the application process. Because of the extra administrative costs involved in the special investigation, the minimum application fee for after - the -fact applications shall be twice the fee setforth in the basic fee schedule, whether or not the application is thereafter approved or denied. Payment of an after -the -fact application fee shall not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or division of land, and shall not constitute a penalty or a waiver of the right of the City to institute civil or criminal legal actions against the applicant for commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. After -the -fact Investigation Fee Amount: Equal to and the basic fee fee is twice amount) in addition to amount (total the basic fee Res. 1306 5 -C.H M'�JT b TO: Mark A. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator DATE: March 22, 1989 SUBJ: Use of Double Fee/Penalties for Orono Residents At the March meeting of the Planning Commission, Members questioned Staff for not charging a penalty fee on a land use application involving a resident who constructed a deck without d building permit. Staff advised that the City does not charge a double fee for building permits or land use applications in cases where the resident performed construction work without the benefit of a building permit. It should be noted however that a resident is charged a double fee if the records reveal that work has previously been done on the property either by or for the owner without permits. Staff has followed this practice believing that this was an accepted policy of the City. The former City Council had been supportive of the special penalty policy, but failed to affirm it by formal action of the Council. Staff would recommend that Council reconsider special penalty policies for residents. The following options of actions are available: 1. Disapprove of the special policy for residents and direct Staff to double fee all residents who file after -the -fact building permit or land use applications. 2. To approve a policy that would exclude residents from paying penalty fees for after -the -fact building permits or land use applications if that resident was found to have never been in violation of performing construction work without a building permit. Further, direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment of the fee schedule that would clarify and formalize this policy. cc: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members �.� 12888.2 c 'J TO: Mayor and City Council C FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator, DATE: December 8, 1988 SUBJECT: 1999 Fee Ordinance Attachments: A. Proposed 1989 Fee Ordinance B. Proposed Summary Ordinance C. Building Fees Memo Dated 11/21/88 ISSUE 1. Adoption of fee ordinance for 1989 including selected changes. 2. Adoption of summary ordinance for publication. INTRODUCTION - Annually the Council adopts a fee ordinance for the coming year. The changes between 1988 and 1989 are noted in the summary ordinance. DISCUSSION - Several of the changes reflect increases in areas which have remained constant for a number of years. The fees attempt to reflect the time and materials involved. The change in the building permit fee schedule, as discussed in Attachment C, is a significant change but brings Orono's fees in line with over 3/4's of the Cities surveyed. The increases for the contract cities will be reflected in their contract renewal. The ordinance becomes effective upon publication. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Ordinance and Summary as presented. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Leave the 1988 rates in force for 1989 by amending the current ordinance extending them to 1989. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt Attachment A as the fees for 1989 and Attachment B as the Summary for publication. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Orono City council adopt Ordinance No. , Second Series as the 1989 Fee Schedule repealing Ordinance Numbers 44, 49 and 56 of the ` -' Second Series and adopt Attachment B as the SummaqYA Ordinance for , publication. Ayes Nays 1-3 P 1 E TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Laurie Scheffler, City Recorder DATE: July 27, 1989 SUBJ: Double Fee Policy for Orono Residents I am writing this to let you know that I disagree with the double fee policy of the City. I find it very difficult to deal face- to-face with what I consider to be good, honest residents of Orono and tell them that I must double fee them for an honest mistake. In addition to the double fee aspect of this policy, we are now writing a warning citation to the residents as well. I do not like making these people feel like criminals for doing nothing more than minor improvements to their property. It seems that most of the double fees occur with people re -roofing, re -siding or replacing an existing deck.) I find it hard to believe that anyone would find this policy in keeping with good public relations. If it is necessary, a form could be devised simply for the sake of warning the resident when they are found to be working without a permit. If there is a second violation, a double fee could be issued at that time. It was very easy to change the ordinance, but I do not think that any of the Councilmembers would like the job of dealing face-to- face with the residents the way in which Jamie, Teri and I must do. I would appreciate it if some consideration would be given to this matter. Public relations is always important, but especially so with the upcor-Ang Centennial and r.ew facility. cc: Ms. Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk �j•,t�y�.�..�ry(Kt�,+���1 •'•�[�' CIO, J•!V*r.V YI?. �.•1L'l�tiY�ti`.J`f:•�`: d•.�r-r•:'�S- ��'%^i:'�#1;1'i.�ia �.'i 4.a.Are �...,.t :.,,. ...p..F-•�.•.1 J1sfi;=ls!`jt.'Z�i!i.i•`'�y*•rvt•%iS�`�!Pfit�Fri`t�:r'JIft7i?�;.1i40f�il�i1:.«I'i;�tlET�Q�ti�lj�i1�►�f�S!'4��..5NS+�Y�It't.Y�:::i�?�k-'J �•ix••yt��• � rtlTd�'n T 1 <i�'i:>?C^'3•.-.+�•�-.•LJf�i":1'b'T'�'!`�'f �'"`��"i!:''.j'����~': � fri i^s `'.! ,"; ,.' . y�•y 4• - ��� t . ... .. `U,�'M' {t jit � '`'�� Lr,Yr%Jt a fY�j'r'• i�i�� �%•t. �•;{!b�,,;`�1 .•'.i Ji •i,(.i�J�iyn•� �1P���Yi;I�j���lwi�RY� j".!iM ••T.`�F:�r� �� r+! ^.•+- .. •• --11 .�r.JJ ��n .gI}.�»: -�✓...h��d. .Kt '. r•f�. Y,• F ••.MMM r'.••.-r,'•`.t.. �;�1:: ••f;1�1+:3::1'i�.'{r t�i���'>>u�;�fl4rt�"Y,liili+'.:t.itYr'w�.�:�^��fli;�ttt.tiW;;:,.�.� .�Ii'�1,�r�9.:5. , � Ji.-•ti.;�:2�t. �f+i, ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT i VIOLAT ON WARNING 3 ' GAS J Date Tlme Officer 1 OW /PARENJ - GUARDIAN ADD SS CITY STATE ZIP VEHICLE Veh. Make — Type VIN Color Yr. Model Lic.No. State Trlr. Make i VIA _Color Lic. No _Stale You have violated the laws of Minnesota as follows: ❑ Traffic ❑ Equipment ❑ Driver's License ❑ Registration M.S.S. VIOL N —3401 O 1 M eo. 10 eq Iell a d%eaed ere above vx ttvl rA:ft be corrected w*1 7 days The correction mull be eNOW1 Dy a hw Mlmr ip wM oftw The law OnWCO rMrd otlw.w shall SW ere reverse erda of M form cnMyrg eu conecnon r/ mWe FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN CITATION 13EING ISSUED w M rn AL?4 , �.enne�n �ic��av -640 i onka View '_arse Or.1no. MN t3354 ,'-t-y 17, ISG 1-. marl 6ernnaecson City of Orono �. G. Box E6 Dear Ber-t-lar=son! ?ecantly I was given a viola'tian warrdlr:; (?l+ F. - �1G"wzng wivnou: a permit) Whim to me seemec nfair. .. am a f1r5a r^e noble owrder, aria ignorant ur a!_ :1e c•_'ges anc ,.-'r=ldances the '_ity. X was . old ,3v K?.::.w 'none _wne-s gnat re-snlnc.►ing was .:1Ae •i:^G a Ce-rait Was ri:i, neeaec 11" CoinQ Over 1+. _ ��Y10 ,aVr2 ►^. t was n'_'t t-il'ng to 3& s.`/ %y 'N:%tiic:-At terMissior.. as t�''.ere :s ma„1c- worKI']F3.r- cons 4n rwa 1'.��.isas across the road from my %-use. anc 1 : l s C'a't ins•_ec'Cors Aou:.d de pasvina the area. Officer #6581 in-2ormed �.le :nat . readed a oermlt, so _ _mmediateiy :yens to ac_ux-e one only -%*-o flnc aut tiat my fee was new r_ouolec. Po us, ir- I lave any more infractions, : am going to oe in -�ront v a court paying huge fires. I now almoa': feel 11K@ : havda =:c' ca.i city 'ial, ;ny time I want to mcw zne lawn. 7h4 city smoulc ce wor•u.irc_ .o neig tie cltizsv�s In :no ares. .Not throw tMe'A %n COIA,'t 3V0--./ 'C iMle :!'Inv r.ne c_-rrmunity oy c:e-?rv1g uo an eves -.:'re. A gong=oLuci'3r wc'.d.d have teen a veroai warner_. enaalzno me to oat my oerv-it (wnicn i did immeclateiy aryway) and explain the situational instances of what nomeow•rlers are su000300 tc Co. After a vernal Warninc. then snoula come the written viola-cion warning, tnen the court situation after this. I dia sit ardr talk wit-1 two of vour orflcers ar-c -ow :.now 1 snoui.c ca::. city hall if i have any questions. -4owever as :hers are no more 49sways for me oacause i alireaCy have one violation wa.^nine, as I mentioned earlier, ? feel like t have to always call zo got oermiss1on to do any mania! work. Its enougn worry to give an ulcer wnen I snould ae feeling the sense of accomplishment instead. If you have any cuestions or comments regarcing this matter. 1 may be contacted at the acove address or by telephone at 472-3463. Sincereiy, Kenneth Hickey .-yir-.�tL,'ti'•.f.j�rRr.i�.l..�+�►_�•C..`��•.,`i '.,:-.i+tip. f�-.: .. '.+'y'•.-:-.�. N�{3�!'7►�it *�'I'rn�sr�Psi if. +.:� - .: .� .q•/��.i 'L.�}}..:: •�%il j YY'.��1[X•i. ..�a.t�,l i/ter. �'��t.�J l •�i'_i�, .:�. .. :rir �F.°rt�i'"r .�, i^KJ �: +W��!''j'?i'"'w'aYJ APPROVED FOR COMPANY PHONE NUMBER NUMBER STREET CITY ZIP 8 ZIP+ ID NUMBER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOMEOWNER CUFF MARK (612) 471-9'195 3572 -De C)C LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA S5391-0000 14719795 HOMEOWNER DALE MICHAEL CYGNET PL LONG LAKE HOMEOWNER DERBY LORIN NORTH ARM OR MOUND HOMEOWNER HABAS BRIAN JOHN LYRIC AVE WAYZATA HOMEOWNER HICKEY KENNETH TONKAVIEW LA MOUND HOMEOWNER JERDEE ROBERT CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA CONTINUE( Y/1J'> Y HOMEOWNERS (612) 473-3617 261 Pe - r- 5S3S6-0000 14733617 ( 6 ► 2) 472-3204 1 311 n 5S364-0000 14723204 R�- ►��2� ( 6 12) 471 -8405 3645 SS391-0000 14718405 i 612) 472-5463 4640 Pit -SrLr� 55364-0000 14725463 (612) 471-9376 306S 55391-0000 1471 9,a76 APPROVED FOR COMPANY PHONE NUMBER NUMBER ---STREET- CITY IP & ZIP+ ID NUMBER --ARD---------------------------------- HOMEOWNER NICCUM RICHRD (612) 471-01`3 2184 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA 5S391-0000 14710123 7C 82389.4 ORDINANCE # , SECOND SERIES AmmmiNG ORDINANCE #62, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED JANUARY 9TH, 1989, AND ENTITLED -1989 FEE SCHEDULE, ZONING APPLICATIONS-. The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Ordinance #62, Second Series, adopted January 9, 1989, and entitled "1989 Fee Schedule, Zoning Applications," is amended to read: AFTER -THE -FACT -APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution #1309) (Applies to all application types including variances, conditional use permits, subdivision, zoning amendments, tip -rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permits, mrving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses, all building permits and all general permits.) This permit fee may be waived by staff for resident property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work, have no previous history of work without a permit and where such work does not entail any zoning violation. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Pas::ed by the Council this 28th day of August, 1989. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk To be published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper the week of September 4, 1989. 82389.2 TO: Mayor and City Council COUNCIL MEUM FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratol v AUG 2 81989 DATE: August 23, 1989 CITY Of ORONO SMHJECT: Highway 12 Project Bond Financing Attachments: A. Bond Financing Memo Dated 8/2/89 (Memo Only) ISSUE - Provision of information to Council regarding up coming Highway 12 bonding. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 14, 1989, meeting they adopted a resolution for the ordering of a bond sale in the amount of $2,145,000 with a provision to allow it to be adjusted upward by up to $200,000 to cover capitalized interest. This authorization was given with the caveat that information be provided to the Council as to the action taken. DISCUSSION - After review of the anticipated payment schedule, project schedule and needed capitalized interest the amount was increased to $2.3 million which was an increase of approximately $155,000. This additional capital interest cost will be charged to the projects if it is needed. (One caveat relat•is to connection charges. Should these not come in at a i.ace anticipated that they would be made up in the short term ry operational funds and repaid in the long term by the connection charges.) ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Ask for any further clarification. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that this information be accepted as presented. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the information as presented. Ayes _, Nays cc: Carolyn Drude, Ehlers and Associates Tom Ruebn, Finance Director John Gerhardson, Public works Director 8289.7 7TAe1WiZ;Vr H TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City dministrato DATE: August 2, 1989 SUBJECT: Bonding Resolution - Highway 12/Lift Station 10 & 43 Attachments: A. Proposed Bond Resolution B. Financing Memo Highway 12/gift. Station 10 & 43 Dated 7/ 19/89 C. Bond Indexes 9/l/88 - 8/7/89 ISSUE - Determination as to whether "he Council desires to adopt a resolution to undertake the sale of bonds by September 11, 1989. INTRODUCTION - In order to finance the projects through the use of bonds the City needs to undertake a bond sale. In advance of that it needs to order a resolution for sale of bonds in a format as noted in Attachment A. DISCUSSION - The resolution as set forth incorrorates the project based on current projection or estimated plans plus the capitalizing interest in some cases which may be needed between the time the project is built and when it is assessed. To the extent that it is less than that there will be monies available for payout. As noted in Attachment B the intended assessment for the sewer and water trunk portions will be over a 5 year period with the balance being over a 10 year period. (Financing of Lift Station 10/43 will be discussed at the 8/14 meeting with an expected combination of operational savings and connection charges.) The actual financing of the water tower project and the sewer interceptor project will be brought forward at the time authorization will be sought to undertake plans and specifications for each of these projects. To the extent that these projects do not go forward the money will be available for the actual payoff of the bonds. This resolution has been reviewed by the bond attorney that the City has used in the past (Faegre and Benson). (Popham Haik does provide this service but only started recently.) As noted in Attachment C bond rates continue to be at or below what they had previously been at and the current climate for bonds remains positive for the City. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt as presented. 2. Amend and adopt. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the resolution be adopted as presented setting September 11, 1989 as the date for sale of the bonds. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council adopt Resolution # establishing as the date to issue and sell $2,145,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1989. Ayes Nays _ CC: Carolyn Drude, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 2950 Northwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4100 i To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator A rem: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adminis*rat POlINCiI MEETING Date: August 18, 1989 Subject: Fee Schedule Amendment AUG 2 81989 The enclosed fee amendment ordinance will provide seAUYtPF ORONO fee schedules for PRDs within the Highway 12 corridor and for those areas not approved for PUD development outside the Highway 12 area. ordinance 68, Second Series failed to distinguish the directives of the ordinance. Staff would appreciate your scheduling the ordinance for Coun A l's review at their August 28, 1989 meeting. TO: Mayor and City Council C) FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato"L /'-\ Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, to approve ordinance # , Second Series. Ayes Nays _ cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator 0 ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES .,;�( �ordnsaQqe amending Ordinance No. 62, Second Series, dAAM Janudry`9, 1989, and entitled "1989 Fee Schedule, Zoning Applications". The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Ordinance No. 62, Second Series, adopted January 9, 1989, dNVyttbled "1989 Fee Schedule, Zoning Applications" is n read: UNDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PRD Application with Subd. PRD Application without Subd. PID Application with or without Subd. Subd. Fee + $30.00 per dwelling unit $35.00 per dwelling unit (min. $150.00) $150.00 per acre (min. $350.00) UNDER ZONING AMENDMENTS INCLUDING RE -ZONING: PUD Rezoning - Allowed only within area adjacent to Highway 12 as defined in Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2. Residential Commercial/Industrial $250.00 + $35.00 per dwelling unit $150.00 per acre (min. $350.00) This ordinance becomes affective SeptemLer 15, 1989. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 28th day of August, 1989 by a vote of ayes and nays. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor 81789.10 0 �/ TO: Mayor and City Council COUP MEM FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate AUG 2 81989 DATE: August 21, 1989 CY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Public/Private Roads 1� Attachment: A. Attorney's Opinion on Public/Private Roads Dated 7/21/ 89 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council regarding the City's ability to take over private roads. a. By ordinance. b. By specific easement grant. 2. Presentation of information regarding City's ability to extend private roads to serve others without taking them over. 3. Presentation of information regarding the City's ability to enforce on private roads. INTRODUCTION - As a result of a recent issue regarding the City's right to mandate the extension of a private road the attorney developed Attachment A as a means to aderess the issue. DISCUSSION - As noted in the memos the City has the following abilities should it choose to undertake them in relationship to private roads. 1. Ability to take over private roads as public roads it desires either by; a.) statutory authority or b.) easement. 2. The City can extend a private road into another private property without making it public. 3. The City does have the authority to enforce all traffic laws on private roads. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Discuss as desired. 3. Table for further action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , that the Council accept the information on tie public/priva-Fe roads. Ayes Nays __ 1 AUG MEMORANDUM AUG 7 JC I TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney RE: City of Orono - LF 3643-091 Regulation of the Use of Private Property DATE: July 21, 1989 ISSUE May the City of Orono compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road without making the road public? CONCLUSION The City of Orono probably may compel private owners of a road to open the road for use by the general public under appropriate easements. Further, the City can likely compel such access under M.S.A. 5 412.221, subd. 2 as it was interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Borchert v. Village of North Oaks, 254 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d 396 1 62 . DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS May the city of Orono compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road without ;Waking the road public? A. The City of Orono may compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road by asserting its rights to the platted easement. Under the terms of easements granted it, the City of Orono may be able to assert that it has a right to open the private roads to all homeowners who live on the private road or to all people who could be reasonably expected to use the roads. The exercising of the easement rights by the City of Orono is consistent with both the Comprehensive Management Plan (hereinafter "CMP") and the Transportation Plan of the City. The -`'P provides that the purpose of the easements is to "ensure leg. -cess of the public to the properties served by the priva read." CMP 7-12. The Transportation Plan provides that, [t]he arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of streets between adjacent properties when such continuation is necessary for convenient movement of traffic, effective fire protection, for efficient provision of utilities and where such continuation is in accordance with the City Compre hensive Municipal Plan. City of Orono Municipal Code, 5 11.32, subd. (H)(1). Pursuant to the CMP and the Municipal Code, the easements may be utilized by the City to ensure legal access of properties served by the private road. In making its decision to exercise its easement rights, the City may decide that the opening of private roads for use by homeowners in new subdivisions is necessary for the convenient movement of traffic. B. The City of Orono may compe public passage on a private general welfare powers. 1 privat-a owners to allow road by exercising its The Minnesota State Legislature has provided specific powers for city councils. Among its enumerated powers, The Council shall have power to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suppression of vice and immorality, the prevention of crime, the protection of public and private property, the benefit of residents, trade and commerce, and the promotion of health, safety and order, convenience, and the general welfare by such ordinances not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state as it shall deem expedient. M.S.A. 5 412.221, Subd. 32 (emphasis added). The welfare powers which are outlined in M.S.A. 5 412.221 are to be interpreted broadly so as to sustain municipal activities reasonably related to the needs of the city. Sverkerson v. City of Minneapolis, 204 Minn. 388, 283 N.W. 555, 556 (1939). The Supreme Court of Minnesota has held that the general powers contained in M.S.A. 5 412.221 are broad enough to allow a village to regulate traffic and to expend funds to enforce such regulations upon privately -owned roads. Borchert v. Village of -2- North Oaks, 264 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d 396 (1962). The court reasoned, This court has heretofore held that a municipal corporation has the power under [M.S.A. 5 412.221, subd. 321 to regulate the use of private as well as public property.... [W]hatever the extent of poli,ze power over ordinary private roads which are not freely used by the public, that power must be held to extend to such private roads where they comprise the whole road system of a village....'[The scope of the police power] covers a wide range of subjects, and, while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the peace, security, health, morals and general welfare of the community, it is not limited thereto, but extends to dealing with conditions which exist so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity and to everything expedient for the preservation and comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation.... That which may at one time be regarded as not within such power, may, at another time, by reason of changed conditions, be recognized as a legitimate subject for the exercise of the power.' Id. at 400. (citing 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations, § 128). The road system in the Village of North Oaks is somewhat analogous to the road system in the City of Orono. Both cities are unique in that many of the roads contained in the cities are private. The cities only differ 1^ the respect that the underlying easement reverts back to ti,Z homeowners in North Oaks but reverts back to the City in Orono. The City of Orono may rely on the reasoning in Borchert to amend its ordinances so that all private roads must be open to homeowners and their invitees who need to use the private roads to get to their property. The City of Orono can then protect the general welfare of the City of Orono's citizens by promoting order and convenience as is it is empowered to do under M.S.A. 5 412.221, subd. 32. An opinion of the Attorney General, citing Borchert, held that a city council acting under M.S.A. § 417.221, subd. 32, was empowered to provide snow removal upon a privately -owned street open for use to the general public at the expense of the abutting homeowners. Op. Atty. Gen. 377a-11, Sept. 13, 1978. The Attorney General reached this conclusion by resolving the case "upon its own facts, with due regard for the public interest to be served by the city providing the service directly." Id. -3- The City of Orono has already changed the definition of a private road contained in its municipal code. Section 6.01 of the Orono Municipal Code originally read, Subd. 2. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicated to public use or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City. Private roads are private property except as regulate in t is Chapter. City of Orono Municipal Code, 5 6.01, subd. 2. On July 25, 1988, the c•rono City Council amended the definition of the term "private road". The new definition is similar to the old definition in all respects, except that the underlined language in the e.bove quoted passage has been deleted. The Orono City Council could again amend 5 6.01, subd. 2 to include an addendum sentence which reads, "All private roads must be open to all people who own homes on that road and their invitees and to all people and their invitees who could reasonably be expected to use that road to get to their private residences." ZSRP718 -4- MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney RE: City of Orono - LF 3643-091 Regulation of the Use of Private Property DATE: July 21, 1989 ISSUE If a private road is made public, does the City of Orono have the obligation t(- for the road as improved? 'J(-LUSION There are no Minnesota cases which specifically address this issue. The City of Orono probably will not be required to compensate the private owners if the road is opened to the general public because no taking of property has occurred. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS If a private road is made public, does the City of Orono have the obligation to pay for the road as improved? No Minnesota cases specifically address the issue of whetter or not the city must compensate the owner of a private road if the city opens the road to use by the general public. It may be argued that no compensation is due to the owner of a private road since no taking has occurred. The City of Orono, by opening the private road to the general public, is only exercising its power to regulate all roads in its jurisdiction, and acting pursuant to the easement it has been granted. The courts in the State of Minnesota have not addressed this specific issue. There are two cases in Minnesota which provide a clue as to how the courts in the State of Minnesota would likely rule upon this issue. The first case is Borchert v. Village of North Oaks, 264 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d 396 (1952). In Borchert, the Village of North Oaks prescribed maximum speeds of vehicles driven in the village on any private road. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the Village of North Oaks could regulate traffic on private roads in the Village by virtue of the power granted to it under the general welfare clause found in M.S.A 5 412.221, subd. 32. Even though the usurpation of regulation of private roads may be viewed as a taking, the Supreme Court of Minnesota never addressed this issue in the Borchert case. The second Minnesota case which indicates how the Minnesota courts would likely rule on this issue is Shinneman v. Arago Township, 288 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1980). The Court in Shinneman was interpreting M.S.A. § 160.06, subd. provides: When any road or portion of a road has been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway by a road authority, it shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of actual use and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway, whether it has ever been established as a highway or not. M.S.A. 5 160.05, subd. 1. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that in the case in which a city took over a road by utilizing tP.is statute, the award of damages was not warranted. Section 160.06, subd. 1 provides no method by which government can take property. The statute, rather provides a substitute for the common-law creation of highways by prescription or adverse use. Shinneman at 243. The City of Orono, if challenged on this point, would have to arse that private land owners should not be compensated for reasonable regulation of their properties.!11 It appears that --------------------------- (11 'There are not any constitutional objections to imposing the cost of reconstruction as well as original construction upon abutting or adjacent property owners .... the grant of power to a municipal corporation to 'pave' its streets and levy assess- ments against the benefited property, unless restricted, is a continuing authority. The exercise of the power in paving a street does not exhaust, but the same streets may be subsequently repaved at the cost of the specially benefited property under this power.' McQuillan, Municipal Corporations § 38.16. -2- the Minnesota courts would construe the term "reasonable regulation" to include the assertion of a public easement even if this incidentally includes the enjoyment of improvements which were previously made at the expense of private owners. Most easements enforced by a city impinge upon the rights of property owners'. However, not all inconveniences are compensable, particularly where the existence of the easement puts the property owner on notice that the "private" improvements may one day become part of the "public" easement. ZSRP719 -3- DATE: August 23, 1989 TO: All Personnel FROM: Chief Kilbo SUBJECT: Law Enforcement on private roads Following an opinion by City Attornev, Tom Barrett, this de- partment will enforce appropriate laws on private roads as well as public roads. Patrol of those roads will be accomplished as needed for general public safety and welfare. This includes speed con- trol, stop sign violations, obstruction to traffic and to make sure roadways are open to travel by the public. If there are any questions, please see the supervisors. 81789.11 TO: Mayor and City Council COUNCIL MEETING FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate w AUG281989 DATE: August 17, 1989 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting Attachment: A. Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting Questions and Answers ISSUE - Presentation of information regarding the Stubb's Bay meeting held July 27, 1989. 2. Establishment of a date for the next Stubb's Bay meeting. INTRODUCTION - At the informational meeting held July 27, 1989, a numb of questions were raised. Attachment A was prepared to summarize the questions and answers given at that meeting. In addition, a number of residents of the area who were interested in furthering the development of a sewer desire to have a meeting as soon a possible. DISCUSSION - It is hoped that a meeting regarding Stubb's Bay would again be held in November and at that time the City would be able to respond to questions that were not able to be addressed at the July 27th meeting. Significant questions to be responded to are: 1. Will the City entertain allowing any other areas to be included, such as: a. Oxford Road b. "Fox Bend" Development (Leaf/Bayside) 2. Will the City absorb any reserve charge. 3. Will the properties in the designated area be allowed to change the zoning once sewer is available in order to help them defray the cost. Also, would additional buildable lots created through a rezoning be required to pay a full unit charge. (It should be noted that this was originally zoned R-lC, 1 acre lot size prior to the 1975 rezoning.) 4. What level of support (8) and waivers of assessment does the Council desire to be signed prior to undertaking this project. 1 ALTERNATIVES - 1. Establis.i a date. 2. Respond to the questions. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table further discussion of the item until its September 25, 1989 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council table further discussion of the item until_its September 25, 1989 meeting. Ayes _, Nays cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer 2 INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES STUBBS BAY INFORMATIONAL MEETING JULY 27, 1989 ORONO HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM At the informational meeting that was held on July 27, 1989, approximate1v property owners were present together with Councilmemb Diann Goetten and members from the staff including M_ Gaffron, Glenn Cook, John Gerhardson, Jeanne Mabusth and Mark liernhare�son. Following an introduction by the City Administrator, Michael Gaffron gave an overview of the Waste Management Study, outlining each of the alternatives and the merits and pitfalls of each of those alternatives. This was followed by a presentation of the sewering option as far as layout and expense presented by Glenn Cook. Following this presentation general questions were taken. The following represents the significant questions that were raised and responses given to those. (As these are paraphrased they may encapsulate two or three questions that were asked together with their responses and are not necessarily in the order in which the questions were aaAed.) 1. Is there not a law that requires that the property owner be required to pay only the amount of benefit to the property? Minnesota special assessments are limited to the benefit (increase brought about by the improvement) to that property. The City is cognizant of this law and is structuring the amount of actual special assessment to be equal to or less than the expected benefit to the great range of properties. The balance of the cost will be covered by a connection charge. There is a possibility the connection charge can be financed by the City over the same term as the assessment which is expected to be 15 or 20 years. 1 2. What are the costs of the project and what are anticipated to be the financing options. The costs are detailed on the sheet that was handed out, split out between about a $6,500 assessment charge and between $4,200 and $9,700 connection charge. It is anticipated that it would be a 15 to 20 year bond issue. If your total assessment plus connection charge was $10,000 over 15 years that would cost about $670 per year in interest together with an initial interest cost of about $800 which would be decrease over the 15 year period to a final year interest cost in the range of $60.00. Spread over _ years, the annual principal would go down but the amount of interest paid over that timeperiod would be increased. If your rate is $15,000 just multiply those numbers by 1.5 times the $10,000 number. 3. Are the larger lots subsidizing the smaller lots? To the extent that sewer is going to be installed adjacent to a large lot, a lot with a large frontage actually costs more to serve than a lot with a small frontage. To the extent that sewer is needed the greater number of smaller lots actually, defray the cost for the larger lots. (This is balanced out by splitting the arEas between the larger and smaller lots and having the lateral cost for the smaller lots, in this case, being less than for the larger lots.) 4. Aren't there other places, such as Cygnet Place, that in the future will need to have sewer? The City staff has looked at Cygnet Place as far as sewering and what impact that has on this project. It is anticipated that that area will be looked at over the next 5 or 10 years. Whether the area needs sewer would be the subject of a Waste Management Study and will be dependent, not only, on lot size but also topography, soil conditions, water table etc. We looked at it as to how a sewer pipe will be run on an approximate basis. 2 5. Will there not be excess rapacity in the line that someone else could use? The minimum diameter line that can be put in according to state requirements would be an 8 inch line? This obviously can serve more than the approximately 100 units in this area. Other areas could be hooked into this and utilize this capacity. Staff has discussed the possibility of having a portion of the cost of the excess capacity picked up by the City initially as a reserve charge, to eventually be funded by those who may use the pipe. To the extent that this is done, every $100,000 that the City would set aside as reserve charge would reduce the unit charge by approximately $1,000 per unit based on 100 units. It should be remembered however, that this area will be hooking into the line on Tonkawa Road (Co. Rd. 135) which has "reserve capacity" for this area and for future areas. (All the people along Tonkawa paid for their entire system and there is no anticipation that they would be rebated anythin- as a result of this improvement.) 6. If you are on a large lot can you stay out of the sewer project? It has been the City's policy to include all properties which are abutting a line. This is done because you now have an option for sanitary disposal that you previously did not have even if you choose not to exercise it. City policy has been that all properties abutting a lire hook up in the study area and that they raust hook up within 16 months and pay for the improvement. 7. Will zoning be changed to help us afford the improvement? In 1975 this area was zoned from the previous 1 acre to 2 acre zone be( :,,,se there was not sewer in the area. This was also done ir areas of the City that did not have sewer, including t':. al Bay area. That sewer was installed in 1985 and the. been no request by the residents nor any initiative by the City to rezone that area. (It should be noted that even if rezoned to 1 acre standards, the bulk of the lots in the Crystal Bay area would remain substandard.) Should a request for rezoning be considered, the City would have to amend its Comprehensive Plan. Also, to the extent 3 that individual properties were looking for additional hookups that would help decrease the overall unit charge but that property would then have to pay for more units. 8. Will a new subdivision, such as the one being proposed east of Leaf Street, be included in the project? It has not been the policy of the City to include any areas that do not absolutely need sewer. This area is developing to a 2 acre standard and preliminary indications are that it will have adequate conditions for on -site septic systems on each building site. Even if the City were to allow sewering of this area, the topography of the area would require significant design parameters that would not result in a substantial reduction in unit lateral cost for the Stubbs Bay project. Inclusion of all those units in the project may reduce the trunk cost by about 20%. (100 units in Stubbs Bay 22, units in "Sussex") 9. Why is the property on oxford Road being left out? Again, this area was developed to the 2 acre standard and although it is lakeshore property which differentiates it from the property east of Leaf, it is not contemplated to be included as there should be adequate septic systems for this area. Based on gene, City policy we have not addressed this question to th, uncil but we will address both this and the question regarding the subdivision. The inclusion of the Oxford property would probably reduce the trunk cost by about 10%. (10 properties) 10. How soon could a project be undertaken? The project progress is derendent on the level of interest of the neighborhood. 7f su'.,stantial interest is generated this fall and hearings could be held this winter, plans could be drawn this winter and construction begun in the spring. It is important to realize that the Council will probably not undertake this project unless a substantial majority of the property owners are interested in undertaking this project to the point of agreeing to sign a waiver of appeal on this project. This is a neighborhood problem, and the neighborhood should get together to decide how they want to solve it. (It was mentioned that the current prices are as 4 much as 20% below the normal because of the low lake level, which influences the water table, this however could change within a year to two.) 11. When is the next meeting? It is anticipated that the next meeting will be within the next 2 to 3 months. In the meantime we suggest to you, if you have questions about your particular lot that you speak to Michael Gaff ron as he has diagrammed each of the lots, and discuss not only set backs as diagrammed but also comments such as soil conditions and slopes. (Some owners indicated that they would like the meeting as soon a possible in order to get this underway.) 12. what Federal or State monies are available for this project? There used to be monies available in the 160's and 170's but with the change in the Federal program these monies are no longer available from the Federal level. The City looked at this for the Crystal Bay project and were not able to get any across-the-board grants. (We forgot to mention that the City was able to get funds individually for people through the C.D.B.G. program, but those are no longer available either.) Today we are not aware of P.C.A. or Lake Minnetonka Conservation District mandating hookups in order to preserve the lake. To the extent that other people around the lake have paid for the cost of hooking up their own sewer it is probably not expected that c... L.M.C.D. would do a general assessment to help pay for the small area that is left. (Subsequent to the meeting Michael Gaffron has been in contact with P.C.A. to determine what, if any, giants might be available to help fund this project. P.C.A. has funds available for septic system rehabilitation grants, but only for cities whose overall Citywide average income is below the state median. State median is $17,161. Orono's average income is $30,736. (all 1980 data), hence PCA has indicated Orono would not qualify.) 5 81789. 8 C;�') ce2 TO: Mayor and City Council( FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato*6 DATE: August 17, 1989 COUNCIL MEETING SUWWT: Policy Change - Fireworks Ordinance WIIYI AUG 2 81989 Attachment: A. Chief Kilbo Memo Dated 8/9/89 CITY OF ORONO ISSUE - Providing information regarding the change of policy interpretation on the fireworks ordinance. INTRODUCTION - For many years the City has issued permits to private in ividuals for fireworks. DISCUSSION - After a discussion raised by permit requests submitted7during 1989 it was realized that private parties are not allowed to possess fireworks under State law and that issuing the permit would be letting them do an activity for which they are not allowed to be in possession of these materials. While not requiring an ordinance change this interpretation of the current ordinance in light of current State law would restrict all but organizations to obtain the appropriate licenses from the State. As noted in Attachment A the City would notifying all past permit holders of this interpretation change yet this fall so that they know it will not be issued next summer. Additionally a related item has been the issue of "shot gun starts" a country club golf tournement in which fireworks are used. With the interpretation of the Chief this would be permitted provided the City was given appropriate notification. ALTERNATIVES 1. Acknowledge. 2. Table. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council acknowledge the information regarding the interpretation change. This is not an interpretation that has been reivewed by the City Attorney at this point. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the information from staff on this issue. Ayes _, Nays cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Tom Jacobs, Building Inspector Mel Kilbo, Police Chief l Interoffice Memo t•411 j p, Date: August 9, 1989 To: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator 31" 1"1 1[f4bo, Chief of Police Re: Fireworks Ordinance The City has become concerned with the number of fireworks permit requests from private citizens wishing to have their own discharge and display. Nationwide concern is noted in a publication of the National mire Protection Assoc,. See attached. Minnesota Stag: Fire Marshall's representative John Lgjftus confirmed that MSS 640.22 prohibits private party displays. ►1SS 624.22 also states no one may possess, sell, use or distribute fireworks until a permit under MSS 624.22 has been issued permits may be issued only to Cities, Fair Associations, Amusement Parks and other organizations.. MSS 624.23 does allow permit to be issued to be used for "signal ur c�:reuiuriial purposes in athletics or sports . Based on :hate Statute construction as to use, possessiuri anti discharge by anY Person, our ordinance: 061, Second Series, See. 9.10, Subd. 3 (D) allows discharge "to a display of fireworks by an organisation or group of organizations authorized in writing by the Chief of Police, application for permit being made at least fifteen (15) days prior to the event". Subd. #9, possession and sale of fireworks states "it is unlawful for any person to sell, possess, or have in possession for purpose of sale, distributing, use or explosion, except as allowed in Subdivisions :) of this Chapter, any firecrackers, sky rockets or other fireworks." It is my opinion that our present ordinance is written in conformance with state law and that the cities interpretation of the ordinance has been incorrect in that the city has issued permits for individuals which is not allowed by either state law or our ordinance. The question of length of permit for fireworks permit for certain country clubs for use in "shotgun starts" is addressed under Section 9.10, Subd. E (5). The ordinance allows annual permits for clubs as follows: 05 Field trials, commercial or professional exhibitions or displays, or any similar or lawful purpose as determined by the Chief of Police. As for the issue of length of permit in relation to "shotgun starts" (which actually uses fireworks), would be allowed on more than a one time basis under the section sited provided they specify to the Chief of Police the times and dates of discharge, either with application or in advance of usage. All private persons previously being granted permits would be notified by the police department of the change in interpretation. CREMES, OTHER PROVISIONS 624.21 t during the day for good order, health, or comfort of the community, needful including the usual shoe shining service; but keeping open a barber shop or shaving and hair cutting shall not be deemed works of necessity or charity, and nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the selling of uncooked meats, groceries, clothing, boots, or shoes. The games of baseball, football, hockey, basketball, golf, and other contests of athletic skill when conducted in a quiet and orderly dpWit. Wccer so as not to interfere with the peace, repose, and comfort of the community, 1uNEous manner may be played on the Sabbath day. Ciam History: RL s 4981; 1909 a 267 s 1; 1919 c 308 s 1; 1935 c 129,• 1941 c 336; ov;ar enpna or cars. CLho" 't' m skibkwft 1961 c 732 s 1 (10235) 624.03 PUNISHMENT. n �tarsa�o a two of Every person who breaks the Sabbath shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and Imp0""n iniely "` bub punished by a fine of not less than S1 nor more than S10 or by imprisonment in the v�'°"' i county Jail for not more than five days; but it shall be a sufficient defense to a lievem a m m mwrchmu as prosecution for Sabbath breaking that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time and that the act complained of was done in such manner as cwtm buildup or r, appkatbon of federal not to disturb others in the observance of the Sabbath. p r , History: RL s 4982 (10236) ,aoaa aw to hove 624.04 SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE SABBATH PROHIBITED. r,,,,,;t, peoai,y. r "°a"' Every service of legal process upon the Sabbath day, except in case of a breach if �t or apprehended breach of the peace, or when sued out for the apprehension of a L muques mW person charged with crime, or where such service is expressly authorized by statute, `P Wimala prohibit4 is hereby prohibited. Ilium r powk, p"n of History: RL s 4983 (10237) a e .iti ur or public FIREWORKS d tsar ps eompoued. tmog bullets 624.20 FIREWORKS. As used in sections 624.20 to 624.25, the term "fireworks" means any substance or combination of substances or article prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or an audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration, or detonation, and c of the certain act includes blank cartridges, toy cannons, and toy canes in which explosives are used, them, firecrackers, of the repose &A the type of balloons which require fire underneath to propel 1ch acts on that dqtorpedoes, skyrockets, Roman candles, daygo bombs, sparklers. or other fireworks of used in this midnight. like construction, and any fireworks containing any explosive or inflammable compound, tablets or other device containing any explosive substance and or any commonly used as fireworks. The term "fireworks" shall not include toy pistols, toy guns, in which paper caps containing 25 hundredths grains or less of explosive compound are used and toy pistol caps which contain .ess than 20 hundredths grains held by the v of explosive mixture. all noises diet History: 1941 c 125 s I employments. to interfere with. 6Z411 SALE AND USE OF FIREWORKS PROHIBITED. g or offering for Except as otherwise provided in sections 624.20 to 624.25, it shall be unlawful .parity are p for any person to offer for sale, expose for sale, sell at retail, or wholesale, or use or explode any fireworks. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the use or y nterers, explosion of fireworks by an engineer licensed pursuant to sections 326.02 and kept for sale. aanes may be aflid 326.03 or a person under the engineer's direct supervision when undertaking acoustical testing; or sales at wholesale to those persons holding valid permits for a included whateva .Mt 62i11 CRIMES. OTHER PROVISIONS 9%2 Y.. fireworks display from a governmental subdivision of the state; or sales outside the 1S VIOLATION. state or sales to licensed professional engineers for accoustical testing purposes only. Any person violating the p History: 1941 c 125 s 2; 1963 c 818 s l; 1982 c 440 s 1 i misdemeanor. History: 1941 c 125 s 6 624.22 PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF FIREWORKS BY MUNICIPALITIES EX. TOKE' CEPTED. Sections 624.20 to 624.25 shall not prohibit supervised public displays of MANUFACTURE A: TIED. fireworks by citim fair associations, amusement parks, and other organizatiort; Except when such display is given by a municipality or fair association within its The manufacture, sale. of'. own limits, no display shall be given unless a permit therefor has first been secure& checks, or slugs similar knowledge or reason to b Every application for such a permit shall be made in writing to the municipal cleft days in of the date of the display. The application shall be th 'substitution for any such 1 at least 15 advance promptly referred to the chief of the fire department who shall make an investigations V 'ce meter, coin -box telephc only by lawful coin o to determine whether the operator of the display is competent and whether the and is to be so located, discharged, or fired that it wtU ted ment of property, privile' display is of such a character not be hazardous to property or endanger any person. The fire chief shall report the - History: 1941 c. 132 s 1 results of this investigation to the clerk and if he reports that in his opinion the operator is competent and that the display as planned will conform to safety including the rules and regulations of the state fire marshal hereinafter �y4.31 FRICTIONS Al manufak requirements, provided for, the clerk shall issue a perma for the display when the applicant pars a No person shall ens, or slugs unless they s� permit fee of 52. When the supervised public display for which a permit is s_-;ght is diameter than any lawful to be held outside the limits of an incorporated municipality, the application shall be and the duties imposed by such sections upon the cleric z. History: 1941 c 132 s 2 made to the county auditor of the municipality shall be performed in such case by the county auditor. The duties imposed on the fire chief of the municipality by such sections shall be 2 �yOWLEDGE OF performed in such case by the county sheriff. After such permit shall have been In the trial of a defenda granted, sales, possession, use and distribution of fireworks for such display shall be 33, knowledge or reason lawful for that purpose only. No permit so granted shall be transferable. The state rules and regulations not inconsistent with the "exist upon the presentation of to the sta: fire marshal shall adopt reasonable provisions of such sections to insure that fireworks displays are given safely. chief police notice to the defend:: sold, offered for sale.:: History: 1941 c 115 s 3; 1973 c 113 air 5 s 7 substitution for lawful c ' e; provided that suc' 624.23 CONSTRUCTION OF SECTIONS 624.20 TO 624.25. ufacture, sale, offering Nothing in sections 624.20 to 624.25 shall be construed to prohibit any resident checks. or slugs for wholesaler, dealer, or jobber, from selling at wholesale such fireworks as are not fireworks for shipment directly out d Lory•_1941 c 131 s herein prohibited; or the sale of any kind of the state; or the use of fireworks by airplanes and railroads, or other transportation VIOLATION A .%' agencies for signal purposes or illumination; or the sale or use of blank cartridge- in or sports. or ~ Any person, firm, or a for a show or theater, or for signal or ceremonial purposes athletics by organizations or for use as a bird or animal repelling dr,,icc- 4.32 shall be guilty of a for use military History: 1941 c 132 s - History: 1941 c 125 s 4; 1971 c 710 s I 67.4.24 OFFIrER_Q :.!AY SEIZE ILLEGAL FIREWORKS. 42 DANCE HALL The state fire _ -:cal, or any sheriff, police officer, constable, or local fire of the w ,. A public dancing place marshal, shall seize, take. remove, or cause to be removed, at the expense offered or exposed for sale, stored. or to meananypublic owner, all stocks of fireworks or combustibles may part' held in violation of sections 624.20 to 624.25• the public by payment. History: 1941 c 125 s 5 S. A public dance. CRIMES, 0-HER PROVISIONS 624.42 !96> e state, or sales outside tk 62415 VIOLATION. Mical testing purposes 4r ::. Any person violating the provisions of sections 624.211 to 624.24 shall be guilty 40 s 1 of a misdemeanor. History: 1941 c 115 s 6 MUNIIC[PALrfIES TOKENS, CHECKS AND SLi; ;S ervised public displays of 624.3f1 MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION Of TOKENS, WHEN PRO- , and other organizations. HIBITED. • fair association within its �efor has first been secured •'- The manufacture, sale, offering for sale, advertisin: for sale, or distribution of or slugs similar in size and shape to leer cal coin of the United States ting to the municipal clerk ' t tokens, checks, with knowledge or reason to believe that such tokens. L hecks, or slugs may be used The application shy ,; is hall in substitution for any such lawful coin in any vend; ig machine, parking meter, ;ion s ,hall ma shall make -' � service meter, coin -box telephone, or other coin recepu� _le designed to receive or be and whether t� - operated only by lawful coin of the United States in cor nection with the sale, use. or .'tarred, or fired th;• it will : , enjoyment of property, privilege, or service, is hereby 3rohibited. e fire chief shall report the '=- ' is that in his opinion the :' History: 1941 c 132 s 1 i will conform to safety` ,te fire marshal hereinafter 624.31 RESTRICTIONS AS TO SIZE OF TOKE' lS. when the applicant pays a " No person shall manufacture, sell, or offer for ale or distribute any checks, five larget or five percent smaller rhieh a permit is sought is : tokens, or slugs unless they shall be either percen .' y, the application shall be =, in diameter than any lawful coin of the United State . .h sections upon the clot :he county auditor. The History: 1941 c 131 s 1 _ V such sections shall be b permit shrf0 have bees 624.3Z KNOWLEDGE OF ILLEGAL USE PRE UMED. for such display shall be In the trial of a defendant for violation of the )rovisions of sections 624.30 to believe. within the a.esning thereof, shall be deemed e transferable. The state not inconsistent wi,a the 624.33, knowledge or reason to to exist upon the presentation of proof to the court hat any county attorney, sheriff, de of such officer, has given Splays are given safely, or chief of police in the state, or a deputy or :gate written notice to the defendant that tokens, check,. or slugs of the kind manufac- tured, sold, offered for sale, advertised for sale, or listributed by him are being used of any such coin receptacle or 2415. in substitution for lawful coin in the operation machine; provided that such notice shall have bran given prior to the time of the ;;.. manufacture, sale, offering for sale, advertising for sate, or distribution of such to prohibit any resident p y tokens, checks, or slugs for which the defendant s being tried. ch fireworks as ate not ' - shipment directly ont of '' "' History:.1941 c 132 s 3 or other transportation use of blank cartridge! 624.33 VIOLATION A MISDEMEANOR. n athletics or sports, or ", `. Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of sections 624.30 to Anima) repelling do- fi7id[ 624.32 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. History: 1941 c 132 s 4 ie! . DANCE HA ASS. A stable, or loco ad_: '- at the expensed 6 k� t.; 624.42 DANCE HALL. A public dancing place, as the term Is ust I in sections 624.42 to 624.54, shall be dancing. teed for a&L-, stared ' place. or to mean any room, plaor space oper to public patronage in which to which admission may be had ter' ` }"'j wherein the wblic may participate, is carried m and by the public by payment, directly or indir ctly, of an admission fee or price for dancing. A public dance, as the term is u ed in those sections, shall be taken to 4 ORDINANCE NO. 61, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9-10 (ALL SUBDIVISIONS), ORDINANCE NUMBERS 7, 15, 16, 25, 36, 42, and 48 ALL OF THE SECOIWD SERIES ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984, AUGUST 13, 1984, OCTOBER 28, 1985, OCTOBER 28, 1985, OCTOBER 13, 1986, MAY 26, 1987, OCTOBER 12, 1987 AND APRIL 11, 1988 RF"DECTIVELY AND ENTITLED DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND ARTICLES. The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Ordinance No. 9.10 (All Subdivisions), Ordinance Numbers 7, 15, 16, 25, 36, 42 and 48 all of the Second Series adopted April 1, 1984, August 13, 1984, October 28, 1985, October 28, 1985, October 13, 1986, May 26, 1987, October 12, 1987 and April 11, 1988 respectively and entitled Dangerous weapons and Articles is amended to read: SEC. 9.10. DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND ARTICLES. Subd. 1. Acts Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to: A. Recklessly handle, throw, or use a firearm, bow and arrow, or other dangerous weapon or explosive so as to endanger the safety of another; or, B. Intentionally point a firearm of any kind, whether loaded or unloaded, bow and arrow, explosive or other dangerous weapon, capable of injuring or killing a human being, at or toward another; or, C. Manufacture or sell for any unlawful purpose any weapon known as a slung -shot or sand club; or, D. Manufacture, transfer or possess metal knuckles or a switch blade knife opening automatically; or, E. Possess any other dangerous article or substance for the purpose of being used unlawfully as a weapon against another; or, F. Sell or have in his possession any device designed -to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm; or, G. Permit, as a parent or guardian, any child .:under fourteen years of age to handle or use, outside of the parent's or guardian's presence, a firearm or air gur of any kind, or any ammunition or explosive; or, is with Furnish a minor under eighteen years of age with a firearm, air gun, ammunition, or explosive without the written consent of his parent or guardian or the Chief of the Police Department. I. Possess, carry, transport, or control any knife or bladed instrument capable of cutting, stabbing or injuring while on school property, in a school bus, or on public streets or sidewalks adjacent thereto except where such knives and bladed instruments are used in or as part of any instructional activity carried on in the school, used in the preparation or consumption of food in a lunchroom, or other place where food is customarily prepared or served, or when used as a tool by a person authorized to perform construction, repair or maintenance services on school property. Subd. 2. Discharge of Firearms and Explosives. It is unlawful for any person to fire or discharge, any form or type of explosive or explosive device, any cannon, gun, pistol, or other firearm, !f irecracker, sky rocket �r_other fireworks, bow and arrow, air' "gun',"a"ir' rifle; 11or other similar Bevice commonly referred to as a B-B gun. Subd. 3. ftxceotion. Not in Subdivision 1 or 2 of this Section shay' apply: 71. To persons who obtain the appropriate permit as set forth in t1ne following paragraphs. D B. To a peace officer it the discharge of his duty, or C. To a person in the lawful defense of his person or family. 2.PW'To a display .of. fireworks by an organization or group!.�of organizations -authorized _.in writipRq =by,_rhe .Chief., 6f _� PPolice, •.-applicatioa,1or .-permit being made -at .rleastrfifteen. (15j�, !days prior -=to- the..avent,-or - E. To shoot a bow and arrow in the Physical Eclucation Program in a school supervised by a member of its fazulty, as community -wide supervised class or event specifically authorized by the Chief of Police, or a bow and arrow range authorized by the Council. Subd. 4. Activities Allowed With Permits. A. Permits, Occasional Up to 15 Days. Occasional permits valid for a period of fifteen (15) days or less may be granted to clubs or persons as follows: 1. occasional target shooting or trap and skeet shooting; If 2. Field trials, commercial or profer-snnal exnibitions or displays, or other similar lawful pu as determined by the City Police. boundaries to limit unauthorized access during the hunt. D. Permits, Occasional. Occasional permits valid for a period under 4A or 4B as deemed appropriate by the City may be granted to clubs or persons for: Sub. 1. B-B Gun. The use of a B B gun or air rif le subject to the follow ni g 'circumstances: A. There is a demonstrated nuisance of the animal to the property owner. B. The permittee has the property owners permission. C. There are no other appropriate means available. D. Seasonal restrictions of game animals apply. E. The gun may only be discharged in a manner that does not direct it towards other buildings or persons. F. The permittee must notify all abutting owners. Sub. 2. Starting Guns - Permits may be granted for use of devices such a starting guns when no projectiles are used but only blank ammunition. E. Annual Permits. To clubs only for: 1. Trao and skeet shooting for clubs. 2. For training of dogs for clubs or individuals. which permit is valid only on land described in the permit by persons with the consent of the owner or lessee thereof. 3. To clubs and individuals for the operation of a game and fur farm pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 99.27, or Minnesota Statutes Sections 100.32 to 100.37; 4. Occasional target shooting. 5. Field trials, commercial or professional exhibitions or displays, or any similar or lawful purpose as determined by the Police Chief. 6. Any person, group, organization thrt wishes to use an established range/or trap, skeet facility for any field trial commercal or professional exhibition or display or any similar or lawful purpose shalt apply for their own use permit. The existing permit for gun club shall not cover the special event. This would not preclude that the gun club cannot have its cwn special events such as annual shoots, turkey shootoff, etc., as long as it is the gun club that is responsible permit holder. D it control thereof, to permit an unlocked refrigerator, ice box, or 41 other container, sufficiently large to retain any child and with doors which fasten automatically when closed, to expose the same out-of-doors, or in an unlocked accessory building, accessible to children, without locking the doors, or removing the lids, hinges or latches. Passed by the Council this 14th day of November, 1988. Jame R. arabek. ,ayor The ;adopted summary of this ordina.ice is published in the t Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of November 28, 1988. 51 41 ® Subd. 6. Permit Classification, Fees, Permit Revocation. The fee for annual permit (club only) or occasional permit s all be charged according to the City fee schedule. A violation of any of the conditions of a permit shall result in revocation of the permit and no permit shall be issued to any club or person for one year after the date of such revocation. Permits are issued to the person to be actually using the firearm or weapon. Subd. 7. Permit Procedure. When a person or club applies for a permit, the City Administrator may require certain information to be on the application and permit form: 1. Location of event. 2. Site visit to be required. 3. Intended use of permit. 4. Certificate of Insurance 5. Hours of shooting 6. Number of participants 7. Notice to police prior to shooting. This notice to be within one hour of commencement of event. 8. Annual permit to require notice to be given to surrounding property owners and an opportunity for them to object prior to issuance of a permit under this section, but such objections shall not require the permit to be withheld. Any person may appeal the denial of a permit to the Council. 9. All permit holders must inform all abutting property owners prior to initial use of the permit. 10. All permits are .-:•lhject to the approval of the City Administ von recommendation of the Chief of Po.' eals of denials of permits are subject ' .1 review. Subd. 8. Confiscariun The firearms, bow and arrow, explosives or then dangero,s weapons of the alleged violator of this Section may be confiscated at the time of arrest, and returned only if the violator is adjudged not guilty of the offense charged and r►o liability of damages shall result therefrom. Confiscated firearms may be disposed of as provided by law. u'Possess ion rand - 6a1Z -oY '1Tiework2 7 �-awiul - oraa `peYso,p�,to„sell,.-possession „wave • n poaseasion2. W-6"Vi -bse.Os3om..' x Pt„� . uv4sion..o..SectJ3ari.RY.;B91�ke�rs -ate Mao Subd. 10. Exposure of Dangerous Container. It is unlawful for any person, being the owner or in possession or ' 3. For training of dogs for clubs or individuals, which permit is valid only on land described in the permit by persons with the consent of the owner or lessee thereof. B. Permits, Occasional Up to 120Days. For control of pests in commercial of agricultural situations, permits may be granted up to a maximum of 120 days as established by the Administrator to persons or clubs meeting all the the following criteria: 1. For control of pests, vermin, rodents, or ther animal nuisances, such as deer hunting by bow and arrow during appropriate season, or other animals that are a demonstrated nuisance. 2. Where there are no other appropriate methods available. 3. Demonstrated need for a longer duration of time such as length of game season or protection of crops during the growing season. The use of bow and arrow under this section will be allowed on an occasional basis to remove problematic animals including game animals is subject to the following circumstances: A. There is a demonstrated nuisance of that animal to that property owner. B. Property owner has specifically given written permission to a hunter and that hunter has the appropriate State hunting permit. C. That no discharging be done within 100 feet of any property line, within 100 feet of any buildings and 200 feet of any livestock. D. Discharge for purposes of this section shall only be done from an elevated stand that is a minimum of four (4) feet off the ground. E. Can only be done during the appropriate season. F. The hurter receives no compensation for the removal service apart for the retention of animals killed. C. Permit - Baker Park. An occasional permit valie for a period not to exceed a total of 3 days in any one year shall be issued to Hennepin Parks for the discharge of shot gunds in hunting of game animals in Baker Park. In addition to other applicable conditions outlined in this Subdivision other applicable conditions outlined in the Subdivision 7(A) through 7(C) the Park District must notify all abutting property owners by letter 10 days in advance of the proposed hunt and that appropriate signage ba posted around the Park Reserve District F 1 R E Why This Report is Necessary ... In 1909, 215 people died and 5092 people were in- jured as a result of the unrestricted use of fireworks during the Independence Day celebration. Following this devastating incident, the National Fire Protection Association began its campaign to control fireworks. A study in 1935 reported that at least 30 persons were killed and 7738 persons were injured that year cele- brating the Fourth of July. It was decided that state laws rather than local ordinances were necessary. A survev done in the summer of 1936 revealed that 23 states had some legislation controlling fireworks, but only two of those states -,Michigan and Kentucky — prohibited the sale and use of all fireworks except for properly supervised displays. The NFPA saw this as a positive trend but not nearly widespread enough to control the hazard and continued to encourage the pas- sage of state laws. (Source: Nlen Against Fire, National Fire Protection Association.) The Fire titarshals Association_ of North America agreed with the Association and drafted the first Model State Fireworks Law in 1937. That first year, Iowa and New Jersev adopted the law and realized the positive results. For example, New Jersey had had reports on 927 fireworks accidents in 1936, before the law was adopted. In 1937, with the law in place, onlv 36 such reports were received. On the national scene, the American Medical Asso- ciation resumed its tracking system in 1937 after a 21- vear hiatus and found that deaths due to firewnrks had dropped to 14 per year in 1937-1941, a tenfold drop from the death tolls of the early decades. In recent years, deaths directly due to fireworks have declined further, to eight per year during 19ur-1985, according to the National Center for Health Statistics database or: death certificates. The news has not been all good, however, as fire- works injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms have soared over the past decade and a half. Despite the availability of strong model laws that would prohibit the general sale and use of fireworks, the tragic toll of thousands of fireworks injuries has risen since the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) assumed jurisdiction over Class C fireworks. In developing "standards" for Class C fireworks, which had previously been banned in numerous states, CPSC "A 4-month-old baby received first, second, and third degree burns over 15 percent of his body when a pack- age of lighted 'jumping jack" fire- crackers was dropped into the car where he lay." has indirectly supported fireworks manufacturers and other interested parties in pressuring states to relax their ban on public sale and use of all fireworks. There has been a doubling of the number of fireworks injuries reported to hospital emergency rooms, from about 5000 in 1974 to an average of 10,000 per year over the last three years (1985, 1986, 1987) according to CPSC statistics. Whose Problem is This? In 1988, the state of New Hampshire passed legislation greatly expanding the range of fireworks available in the state. This decision to move away from the national consensus on the safe use of fireworks had effects not limited to New Hampshire. Major roads leading into the state were filled with border fireworks stands and a flood of people from neighboring states poured through, circumventing their own state laws. Dedham, Mass., Fire Chief John Donovan per- ceived that in 1988 "there were as many fireworks in the pubic% s possession as in the days when F I R E W O R K 5 they were legal in the Commonwealth." No matter what is done about fireworks legislation in the future, a man in Strong, Me., will remember the 1988 New Hampshire legalization for a long time. On the evening of May 18 an M-80 firecracker he acquired in New Hampshire exploded near his face. He suffered a 50 percent loss of sight in one eve and lost skin down to the bone, requiring plastic surgery. And, on Julv 4 in Lawrence, Mass., a lighted firecracker over lye inches long, also obtained in New Hampshire, was tossed into the air and caught by a 4-year-old' oy. When the fire- cracker exploded, the bov suffered first and second degree bums to his left hand, neck and left ear. The devastation of life and property continues: ■ A 3-vear-old suffered corneal aorasions to his right eve from a sparkler. ■ A 4-month-old baby received first, second, and third degree burns over 15 percent of his body • 10,000 hospital -treated fireworks injuries have occurred over the past several years in the U.S.A. • 51,600 fires were started by re- works in 1985 (reported to loca fire departments). when a package of lighted "jumping jack" fire- crackers was dropped into the car where he lay. ■ A child playing with matches started a dwelling fire which spread to boxes of stored fireworks. Property damage was estimated at 5120,000. ■ Two teenagers, in an attempt to create a "bigger bang," created and accidentally detonated a pipe bomb which killed one of them and caused serious shrapnel wounds to the other. ■ A 13-year-old boy suffered a perforated eardrum when he was struck by a bottle rocket fired from 300 feet away. he summary of fireworks accidents is depressing because, with strictly enforced legislation, fireworks car be kept out of the hands of the public and in the hands of trained, licensed professionals. Facts about Fireworks in the United States ■ An average of 10,000 hospital -treated fireworks in- juries have occurred in the U.S. over the last several years. 0 51,600 fires were started by fireworks in 1985 (re - ported to local fire departments). ■ 15 civilian deaths were caused by fireworks -related fires in 1985, with another 11 caused directly by fireworks injuries. ■ Two fire fighters died in 1987 alone, as a result of fires started by fireworks. ■ 536 4 million in direct property damage resulted frur1 fires started by fireworks in 1985. It Won't Happen to Me ... The greatest number of fireworks injuries occur around the Independence Day celebration, but the dev- astation is not limited to that }ioliday. Fireworks are part of the celebration of several other holidays throughout the vear: • Christmas • New Year's Eve • Mardi Gras • Hanukkah • Labor Day • Fourth of July And fireworks accidents occur at other times throughout the year. The stories reported to NFPA each Year are all tragic, with some causing permanent dis- ability and a large number of injuries to children, often very young children. And they include a fair number of injuries due to senseless, reckless misuse of fireworks. Typical Class C Fireworks Incidents Reported to NFPA ■ A mother in Illinois left her thre- -hi ldren in the car while she went shopping. Fir+e:...a the car — sparklers, firecrackers, and ever? ignited. One child, age 2, died , :.(being fire. ■ A grass fire caused by boys play.,tg with firecrack- ers destroyed one home and seriously damaged two others. The fire was spread by high winds that carried embers to the wood -shingled roofs of homes approximately 100 feet away. It took 41 fire fighters more than one hour to control the fire Three fire fighters were injured. ■ A Chicago career fire fighter was killed while fight- ing a fire that was ignited by a bottle rocket fired into the attic of a 2�i story residence by an occupant who rented an apartment on the property. The tenant was charged with reckless conduct. ■ A smoke bomb placed in his pocket caused first and second degree bums to an 81/s-vear-old bov. ■ An 11-year-old boy took a Roman candle and placed it in the mouth of a battle to pc3ition it. The Roman candle and bottle exploded. Even though the boy was at least 12 feet away, he suffered lac- erations to both ,;kin and tendons of his right hand. Typical Class B Fireworks Incidents Reported to NFPA ■ An M-80 type firecracker was thrown from a car, bounced back in and set off a supply of others. A 17-year-old youth was killed and two other youths received serious, multiple injuries. ■ A 15-year-old boy lost two Fingers when he tried to extinguish a fuse on an M-80 firecracker. ■ A 13-year-old boy lost the sight in one eve when an M-80 firecracker exploded. Two men had placed the lighted M-80 in the peephole of a door and had rung the doorbell. ■ A Halifax, Mass., man lost three fingers on his left hand when an M-80 firecracker blew up while he was holding it. A friend had passed him the lit firecracker. And, just recently , - . ■ Fifty-two people died and 100 were injured in Mex- ico City when a makeshift fireworks store ex- ploded. At least 80 temporary fireworks shops were set up in the area one day before the Day of Our Lady of Guadaloupe. Many Mexicans celebrate both the Day of Guadaloupe' and Christmas with fireworks. Most of the people who died were Christmas shoppers or owners of the fireworks shops. Who's Concerned about Fireworks Injuries? Here's a Sample . . To give you a comprehensive understanding of the severity of the fireworks problem, the NFPA gathered comments nationwide from representatives of the med- ical field, national associations and fire departments. Responses came from a wide range of individuals and organizations who provided testimonials advocating the NFPA's long-standing Model Fireworks Law, which calls for leaving fireworks in the hands of trained, licensed professionals. The following is a sam- pling of these supportive letters. Nat:onal Children'; Eye Care Foundation: "Every year we lose a number of children's eyes to preventable firecracker injuries. This tragic reality makes us active supporters of the National Fire Protec- tion Association's long-standing policy which advo- cates leaving fireworls in the hands of trained, licensed experts. We share strong feelings on the need for strict fireworks law enforcement. No child should be expused to the danger of losing sight because of fireworks in unlicensed hands or unprotected eyes." George R. Beauchamv, M.D. President National Burn Victim Foundation: "The :National Bum Victim Foundation ran a study for three consecutive years by calling all New Jersey hospital emergency departments to learn the number of incidents involving fireworks they had over the Fourth of Juiv weekend. We noted a remarkable decrease in the number of reported incidents from previous years and over the three-year period of study. However, the se- verity of injuries was far greater loss of hands and fingers and serious injuries to the face. Since then we have not seen an increase in reports from hospitals but the severity runs about the same. "As a firesafety advocate, we support the Ni ?A's position and its good work in bringing to the public's attention the dangers of the modern firecracker, which is no longer just a pop, but a gigantic bang. "The National Burn Victim Foundation will support any efforts, through legislation or otherwise, that the NFPA wishes to take. If we can be of anv assistance to you in your efforts to eliminate this traumatic injury to children, please call on us. Harry I. Gautror President Pennsylvania Medical Society: "As a physician I am acutely aware of the pain and suffering caused by the careless use of fireworks. Burns are still some of the most difficult and dangerous med- ical conditions to treat. They also are among the most expensive, often necessitating referral to special bum "1 am acutely aware of the pain and sIeffering caused by the careless use of fireworks. Eurns are still some of the most difficult and dangerous medical conditions to treat." —Gerald L. Andriole, M.D. units and incurring long periods of hospitalization. "Since 1939, it has been illegal for persons without a permit to set off fireworks ir, the Commonwealth of Penmvlvania. Nevertheless, every year some Pennsvl- vaniar•s breal%- that law and accidents result. All too often, the injuries ii,A`fted mark young persons for the rest of ;heir lives. "Experience, all of it painful, has shown that Fire- works are dangerous and should only be detonated by c,Mt,nunl un poge 11 "=A 31116 FIRIWORKI PROBLEM 1 1' IT 490490 (•1I1•) 455UM060 A1INNF.TJ*+KA FI*E 05PT 14557 141%..—;1!'or A %••LV; 345 4 $3.00 July 1989 PLUS ■ IN A FIRE SECONDS COUNT ■ WILDFIRE SUPPLEMENT HIGH-TECH INNOVATIONS ■ NOT WITH A BANG Cnnlinurd firm page 14 licensed persons who understand the risks. We support conscientious enforcement of fireworks safety laws." Gerald L. Andriole, M.D. President Nashua Fire Department: "The Nashua Fire Department remains concerned about last year's legalization of certain h pes of fire- works within the state of New Hampshire. As the leg- islation allowed local prohibition, the Nashua Fire Department sought and obtained an ordinance prohib- iting local sales. "Together with other fire departments, concerned citizens and the NFPA, we hope to overtum this leg- islation during the upcoming session. We advise all fire officials throughout this nation to learn f•om the New Hampshire experience and to remain constantly vigi- lant against the legalization 6& i.- ork; or the 'wa- tering down' of any current fireworks legislation." Richard /. Navaroli Chief of Department Medical Society of New Jersey: 'The Medical Society of New Jersey shares your con- cerns about unnecessary deaths and serious injury from the use of fireworks by untrained people, particularly children. 'The risks that nonprofessionals take in the momen- tary pleasure of detonating explosives should be part of a national educational program. Some of the iniuries Some of the injuries suffered by am- ateurs handling fireworks have re- sulted in painful, maiming wounds that have a profound emotional and physical effect on those who survive and on their families and friends." —Palma E. Formica, M.D. suffered by amateurs handling fireworks have resulted in painful, maiming wounds that have a profound emo- tional and physical effect on those who survive and on their families and friends." Palma E. Formica, XD President American Academy of Pediatrics: 'The American Academv of Pediatrics strongly sup- ports the work of the National Fire Protection Associ- ation in bringing to the attention of the public the haz- ards of home firework displays. Fireworks are not toys. They are explosives that have no place in or around any S home with children or teenagers. "For many vears, the Committee on Accident and Poison Prevention of the American Academv of Pedi- atrics has urged that fireworks be limited to licensed public displays. Each summer, thousands suffer fire- works injuries in and around the home. The greatest hazards are clothing ignition and eve injuries. The burns caused by the intense heat of fireworks leave lifetime, disfiguring scars. Eye injuries, manv leading to permanent visual loss, account for 20 percent of fire- work injurir5. The majoriti, :f those injured are under the age of 15; man;- are innocent bystanders. The risks The burns caused by the intense heat of fireworks leave lifetime, dis- figuring scars. Eye injuries, many leading to permanent visual loss, ac- count for 20 percent of firework in- juries. " —1 lark D. Widome, M.D. of home fireworks are simply too high. This year, pe- diatricians again urge parents to protect their children by not buying fireworks. Instead, we urge families to celebrate Independence Day by attending licensed pub- lic fireworks displays. "We wish you every success in your public informa- tion campaign. As always, the AAP will work with VOL' to educate the public and to reduce the number of these preventable injuries." Mark D. Widome, M.D. Chairman The State Medical Society of Wisconsin: 'The State Medical Society of Wisconsin has been active for the past several legislative sessions to tighten up fireworks laws in our state. A few sessions ago, we updated a 1947 law which banned the sale, use and possession of fireworks because the previous law be- came deficient due to the definition of fireworks in the statute. That legislation was compromised when an amendment was adopted to authorize the sale of banned fireworks provided they were delivered out of state by common carrier. This did not endear us to our neighboring states, so efforts have been made to ease that restriction on the law. "Physicians, Particularly pediatricians and ophthal- mologists, are alarmed with the num'c,�. , of firework related injuries. They readily point out that those most likely to be injured by fireworks are children under age 16, and the eye is often the site of burns and laceratioris. The State Medical Society of Wisconsin's position on Spectacular But Dangerous reworks is to restrict severely the accessibility of fire- ork devices and thus, the associated dangers." Thomas L. Adams Secretary-Cenerni Manager lassachusetts Medical Society: 'The Massachusetts Medical Society, the statewide .-ganization or 14,000 physicians, strongly suppoiiz to National Fire Protection Association's efforts to 3ve fireworks used only by trained licensed experts. "Our members have dedicated their lives to caring for to sick and injured. As physicians, we find the types injuries inflicted by misuse of fireworks tragic and !nseless, especially when young children are in- -Ived. Thousands of persons each year are injured by reworks incidents, losing limbs and/or suffering loss sight, hearing, and damaging eve injuries. Some ersons even lose their lives. I know that most of my )Ileagues, especially those who work in hospital emer- !ncy rooms, find fireworks injuries some of the most )jectionable because they are so easily prevented. "Existing fireworks laws must be strictly enforced. le must make clear in the strongest possible terms that reworks are dangerous and that only experts are qual- Rd to handle those dangers. Without this effort, in lassachusetts and across the United States, more peo- "Existing fireworks laws must be strictly enforced. We must make clear in the strongest possible terms that fireworks are dangerous and that only experts are qualified to handle those dangers." — Massachusetts Medical Society le will suffer needlessly. The Massachusetts Medical ociety applauds the NFPA for its continued attention this problem and supports its efforts to improve resafety worldwide." W.M. McDermot,, Jr., M.D. Executive Vice President -low to Deal With the 'roblem: Some Successful itate Efforts ... Several states have acted forcefully to control the reworks problem. The following information was pro- ided by several states which have had success in their (forts. Connecticut The Connecticut statute requires a license for stora;�-, sale or use of all fireworks except paper caps for tcv pistols. The licensed storage, sale and use of fireworks is governed by administrative regulations that are based on NFPA 1121L, Model State Fireworks Law. To control the fireworks problem in Connecticut and to make sure that statute is recognized, we instituted a major, statewide public awareness campaign utilizing press and radio. The campaign was aimed at both res- "To control the fireworks problems in Connecticut and to make sure that statute is recognized, we instituted a major, statewide public awareness campaign utilizing pres,3 and radio." —Major David j. Page idents and visitors and helped in refining the regula- tions, in enforcing the prohibition of unlicensed stor- age, sale and use, and in educating the public on the personal safety hazards of illegal possession and use. Major David /. Paige Deputy State Fire Marshal Florida Chapter 791, Florida Statutes, has made the retail sale of fireworks illegal for many years. In 1987, a bill was passed giving the State Fire Marshal's Office a limited role regarding fireworks. Since fireworks remain illegal, but sparklers are now legal, the State Fire Marshal's Office is responsible for testing sparkler samples to see if they meet the definition in Chapter 791. A list of items which do meet the definition is published every Feb- ruaiv and those items are legal for sale for 12 months thereafter. In addition, all manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and seasonal retailers of sparklers must register with the State Fire Marshal's Office before they are allowed to sell. Donald L. Steverson, Director Division of State Fire Marshal Maine "Operation Intercept" is a program to intercept ille- gal fireworks shipped into the state of Maine via pack- age delivery companies as well as common carriers. In the summer of 1988, a new strategy was initiated by sending uniformed fire investigators and inspectors in marked vehicles equipped with video cameras to bor- der communities to photograph Maine -registered ve- hide-, and people leaving fireworks stores. As a result F E w of this effort, much publicity was generated and several tons of fireworks were confiscated. Donald fief. Bisset State Fire Marshai Massachusetts With the legalization of Class C fireworks in the state of New Hampshire, many new enforcement problems arose both for local enforcement officials as well as officials in the other New England states. Because a section of the law allows the purchase of fireworks if taken out of New Hampshire within 24 hours, Massa- chusetts Attorney General James Shannon, on July 1, 1988, obtained a court order barring the illegal shipment of fireworks into Massachusetts by four out-of-state distributors. The temporary order prevented shipment of fireworks to Massachusetts in the last critical days before the Fourth of July. Mr. Shannon's office is see- ing permanent extension of the order since loopholes in the law made it difficult to close many of outlet stores which opened. Joe O'Keefe State Fire Marshal Oregon Oregon's law and adnunistrative rules allow the sale of "restricted" fireworks to persons out a the state who meet certain criteria. Recognizing the need for further coordination between state and local agencies and for revision of the fireworks rules, a Fireworks Task Force was established. Three subcommittees were de- veloped to oversee (a) the storage of confiscated fire- works, (b) public and governmental agency education and (c) the revision of fireworks rules and policies. One of the most critical areas of concern is a major rewriting of the fireworks rules to provide clear and enforceable codes that allow immediate and derisive actions aeaii violators. Olin L. Greene State Fire Marshal NFPA's Position The NFPA's position on the fireworks issue r,,nains unchanged. Successful reduction of the fireworks death and injury toll requires a concerted effort by all parties at the federal, state and local levels. And state and local fire off cials are too often caught in the middle. On one hand, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission refused to ban Class C common fireworks 10 years ago. They continued to minimize the problem by stating that the injury rate is declining, based on the fact that con- mption of fireworks has more than doubled over the t 10 years since they were legalized. Yet, of all prod- s that produce serious injuries through fire or ex - I J_ K 5 plosion, fireworks account for one of the largest shares. The fact remains that there are twice as many fireworks injuries today as there were 10 years ago when CPSC refused to ban Class C common fireworks. The Model State Fireworks Law has been the NFPA's official position for more than 50 years. With this model, "The fact remains that there are twice as many fireworks injuries to- day as there were 10 years ago when the CPSC refused to ban Class C common fireworks." —1VFPA the NFPA has supported states and other jurisdictions in maintaining control of fireworks by keeping them in the hands of the experts. Fire Marshals Association of North America: Statement on the Firewoiics Issue The topic "Fireworks —Where Do You Stand?" was discussed by state and provincial fire marshals at their biannual conference held November 10-12, 1988 in Nashville, Tenn. As a result of this discussion, state and provincial fire marshal representatives agreed upon the following statements and/or action items concerning fireworks: ■ To endorse and support the Model State Fireworks Law. ■ To encourage the placement of an individual fa- .niliar with and sympathetic to the concerns of the Fire Marshals Association of North America on the United States Consumer Product Safety Commis- sion. ro cause the U.S. Consumer Prc Juct Safety Com- iiision to place increased emphasis on firesatety banning the use of Class C fireworks by the public. To eliminate mail order sale of Class C fireworks to the general public. ■ To encourage accurate reporting of fireworks inju- ries, deaths, and fire incidents. ■ To encourage federal legislation to ban the inter- national import of Class C fireworks. • To cause the Congressional Fire Services Caucus to be aware of the state and provincial fire marshals' concerns regarding fireviorks and, through the cau- cus, to share these concerns with the president of the United States. Sl1Cctllcitlar Bitt Dan reWzis 4 F R Ev o s Fireworks Control Laws a to © States having no fireworks laws, © except at county level. (2 states) 13 10 13 13 13 States that allow Class C fire-13 - works as approved by enforcing Q - 1313 authority, or as specified by law. 13 013 0 (-8 states plus District of Colum- bia) 13 13 13 13 • States that allow only sparklers , o 10 13 - and/or snakes. (8 states) States that ban all Class C fire- 0 1 v works. (12 states) f 13i Source: Consumer Product Safety Commission and NFPA o 'L a What's Happening to the Model State Fireworks Law? The Fire Marshals Association of North America has established a Fireworks Committee, which Fire Mar- shals Association of North America President Robert J. Earley, Sr., has charged to review, maintain, and make recommendations to the FM.ANA Executive Committee regarding the present Model State Fireworks Law. Committee members are: John F. Felde J. Benjamin Roy, Jr. Rocco J. Gabriele Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal State Fire Marshal State Fire Marshal Bureau of Fire Prevention Delaware Fit- Prevention Department of Public Safety and San Jose Fire Department Commissiu,t Correctional Services San Jose, California Dover, Delaware Baltimore, Maryland Charles H. Ki i 7hairman Walter Smittle III Assistant Chiefirire Marshal State Fire Marshal Phoenix Fire Department West Virginia State Fire Phoenix, Arizona Commission Charleston, West Virginia "FIREiVORRS, Spectacular but Danyerous. " is reprinted from an issue paper that the NFPA released recently as part of its con- tinuing effort to restrict the use of jireu:orks to authorised public displays only. Single copies ,)J the 12 •page brochure are available to .NFPA membersfree of citatge. Multiple copies are available at a nominal cost. Contact the .NFPA Public Affairs and Public Education Department, Batterymanch Park, Quincy, MA 02269, or call (617) 770-3000, er : 2 70. For aaditto? at information, see "Another Bad YearforFireworks Injuries," Are Journal. VoL 83, Na. 4 (July -August 1989). 0. IM © 1982 NFPA, All Rights Reserved Stsncaisd for Public Display of Fireworks NFPA 1123-1982 1982 Edition of NFPA 1123 This edition of NFPA 1123. Standard for Public Display of Fireworks, was prepared by the Committee on Pyrotechnics and acted on by the National Fire Protection Association, Inc, or_ .:ovember 18, 1981 at its Fail Meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Can- ada. It was issued by the Standards Council on December 9, 1981, with an effective date of December 29, 1981, and supersedes all previous editions Origin and Development of NFPA 1123 The development of NFPA 1123 began in 19' '.th the submittal to the Commit, on Pyrotechnics of a proposed standard draw-,! by the American Pyrotec' Association. The proposed standard was redrafted and was officially adopted t National Fire Protection Association at its 1978 Fall Meeting. The 1978 editior• amended in 1980 and r' amended version was adopted by the kssociation at iu Fall Meeting. . 1t 1123-2 PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS Committee on Pyrotechnics G. Harry Stine, Chairman Phoenix, AZ Rep. National Ann. of Rocketry Dane Bola, Estes Industries Rep. Huubv IGsdustry Model Rocketry Div. Ala, aaacini, Phoenix Fire Deparanent. AZ k -A Fire Service Section On. , ,Aisle, Norfolk, NE PhiL, ... asm, National Safety Council Anthony Fabrixi, NJ Fireworks Manufacturing Co. Rep. Americar Pyrotechnics A%sn. Ernest E. Jutllerat Jr., Northwestern University. IL Joseph McLain, Washington Coilege. MD Dale C. Miller, Falls Church. VA Thomas E. Reichelderfer, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics G. J. Richardson, Silver Springs. MD Victor G. Willis, US Department of the Navy Rep. American Defense Preparedness Assn. Nonvoting Paul J. Galvvdu, US Coraumer Product Safety Commission Thu lift represents the membership at the time the Committee rat balloted on the text of thu edition. Since that trine, changes in the membership may haw occurred. NOTE- Membership on a Committee shall not in and of itself constitute an endorsement of the Association or any document developed by the Committee on which the member serves. 1123-1 m 1982 NFPA, All Rights Reserved Standard for Public Display of Fireworks NFPA 1123-1982 1982 Edition of NFPA 1123 This edition of NFPA 1123, Standard for Public Display of Frrewonru, was prepared by the Committee on Pyrotechnics and acted on by the National Fire Protection Association. Inc. on November 18, 1981 at its Fall Meeting in Toronto, Ontario. Can- ada. It was issued by the Standards Council on December 9, 1981, with an effecrive date of December 29, 1981, and supersedes all previous editions Origin and Development of NFPA 1123 The development of NFPA 1123 began in 1975 with the submittal to the Committee on Pyrotechnics of a proposed standard drafted by the American Pyrotechnics Association. The proposed standard was redrafted and was officially adopted by the National Fire Protection Association at its 1978 Fall Meeting. The 1978 edition was amended in 1980 and tl.- amended version was adopted by the Association at its 1981 Fall Meeting. 66 r Corrrurts 1123-3 Contents ChapterGeneral...............................................1123- 4 1-1 Scope......................................................1123- 4 1.2 Purpose....................................................1123- 4 1.3 Definitions..................................................1123- 4 Chapter 2 Requirements for Shells and Mortars ......................1123- 7 2.1 Construction of Shells.........................................1123- 7 2-2 Storage of Shells.............................................1123- 7 2-3 Installation of Mortars........................................1123- 7 Chapter Site Selection..........................................1123- 8 3-1 General..................................................1123- 8 3-2 Discharge Site...........................................1123- 8 3.3 Poteatial Landing Area.......................................1123- 8 Chapter 4 Operation of the Display ................. ..............1123- 8 4.1 General Requirements........................................1123- 8 4.2 Firing of Shells..............................................1123- 9 4-3 Ground Pieces...............................................1123- 9 Chapter 5 Operator Qualifications ........................... ..... 1123-10 AppendixA......................................................1123-10 Appendix B......................................................1123-10 Appendix C Suggested Regulations.................................1123-11 Appendix D Referenced Puhlications..............................1123-12 1123-4 PUEL'C DISPLAY OF FIREWORXS Standard for Public Display of Fireworks NFPA 1123-1982 NOTICE: An asterisk (•) following the number or letter designating a subsection indicates explanatory material on that section in Appendix A. Information on referenced publications can be '-)und in Ap. pendix D. Chapter 1 General 1-1 Scope. 1-1.1 This standard shall apply to the construction, handling, and use of fireworks intended olely for public display. It shall also apply to the general conduct and operation of the display. (See definition of Public Ditpiay. ) 1-1.2 This standard shall not apply to the manufacture, transportation, or storage of fireworks. (See NFPA 44A, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks.) 1-1.3 This standard shall not apply to the use of Class C (common; fireworks by the general public. 1-1.4 This standard shall not apply to the transporta- tion, handling, or use of fireworks by the Armed Forces of the United States. 1-1.5 This standard shall not apply to the transporta- tion, handling, or use of industrial pyrotechnic devices or fireworks, such as railroad torpedoes, fusees, and automotive, aeronautical, and marine flares and smoke signals. 1-2 Purpose. 1-2.1 The purpose of this standard is to provide reasonable protection, as detailed in this standard, to the general public when viewing a public fireworks display. 1-2.2 The purpose of this standard is also to provide reasonable safety, as detailed in this standard, to the operator of a public fireworks display. 1-2.3 The purpose of this standard is also to provide a suggested local permit regulation. (See Appendix C. ) 1-3 Definitions. For the purpose of this standard, the following terms shall have the meanings shown below: Approved. Acceptable to the "authority having jurisdiction." NOTE: The National Fire Protection Association does not ap• prove. inspect or certify any installations, procedures, equip• ment. or materials not does it app 3ve or evaluate toting labors. Tories. In determining the acceptability of installations or pro- cedures, equipment or materials, the authority having jurudic- tion mar base acceptance on compliance with NFPA or other appropriate standards. In he absence of such standards. said authority may require evidence of proper installation. procedure or use. The authority having jurisdiction may also refer to the listings or labeling practices of an organization concerned with product evaluations which is in a position to determine com• Fliance with appropriate standards for the current production of ated items. Authority Having Jurisdiction. The "authority having jurisdiction" is the organization, office or in- dividual responsible for "approving" equipment, an in- stallation or a procedure. NOTE: The phrase "authority having jurisdiction" is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner since jurisdictions and "ap- proval- agencies vary as do their responsibilities. Where public safety is primary, the "authority having jurisdiction" may be a federal, state. local or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief. fire marshal. chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, health department. building official. electrical inspector. or others having statutory authority. For in- surance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau. or other insurance company representative may be the "authority having jurisdiction." In manv circumstances the property owner or his designated agent assumes the role of the "authonty having jurisdiction at govemment installations. the commanding officer or departmental official may be the "au• thority having jurisdiction." Black Match. A fuse made from thread impregnated with black powder and used for igniting pyrotechnic devices. Boxed Finale. A number of mortars grouped closely together and contained by a suitable frame. The mortars are loaded prior to the display and fused for rapid se- quence firing. Break. An individual effer- from an aerial shall: generally either color (stars) or noise (salute). Aerial shells can be single -break (having only one effect) or multiple - break (having two or more effects). Colored Pot. A paper tube containing pyrotechnic composition that produces a calored flame on ignition. Colored pots are used in the construction of ground display pieces. Discharge Site. The area immediately surrounding the mortars used to fire the aerial shells. Finale Rack. A row of closely spaced 2-in. (51-mm) or 3-in. (76-mm) (inside diameter) mortars held in a wooden frame. It is similar to a boxed finale. Fireworks. Any composition or device for the pur- pose of producing a visible or an audible effect by com- bustion, deflagration or detonation, and which meets the definition of "common" or "special" fireworks as set forth in the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Haz- ardous MatertaLs Regulations, Title 49. Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 173.88 and 173.100. Exception No. 1: Toy pruols, toy canes, toy guns, or other devices in which paper and/or plastic caps, manufactured in accordance with DOT regulations, 49 CFR 173.100 (p)', and packed and shipped according to 'The regulations r-cferred to limit the explosive content of each cap to not more than an average of 0.25 grains (16.25 mg). Also, each package containing such caps must be labeled to indicate the maximum ex- plosive content per cap. tt GENERAL 1123-5 said regulations, are not considered to be fireworks and shall be allowed to be used and :old at all times. Exception No. 2: Model rockets and model rocket motors designed, sold, and used for the purpose of pro- pelling recoverable aero models are not considered to be fireworks. (See NFPA 1122, Code for Unmanned Rockets.) Exception No. 3: Propelling or expelling charges con- sisting of a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter are not considered as being designed for producing audible effects. Exception No. 4: Items described in Part E of the definition of Common Fireworks. Common Fireworks. Any small firework device de- signed primarily to produce visible effects by combustion and which must comply with the construction, chemical composition, and labeling regulations of the U.S. Con- sumer Product Safety Commission, as set forth in Tide 16, Code of Federal Regulations. Part 1507. Some small devices designed to produce audible effects are included, such as whistling devices, ground devices containing 50 mg or less of explosive composition, and aerial devices containing 130 mg or less of explosive composition. Com- mon fireworks are classified as Class C e_.plosives by the U.S. Department of Transportation and include the following: A. Ground and Hand-held Sparkling Devices. (1) Dipped Stick; Sparkler. Stick or wire coated with pyrotechnic composition that Froduces a shower of sparks upon ignition. Total pvrotechnic composition may not exceed 100 g per item. Those devices containing any perchlorate or chlorate salts may not exceed 5 g of pyrotechnic composition per item. Wire sparklers which contain no magnesium and which contain less than 100 g of composition per item are not included in this category, in accordance with DOT regulations. (2) Cylindrical Fountain. Cylindrical tube not more than 34 in. (19 mm) inside diameter, containing up to 75 g of pyrotechnic composition. Upon ignition, a shower of colored sparks. and sometimes a whistling ef- fect, is produced. This device may be provided with a spike for insertion into the ground (spike fountain), a wood or plastic base for placing on the ground (base fountain), or a wood or cardboard handle, if intended to be hand-held (handle fountain). (3) Cone Fountain. Cardboard or heavy paper cone containing up to 50 g of pyrotechnic composition. The ef- fect is the same as that of a cylindrical fountain. (4) Illuminating Torch. Cylindrical tube contain- ing up to 100 g of pyrotechnic composition. Upon igni- tion, colored fire is produced. May be spike, base, or hand-held. (5) Ws Pyrotechnic device attached to a post or tree by mt f a nail or string. Each wheel may contain up to 6 "e r" units: tubes not exceeding 14 in. (12.5 mm) inside diameter and containing up to 60 g of pyrotechnic composition. Upon ignition, the wheel revolves, producing a shower of color and sparks aud, sometimes, a whistling effect. (6) Ground Spinner. Small device similar to a wheel in design and effect and placed on the ground and ig- nited. A shower of sparks and color is produced by the rapidly spinning device. (7) Flitter Sparkler. Narrow paper tube filled with pyrotechnic co m ition that produces color and :.parks upon ignition. This device does not have a fuse for igni- tion. The paper at one end of the tube is ignited to make the device function. B. Aerial Devices. (1) Sky Rocket. Tube not exceeding 34 in. (12.5 mm) inside diameter that may contain up to 20 g of pyrotechnic composition. Sky rockets contain a wooden stick for guidance and stability and rise into the air upon ignition. A burst of color or noise or both is produced at the height of flight. (2) Missile -type Rocket. A device similar to a sky rocket in size, composition, and effect that uses fins rather than a stick for guidance and stability. (3) Helicopter, Aerial Spinner. A tube not more than 14 in. (12.5 ram) inside diameter and containing up to 20 g of pyrotechnic composition. A propeller or blade is attached, which, upon ignition, lifts the rapidly spin- ning device into the air. A visible or audible effect is pro- duced at the height of flight. (4) Roman Candles. Heavy paper or cardboard tube not exceeding ; in. (9.5 mm) inside diameter and contain- ing up to 20 g of pyrotechnic composition. Upon ignition. up to 10 "stars (peNets of pressed pyrotechnic composi- tion that burn with bright color) are individually expelled at several -second intervals. (5) Mine, Shell. Heavy cardboard or paper tube up to 21h in. (63.5 mm) inside ej;t-peter accac ed a a wood or plastic base and containing up to 40 g of pyrotechnic composition. Upen ignition. "stars" [see B. (4)], firecrackers [see C.(I)], or other devices are propelled into the air. The tube remains on the ground. C. Audible Ground Devices. (1) Firecracker, Salute. Small paper-wraPped or cardboard tube containing not more than 50 mg of pvrotechnic composition. Upon ignition, noise and a flash of light is produced. (2) Chaser. Small paper or cardboard rube that avels along the ground upon ignition. A whistling ef- t, or other noise, is often produced. The explosive aposidon used to create the noise may not exceed 50 D. Combination Items. Fireworks devices containing combinations of two or more of the effects described in Categories A. B and C. E. Novelties and Trick Noisemakers. NOTE. Items listed in this section are not clamified as common fireworks by the U.S. Department of Transporuuon. (1) Snake, Glow Worm. Pressed pellet of pyrotechnic composition that produces a large, snakelike ash upon burning. The ash expan.3 in length as the pallet burns. These devices may not contain mercuric thiocyanace. (2) Smoke Device. T ;be or sphere containing 1123-6 PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS pyrotechnic composition that, upon ignition, produces white or colored smoke as the primary effect. (3) Wire Sparkler. Wire coated with pyrotechnic composition that produces a shower of sparks upon igni- tion. These items may not contain magnesium and must not exceed 100 g of composition per item. Devices con- taining any chlorate or perchlorate salts may not exceed 5 g of composition per item. (4) Trick Noisemaker. Item that produces a small report intended to surprise the user. These devices in- clude: a. Party Popper. Small plastic or p -er item con- taining not more than 16 mg of explosive composition that is friction sensitive. A string protruding from the device is pulled to ignite it, expelling paper streams and producing a small report. b. Booby Trap. Small tube with string protruding from both ends, similar to a party popper in design. The ends of the string are pulled to ignite the friction -sensitive composition, producing a small report. c. Snapper. Small. paper -wrapped item containing a minute quantity of explosive composition coated on small bits of sand. When dropped, the device explodes, producing a small report. d. Trick Match. kitchen or book match that has been coated with a small quantity of explosive or pyrotechnic composition. Upon ignition of the match, a small repo" or a shower of sparks is produced. e. Cigarette Load. Small wooden peg that has been coated with a small quantity of explosive composition. Upon ignition of a ci;arette containing one of the pegs, a small repo" is produced. f. Auto Burglar Alarm. Tube which contains pyrotechnic composition tnat produces a loud whistle and/or smoke when ignited. A small quantity of ex- plosive, not exceecling 50 mg, may also be used to pro. duce a small repo". A squib is used to ignite the device. Special Fireworks. Large fireworks designed primar• iiy to produce visible or audible effects by combustion, deflagration, or detonation. This term includes, but is not limited to, firecrackers containing more than 2 grains (130 mg) of explosive composition, aerial shells contain- ing more than 40 g of pyrotechnic composition, and other display pieces which exceed the limits for classification as '.common fireworks." Special fireworks are classified as Class B explosives by the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion. Ground Display Piece. A pyrotechnic device that functions on the ground (as opposed to an aerial shell whi.-h functions in the air). Typical ground display pieces include fountains, roman candles, wheels, and "set pieces." Labeled. Equipment or materials to which his been attached a label, symbol or other identifying mark of an organization acceptable to the "authority having jurist - diction" and concerned with product evaluation, that maintains periodic inspection of production of labeled equipment or materials and by whose labeling the manu. facturer indicates compliance with appropriate standards or performance in a specified manner. Lance. A thin cardboard tube packed with color. producing pyrotechnic composition used to construct ground display pieces. Lances are mounted on a wooden frame and fused so that ignition of all tubes is simultaneous. Lift Charge. That part of an aerial shell which actu- ally lifts the shell into the air. It usually consists of a black powder charge ignited by a quick match fuse. (A delay fuse then ignites the main part of the shell, producing the desired effect.) Listed. Equipment or materials included in a list published by an organization acceptable to the "authority having jurisdiction" and concerned with product evalua- tion, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials and whose listing states either that the equipment or material meets appropriate standards or has been tested and found suitable for use in a specified manner. ;VOTE: Tne means for identifvtng listed equipment may vary for each organization concerned with product evaluation, some of which do not recognise equipment as listed unless it is alst, labeled. The "authority having jurisdiction" should utilise the system employed by the listing organization to identify a listed product. Monitor. A person designated by the sponsors of the display to keep the audience in the intended viewing area and out of the discharge site and potential landing ales. Mortar. A metal or heavy cardboard tube from which aerial shells are fired. Movable Ground Piece. A ground display piece having movable parts, such as a revolving wheel. Operator. The person responsible for setting up and firing a public fireworks display. Potential Landing Area. The area over which aerial shells are fired. The shells will normally burst over this area, but debris and malfunctions will fall into this area: therefore, it must be kept clear of spectators. Public Display. An outdoor display of aerial pyrotechnic shells [see Shell (Aerial)] and/or ground display pieces (see Ground Display Piece). Quick Match. Black match that is encased in a loose -fitting paper sheath. While exposed black match burns slowly, quick match propagates flame extremely rapidly, almost instantaneously. Quick match is used in fuses for aerial shells and for simultaneous ignition of a number of pyrotechnic devices, such as lances in a ground display piece. Safety Cap. A paper tube, closed at one end, that is placed over the end of the fuse of an aerial shell to protect It from accidental ignition. The cap is not removed until just before firing of the shell. v; REQI:IRE1IEVTS FOR SHELLS AND MORTARS 1123- 7 Shell (Aerial). A cylindrical or spherical cartridge containing pyrotechnic composition, a long fuse, and a black powder lift charge. The shells are most commonly 3 in. (76 mm) to 6 in. (152 mm) outside diameter and are fired from mortars. Upon firing, the fuse and lift charge are consumed. Shooter. (See Operator.) Chapter 2 Requirements for Shells and Mortars 2-1 Construction of Shells. 2.1.1 Shells shall be classified and described only in terms of the inside diameter of the mortar in which they can be safely used [e.g.. 3-in. (76-mm) shells are only for use in 3-in. (76-mm) mortars]. 2-1.2* Shells shall be constructed so that the difference between the inside diameter of the mortar and the out- side diameter of the shell is no less than ',/, in. (3.2 mm) and no more than 1/4 in. (6.4 mm) for 2-in. (51-mm) and 3-in. (76-mm) shells or I1h in. (12.7 mm) for shells larger than 3 in. (76 mm). 2-1.3 Shells shall be labeled with the type of shell, the diameter measurement, and the name of the manufac• curer or distributor. Shells shall also carry a warning label, as described in Figure B-2.1.3, appendix B. 2-1.4 The length of the internal delay fuse and the amount of lift charge shall be sized to ensure proper func- tioning of the shells in their mortars. Quick match fuse shall be long enough to allow not less than 6 in. (152 mm) of fuse to protrude from the mortar after the shell has been properly inserted. 2-1.5 The ler+gth of exposed black match on a shell shall not be Im than 3 in. (76 mm) and the fuse shall not be folded or doubled back under the safety cap. Also, the time delay between ignition of the tip of the exposed black match and ignition of the lift charge shall not be less than 4 seconds to allow the operator to retreat safely. 2-1.6 A safety cap shall be installed over the exposed end of the fuse. The safery cap shall be of a different col- or than that used for thr; paper of the fuse. 2-2 Storage of Shell.-. 2-2.1 All fireworks shall be stored and transported ac- cording to the :equirements of NFPA 44A. Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks, prior to reaching the display site.' 2-2.2 As soc n as the fireworks have been delivered to the display sir,:, they shall not be left unattended nor shall they be allowed to become wet. 'See also Code of Federal Regulations. Title 27, Part 18. Subparts J and 11. 2-2.3 All shells shall be inspected upon delivery to the display site by the display operators. Any shells having tears. leaks, broken fuses. or showing signs of having been wet shall be set aside and shall not be fired. After the display, any such shells shall either be returned to the supplier or be destroyed according to the suppliet s in- structions. 2-2.4 All shells shall be separated according to diameter and stored in tightly covered containers of metal, wood, or plastic or in fiber drums or corrugated cardboard car- tons meeting U.S. Department of Transportation specifi- cations for transportation of fireworks. A flame resistant tarpaulin meeting the requirements of NFPA 70, , Stan- dard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame -Resistant :'extiles and Films, shall be permitted to be used as a covering over the containers, if additional protection is desired. The shell storage area shall be located at a mini- mum distance of not less than 25 ft (7.6 m) from the discharge site. Exception: Where acceptable to the authority hazing juriudiction, alternate protective measures may be used in lieu of the above requirement. 2-2.6 During the display, shells shall be stored upwind from the discharge site. If the wind should shift during the display. the shell storage area shall be : elocated so as again to be upwind from the discharge si.e. E-:ceotion: Where conditions do not permit locating the shell storage area upwind from the discharge site. 2-3 Installation of Mortars. 2-3.1 Mortars shall be inspected for dents, bent ends, and cracked or broken plugs prior to ground placement. Mortars found to be defccrr a in any way shall not be used. Any scale on the inside surface of the mortars shall be removed. 2-3.2 Mortars shall be positioned so that the shells are carried away from spectators and into a clear area ac- ceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. (See Section 3.2.) 2-3.3• Mortars shall be either buried securely into the ground to a depth of i5 to -% of their length or fastened securely in mortar boxes or drums. In soft ground. heavy timber (e.g., 4 in. ! .02 mm) thick] or rock slabs shall be placed beneath the mortars to prevent their sinking or being driven into the ground during firing. Ecception: Boxed finales and finale racks. 2-3.5.1 In damp ground, a weather -resistant bag shall be placed under the bottom of the mortar prior to place- ment n the ground to protect the mortar against moisture. 2-3.3.2 Weather -resistant bags shall be placed over the open end of the mortar in damp weather to keep moisture from accumulating on the inside surface of the mortar. 2-3.40 Sand bags, dirt boxes. or other suitable protec- tion shall be placed around the mortars to protect the 1123-8 PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS operator from ground bursts. This requirement shall not ap,:l;r to the down -range side of the discharge site. 2-3.5 Mortars shall be inspected before the first shells are loaded to be certain that no water or debris has ac- cumulated in the bottom of the mortar. 2-3.6 Metal mortars shall be deemed acceptable for use with all shells. Paper mortars shall only be used for discharge of single- and double -break shells. A 30-second cooling period shall be allowed between firing and reloading of paper mortars. 2-3.6.1 Paper mortars shall be constructed of convolute wound paper, except that spiral wound paper shall be permitted for 3-in. (76-mm) diameter mortars only. Wall thickness of paper mortars shall conform to Table 2.3.6. Table 2-3.6 Wall Thickness of Paper Mortars ' OEW Diattwter, wall Thicbm4ea, Mair= TiP0 (tttsl in. (tnml Convolute 2 in. Lill Vi in. (6.4) Convolute or Spirai 3 in. (761 34 in. 19.3) Convolute 4 in. (102) 14 in. (12.7) Convolute 3 in. (127) 4 in. (19.0) Convolute 6 in. (1321 1% 1n. (19.0) Exception: For 34n. (76-mm) single fire mortars, such as used in finales, a wall thickness of 1V4 in. (6.4 mm) shall be permitted. 2-3.7 A cleaning tool sh:,ll be provided for cleaning debris out of the mortars between firings. An acceptable tool is shown in Figure 2.3.7. t Figure 2-3.7 A Mortar Cleaning Tool Made from a Broom Handle. Chapter 3 Site Selection 3-i General. 3-1.1 The intent of this chapter is to provide minimum clearances upon which the authority havingg jurisdiction may base his approval of the display site. r I em unusual conditions exist, the authority having jurisdiction may in- crease the minimum clearances as he deems necessary. 3-1.2 The areas selected for the discharge site, spectator viewing area, parking areas, and the potential landing area shall be inspected and approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 3-2 Discharge Site. 3-2.1 The area selected for the discharge of aerial shells shall be located so that the trajectory of the shells will not come within 25 ft (7.6 m) of any overhead object. 3-2.2 Ground display pieces shall be located at a mini- mum distance of 75 ft (22.9 m) from spectator viewing areas and parking areas. Exception: For movable ground pieces, such as wheels, this minimum ::,tance shall be increased to 150 ft (45.7 m). 3-2.3 Mortars shall be separated from spectator viewing areas and parking areas, from health care and penal facilities, from storage of hazardous materials, and from residential occupancies by the minimum distances specified in Table 3-2.3. Table 3 2.3 Mortar Separation Distance Sr- vler eta* Arr Henia Car. 4 Clew Mesta P&I'lline Arr r 1•Now Hm=dmm yvf _ glare 1 a :.6rn tt..Yi.p� ►al(NM.UrNow Amu = m. i j I mm) )D R ( 13.2 m1 3W f1 1132.4 m) 300 ft 1132.4 ml 13o f[ (43.7 ml S m. (t6 mrt) 73 ft(2:.9 m) 300 ft(132.4 m1 300 ft(152.4 m) ISO It (43.7 ml 4 ,n. (102 mmI 73 ft (22.9 mr 300 ft 4132.4 m) 300 ft 1132.4 ml ISO ft 44&7 ml I W. 1127 mmI 100 ft(305 m1 300 ft(152.4 m) SW ft(152.4 m1 ISO n(45.7 m1 Ism (132 Inm) 130 ft (43.7 In) 300 ft (13L4 ml Soo ft I132 ml ISO It (43.7)' St it lar;er NOTE l: As defined in NFPA 1010. Life Safety Codes. NOTE 2: See the following for aid in determining whether materials are to be considered haardous. NFPA 325M. Fire Hazard Properete.[ of Flammable Liqwdi, Guts and Volatile Solidi. `FPA 49, Haza-dour Chemtcatr Data. 3-2.4 Fireworks shall not be discharged within 100 ft (30.5 m) of any tent or canvas shelter. 3-3 Potential Landing Area. 3-3.1 The potential landing area shall be a large, clear. open area acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. 3-3.2 Spectators, vehicles, or any readily combustible materials shall not be located within the potential land- ing area during the display. 3-3.3 The potential larding area shall be located ac- cording to the distances specified in Table 3.2.3 and shall also comply with the requirements of 3.2.4. Chapter 4 Operation of the Display 4-1 General Requirements. 4-1.1+ The ,ponsor of the display shall provide ade- quate fire protection for the display, as required by the authority having jurisdiction. 4-1.1.1 The sponsor shall consult with the authority having jurisdiction to determine the level of fire protec- tion required. 4-1.2• Monitors whose sole duty shall be the enforce- OPFRATION OF THE DISPLAY 1123-9 ment of crowd control shall be :oc;l t­.a round the display area by the sponsor. The authorit+ caving jurisdiction shall determine the number of monito - needed and their placement. 4-1.2.1 Monitors shall be located erour.d the discharge site to prevent spectators or any other unawhoriz•� per- sons from entering the discharge site. The discharge site shall be so restricted throughout the display and until the discharge site has been inspected after the display. Where practical, fences and rope barriers shall be used to aid in crowd control. 4-1.3 If, in the opinion of the authoric- h;:ving jurisdic- tion or the display operator, lack of crowd control should pose a danger, the display shall be immediately discon- tinued until such time as the situation is corrected. 4-1.4 If, at any time, high winds or unusually wet weather prevail, such that in the opinion of either the au- thority having jurisdiction or the dispiav operator a definite danger exists. the public display shall b. Fostponed until weather conditions improve to an accept- able level. 4-1.4.1 Light snow or mist need not cause cancellation of the display; however, all materials used in the display shall be protected from the weather by suitable means until immediately prior to use. 4-1.5 Display operators and assistants shall use only flashlights or electric lighting for artificial illumination. 4-1.6 No smoking or open flames shall be allowed in the shell storage area as long as shells are present. Signs to this effect shall be conspicuously posted. 4-k Firing o`.. Shells. 4-2.1 Shells shall be carried from the storage area to the discharge site only by their bodies; never by their fuses. Exception: As specified in 4-2.3. 4-2.2 Shells shall bt checked for proper fit in their mor- tars prior to the display. 4-2.3* When loaded into the mortars. shells shall be held by the thick portion of their fuses and carefully lowored into the mortar. At no rime shall the operator place any part of his body over the throat of -he mortar. 4-2.4* The operator shai. 7'n that the shell is properly seated in the mortar. 4-2.5 Shells shall not, under an; circumstances, be forced into a mortar too small to accept them. Shells chat do not fit properly Into the mortars shall not be fired; they shall be disposed of according to the procedure de- scribed in 4.2.8. 44.E Shells shall be ignited by lighting the tip of the fuse with a fusee, torch, portfire or similar device. The operator shall never place any part of his body over the mortar at any time. As soon as the fuse is ignited, the operator shall retreat from the mortar area. Exception: Alternatively, electrica: `anition mav be used. 4-2.6.1 The safety cap otecting the fuse shall not be removed by the operacor .esponsible for igniting the fuse until immediately before the shell is to be fired. Exception: Where electrical ignition is used. 4-2.7 The i.rst shell fired shall be carefully observed to determine char its trajectory will carry it into the intended firing range and that the shell functions over. and any debris falls into, the potential landing area. 4-2.7.1 The mortars shall be re -angled or reset if neces- sary at any time during the display. 4-2.8* In the event of a shell failing to ignite in the mor- tar, the mortar shall be left alone for a minimum of 3 minutes, then carefully flooded with water. Immediately following the display, the mortar shall be emptied into a bucket of water. The supplier shall be contacu,-d as soon as possible for proper disposal instructions. 4-2.9 Operators shall never attempt to rep iir a dam- aged shell nor shall they attempt to dismantle a dry shell. In all such cases, the supplier shall be coma .red as soon as possible for proper disposal instructions. 4-2.10 Operators shall never dry a wet shei' lance. or pot for reuse. In such cases. the shell, lance. or pot shall be handled according to the procedure in 4-2.3. 4-2.11 The entire firing range shall be inspected im- mediately following the dispiav for the ;jospose of locating any defective shells. Any shells found shall be im- mediately doused with water before handling. The shells shall then be placed in a bucket of water. The supplier shall then be contacted as soon as possible for proper disposal instructions. 4-2.11.1 When fireworks are displayed at night. the sponsor shall ensure chat the tiring range is inspected early . following morning. 4-2.11.2 The operator of the display shall keep a record, on a form provided by the supplier, of all shells that fail to ignite or fail to function. The form shall be completed and returned to the supplier. (See Appendix B.) 4-3 Ground Pieces. 4-3.1 All ground pieces shall be positioned out of the firing range of aerial displays. Mortars shall be positioned so that they do not fire towards any ground pieces. 4-3.2 No dry grass or combustible material shall be located beneath ground pieces. If dry. the area shall be thoroughly wet down before the display. 4-3.3 Poles for ground pieces shall be securely placed and firmly braced so that they will not fall over when they function. 4-3.4 Specific instructions from the supplier shall ac- 1123-10 _ PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS company Al ground Dieces. A list of .equired accessories shall also be supplies. Chapter 5 Operator Qualifications 5-1 Public display operators shall be licensed or ap. proved in accordance with any and all applicable state, county, or municipal laws. 5-1.1 All operators shall be at least 21 years old Assistants shall be at least 18 years old. 5-1.2 Applicants fo ensing as operators and assistant$ shall succesa :omplete a written examina- tion of laws, regulau, s, and safe v praciices ad- ministered by the state fire marshal's office or other au- thority, or otherwise monstrate proficiency. 5-2+ An adequate number of operators, assistants, and monitors shall be on hand to conduct the display. 5-3 No person sh-,!! handle or be involved in the firing of fir -works wh: •r:er the influence of alcohol, nar. cotics, or drugs wh1 . could adversely .ifect judgment, movements, or stabilicv Appendix A Thin Append- u not a port of :he regwrements of ehu NFPA doeu meat, but as mcluded for tnformattonai purpose only. A-2-1.2 These dimensions ensure prover operation of and optimum lift for the shell. If the fit is too loose, the shell may not lift into the incen•ied firil.g range or may not lift off at all. If the fit is too •iglu, the shell may bind in the mortar. A-2-2.5 An example of ,additional protection would be the use of a flame-re-istant tarpaulin meeting he : e. XUuirement$ of NFPA 701, Standard :Methods of Fire Tests Flame -Resistant Textiles and Films. A-2-3.3 All mortars of the same diameter should be grouped •oge•her to minimize the possibility of shells being plated in the wron; mortars. Mortars should be spaced apart by at least aeice their diameters. A-2-3.4 Care should be taken to remove loose -avel, rocks, and other loose solid objects from the area pre- nmt such items from being thrown from ground Bursts during firing. A-4-a.1 The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted well enough in advance so that the req--•fired fire protection may be arranged for. Fire protection may in- clude portable fire extingushers for the discharge area and stand'ly fire app ratus for protection down rarKe. A-4-1.2 Monitors should wear some distinctive iden- tification, e.g., badges. brightly colored vests, etc. A-4-2.3 The operator should crouch alongside the mor- tar when loading the shell into the mortar. A-1-2.4 A gentle tug on the fuse will usuallv determine this. A-4-2.8 The oper-tor should use extreme caution in destroying the shell. A-5-2 Normally, oniv one operator is required. Assistants may be used to aid in loading mortars, operating ground pieces, and performing other duties. Appendix B Thu Append- u not a part of the requtremenu of thu NFPA docu. ment, but u mcluded for tn/brmational purposes only. B-2-1.3 Labeling of Shells. B-2-1.3.1 Each shell should bear a !abel containing the following information: a description -f the size of the shell (e.g.. "3-ir. shell"); a description of tilt type of shell (e.g., "zbreak with report"); a warning statement reading: WARNING: DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVE If found, do not handle — Contact local fire or police department the name and pla, isineu of the manufact.arer, Importer or distribuc B-2-1.3.2 Comr icuo,.szus. (a) The state. nit "WARNING — DANGEROUS EX 'LOSIVE" should be printed ai capital letters having a Printed image of at least %@ in. (0.32 an) and should be underlined. (L) The remaining printed matter need nor `_e printed in capital letters but should be in the same size type as the foregoing statment. (c) The required statements should be printed in a col- or contrasting sharply with the background and should be printed within a borderline. (d) The label should be .( least 3 in. x 3 in. (7.6 cm x 7.6 cm), unless the cize of the shell is coo small to ac- commodate such size, :n which case the size may be re duced but to a size no smaller than necessart. l APPENDIX C 3-in. shell 2-breal • 'i report WARN INC: DAXG, .'OL'S EXPLOSIVE If found. do not handle — contact local fire or police department APEX Fireworks Co. Boston. MA 02210 Figure B-2-1.3 Sample Shell Label. (The information above z's based on the Labeling Regulations of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 16 CFR 1300.121. ) B-4-2.11.2 Malfunctioning Shell Report. Date of Displat _ Location-_ Ope.ator Ts pe of shell mvo,ved: Manufacturer Size Effect Tspe of Malluntuon Fuse ignited. but mitnnng else happened _ She;l exploded in mortar Shell exploded just out of mortar Shell recurred set ground and then exploded Shell returned of gmuod but never exphided Other (explain) t:omnsents: — — oIj(1,atute) Return Germ pnu.eptlt V.. ,1 .,one a.al address d supplce-i Figure 8-4-2.11.2 rs Sample Malfunctioning Shell R"rt Farm 1123-11 Appendix C Suggested Regulations of the State Fire Marshal for the Public Display of Fireworks Application for Permits Thu Appendix u not a part of the requirements of thu NFr.d docu- ment, butt u included for informational purposes only. ::ication for permit to operate a display of . conformance with the terms of ................ -ral Laws of ................. shall be made in ttstms provided by the State Fire Marshal to of t%e fire department of tEe city, town or n ty in or near which the displat iP .o be held. 2 ,).._n .ipplication shall set forth: a. The name of the organization sponsoring the display together with the names of Fersons actually in charge of the firing of the display. b. Evidence of financial responsibility. c. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held. d. The exact location planned for the display. e. A des-ription setting forth the av-. experience, and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual discharging of the fireworks. f. The number and kinds of fireworks to be dis- charged. g. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks oriur to the disp'ay. t h. A diagran of the grounds on which the display is to be held shop -he poir- it which the fireworks are to be discharged, . location to all buildings tiighways and other lines of con. ^unicacon, the lines .-- .•r.d which the audience will be • .-strained. and the loc.tuon of all nearby trees, telegraph or telephone lines or otf.er overhead ob,rruction. 3. J fon i .-ipt of such application at le-sst i 3 days in advance o I. t uate set for this display, the Chief of the Fire Depart.nent shall make, or cause to h- rr.ade, at,. ­i- vestiQation of -he site of the proposed dispt,v for the. pur- posev of det•_^ainii -then :he provisions of .nese iegulations are cc .ith •a •ix case 4 the particular disp!ay. He shall : •e.:er with -ae Chief of the Police Department about tht application and whether issuance of a permit would he consistent with public safety. Being satisfied that -he display ,t properly lawful, the Chiefs sf the 'olio- ,aci Fire Departmenu shall together endorse the application, staffing that they approve the duplav ax being in conform: r ;ti all parts of the law and wu•t these regulations. Fa►i,.:• approve the application by either .-:e Fire C'tief o r r dice Chief shall br sufficient cause for the State Fire 4larsh:l to deny permit. 4. 7 he application, following endorsement by the Chiefs of the Fire and Police Departments. shall be sent to the State Fire Marshal who shall then, u,, to receipr of evidence of financial responsibility as requ, i by'ate in such cases, issue a nontransferable permit authorizing. 1129-12 PVBL1C DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS Appendix D Referenced Publications Thu Appendix lira pubG'catioru referenced wthtn thu NFAI docu• ment, and thus u considered Part of the requtremen" of the document. D-1 NFPA Publications. The following publications are available from the National Fire Protection Associa- tion, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, CIA 02269. NFPA 44A-1974. Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks. NFPA 49.1975, Hazardous Chemicals Data. NFPA 101-1981, Life Safety Code. NFPA 925M-1977, Fire Hazard Properties of Flam- mable Liquids, Gases and Volatile Solids. NFPA 701.1977, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame•Reststant Textiles and Films. D-2 Other Publications. The following publications are available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16, Part 1500.121, Labeling Regulations, Federal Hazardous Substances A ct. Code of Federal Regulations, Tide 27-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Pan 181. Commerce in Explosives. Code of Federal Regulations, Tide 49-Transportation, Parts 171-177, Hazardous Materials Regulations. REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS The following items must be submitted with your application: 1 ".ie names of persons actually in charge of firing of the display. 2. A description setting forth the age, experience, and physical characteristics of the person(s) who are to the actual discharging of the fireworks. 3. Evidence of financial responsibility. A copy of insurance certificate to be submitted with the application. 4. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held. 5. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the fireworks are to be discharged; the location of all buildings, highways and other lines of communication; the line behind which the audience will be restrained; and the location of all nearby trees, telephone lines and other overhead obstructions. 6. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display. 7. The number and kinds of fireworks to be discharged. REGULATIONS DURING DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS 1. Only labeled equipment or materials may be used during the display. This label, symbol, or identifying mark must be of an organization concerned with product evaluation that maintains periodical inspection of production of labeled equipment or materials and by whose labeling, the manufacturer indicates compliance with the appropriate standards or performance it a specified manner. 2. As soon as the fireworks have been delivered to the display site, they shall not be left unattended nor shall they be allowed to become wet. 3. All fireworks shall be inspected upon delivery to the display site by the display operator. Any fireworks having tears, leaks, broken fuses or showing signs of having been wet shall be set aside and shall not be fired. 4. After the display, any such s::ells shall either be returned to the supplier or be destroyed according to the supplier's instructions. 5. All fireworks shall be separated according to diameter and type and stored in tightly covered containers of metal, wood or plastic or in fiber drums or corragated cardboard cartons meeting U.S. Department of Transporation's specifications for transportation of fireworks. 6. The fireworks storage area shall be located at a minimum distance of not less than 25' upwind from the discharge site. REGULATIONS DURING DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS - Continued 7. Only the display operator and his assistants are allowed in the discharge area. Spectator viewing areas shall maintain the proper separation as stated in N.F.P.A. 1123, Section 3-2.3. 8. The potential landing area shall be a large, clear, open area. Spectators' vehicles or other readily combustible materials shall not be located within this potential landing area during the display. 9. It shall be the sponsor of the display to make arrangements to provide adequate fire protection as required by the inspection department. The sponsor shall consult with the inspection department to determine the level of fire protection required. 10. If in the opinion of the police department, inspection department, or the display operator, lack of crowd control shall pose a danger, the display shall immediately be discontinued until such time as situation is corrected. 11. If at any time high winds or unusually wet weather prevail such that in the opinion of either the police department or the inspection department poses a danger, the public: display shall be postponed until weather conditions improve to an acceptable level. 12. No smoking or open flames shall be allowed in the fireworks storage area as long as firework: are present. Signs to this effect shall conspicuously posted. 13. No person shall handle or be involved in the firing of fireworks while under the influence of alchol, narcotics, or drugs which could adversely affect judgement, movements, or stability. . a tJ 7 82389.1HD To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator COUNCIL MEETING From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director AUG 2 81989 Date: August 23, 1989 Subject: Community Development Block Grant Sub-RecipientCIT OF ORONO Agreement Attachment A - Sub -recipient Agreement Attached for review and action is what is called a Sub - recipient Agreement between Hennepin County Planning and Development and the City of Orono. The agreement is mandated by HUD for all cities receiving Community Development Block Grant Funds. An additional requirement forth coming is a Third Party Agreement that the City, Hennepin County and Westonka Intervention must enter into. The Third Party Agreement will be presented after signature by Westonka Intervention. Recommendation - To approve of the Sub -recipient Agreement between Hennepin County Planning and Development and the City of Orono. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , to approve the Sub -recipient Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Orono. Ayes nays _ To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. DATE: July 20, 1989 L•J TO: . Urban Hennepin County Cooperating Communities HENNEPlN n FROM: Henn. In County Office of Planning and Development SUBJECT: SUBRECIPIENT AGREF:MMS As referred to in several of our recent communiques, Subrecipient Agreements have been prepared which provide the basis for implementing the specific activities of the 1989 (Year KV) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program. The agreements are required pursuant to the Community Development Block Grant Program Entitiement Grant Regulations at 24 CFR Part 570.503, Agreements with Subrecipier:ts. Before disbursing any Year XV CDBG funds, the agreement must be signed between Hennepin County, the recipient, and your community, the Subrecipient. Accompanying this memo are three copies of the agreement far appropriate execution by your local officials. Return all three signed copies along with the resolution of the governing body authorizing execution with official seal imprint as nacessary to: Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development Development Planning Unit 822 South Third Street, Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 We should receive your executed agreements no later than Friday, August 18, 1989. After. the County has signed them, a copy will be sent to you for your refer- ence. In instances where your CDBG activity is imple—ented by a third parry (see item 7. Supplemental Agreement on Exhibit 1. Attachments) an agreement similar to the Subrecipient Agreement must be executed between your community and that party. We are preparing a standard Third Party Agreement for your action following the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement subject of this memo. A general meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 3, 1989 at 3:00 p.m. in the Shady Oak Room of the Minnetonka Community Center (second floor), should you wish to discuss the agreement with us and your fellow CDBG participants. Your County CDBG representative is prepared to answer your questions at my time. tf Enclosure '� JUL 2 f . Contract No. q %' SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLACK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENN} PIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," and the 77 of 01oi-'U , hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPiENT," said arties to this Agreement .ach being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: L"t44zf*X3*f t WHEREAS, Recipient has received a Community Development Block Grant (,CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 074, as amended, to carry out various community develop- ment activities in cooperation with Subrecipient; and WHEREAS, $ � 3. q16 from Federal Fiscal Year 1989 CDBG funds has been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity/ies as included in and a part of the 1989 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and as set forth in the Statement of Work described in Exhibit 1 to this .'agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved community development activity/ies, described in Exhibit 1. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part• of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, and shall fully expend the funds related thereto not later than December 31, 1990. 2. The Uniform Administrative Requirements, as promulgated in 24 CFR 570.502, shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Sub - recipient provided for in this Agreement or by any program income generated therefrom. 3. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity/ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" provisions (24 CFR 85) (which replace OMB Circular A-102 for the purposes of this Agree- ment), the procurement requirements of the Subrecipient, and all prnvi ci nn9 of rha rnmm!:ni r-t, ne-pI nrmr.r.r Fll nrk. Crar:t Regulations, 24 CFR Part 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as 1 necessary to insure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assis- tance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activity/ies. 4. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisi- tions of real property necessary for implementation of the activ- ity/ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and shall hold title to all properties purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest. applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activ- ity/ies. 5. The subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under S 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements in S 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and reloca- tion assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation require- ments of S 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the relocation requirements of S 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act. 6. The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the expenditure of all CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" provisions (24 CFR 85) and in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be Lsde available, upon request of the Recipient, for inspection/s and audit/s by the Recipient or its representa- tives. If a finanCLal audit/s determines that the 3-,.:brecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient other monies to fund such disallowed CDBG expenditures. Audit procedures are specified, below in Section 22 of this Agreement. 7. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to compiy with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; :t being understood that the Recipient has responsibility to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for insuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity/ies which it is implementing. 2 8. a. The Subrecipient does hereb; agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits, or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection wish the tasks :tarried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. b. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect- itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a s;n6le limit or combined limit or excess unbrella commercial and gt­eral liability insurance policy of an amount of not less t�.ir '1600,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $606,00 for damages arising from death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occur- rence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. 9. The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with Community Development Block Grant funds in such amounts as agreed upon in this Agreement to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-eligible activity/ies as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to the HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activ- ity/ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to insure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. 10. The Recipient shall maintain the envjronmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information to the Recipient to accomplish this task. 11. The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements. 3 12. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistdnce to the Sub - recipient in the form of oral and/or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding Community Development Block Grant procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times, at the initiative of the Recipient, when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient. 13. The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Sub - recipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same. 14. In accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or termination of this Agreement may occur if the Subrecipient materi- ally fails to comply with any term of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by either party hereto by giving thirty (30) days written notice of such termination. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. 15. Any material alterations, variations; modifications or waivers of provisions cf this agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed and approved by the respective parties, governing bodies and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion in Exhibit 2 which shall be attached at the time of any Amendment. 16. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purposes by the activities of the Subrecipient in the performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Govern- ment Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other statutory provisions governing data privacy, the Minnesota Rules implementing such act now in force or hereafter adopted, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. 17. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference, public assistance status, ex -offender status, or national origin; L and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be othe-.. se subjected to discrimina- tion. 18. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1989. The termina- tion date of this agreement is December 31, 1990, or at such time as the activity/ies constituting part of this Agreement are satisfac- torily completed prior thereto. Upcn expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the activities described in Exhibit 1. 19. If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: a. The Subrecipient recognizes that it must notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date that —h program income is generated. b. Thar any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the ';ub:e,ipient as soon as practicable after such program incomr ..: generated or may be retained by the Subrecipient, as specifically identified in Exhibit 1. C. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of ai,y such program income. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipi- ent by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establish ing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. d. That in the event of close-out or change in status of the Sub - recipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close-out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 20. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBC funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: a. Used to meee one of the national objectives in S 570 208 until five years after expiration of this Agreement; b. Disposed of in a manner that results in the Recipient's being reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBC funds for acquisition of, or improve- ment to, the property. 21. The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: a. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. b. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of •:Operty acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or -transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the prcp;-rty referenced, herein. C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the cooperation agreement betwean the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipien~ at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 22. The Subrecipient r-,rees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with t`! Single Audit Act of 1984 (U.S. Public Law 98- 502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A- 110, Uniform Req,-j--!ments for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non -Profit Orgar ions. a. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement .s in effect and any findings of noncompliance ffecting the •.Lse of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Sub - recipient witiin six (6) months of the provision date. b. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all federal sources in any one fiscal year. C. The audit may not be paid from CDBG funds. d. The Recipient reserves the right to recover, from non-CDBG sources, any CDBC expenses which are disallowed by the audit. 23. The subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies jovernment Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and Q) (Constitutional Prohibitions Concern- ing Church/State Activities). 24. The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notifica- tion, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 6 SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 19_ , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement_, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. 04—� w. A wo-s'� Assistant County Att ey Date:.:?— ,:) Q-- Jj APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney DLte. CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to. Plan A Plan B Charter COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By. Chairman of its County Board And: Deputy/Associate County Administrator ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board SUBRECIPIENT: of By: Its And: Its ATTEST: Title 7 y_. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLACK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1. STATEMENT OF WORK The following activity/ies shall be carried out by the city of Orono under the terms of this Agreement and the details and processes ;et forth below. Up to $23,976 is to be provided in Urban Hennepin County Community Develop- ment Block Grant funds to the city of Orono to assist in the funding of the following activ'*.y/ies in the amount and under the stipslations individually specified in each attachment: A. Highway 12 Corridor Study B. Rehabilitation of Private Property C. Westonka Intervention ATTACHMENT 1. ACTIVITY: Highway 12 Corridor Study 2. LOCATION: ADIkzsS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 3. NUMBER: 076 4. BUDGET: $14,476 5. BENEFIT: P/A 6. DESCRIPTION: In cooperation with communities in the Wayzata to Delano Highway 12 corridor fund an evaluation of the traffic and development resulting construction of I-394 and determing if Highway 12 should be upgraded in place or relocated to meet future needs. 7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this art-ivity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this aE.•.:ment. ( J Supplemental Agr ement Type: [ ] Non -Profit Agency [ J Public Agency _ [ j Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi- ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Scl;edule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1990. (XJ Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [X] Exempt (EX) ( J Categorically Excluded (CE) ( J Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) ` 1 Assessment Required (AR) J Funds Released (FR) Date: [ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti -Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, 41 CFR Part 60. [X] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. - Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. ( ] Uniform Relocation Assistance a.id Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Res dential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low -moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low -moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin CounCy CDBC Program Anti -displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974, as amended. The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate -income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: [ ] Area Benefit [ J Limited Clientele ( ] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention 0 TiMM-WIMt It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: ( ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208 (b)(1). [ J Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Requirements ATTACHMENT B 1. ACTIVITY: Rehabilitation of Private Property 2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: NA 3. NUMBER: 077 4. BUDGET: $8,500 5. BENEFIT: L/M (Housing) 6. DESCRIPTION: Provide deferred loans to low/moderate income homeowners for improvements to their home consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation. The activity will be operated by Hennepin County. Program income will be returned to the activity. 7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. ( ] Supplemental Agreement Type: ( ] Non -Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency ( J Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi- ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1990. [X] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmer review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [ ] Exempt (EX) [X] Categorically Excluded (CE) ( ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) ( ] Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: [ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti -Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This =athod is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ J Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ j Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low -moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low -moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti -displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974, as amended. The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBC funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [XI Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate -income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of. 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: Area Benefit [ ] Limited Clientele [X] Housing [ J Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blizht It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: J Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208 (b)(1). [ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ J Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ J Other Requirements ATTACHMENT C 1. ACTIVITY: Westonka Intervention 2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: NA 3. NUMBER: 078 4. BUDGET: $1,000 5. BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele) 6. DESCRIPTION: Provide funds for office support costs incurred by the Westonka Community Services Department of Independent School District 277 in the provision of Intervention Services to prevent family violence. 7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [XI Supplemental Agreement Type: ( j Non -Profit Agency ( j Public Agency [X] Other Independent School District 277 An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi- ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified hereit.. [XJ Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1990. [X] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: (XI Exempt (EX) ( J Categorically Excluded (CE) [ J Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ j Assessment Required (AR) [ J Funds Released (FR) Date: • • . t•. • • u• • Ai• •• •- All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti -Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, 41 CFR Part 60. J Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. - Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of servic-s, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred For soliciting construction bids. - Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost - reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ J Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acq-uisition The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. J Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low -moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low -moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti -displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974, as amended. The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBC funds in excess of ;2`.n00. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. (XI Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate -income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: [ ] Area Benefit (X] Limited Clientele ( ] Housing ( J Job Creation or Retention ( J Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: ( ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208 (b)(1). [ J Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Requirements 014 COUNCIL MFETING TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator AU G 2 81989 FROM: John R. Gerhadson, Public Works Director ' CITY OF ORONO DATE: August 25, 1989 SUBJ: Public Hearing - County Road 116 As you may be aware, the City of P eAina has approved the preliminary plans for County Road 116 (Willow Drive). Because of the decision to do so, the City of Orono requested Hennepin County to prepare preliminary plans showing County Road 116 extending south to Highway 12 in Orono. The plans have been prepared and submitted to the City of Orono. A Public Hearing should be scheduled to receive citizen input. Recommendation - To conduct a Public Hearing regarding County Road 116 on September 25, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Orono Council Chambers. Proposed Motion - It was moved by seconded by , to designate September 25, 1989, 7:00 p.m. to conduct a Public Hearing regarding County Road 116. TO: Mayor Grabek Orono City Councilmembers FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 25, 1989 Forwarded, recommending approval. t 82389.1 TO: Mayor and City Council f FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 23, 1989 COUNCIL MEE; ING SUBJECT: Public Works Supervisory I Promotion AU G 2 81989 CITY OF ORONO Attachment: A. Public Works Supervisor Level I Position Description ISSUE - 1. Implement the conversion of the former Utility Foreman position to a Public Works Supervisory position. 2. Appointment of an individual to that position. INTRODUCTION - As outlined in Attachment A the public works department has been revising its internal structure which allows for cross training and more versitility among its members. In addition when new members are hired they are expected to function in both the street and utilities areas and are required to obtain the necessary water and sewer licenses as part of their job. As part of this undertaking the two most recent employees are required to undertake all phases. In addition the street department employees have been offered the opportunity to be trained in the utility area. Mr. James Gregory has been trained in that area, in part as a result of previous assignments in the utility department. Mr. Brinkhaus, who came from a street department background has over the last couple years gone through the necessary courses in order to obtain his license requirements in both water and sewer alsc. nTgrT79GTnN - Supervisor I Position - The position proposed replaces the former utility foreman position which has been vacant since the retirement of Bill Carlson in 1987. The job duties are outlined in Attachment A. The person in this Supervisor I position will be acting as an assistant to the Public Works Supervisor II, Mr. Jack Brinkhaus which will allow the supervision of two different work groups when the need arises together with providing leadership in the absence of Mr. Brinkhaus. _Promotion - As noted in Attachment A it is recommended that 4r. James Gregory be promoted to the position because of his substantial experience with both heavy equipment together with the fact that he has obtained the necessary license in the utility area in the past and will be able to acquire them again 1 and th!L will allow him to Fully function in both areas. � r lRtU �#�+]i�be in this position for a probationary period of year as set forth in the personnel plan and also during that time will be reviewed on a quarterly basis regarding his supervisory development together with having a supervisory developme�n.t Y t�� formulated by the Public Works Director. AL04IVES , 1. Adopt a change in position. 2. Choose not to adopt a change in position. 3. Appoint an individual to that position. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the position of Utility Foreman be substituted by the position of Public Works Supervisor Level I and that Mr. James Gregory be appointed to that position. This appointment will become effective as of August 29, 1989 at $14.174 per hour which is Step 3 of Level 8. The position will be eligible for a compensation review as of 1 March 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council authorize the alteration of the position as far as Public Works Supervisor and that Mr. James Gregory be appointed to that position. This appointment will become effective as of August 29, 1989 at $14.174 per hour which is Step 3 of Level 8 with eligibility fc-- a compensation review as of 1 March 1990. Ayes Nays ` cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Tom Kuehn, Finance Director 'ON 11ON(100 A110 3N1 30 NOI1f1iMd 01*Z0H030 Sj13 • P2269.2 TO: Mark E. b, nardson, City Administrator FROM: John R. son, Public Works Director DATE: August 22, SUBJECT: Public Works Supervisor Level I Appointment A: Preliminary Position Description (including compensation) Through a series of events the Public Works :streets and Utility department has not been at full strength for the last two years. In July of 1987 Bill Carlson, Utility Foreman retired, Jerry Smith, Utility Mechanic resigned and Laborer Frank Mross passed away from heart disease. During this time I have taken the opportunit} to review the structure of the Public Works department for streets and utilities. After several months of review it was determined that it world be more efficient to combine the duties of streets and utilities giving more flexibility for scheduling, standby etc. We have put this policy to practice with the most recent hiring of Barry Rathbun and Randy O'Brien and have seen the benefits of the combination of duties. However we have not filled the vacancy created by Bill Carlson's retirement. The position of Public Works Supervisor Level I w.3s posted within �.� the Pub'.ic Works department and I received letters of interest from three en•ployees within the department as follows: Steven C. Hansen began employment with the Public Works street department as a light equipment operator on Novei,ber 14, 1977. Mr. Hansons's employment has been with the streEt department solely with the exception of some minor assistance within the past two years in the utility department. Wayne Quast began employment with Pubiic works utilities department on March 16, 1981, as a utility m,. -hank. Mr. Quast has been working solely in the utility repartment with the exception of assisting with some plowing r-n an as needed basis for ti.e last two years. He has also had experience in street maintainance during his employment with the City of Minnetonka prior to being employed by the City of Orono. James Gregory began employment wi'_h the City of Orono on September 29, 1975, as a uti'.ty mechanic. Mr. Gregory transferred to the street department after two years in the utility department and has been the heavy equipment operator for the last nine years. Mr. Gregory was certified in sewer collection systems operations and ,naintenance and water plant and distribution system operator and maintenance. After review of the letters of interest and interviews with all the applicants it is my recommendation that Mr. James Gregory is the best qualified for the position of Public Works Supervisor Lei-," I. 1 Position: PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR - LEVEL I Responsible to Public Works Pirector: Qualifications: Must have a minimum of five years experiet.ve in all phases of public works which includes; street maintenance (bituminous and gravel), park maintenance (turf, park playground equipment), utilities (sanitary sewer collector system), Class D - water plant operation and distribution system. Must have or be able to obtain Class SD License in Sanitary Sewer Collections System, maintenance. Equipment maintenance background and knowledge and mild steel welding (gas and arc). Summary: To provide on the job supervision, scheduling and coordinating daily activities for the maintenance of streets, parks, government building and utilities. Duties: Perform daily inspections of streets, parks, government buildings and utilities. Schedule daily work for eight -ersons in the Public Works Department. Notify Public Works Director on the activities of tire department. (personnel and equipment). Inventory control of all public works supplies, responsible for daily record keeping, employee time sheets, water treatment plant records - daily and monthly. Must be knowledgeable in safety regulations, worker's right to know, etc., basic utility plan and as -built knowledge, basic writing skills, reports, documents, memos, etc. Must participate in alternating emergency call -out schedule for utilities, streets, etc. Assist in preparing annual hudgets for utilities, parks, streets, government buildings. Salary Range: $29,480 - $31,030 'ON 11DNnOD Ai10 3H1 30 NOanIOS3b otvouO Jo Y`413 82589.2 -� Q COUNCIL MEETING AUG 2 81989 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorCITY OF ORONO DATE: August 25, 1989 SUBJECT: Resignation - Building Inspector Attachment: A. Thomas Jacobs Letter of Resignation Dated 8/24/89 ISSUE - information to Council on the resignation of Thomas Jacobs from the position Building Inspector. INTRODUCTION - After employment with the City of Orono since January 1977, Mr. Jacobs is resigning from that employment effective September 8, 1989. The City is seeking a replacement at this time. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City Council accept ttFe r or�mation regarding the resignation of Thomas Jacobs. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, Seconded by , that Council accept the resignation of Thomas Jacobs, Building Inspector, effective September 8, 1989. Ayes _, Nays cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning administrator Tom Kuehr. , Finance Director U8133M Mark BPrnkaa dson City Admin. a�A . "L3ox 66 Crystal Bay, Minn 553?.3 August 241 1989 Re: Letter of resignation Dear Mr. Bernkardson: I am submitting a letter of resignation giving you two weeks notice. My final day will be September 8, 1989. My work wit►+ tke City of Orono for tke last tkirteen years kas been a learning experience. At this time I feel tkat it is important to move on and explore new ways of utilizing my skills. Sincerely, Thomas J cobs X `J, 81789.12 1I J TO: Mayor and City Council 1� FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat)0 11CIL WUN6 DATE: August 17, 1989 AUG 2 81989 SUBJECT: Compensation Adjustment - Police Chief CITY OF OM ISSUE - Authorization for compensation adjustment in accordance with the City's adopted compensation policy. INTRODUCTION - During the period of July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989 the City s Police Chief performed at an acceptable level of performance and in accordance with the plan is eligible for an increase to Step 3 of Level 12 plus 5% as set forth in the compensation plan. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Table for discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the adjustment be adopted as presented to Step 3 of Level 12 plus 5% in accorance with the pay plan effective July 1, 1989. Ayes _, Nays _ cc: Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director Personnel File 1 82389.3 J d`- COUNCIL MEETING TO: Mayor and city Council AUG 2 8 198y FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministiatoPv CITY Of ORONO DATE: August 23, 1989 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information 530 STUBBS BAY ROAD - This is to indicate that the house which a begun construction a number of years ago has obtained a certificate of occupancy. The City has dealt with the individual for several years and during the past year and a half in the Courts. ACCIDENT HIGHWAY 12 AND WILLOW - At approximately 6 P.M. on Tuesday, August 22, 1989, a motorcycle that was west bound collided with the back of a car that was stopped waiting for a left hand turn at Highway 12 and Willow. The apparant cause of the accident from initial reports was the sun's glare at that time. As a result the individual was following the white line and was not able to see cars in front of him. While specifically a stop light would probably not have prevented this accident, the attendant channelization may have been of benefit. (This however is called into question as during the rush hour on Wednesday morning there was a four car rear -end accident at Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 were both a signal and channelization do exist east bound on Highway 12.) LIFT STATIONS 10 AND 43 CONSTRUCTION - While the actual construction of the sewer line to the County 19 right of way was completed over a week ago, the contractor failed to get his subcontractor activated in a timely manner in order to re -pave County Road 19. This delay caused substantial dust problems in the area, but it is anticipated that the paving will be intitiated by Thursday, August 24th and completed by August 30th. SITE C DISCUSSION - On August 23rd John R. Gernhardson, Public Works Director, and myself met with Mr. and Mrs. Frost (personal representatives for the property owners of site C). The Frosts indicated a willingness to discuss further a possible sale of the property to the City. We are going to provide them with the 1976 appraisal and recant soil boring results. CITE: ADMINISTRATOR VACATION - I will be on vacation from August 29th thru September 3rd (Labor Day). In my absence John Gerhar.dson will be the Acting Administrator. 1 COUNCIL MEETING 7 3 AUG 2 81989 CITY OF ORONO LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF August 28, 1989 Home Occupation License: Richard Anderson 3980 North Shore Drive Cecilia Smoot 2665 Maple Ridge Lane 0 CITY OF ORONO Application Date: 7^31-3 9 P.O. Box 66, 1335 So Brown Rd Date License Approved: Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date License Expires: APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICEN4E ,n f - F E - $30.00 L.vC n _� �_ 'v b1E: U-•� - �: �.� u NAME: � � � �:: ._ � -� � - PHO ADDRESS: �'_� /1 - l-, /, �• )_- 7 L CITY: No. of Employees within operation: _9 _ Provide list of names of employees on back of this application. Type of Business to be Operated: -- License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have five (5) business days in which to investigate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02 i 5.03. If a site inspection is required by City staff, the review time will be extended to ten (10) business days. The license application with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) Prohibited Home Occupation Practices. 1. It is unlawful for any business operating as a home occupation to engage in operation without proper licenses. 2. All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. 3. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential zone. 4. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. S. Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. 6. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the structure. The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional conditions the City may require. Signature of Applicant: /`� Date: _ _ FOR CITY USE ON After review o application., staff recommends the following: _7�Approvaris s Denial of License Signature of Zoning Offic Date: ��/�✓�� Signature of Fire Inspect r: Date: 8 - LISTING OF EMPLOYEES: NAME: P c F �1...' - c r� r-�.�� NAME: ADDRESS: ? =r' /L !� ^ tt7 ����• r %�- ADDRESS: CITY: /�'c _� ZIP:; ` % y CITY: ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: --7� - P- DATE OF BIRTH: `10,1tii� ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: NAME: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: `I+i `;,ice ADDRESS: ADDRESS: CITY: DATE OF BIRTH: ADDRESS: CITY: DATE OF BIRTH: ZIP: CITY: DATE OF BIRTH: ADDRESS: ZIP: ZIP: CITY: ZIP: DATE OF BIRTH: CITY OF ORONO Application Date: P.O. Box 66, 1335 So Brown I'd Date License Appro ed: Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date License Expires: APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE - FEE - $30.00 HONE: CITY: Orcylo NAM ADD No. of Employees within operations Provide list of names of employ s on back of this application. Type Type of Business to be Operated: C e' r1M -5 U 2ea-6 A I l- +-, �T'zh�� License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have five (5) business days in which to investigate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02 i 5.03. If a site inspection is required by City staff, the review time will be extended :.o ten (10) business days. The license application with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at the next regularly scheduled zteeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ===ass-=xssssasssaaasassss=ssa===sss=s=s=ssssas_ssss=sss===-ssv==x:==sssssaa ORONO MUNICIPAL CODS REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) Prohibited Home Occupation Practices. 1. It is unlawful for any business operating as a home occupation_ta engage in operation without proper licenses. 2. All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. 3. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential zone. 4. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. 5. Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. 6. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the structure. ----z-__a--sas= --=ss==sasasssssasss==ss==s===ass====sssssss-sa=s=ss=sss=sa The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional conditions the City may require. Signature of Applicant:sZ Date: 0?.3—S/ _ s==sa=xaasssssxa=sa=a3a=aaaas=ssa=a FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends the following: Approval of License Denial of License Signature of Zoning Official: ! Date: Signature of Fire Inspecto Date: a '23 TO: File FROM: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector DATE: August 21, 1989 SOBJ: Home Occupation License-2665 Mapleridge Lane On August 21, 1989, I conducted an inspection at the subject property. During this inspection, I spoke with the owner about silk screening t-shirts. She stated the following: 1. That she is the only employee in this operation and that she lives at the address. 2. That deliveries to and from are done by her and her personal vehicle. 3. That the operation is not visible to the public in any way. CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55=•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 21, 1989 Ms. Cecilia Smoot 2665 Mapleridge Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 RE: Fire, 8/14/89 - Electrical/Home Occupation License Dear Ms. Smoot: On August 21, 1989, I conducted an inspection of your property. During this inspection, we spoke of the following: 1. Electrical problems in basement area 2. T-Shirt screening home occupation As I stated at the inspection, the following should be completed: 1. That you contact Curt Hagfors at 537-1764 and obtain an electrical permit for the corrections that you will be making to the electrical system in the house. 2. That you complete the home occupation license enclosed and return it to the City for approval. During the inspection, we spoke about the home occupation in which you are engaged. After reviewing your operations with you, I feel that once you file the home occupation license application, this operation does meet the home occupation requirements of the code. If you have any questions on the matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas J. acobs Building & Fire Inspector TJ/ls Enclosure cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Admin. Michael Gaffron, Assist. Planning & Zoning Admin. Lyle Oman, Building Inspector BUILDING! ZONING - 473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473.7359 ASSESSING COUNCIL MEETING 35e- i AU c 2 b 1989 08/20/89 PR: 25 CB PRREGOR CITY OF ORONO YTD CURRENT EMP # NAME DPT GROSS CROSS ABRAHAM-ON, FREDERIC 93 49 50 1: 50 ANDERSON, BRUCE L 31 26958.74 1671 10 BERNHARDSON, MARK E 12 37321.54 2115.50 BOBZIEN, SUE A 31 15087.26 886 40 BOSMA, JAMIE L 12 8983.50 668.53 BRAUN, ROBERT P 93 1739.25 28i.25 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F 42 23417.25 1308.00 CHESWICK, GARY B 31 24929.20 1469.00 CHRISTIANSON, SALLY 31 3086.43 192.96 CORNICK, JAMES L 31 26490.49 1530.6k DENNISON, TROY A 35 249.90 112.20 ENGLISHIII, IRVING H 31 26364.58 1375.80 ERICKSON, DOUGLAS J 93 594.00 123.75 ERICKSON, KURT R 31 23756.34 1364.16 FISCHENICH, DAN T 31 23470.37 1502.20 FRITZLER, JOHN M 31 24963.86 1364.16 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P 33 21441.27 1287.21 GERHARDSON, JOHN R 42 28758.50 1693.38 GREGORY, JAMES D 42 20557.30 1501.77 HALLIN, DOROTHY M, 12 18830.82 1108.80 HANSEN, STEVEN C 42 16494.76 1128.77 HANSING, CAROL J 31 8919.39 480.32 JACOBS, THOMAS J 33 21441.17 1287.20 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P 31 25027.93 1389.74 KILBO, MELVIN H 31 30936.40 1821.60 KNUTSON, CHARLOTTE A 15 15065.55 903.02 KUEHN, THOMAS M 15 29397.95 1798.96 KUYPER, SCOTT E 31 6619.75 571.03 MABUSTH, JEANNE A 33 25558.82 1504.95 MILLS JR, WALTER H 93 176.01 66.50 MORAN, MARK F 31 24577.45 1337.28 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES 31 29672.50 1747.85 NAAB, THERESA L 12 15109.41 886.40 OBRIEN, RANDY L 92 16780.48 1083.71 OMAN, LYLE E 33 17889.25 1053.36 PALMFR, PETER B 31 555.00 110.00 QUAST, WAYNE A 92 19994.02 1195.08 RATHBUN, BARRY J 92 17111.74 898.41 SASS, JOHN J 42. 18225.32 982.73 SCHAUSS, CHARLES R 31 20431.36 1312.20 SCHEFFLER, LAURIE K 12 12978.95 820.20 SKREEN, DALE S 42 17870.51 973.60 STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD 93 18856.68 1110.32 STEVENS, BETTY G 93 2619.78 202.13 THOMTON, MARK R 31 22370.26 1347.92 i TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F 31 24632.53 1575.28 TOMCZYK, MARK W 31 2380J.75 1415.32 GH090 io yfla 08/20/89 PR: 25 CB PRR5GOR EMP N NAME DPT YTD GROSS CURRENT GROSS WALSH, KEVIN L 35 4746.63 248.45 WALTERS, LINDA G 15 7803.39 724'03 YEAGER, DONALD C 93 544.50 "44*25 51,890.0c 5, . m U. It - - 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 240006 08/23/89 240006 08/23/89 240006 08/23/89 240006 0- ,:3/89 240006 Cb/23/89 240006 Ge/23/89 240006 08/23/86 240014 06, 23/89 240087 08/23/89 240087 08/23/89 240087 08/23/89 240087 08!23/89 240087 08/23/89 240124 08/23/89 240128 08/23/89 240130 08/23/89 240130 08/23/89 240143 08'23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 240143 08/23/89 ..... . 240148 08!23/89 CHECK REGISTER 08-28-81 PAGE 1 AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 11 P O 0 MESSAGE 110.84 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12 6.97 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 6.97 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-069-15 11.52 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 134.9E ACRO-MINNESOTA INC DESK ORGANIZER 01-4210-174-23 19.94 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 6.97 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 298.17 ' '••-CKS 49.85 ALL STAR ELECTRIC INSTALL SMOKE DET 01-4343-129-31 49.8S " •••-CKS 6.168.00 BURY & CARLSON INC AMOPAVE LL RD 01-42?3 249-42 7.339.36 BURY & CARLSON INC OVERLAY BOHNS POINT 01-4233-249-42 751.20 BURY & CARLSON INC FINE MIX 01-4233-249-42 12.394.08 BURY & CARLSON INC OVERLAY LL RD 01-4233-249-42 2,279.16 BURY & CAP.LSON INC OVERLAY TAMARACK 01-4233-249-42 28.931 80 ' "••-CKS 349.90 COCA COLA VENDING SOFT DRINKS 74-4802-591-94 349.90 • "' -CKS 10.00 CONCEPT MICROFILM FILM COVERS 01-4210-174-33 10.00 •••-CKS 72.59 COLONIAL LICE INS rt AUG DIS INS 01-4152-126-31 84.04 COLONIAL LIFE IKJ Cl) AUG DIS INS 01-4152-129-S.1 156.63 --CAS 4 50 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 01-4152-039-12 2.70 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 01-4152-069-15 2 70 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 01-4152-121-21 3.60 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT IYS 01-4152-126-31 9 90 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 01-4152-129-31 3.60 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 01-4152-174-33 5.40 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 01-4152-249-42 1.08 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 72-4152-549-91 1.62 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 73-4152-569-92 .90 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP SEPT INS 74-4152-590-93 36.00 " ..--CKS 200.00 CRYSTEEL DIST INC PLATE & HITCH 01-4232-249-42 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 08-28-89 PAGE 2 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV. N P O. R MESSAGE 200.00 • ww.www ."•- K 240154 08/23/19 39.90 CYS UNIFORMS HAT 6 CHIN STRAP 01-4221-126-31 240154 O8/23/89 438.50 CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-129-31 478.40 • - KS 240187 08/23/89 98.00 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE BEER 74-4815-591-94 98.00 w ww.,,- K.19 ::0g 08/23/89 165.49 ROLF E ERICKSON MISC SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 240199 US/23/89 4,231.00 ROLF E ERICKSON AUG ASSMT FEE 01-4307-059-14 4,396 49 - K 240202 08/23/89 10.20 EMRICH BAKING CO ROLLS 74-4802-591-94 240202 08/23/89 12.74 EMRICH SAK'_NG CO ROLLS 74-4802-591-94 22 94 " 240203 0o,23/89 22.56 ERICKSON/KURT MILEAGE 01-4381-129-31 22.56 " wwwwww .,. - K 240220 08/23/89 98.00 FEED RITE CONTROLS FLORIDE 72-4234-549-91 98.00 240247 08/23/89 46.56 GAFFRON/MIKE MILEAGE O1-4381-174-33 46.56 " ■wwwww .. - K 240258 08/23/89 115.1A GENUINE PARTS CO MISC PARTS 01-4232-249-42 240256 08/23/89 10. 1 GENUINE ?ARTS CO MISC PARTS 73-4232-569-92 125.44 " w".• ::u :;;o 08/23/89 33.40 GRAINGER-W W TRACTOR PARTS 01-4232-249-42 33 40 " wwwwww ,". - K 240275 08/23/89 236.77 GROUP HEALTH INC SEPT INS 01-4151-121-31 240275 08/23/89 93.35 GROUP HEALTH INC SEPT INS 01-4151-126-31 240275 08/23/89 902.23 GROUP HEALTH INC SEPT INS 01-4151-129-31 240275 08/23/89 93.35 "ROUP HEALTH INC SEPT INS 01-4151-174-33 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 240275 08/23/89 240284 08/23/89 240308 08/23/89 240363 08/23/89 240370 08i2�/89 240439 08/23/89 2405 08/23/89 2d0460 08/23/89 240474 08/23/89 240490 08/23/89 240490 08/23/89 240490 08/23/89 240490 08/23/89 240490 08/23/89 240490 08/23/89 240490 08/23/89 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 191.00 GROUP HEALTH INC SEPT INS 1.516.70 24 62 HAPPYS POTATO CHIP CHIPS 24.62 156.14 HENN CTY SHERIFF OPT JULY BOOKING FEE 156.14 25.44 JACOBS/TOM MILEAGE 25.44 81.54 JIM HATCH SALES CO 2 STOP/SLOW SIGN 81.54 • 5.80 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR 6 INCH ROLLER 5.80 . 45.87 LYMAN LUMBER LUMBER DOOR REPAIR 45 87 • 34.40 MARK VII DIST BEER 34 40 . 10,773.86 METRO WASTE CONTROL PREPAID MWCC SEPT 10.773.86 17.27 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 7.94 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 4.37 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 4.37- MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 4.37 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 328.77 MINNEnr"^() UTILITIES 4.85 MINNE": UTILITIES 363.20 • , 08-28-89 PAGE 3 ACCOUNT NO INV. R P 0 0 MESSAGE 74-4151-590-93 •••-CKS 74-4802-591-94 •••-CKS 01-4358-080-16 •••-CKS 01-43E_-174-33 ...-CKS 01-4232-249-42 •••-CKS 74-4232-590-93 •••-CKS 74-4231-590-93 •••-CKS 74-4815-591-94 •••-CKS 73-1282-OC,--00 •••-CKS 01-4324-099-17 01-4324-099-17 01-4324-129-31 01-4324-290-31 01-4324-290-31 72-4324-549-91 73-4324-569-92 •••-CKS 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 240495 08/23/89 7.00 MN BENEFIT ASSN INS 7.00 ■ 240546 08/23/89 5.28 NAAS TERI MILEAGE 5.28 240559 08/23/89 98:.81 NSP STREET LGT AUG 240559 08/23/89 98.18- NSP STREET LGT AUG 240559 08/23/89 98.18 NSP STREET LGT ,UG 981.8- 240562 08/23/89 7.59 NSP UTILITIES 7 59 240597 08/23/89 3.868.07 PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 8/7 TO 8/20 3.868.07 240813 08/23/89 96.35 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR AUTO REPAIR 240613 08/23/89 224.50 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR TRUCK REPAIR 240613 08/23/89 4.75 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR CAR WASH 325.60 240621 08/23/89 647.00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 497.00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 497 DO- PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 497 00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 382.00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 190.10 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 305.10 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 1.068 20 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 306.00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240821 08/23/89 764.00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 138.00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 240621 08/23/89 207.00 PHYSICIANS HEALTH SEPT INS 4,504 40 . 240631 08/23/89 1.617 00 POLKA DOT RECYCLING AUG RECYLING 1.617.00 • 08-28-89 PAGE 4 ACCOUNT NO. INV 4 P 0 4 MESSAGE 01-4152-129-31 •••-CKS 01-4381-174-33 •••-CKS 01-4325-249-42 01-4325-249-42 01-4325-249-42 •••-CKS 01-4324-290-61 •••-CKS 01-2031-000-00 •. -CKS 01-4341-129-31 01-4341-249-42 01-4241-249-42 •••-CKS 01-3872-000-00 01-4151-039-12 01-4151-039-13 01-4151-039-13 01-4151-069-15 01-4151-121-31 01-4151-126-31 01-4151-129-31 01-4151-174-33 0 -4!51-249-42 72-4151-549-91 73-4151-569-92 •••-CKS 01-4392-295-65 •••-CKS s',iA 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 240643 08/23/89 240643 08/23/89 240643 08/23/89 240643 09/23/89 240643 08/23/89 240644 09/23/89 240662 08/23/89 240662 08/23/89 240719 08/23/89 240719 08/23/8e 240739 08/23/89 240740 08/23/89 240740 08/23/89 240776 08/23/89 240776 08/23/89 240790 08/23/89 240790 08/23/99 240790 08/23/89 240790 08/23/89 240792 08/23/89 240795 08/23/89 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 21.87 PRUDENTIAL SEPT LIFE INS 12.60 PRUDENTIAL SEPT LIFE INS 51.90 PRUDENTIAL SEPT LIFE INS 3.00 PRUDENTIAL SEPT LIFE INS 6.00 PRUDENTIAL SEPT LIFE INS 95.37 " 523.00 PROCESS SPECIALITIES SHIRTS/SWEATERS 523.00 71.90 REED CANDY & TOBACCO CIG & CANDY 18.55 REED CANDY & TOBACCO CIG & CANDY 90.45 5 00 DIXIE PETRO-CHEM CYL DEMMURAGE 199.60 DIXIE PETRO-CHEM CHLORINE 204.60 " 350.00 STEVENS WELL DRILL GROUT WELL 350.00 . 91.40 STREICHERS BATTERIES/BULBS 22.00 STREICHERS REPAIR FLASHLIGHT 113.40 . 19.50 THORPE DIST CO BEER 43.75 THORPE DIST CO BEER 63.25 " 37.12 TONYS PIZZA SERV SANDWICHES 37 12- TONYS PIZZA SERV SANDWICHES 19.20 TONYS PIZZA SERV SANDWICHES 37.12 TONYS PIZZA SERV SANDWICHES 56.32 280.00 TWIN CITIES DICTN SV NORELCO NT6 280.00 " 1.274.87 TWIN CITY STRIPPING STRIP MCCULLY RD 1.274.87 08-28-89 PAGE 5 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P O. N MESSAGE 01-4152-069-15 01-4152-126-31 01-4152-129-31 01-4152-174-33 01-4152-249-42 74-4802-591-94 •••-CKS 74-4802-591-94 74-4802-591-94 -CKS 72-4234-549-91 72-4234-549-91 01-4343-099- 01-4232-129- 01-4342-125- 74-4815-591- 74-4815-591- 74-4802-129- 74-4802-129- 74-4802-591- 74-4802-591- 14-4540-632- 01-4�^33-249- 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 08-28-89 PAGE 6 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV N P 0 M MESSAGE — K 240898 08/23/89 140.00 ZIEBART AUTO UNDERCOAT DUMP TRUCK 01-4341-249-42 140.00 •••— KS 240901 08/23/89 250.00 IACP MORAN/KILBO 01-4356-129-31 250.00 " 240902 08/23/89 250 00 LUCIA MORRISON RFD 81431 MORRISON 01-3502-000-00 250.00 240903 08/23/89 110.00 INST BEHAVIORAL MED WORKSHOP 01-4356-129-31 1.0 00 240904 08/23/89 .s43.45 GEORGE NIEMAN OVERHAUL MOWER ENG 01-4341-290-61 843.45 240905 08/23/89 118.04 BELL & HOWELL TONER/BULBS 01-4210-039-12 240905 08/23/89 118.05 BELL & HOWELL TONER/BULBS 01-4210-174-33 236.09 240906 08/23/89 60.00 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINT PEST CONTROL 74-4343-590-93 60.00 " 240907 08/23/89 12.00 KUYPER SCOTT MILEAGE O1-4381-129-31 12.00 " 240908 08/23/89 100.00 MN .TY ATTORNEYS ASC CODE BOOKS 01-4240-129-31 100.00 . 240909 08/23/89 196.00 NATL TELEPHONE DIRCT GOLF AD YEL PAGE 74-4323-590-93 196.00 • ,...., ...-CKS 51.136.83 FUND O1 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 280.00 FUND 14 TOTAL IMPROVE & EOUIP OUTLAY F 770.45 FUND 72 TOTAL WATER OPERATING FUND 10,997 53 FUND 73 TOTAL SEWER OPERATING FUND 1.762.45 FUND 74 TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD 64.947.26 TOTAL t.► COUNCIL MEETING AUG 2 81989 CRIr OF ORONO A new school year is upon us. Back -to -school sales are in full swing. And there is the usual excitement that accompanies the start of a major undertaking. Each school year manages to establish its own identity. For some it is the year they started school, or started middle school, or started high school. For others it will be that very special final year of high school. Whatever the case, it will be a year of efforts, successes, ,loblems and solutions. How all of this is handled will .etermine the identity and character of the 1989-1990 school year. As I anticipate the new school year 1 am uncomfortable waiting to see how this new year will be characterized. We need to be proactive. To set the direction and to have a vision or theme. Of course this will be done in every cla-Broom, on every athletic field, with every activity, and most importantly in every student's home. As I reflect on a direction for the 1989-1990 school year, I know that the basic theme is constant: assisting each student to reach his/her potential. But I am also struck by something I observed early this summer. What caught my attention was something said by Elwood P. Dowd. Dowd is the remarkable character in the play Haryg . I recently saw the Guthrie Theater's wonderful production of Harvey. There is a point in the play when Dowd says that his mother advised him that there were only two wags to get along in the world: be smart or be pleasant. Dowd says that he has tried smart and now has chosen pleasant. With that remark, a packed house at the Guthrie broke into spontaneous applause. To be sure, we all appreciate caring, empathetic, pleasant people. However, 1 was struck by the dichotomy ;tablished by the playwright. Either be smart or be ,)leasant. My hope is that as a school district we can do both. So often the concerns raised focus on unpleasant or ORONO SCHOOL BOARD David McKown, Chairman 479-1692 Don Anderson, Vice Chairman 479-1810 Lucie Taylor, Treasurer 473-1189 Kitty Crosby, Clerk 478-6037 Jim Franklin, Director 479-2130 John Maresh, Director 475-3197 Connie Fladeland Orono Primary Principal Connie comes to Orono from the Wayzata School District where she was the Assistant Principal of Sunset and Greenwood Elementary. Ms. Fladeland is a Ph.D. Candidate in Education Administration at the University of Minnesota and currently holds a M-Ed. in Special Education and a B.S. in Special Education and Elementary Education. Dr. Steven Greenfield Orono High School Principal Formally the Principal of Munster High School in Munster, Indiana - a suburb of Chicago. Dr. Greenfield comes to us with a Ph.D. from Northwestern University and two Master's degrees from Roosevelt University. He also holds a M.A. in Clinical Psychology and Education and a B.A. in Poiitical Science. mean spirited behavior. We will be forgiven for stupid things we do, not always for unkind or unpleasant things. I submit that rr:art and pleasant would serve well as dual themes for the 1989-1Q90 school year. Join me, please, in encouraging this direction and may it be an exciting and rewarding school year for all. Per Citizen's Committee The State of Minnesota in 1976 passed legislation entitled, "Planning Evaluating, Reporting." PER is a process for curriculum evaluation and pianning for continued improvement of the educational program for all public school children. This is an invitation to community members who would like to serve on this committee. Its responsiblilites are to review the process used in Orono, review the results of the questionaires, and to provide advice there from. If you are interested in serving on this committee for two year (two to three meetings per year), please call Ron Gilbert at 473-7301. Transportation Reimbursement for Non -Public School Students Parents of non-public students who reside it the School District may make application for reimbursement of within District transportation costs. The Orono District Office administers the program and all payments are made directly to the school attended. The non-public school used the funds either to defray bus transportation costs or reimburse parents for car expense. All applications are made through the non-public school on forms provided by the District Office. Any family having students attending a non-public school for the first time this year or additional students to be transported, shoul.0 r ,tif}' their school officials. Delta Dental Plan If anyone is interested in enrolling a student in the Delta Dental Plan, please contact any school office for an enrollment form. Refrigerator Needed We are in need of a refrigerator in good working order for use at Schumann Elementary School. If you have one you would be willing to donate, please call Marvel Borigart, Principal, at 473-7317. Senior All Night Party Parents of the 1990 Graduating Seniors are invited to attend the first planning meeting for the Senior All Night Party which will be held on graduation night June 7, 1990. A meeting will take place on Thursday, September 14, 1989 in the Orono High School Cafeteria at 6:30pm. Any questions please contact either Carolyn Laskey (471-8680) or Sharron Jacquemart (473-5118). Please mark your calendars - we need your he'.p. Calling all Pasta Lovers! Come and eat your fill at the 3rd Annual North Shore Gymnastics Spaghetti Dinne September 15,1989 5:00 - 7:30 pm - before the Orono vs. Centennial Football game Orono High School Cafeteria $3.00 - tickets available from any NSGA team member or at the door Stay after and cheer our Spartans on to a great season!!! Library Volunteers The libraries at Schumann Elementary and Orono Primary Schools are in need of volunteers. The only requirement for being a volunteer is willingness. Volunteer duties include carding books, filing book cards, shelving books, assisting students with library projects (book or audiovisual), helping students with Bookmate (sharing) activities. Training will be provided during the first week of school. Each volunte, is asked to devote one morning (9:00- 12:30) or one afternoon (12:30-3:30) each week to the project. Some volunteers elect to share a position, alternating every other week, and we will be hap hear from those interested. If you can help, pleas, Pam Henjum 479-3552, or Michelle Kunz 479-1990, or leave a message with the Schumann Elementary office at 473-7317, or the Orono Primary School office at 479-1530. Parents of preschool ave children who would be willing to share z: morning or afternnoon volunteer shift and exchange child care on volunteer days can call Pam or Michelle for help regarding this option. We encourage and welcome senior citizen participation!. Y-Kids The Ridgedale Family YMCA will again be offering their child care program at Schumann Ele nientary. Hours will be from 6:45am to 6:00pm. You r►ay enroll your child either part time or full time. Call Saa Mattner at 544-7708 for registration information. Hockey Registration The Orono Youth Hockey Assn. will take registrations from 5:30 to 7:30 pm Tuesday, September 19, in the cafeteria of the Orono High School. There will alsc used hockey equipment sale. For more information on this program call 473-8710. School Lunch Prices 1989-90 The following schedule of lunch prices has been approved by the School Board for the 1989.90 school year. �es 1-3 ..........10 lunch tickets S1150/single $120 es 4-8 ............ 5 lunch tickets 5725/single $130 Grades 9-12 .........10 lunch tickets $13.00/single $1.40 Adults ..............10 lunch tickets $20.00/single $2.00 Student Milk, chocolate and white ................ $. 20 Malts..........................................$35 Reduced price tickets (all grades) $.40 Kindergarten - milk and/or juice & snack - $1750 or S8.75 semester. At Orono Primary and Schumann Eementary all students are served cafeteria style. At the N iddlc School, the pup •'_.. mini" salad bar will be continued as a supplement scc iidt students may substitute fresh vegetable for the vegetable offered with the basic lunch. Cheese, croutons and salad dressing will be available. The soup and sandwich menu will be continued at the Middle School as a second choice. The High School will also continue to offer the same three choices - basic lunch, salad bar, and malt/hamburger/french fries. A special invitation is extended to senior citizens to participate in the lunch program at any time. If them are to be more than six in a group, a reservation should be made in advance. Please call either Q tie Corpe, Food Service Dintitor (47. -7313 Ext. 210) or the head rook at the school you wish to visit. 1989.90 Free or Reduced Price Meals The Orono School District has announced its Policv for Free and educed Price Meals for children unable to pay the full price of meals served under the National Schoul Lunch Program. The following household size and income -riteria will be used for determining eligibility: Free Me& Household size Yearly Monthly Weekly 1 7,774 648 150 2 10,426 869 201 3 13,078 1,090 252 4 15,730 1,311 303 5 18,W 1,532 354 6 21,034 1,753 405 7 23k% 1,974 456 8 26,338 2,195 507 For each additional household member add: +2,652 +221 +51 Reduced Priced Meals Household size Yearly Monthly Weekly 1 11,063 922 213 2 14,837 1 XV 286 3 18,611 1,551 358 4 22285 1866 431 5 26,159 Z180 504 6 29933 Z495 576 7 33,707 2,809 649 8 37,481 3,124 721 For each additional household member, add: +3,774 +315 +73 Children from households that meet federal guidelines am eligible for free or reduced price meals. Application forms are being sent to all homes with a letter to parents or guardians. To apply for free or reduced price benefits, households must complete the application as soon as possible, sign it, and return it to the principals office in each school MARKED: ATTENTION GEKITE CORPS Households should answer all applicable questions on the form. An application which dues not contain all the required information cannot be processed and approved by the school. The required information is: FOOD STAMP/AFDC HOUSEHOLDS: If a household curr,idly receives Food Stamps or "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (AFDC) for their child, they need only to list the child's name and Food Stamp or AFDC case number, and s_� the application. ALL OTHER HOUSEHOLDS: If a household's income is at or below the level shown on the income scale, children are eligible for either free or reduced price meals. Households must provide the following information: 1) the names of all household members; 2) the Social Security number of each adult household member, age 21 or older, or the word "none" 9 an adult does not have a Social Security number. 3) total monthly household income AND the amount and source of income received by each household member (such as wages, child support, etc.); and 4) the signature of an adult household member. The information on applications for free or reduced price meals Kill be used for the purpose of determining eligibility and may be verified by school or other officials at any time during the school year. If income information is provided and children am approved for meal benefits, household must tell the school when their household income increased by 550 or more per month (5600 per year) or when their household size decreases. If a Food Stamp or AFDC case number was listed, the household must tell the school H•'ten they no longer receive Food Stamps or AFDC for their child. Households may apply for benefits at any time during the school year. If a household is not eligible now but has a decrease in household income, an increase in household sve, or a household member become unemployed, the household ihou!d fill out an application at that time. In certain cases foster children am eligible for meal benefits regardless of the household income. If a household has foster children living with them and they wish to apply for meal benefits for them, the household should follow the directions provided on the applications. Under the provisions of the Policy Mrs. Genie C•orpe will review applications and determine eligibility Households dissatisfied with the ruling of the official may wish to discuss it with the school. Households also have the right to a fair hearing. This can be done by calling or writing the following official: Mr. William Fenholt, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road, Long Lake, MN 553% (612)473-7313. In the operation of our child feeding programs no child will be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap. If you believe you have been discriminated against, write immediately to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 2C1''50. 3 Memorial Blood Center to be in Orono Community on Wednesday, September 27,1989 The Orono Community Bloodmobile will be held at the Schumann Elementary on Wedn September 27, 1989. The time schedule will be 2:30 to 7:00 pm. This bloodmobile is sponsored b to Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis. You are eligible to donate if you are 17 years of age and may continue to donate to your 73rd t,n thday. Prior to donating you will be asked about your general health and medical history by a trained interviewer. Your temperature, blood pressure, pulse and hemoglobin will be determined at this time. The purpose of this examination is: To be sure you are not 'ikely to be harmed by giving blood and to be sure your blood is unlikely to harm the patient who receives it. If you think that there is any risk that your blood could cause harm to a recipient because of AIDS or any disease carried by the blood, such as hepatitis, malaria or syphilis, please voluntarily defer yourself from donating blood. Remember all information is CONFIDENTIAL. All members who have not donated for 3 years are asked to donate or obtain someone in their place. Should you need more information about donating or becoming a member please call JoAnn Ree, Orono School Nurse at 473-5472 Ext. 227. Should you have a specific question regarding your health it is always good to call your doctor or the Memorial Blood Center at 871-3300. If you wish to discontinue, become a new member or update your enrollment, please fill out the enclosed slip and send to JoAnn Ree, Orono i-ligh School, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road, Long Lake, YN 55356. Name Address I wish to become a member of the Orono Community Blood Donor Club which entitles my family to transfusion coverage. I wish to continue to be a member, what is my status? Phone I wish to have my name removed from the Orono Communiti Don - Clu'. Member list dependents (If single, you may list parents). 4 Activity Calendar /28 All Teacher Workshop begins ...................................... 9/5 Classes begin.................................................................. 9/11 Board Meeting MS Vocal Music Room ........... 7:00pm 9/25 Board Meeting MS Vocal iviusic Room ........... 7:00prn 9/27 Bloodmobile a, SE Cafeteria..........................2:30pm ELEMENTARY ACTIVITIES 8/2e Elem PTA Bd. Mtg. SE Library .......................7:15pm 9/1 Kindergarten Visitation Day ....................................... 9/14 Orono Primary "Know Your School Night ... 7:O0pm 9/14 New Parents Mtg., Orcno Primary Cafe ....... 8:30pm 9/19 Girl Scout Recruitment Night ...................................... 9/19 SE & OPS Sept. Birthday Party ................................... 9/21 Schum. Elem "Know Your School" Night ....7:OOpm 9/21 New Parents Mtg., SE Cafe . ........................... 8:30pm 9/27 Elem. Camera Art Day ................................................. INTERIM)TATF/MIDD F SCrrnnr eCTIV rrFS 9/7 Intermediate School Open House..................7:15pm 9/19 Middle School Back to School Night.............7:30pin 9/19 IS/MS Camera Art Day ................................................ HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES 9/1 Girls Soccer - St. Louis Park............................6:00pm 9/5 Volleyball at Delano.........................................7:30pm Boys Soccer - Breck..........................................7:OOpm Girls Soccer at St. Paul Academy ...................4:30pm 9/7 Girls Tennis - Mahtomedi...............................4:OOpm Volleyball at Buffalo.........................................7:30pm Boys Soccer - Blake...........................................7:00pm Girls Soccer at Blake.........................................7:00pm Cross Country at Monticello...........................4.00pm 9/8 Football - Mahtomedi......................................7:30pm 9/9 ECFE 'Super Saturday" at OPS..................... I0:00am 9/ 12 Volleyball at Minnehaha............................... ..7:30pm Boys Soccer at Mahtomedi..............................4:00pm Girls Soccer - Breck..........................................4:00pm Girls Tennis at Breck........................................4:OOpm 9/14 Volleyball - St. Bernard's................................730pm Boys Soccer at Centennial...............................7:00pm ,iris Soccer - Chaska.......................................7:00pm Girb Tennis - Minnehaha ............................... 4:OOpm Cross Country - Conference Meet .............................. Football - Centennial.......................................7:00pm -olleyball at Bloomington ........... .. ................ 8:30am ,)y,:. Soccer - Wayzata.....................................3:00pm ris Soccer - Wayzata.....................................1:OQpm -FE Kid's Clothing & ETC. Sale at SE ......... 9:00am y, High School Hack to School Night.................7:15pm HS Senior Parents Mtg., Auditorium ........... 6:30pm Girls Soccer at Minnetonka.............................5:00pm 9/19 Volleyball at Centennial..................................730pm Boys Soccer - St. Agnes .................... ............... 7.00pm Girls Soccer - Mahtomedi................................4.00pm Girls Tennis at DeLaSalle................................4:OOpm 9/21 Volleyball - St. Agnes.......................................7:30pm Boys Soccer at Minnehaha..............................4:OOpm Girls Soccer - Minnehaha................................7:OOpm Cross Country at Lakeville.............................4.0Opm ,/22 Football at DeUSr-Ile......................... ............. 730pm 9/23 Girls Tennis " Zrtan Invitational .................4:00pm 9/24 Girls Tennis i Over ................................................ 9/15 Homecomint .oronation...............................7:OOpm 9,126 Volleyball - St. Anthony..................................7:30pm Boys Soccer at Delano ......................... .......... .7:OOpm Girls Soccer - St. Bernard's.............................4:OOpm High School College Fair ......................................... . 9/27 High School College Fair ............................................ 9/28 Volleyball - Minnehaha................................ .. 7:30p.n Boys soccer - St. Bernard's..............................7:UUpm Girls Soccer at Eden Prairie............................4:00pm Cross Country - Conference Meet .............................. 9/29 Homecoming Dance ..................................................... Football - Brooklyn Center.............................7:30pm 9/30 Volleyball at Sauk Rapids................................9:00am Girls Soccer at Breck........................................1:00pm s RReplar meeting of May 8.1989 • Approved the appointment of Ed Glover as head cu!Aodian at Orono High School. • Approved the appointment of Heidi A. Johnson as Srenish teacher at Orono High School. • Xpproved the following variance: Ann Beckley, grade 11 to Wayzata Schools. • Approved the seniors for graduation as presented by the Orono High School administration. • Authorized the contribution of $200.00 to the Orono Education Association. • Approved the Orono School Day Schedule. • Adopted the revised Operating Budget for 1988-89 and the Preliminary Budget for 1989-90. Regular meeting off 16.1989 • Authorized the calling for bids on a language laboratory. • Authorized the calling for bids on two vans for handicapped transportation. • Authorized the School Board election of May 16,1989. Regular meeting of June 1-2. 1989 • Approved the appointment of Dr. Steven L. Greenfield os principal of Orono High School. • Approved the appointment of J. Whihiey Driscoll as an earth science teacher at the Orono Middle School. • Accepted the resignation of Kim Fragodt. • Approved the appointment of Linda von Buskirk as secretary to the principal of Schumann Elementary. • Accepted the resignation of Doris Fenholt. • Approved the following variances: Megan Wirtjes, grade 3, and Christopher Wirtjes, grade l to Orono; Nathaniel Fansler, kindergarten to Orono. • Placed the seasonal employees on leave of absence during the 1989 summer months. Approved the use of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Adopted the Five Year Capital Facilities Plan as recommended by the admirastrtion. Directed the administration to award contracts on the Orono Primary roof, a language laboratory and two handicapped vans. Ratified the agreement reached between the Board Negotiating Committee and Hanus Transportation. Approved the 1989-90 Community Education Budget as presentee'. E School Supplies - Schumann Elementary School 1989-1990 The teachers have compiled a list of supplies by grade level which we hope will guide you in purchasing supplies you wish to furnish for your child's school year. PLEASE PUT NAMES ON ALL ITEMS .01 KINDERGARTEN School bag with name GRADE 1 piece of oil cloth (18" x 24") 1 large box of tissues Tennis shoes for gym use Paint shirt - an old shirt with sleevp-:ut short - nanic across shoulder 10 No. 2 pencils Crayons 1 covered plastic container - pint size 2 soft pencil erasers 1 - 8 oz. bottle of white glue School box - cigar box size - plastic if possible 3 pocket folders (NO Trappers) 1 old T-shirt with name in large letters on front & back (for gym & music teacher to learn names) Magic markers - WATER SOLUBLE ONLY - optional 2 old socks (to use as an eraser) l glue stick Scissor 2 sticks of modeling clay 1 scotch tape 1 box 1; 2" paper fasteners 1 spiral notebook - wide ruled 1 ball of knitting worsted yarn - any color 1 box of water colors GRADE 2 Crayons - 24 count 10 No. 2 pencils 2 soft erasers Box of tissues School box - sturdy one please Tennis shoes for gym use 2 folders with pockets 1 four oz. bottle of white glue 1 glue stick 2 red felt tip pens Old T-shirt with name in large letters on front & back for gym & music I button-down long sleeve shirt with name on back, for art 1 set markers - WATER SOLUBLE ONLY Scissor - pointed 2 old clean white socks 3 spiral notebooks - wide ruled 1 roll scotch tape 1 box white chalk 1 6" ruler GRADE3 10 No. 2 pencils 1 red pencil, I blue pen Soft erasers 3 ringed wide -lined paper 1 small box issues 7 pocket folders Tennis shoes for gym use Paint shirt with name written across back shoulder Plastic zipper pocket or school box I tour oz. bottle of white glue Crayons - 24 count Scissor - pointed 1 spiral notebook for Journal Writing Color pencils Magic markers - WATER SOLU'I,L E ONLY - optional Old T-shirt with name in large letters on front & back (for gym & music teacher to learn names) 1 ruler NO TRAPPERS OR RF4CED NOTEBOOKS Cltx�se are too large to keep in desks or lockers) LPJGRADED Durable plastic school box 2 pocket folders to carry papers 10 No. 2 pencils in September & January I large box of tissues for classroom use 1 four oz. bottle of � vhite glue Erasers Paint shirt with name across back shoulder in marker Tee finis shoes for gym use Crayons Markers - WATER SOLUBLE ONLY Wide -lined spirai notebook - Grade l after Winter Brmk 2 Hide -lined spiral notebooks - Grade 2 3 wide -lined spiral notebooks - Grade 3 1 red felt tip pen Scissors - pointed 2 old socks -Grade 1 & 2 Old T-shirt with name in large letters on frunt & back (for gym & music teacher to learn names) 1 three subject notebook - Grade 3 for Health, Science & Social Studies PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR CHILD MID -YEAR ABOUT THEIR SUPPLIES 0 Guivance At A Glance First Fall College Entrance Test Dates: ACT. October 28, 1989 Registration Deadline: September 29, 1989 SAT: November 4, 1989 Registration Deadline: September 29, 1989 Next Test Dates: ACT: December 9,1989 Registration Deadline: November 10, 1989 SAT: December 2, 1989 Registration Deadline: October 27, 1989 SAT & ACT Test Preparation Orono High School students who plan to take the Scholastic Aptitude Test have ;n verai opportunities to prepare for that test using resources available at the high school. Test .ates and application deadlines are posted in the guidance office. Ample supplies _c,i ap licatic packets are available. There are preparation manuals available for use by students. In addition, the high school .is software for their micro -computers that help students prepare for taking the SAT and include amerous sample tests. The guidance office aiso can act as a clearing house to inform students about .esources outside of our school district that might help in preparing for college entrance examinations. There are a number of non-profit as well as ;,rofit mal-ing organizations that provide resour- :, of this nature. Freshman and New Student Orient , -on All new sl.,dents and incoming ninth graders ire invited to an orientation session to be hell high school auditorium Thursday. August 31, 1989 at 1:C''i-)m. All new students to the high schu-, will be introduced to faculty and administration and will be given information that will help get the school year off to a positive start. This will include information about classes, how the mod schedule works, discipline policies, location of rooms and offices in the high school, and how to read your fall schedule of classes. Senior Parent Night Parents of senior students are invited to an informational meeting on Monday, September 18, at 6:30pm in the high school auditorium. The . -,pics covered ._::nude-eneral information you will need in preparing to send your ton or daugiiter off cotiege or oth secondary institutions. Information regarding school selection, various roes, resource . ,.tion, entrant testing, and financial aid will be discussed. This meeting will b•_ .eld the same evening as our traditional back to school night. We will be ending in time for you to go dire.tly to your students first hour class at 7:15pm. Senior College Visits SeniorF should be aware that a pre -visit form needs to be obtained from the C.,uidance Office and led out prior to making a college visit during s6-iool hour:.. Failure'. complete this form will ,esult in an unexcused absence. 7 Football Scrimmage & Cookout The 5th annual football scrimmage wi:l be held on Saturday, August 26th beginning at 9:00am at the Orono High School Football Field. Cook -out will follow the scrimmage. $10 donation per family is requester' for the cook -out and Football Booster membership. Money cD.lected will be used for supplying the team with pop and good;, , after each away game. Mark your calendars - lets see everyone there to support our team. Gymnastics Registration The 1989 Fall Session of North Shore Gymnastics Association will begin on September 5th and run for 9 weeks through November 4th. For more information and a Fall I registration form and class . ,:hedule, please contact th_m at 473-5514. 1989-1 School Day Schedule Grades r.tartine Time Ending Time Lengthof Dav H.S. 730 2-05 6 hours + 35 min. (9-12) Int.Mi.S. 8:10 2:45 6 hours + 35 min. (5-8) InUElem. 9:05 3:25 6 hours + 20 min. (2-4) Primary 9:15 3:15 nrs (K-1) Kindergarten: 9:15 -11:45 12:45 - 3:15 Kids' Clothin^ —0 ,'tr. Sale' Childrens' clothing (intant to size 14) Toys, Ba-)y eq....pment, maternity clothes ] and MORE! September 16, 9:00am - 2:00pm Schumann Elementary If you are intersted in participating as a seller please call Mitzi, 479-1530 (days) or 479-1601 (3-8pm) COMPUTERS FOR KIDS Lund Food Stores will donate one Apple IIGS Computer system to our school for every $100,000 worth of cash register tapes that we present to The store will provide you with an envelope to stc your tapes and mail to your school periodically. This plan rLns from May 1, 1989 to May 31, 1990. You may also bring the tapes 'o any of the Orono School Offices if you wish. Please join us in this endeavor ECFE'SUPER SATURDAY VEHICLE FAIR" 1DM -12:00 noon, Satru+day Sept 9th Orono Primary School 5050Independence Street Maple Plain (under the water tower) It's FREE For more info - Call Mitzi, 479-1530 Girl Scout Recruitment Night I Tuesday, Sept.19 6:00 - 8:00 pm Schumann F.lementar�y Cafetorium I Register for Daizy, Brownie and Junior Girl Scouts Boys Recruitment Night is Thursday, September 14 Notice Them will be an Orono Baske`tiall Boesters mtg on Thursday, Sept. 7, at S*Opm in Rootr 108 of the , iigh School. F NEWSLETTER ~ ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 663 OLD Cr.YSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH PAID LONG LAVE, MINNESOTA 553M 1ov LA. �.�• ►(RMII P+V 17 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Day MIS 55323 AUG_: August 21, 1989 Mr. Mark Bernhardson City of Orono, Admr. Dear Mr. Bernhardson, The Housing Task Force of Interfaith outreach and Community Partners (IOCP), an ecumenical social action group of 16 churches in the Wayzata -Plymouth -Long Lake area, is sponsoring an "Awareness and Action Campaign" for affordable housing. The Campaign will run from September 10-24, to coincide with the Parade of Homes. Our purpose is to focus on housing needs and this seemed the perfect connection! Enclosed is a brochure outlining Campaign. Interfaith has been giving emergency housing assistance to people in our area at a rate of 55.5% of its service budget in the first half of 1989. We are hoping to wake people aware of the near -homelessness threatening our displaced teens, low-income , people and divorced and separated persons. Our goal is to move people to action, however small, to help solve this problem. We realize that the situation in our area may not seem as desperate as in the inner city, but to the individuals involved, the threat of homelessness is equally devastating. Furthermore, the thrust of our Campaign is toward the solutions. We feel that residents of our aiea may be uniquely positioned to effect social and political change if they have the will. Will you join the challenge? The Community Forum will be as effective as the people who attend! Please plan to be there! Thank you for your support! Gratefully, Kathy Lund Publicity Chairperson What is the AWARENES. AD ACTION CAMPAIGN? It Is an effort by the Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners Task Force on Housing to help individuals in the community become AWARE of and TAKE ACTION in support of the needs of the homeless and near homeless in IOCP's service area. t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t YOU are the Ke•i to affordable housing. For more information on: _ Affordable housing alternatives _ Direct rent/mortgage assistance _ Advocacy CALL 473-2436 or WRITE 14 IOCP o�'rReP��► 630 E. Wayzata Blvd. s coMnnuNiTv Wayzata, MN 55391 PARTNERD IOCP MEMBER Q !CHES WAYZATA • Redeemer Lutheran • St. Bartholomew Catholic • Unitarian Universalist of Minnetonka • Vineyard of the lake • Wayzata Couutlunily PLYMOUTH • Christ Memorial Luthern • Messiah United Methodist • Peace Lutheran • St. Barnabas 1.ulhcran • St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran • Wayzata Evangelical Free ORONO • St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal MEDINA • Holy Narne Catholic LONG LAKE • St. George Catholic • Trinity Lutheran HAMEL • St. Anne Catholic o.KtMars.c AWARENESS AND ACTION CAMPAIGN for Affordable Housing September 10 - 24 sponsored by: Interfaith Outreach and Conununity Partners "Cask Force on I totising Yot.t are hatulted "MINIATURES ON PARADE" COMMUNITY FORUM (� by the lio► ieless poor J Art Center of Minnesota Co -sponsored by the Community Education arid you rile 22,10 North Shore Drive, Wayiata Department of District H284 "What cart I do7' September 16 9:00 - 5:00 p.in. Sunday. September 24 7:00 p.m. SHELTER ONE September 17 12:00 - 5:00 p.m. Way7ata Senior High School Auditorium reprinted with permission froin Abbey Press, St. AN EXHIBIT OF 305 Vicksburg Lane, Plymouth, MN Meinrad, IN 47577 (all rights reserved) MINIATURE DOLL -HOUSES PANEL donation: Moderated by Iti-0$4.00 adult • Dr. James Shannon J. J. HILL DAYS $2.00 child Educator and Foundation Director r�, on Lake Street, Wayzata • September 10 • Sue Watlov Phillips: Minneso(a Coalition for the Homeless and "Homes on Parade" Float 2-00 p.m, SEPTEMBER 1989 Executive Director. Elim Transitional Housing Information booth • Fact. Street on Affordable Housing • Awareness and Action Campaign brochure SuN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 25 26 27 28 29 30 Awareness and Actior, Campaign Inlerfiii(h Outrearh and Coil;n roily Partners Task force on I lousing • LaDonna Hoy: Executive Director. Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners • Missy Staples Thompson President.11iompson Associates • Becky Halvorson Social Worker. Wayzata High School • Mill Dale Plymouth housing specialist and shared -home host • Dave Johnson West suburban resident and participant In shared home 'ACTION OPTIONS" RESOURCE FAIR • I labilal for Humanity • Share -a -Home / t aulh Foster Care • Emergency Housing • "Transitional housing • Redevelopment • Rent and mortgage assistance • Advocacy / Legislation • 1►rfcrr, rt r*wini± / 1VIIIs and brgrrests HOUstNO AWARFNF33 AND ACT{ON 'T tiE KEYS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING' FACT SHEET Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners Housing Task Force 630 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata MN 55391 tel. 473-2436 NA710N AL - 3.5 million people are homeless today.' - By 2003 there will be an estimated 19 million homeless people.2 Ft1N NBsoTA - The number of people using shelters and transitional facilities has increased by 146% since 1985•3 - Families and rural populations are the fastest growing sectors. Since 1985 there has been a 238% increase in the number of homeless children.3 7 coUNTT urTRo - 40,000 people lice doubled up.4 - 35,00e-53,000 will experience homelessness in a given year.4 - 300 youths live in the streets of the Twin Cities.4 J1iEN N>tt•IN C09 N7T - 70% of minimum wage earners are adults; 63% are women; 1/2 have childrens - 2/3 of female -headed households with children in suburban Hennepin live in poverty-5 1ocA1 - 10% of senior -headed households in Wayzata live at poverty levels - In 1988 Interfaith Outreach (IOCP) assisted 138 individuals and families (278 persons) with housing costs. Up 31% from 19876 - IOCP spent $52,050 for rent and mortgage assistance in 1988; $8.0m per month through June in 1989.6 A single parent with two children receives $532 a month on A.F.D.C. Under Federal rental assistance programs, a two bedroom unit can be rented for $528 per month, including utilities. With assistance the household would pay $160 per month, 30% of monthly income. Unassisted, there would be only $4.00 left over each month.s - At 30% of income, a full time worker at minimum wage can afford only $200 per month fo . rents - The waiting list for available subsidized housing is 1-4 years.s ---------------------------------•-------------------------------------------------- 1. National Coalition for the Homeless. Department of Jobs and Training, 1998. 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987. 3. Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training Quarterly Summary, 1988. 4. Metropolitan Council Targeted Report on Homelessness in Metropolitan Area, December, 1986. 5. Poverty and Welfare Programs in West Hennepin] Need, Barriers, and Policy Issues. West Hennepin Human Services, September 1987. 6. IOCP: Budget and Usage Reports, 1988 and 1989. NOUSINn AWARlNFSS AND ACTiOM 'THE KEYS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING' $ I 4--o FACT SHEET Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners Housing Task Force 630 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata HN 55391 tel. 473-2436 NA710 N AL - 3.5 million people are homeless today.I - By 2003 there will be an estimated 19 million homeless people.2 F,N NEsoTA - The number of people using shelters and transitional facilities has increased by 146% since 1985•3 - Families and rural populations are the fastest growing sectors. Since 1985 there has been a 2381 increase in the number of homeless children.3 7 COUNTT 1[17Yo - 40,000 people live doubled up.4 - 35,000-53,000 will experience homelessness in a given year.4 - 300 youths live in the streets of the Twin Cities.4 REN NEpIN [^U NTT - 70% of minimum wage t-arners are adults; 63% are women; 1/2 have childrens - 2/3 of female -headed households with children in suburban Hennepin live in poverty-5 FLocAi- let of senior -headed households in Wayzata live at poverty levels - In 1988 Interfaith Outreach (IOCP) assisted 138 individuals and families (278 persons) with housing costs. Up 31% from 19876 - IOCP spent S52,050 for rent and mortgage assistance in 1988; S8,000 per month through June in 1989.6 A single parent with two children receives $532 a month o. D.C. Under Federal rental assistance programs, a two bedroom unit can be rentea r $528 per month, including utilities. With assistance the household would pay $160 per month, 30% of monthly inco-ne. Unassisted, there would be only $4.00 left over each month.5 - At 30% of income, a full time worxer at minimum wage can afford only $200 per month for rents - The waiting list for available subsidized housing is 1-1 ypars.s ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- 1. National Coalition fL_ the Homeless. Department of Jobs and Training, 1988. 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987. 3. Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training Quarterly 3u,mnary, 1988. 4. Metropolitan Council Targeted Report on Homelessness in Metropolitan Area, December, 1986. 5. Poverty and Welfare Programs in West Hennepint Need, Barriers, and Policy Issues. West Hennepin Human Services, September 1987. 6. IOCP: Budget and Usage Reports, 1988 and 1989. RANO-%tt G CHR1S11A1&E'v .... , 1 , 1 PCXICF n Q a � `` A� 4F W Py k MINN. WAYZATA POLICE August 10, 1989 Chief Mel Kilbo Orono Police Department P.O. Box 86 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mel: (612) 473.4333 DEPARTMENT 600 RICE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 On August 1, 1989 at 021C hours, Officer Moroczynski responded to assist Wayzata Officer Reiter on a foot chase of four Asian males that had fled a stolen vehicle. The quick response of Officer Moroczynski assistac' ii; the immed.ate capture Of two of the suspects. A third suspect was apprehended later that morning. Please convey my personal thanks to Officer Moroczynski iur his assistance and professionalism. Sincerely, Randall G. G. Christiansen Chief of Police RGC:kmd August 14, 1989 Dean MeZ, Just a quick note to Zet you know how much I enjoyed woAking with yours guys on SatuAday night! (4i,%ewoAka) Garay Chezwick, Randy O'B4ien, Chuck SchauA4, Matk Tomczyk and ait the otheAs 4eat,ey went out o6 thei4 way to make the "outside heZp" 6eee wetcome! You have a depa4tment to be p4oud o6!!! Since-tety, G,%eg Rye WAYZATA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON JULY 10, 1989 The annual meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, July 10, 1989. Present: Dave McKown James Franklin Thomas Mich Don Anderson John Maresh William Fenholt Kitty Crosby Lucie Taylor The meeting was called to order and nominations for chairperson were requested by Dr. Mich. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Kitty Crosby, Dave McKown was nominated for chairperson and was elected by unanimous ballot. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Kitty Crosby, Don Anderson was nomi- nated for vice chairperson. Lucie Taylor MOVED, Jim Franklin seconded that nominations cease and Mr. Anderson was elected t)y unanimous ballot. UPON mo ,ION by Jim Franklin, seconded 5y Lucie Taylor, the yearly salary for Clerk was established as $500 and fcr Treasurer as $100. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, Kitty Crosby was eominated for clerk. Jim Franklin MOVED, Don Anderson seconded that nominations cease and Mrs. Crosby was elected by unanimous ballot. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Kitty Crosby, Lucie Taylor was nomi- nated for treasurer. John Maresh MOVED, Kitty Crosby, seconded that nominations cease and Lucie Taylor was elected by unanimous ballot. UPON MOTION by Kitty Cruaby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the signature plates of offcers for 1989-90 will remain as in the past. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the June 12, 1989 regular meeting; - approved the appointment of Connie Fladeland as principal of Orono Primary School effective August 1, 1989; - approved the appointment of Kristen J. Peterson as `ifth grade teacher at Orono Intermediate School; - approved the appointment of Martha G. Klein as fourth grade teacher at Orono Intermediate School; - approved the appointment of Janelle M. Bray as music teacher in the elementary schools; - approved continued membership in E.C.S.U. for the 1989-90 school year; - approved continued membership in AMSO for the 1989-90 school fear; - agreed to participate in Chapter I and authorized an LEA representative in conjunction with the District Advisory Committee and School Advisory corr- mittees o` the District to execute and file application for the school district and to otherwise act as authorized representative in all Chapter I related activities; approved continuation of membership in the Minnesota Mate High School according to the following resolution: Approved by the Orono Board of Education - July 10,1989 RESMAD, that this governing board of School District 0 is and School Diegglet . County Of B nne in . State of Minnesota. delegates the control, supery s oa and regulation 0-F Interscholastic athletic and Other extracurricular activities (referred to in Mi ata Statutes. Section 123.38) to the Minnesota State Nigh School Leagues and so her )y certifies to the State Commissioner of Education as provided for by Minnesota Statutes, Section 129.121. FURTHER RESOLVER, that the high school($) - (mime all schools in the district)_ orovo Binh Sehaa l s are authorized by thfi, the gover► ng board of said school district or school to: 1. (Check either A or d) A. Make new application for membership in tho Minnesota State Nigh School League, and _.L_1. Retsew its membership in the Minnesota State Nigh School League, and 2. Participate in the approved interschool activities sponsored by said league and its various subdivisions, and FORT' tSOLVEO, that this governing board hereby adopts the Constitution, ay -Lars, rules awl ri- rtions of the said League and all amendments thereto as the same are published in the la.rsE edition Of the League's Official Handbook, On file at the ..:rice Of the school district, as the minima standards governing parti:ipation in said Lo. •ponsored activities, and that the administration and responsibility for superv. . of such activities are assigned to the official representative. - approved the following variance requests granting continua ion of atten- dance at Orono Schools for the 1989-90 school year: Heather Hayes, grade 2; "i,�e1a Skeesick, grade 2; Tyrone Smith, kindergarten; Russell ' jr„-.i, grade 9; Ni�-nolas Aune, grade 10; - approved the call for bids or milk and related dairy products for the 1989-90 school year; - di,•ected the administration to certify to the e Demographer the following population estimates for Orono Independent Scnool District No. 278 which will serve as the basis for the Community Education levy for the Early Childhood program: Age: 0 Total: I(, 1 1113t 2 It129 3 01142 4 to M4 Total 695 - approved the *Ice Arana Leese for the 1989-90 school year as follows: *Lease on file in District Off approved the bills as covered by vouchers 063518 through O63584 and 062790 through 062989; approved the Treasurer's Reports for April and May 1989. Dr. Mich welcomed the Board to the beginning of the 1989-90 school year and reported that a successful summer school program was just completed with in excess of 450 students in attendance; that the Orono City Council will act tonight on the Conditional Use Permit for our new construction and Bill Fenholt and a representative from the architect's firm will represent the scliool district at that meeting; that a meeting will be held on July 13 at 7:30 a.m. to go over the final drawings fur the new building and he encouraged Board members to attend; that congratulations are extended to Sue Sjeklocha for earning her PhD at the University of Minnesota this spring; Toni Bergland has been named for a second term to be secretary for the Minnesota Chapter of National School Public Relations Association; that he wanted to express appreciation to the Search Committee for the principal of the Orono Primary School and that as a result of their diligent work, Ms. Connie Fladeland will begin as principal of that school on August 1 and that Dr. Steven Greenfield, the new principal at Orono High School, will also begin on August 1; that he wanted to express congratulations to Karen Orcutt who was married on July 1 to Ted Suss who is the administrator for the State Board of Education; that he wants the Board to give consideration to the possibility of "naming" the new building. Dr. Mich reviewed the following items which will require attention/study during the 1989-90 school year: construction, negotatiations, open enrollment, a review of the middle school, study of the utilization of the elementary school day and the criteria for additions/deletions of the curriculum, examination of the foreign language program, a thorough study of the guidance program and the recruitment of a counselor, revitalization of the PER Committee, study of the intermediate school and its fate, public relations for the district. Dr. Mich stated that he would be in contact with Board members fur input as to their thoughts!concerns for the 1989-90 school year. Dr. Mich informea the Board that Don Boylan will be the speaker for the opening day of workshop in August. Pet Shoop, OEA"Pres ident, informed the Board that Orono's Teacher of the Year, Pat Headley, is one of the top 23 candidates for Minnesota Teacher of the Year. Marge Gasch expressed appreciation t:k the OEA for the honor of being named the Outstanding Layperson in Education for Orono Schools. She expressed appre- ciation to the Board and stafr for providii;q an envirunment in which parents are given the Dpportunity to become involved in ti;p education of their children. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education accepted the bids from M b S Roofing for roof repair end resaturation at Orono Primary and Orono High School, from Superior Ford for twc eight -passenger vans for handicapped transportation, and from F.P.A. for a wirele:.s language labora- tory system for high school foreign language departments. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education established the regular School Board meeting time at 7:00 p.m., (except the May 15, 1990 meeting will begin at 9:30 p.m.) to be held in the middle school vocal music room on the following dates: July 10, 1989 November 13, 1989 March 12, 1990 August 14, 1989 December 11, 1989 April 9, 1990 September 11, 1989 January 8, 1990 April 23, 1990 September 25, 1989 January 22, 1990 May 15, 1990 (9:30) October 9, 1989 February 12, 1990 May 29, 1990 October 23, 1989 February 26, 1990 June 11, 1990 UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education designated the State Bank of Long Lake and the Bank of Maple Plain as deposi- tories for the regular funds of this school district and the officers of the Board of Education are hereby authorized in the name of and on behalf of the Board of Education to open or cause to be opened or to continue or cause to be continued accounts with said banks and to execute and deliver to said banks, signature cards supplied by said banks containing said banks usual customer agreement applicable to such accounts and the signatures of the officers or other persons hereinafter named are hereby authorized to act for and on behalf of the Board of Education or otherwise to endorse or cause to be endorsed, to negotiate or cause to be negotiated, or to deposit or cause to be deposited in such accounts any money, checks, drafts, orders, notes or other instruments payable or held by this Board of Education. Said officers are: Dave McKown, Kitty Crosby and Lucie Taylor. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education approved the following investment depositories and authorized George Stubbs and William Fenholt to transfer funds among these financial institutions for invest- ment purposes: 1) Marquette Bank 2) Norwest Bank of Minneapolis 3) First Bank of Minneapolis 4) First Minnesota of Waytaca 5) Minnesota School District Liquid Asset Fund Plus 6) State Bank of Long lake 7) Bank of Maple Plain 8) Eaton Vance Investors Fund, Inc. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the LAKER/PIONEER was designated as the official publication of the Orono School District. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the official office of the clerk of the School Board will be the District Office in the middle. school building. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the auditing firm of Froehling, Anderson, Plowman b Egnell, Ltd. as school auditors was approved. UPON MOTION br Kitty Crosby, seconded by Don Anderson, the renewal of surety bonds for all t,-aloyees was approved. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, Board members were appointed to the following committees for 1989-90: Teachers Meet 6 Confer Minnesota State H.S. League A.M.S.D. E.C.S.U. P.E.R. TIES Community Education M.S.B.A. Local Legislative Liaison Chapter I Continuing Education Negotiations Parents Meet 6 Confer District Staff Development Kitty Crosby, Lucie Taylor John Maresh, alternate Dave McKown Jim Franklin, Dave McKown, alternate Don Anderson, Jim Franklin, alternate Lucie Taylor, John Maresh, alternate Dave McKown John Maresh, Dave McKown, alternate John Maresh, Thomas Mich, alternate Kitty Crosby, Jim Franklin, alternate Don Anderson Kitty Crosby, Jim Franklin, Lucie Taylor Don Anderson, Lucie Taylor Lucie Taylor UPON MOTION Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education approved the appointment of Mr. Marvin Johnson to serve a two year tern, on the Intermediate District #287 Board of Education as the representative from the Orono Schools. A letter will be sent to Mr. Johnson from the Board of Education expressing appreciation to him for his willingness to represent Orono on the HTI Board. Lucie Taylor requested that administration research the possibility of using recycled paper for the District Newsletter. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the meeting was adjourned. I Approved: !�� � Dave McKown, Chairman LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT P L I AUG 1 81989 BOARD OF DIRECTORS A G E N D A N Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 23, 1989 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 7:00 pm PUBLIC BEARING: Deicing review of safety fencing requirements and eligibility for deicing of permanent docks installed after January 22, 1986. 7130 pm REGULAR MEETING: Board of Directors 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: approval of 7-26-89 meeting minutes with corrections on harvesting votes 4. Public Comments - from persons in attendance not on agenda 5. Reports A. Chair Hurr 1) Procedure review for election of officers for 1989-90 2) Additional announcements B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Financial Condition through 7-31-89 2) Audit of vouchers for payment C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Cochran a) Approval of 8-12-89 minutes b) Support recommendation for Water Patrol dockage :n Wayzata Bay c) Contract for Eurasian water milfoil project manager d) Proposed Code amendment relating to tie introduction or removal of weeds into Lake Minnetonka e) Bowers/Morris complaint, Lower Lake South, Greenwood 2) EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Re#se a) Progress report of 8-18-89 meeting b) Recommendations by committee from 8-18-8) meeting 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of 8-21-89 minutes b) Approval of charter boat registration fo.- Afternoon Delight c) Additional business recommended by commit,-ee at 8-21-89 meeting (over) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda August 23, 1989 Page 2 5. C. 4) ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Reese, Consultant Arndorfer a) Progress report b) Meeting schedule forecast - subcommittees 5) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 6. '.'.,finished Business A. Legal service selection in response to Selection Committee's recommendation Of two fin_?+ats 7. Nev Business 8. Adjournment 8-17-89 Lake Minnetonka Cot Yation District Action Report of:. Water Structures & Environment Committee Meeting: Saturday, August 12, 1989, L11CD Office, Wigy at The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:31) a.m. Meabers sent,.. David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Douglas Babcock, Spring F'arl; James Grathwul, E:rcelsior; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Eugene 3lrommen, Executive Director. WATER STRUCTURES 1. Pillsbury reported a conversation with Wm. Crawford, Minnesota Department of Transportation, regarding the possibility of acquirinu doc!. space for the Water Fatrol at the 1layz3tr Bay side of the causeway at Gray's Bay. Crawford indicated this can be done through their cooperative programs :+ith the Water Patrol and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. If accomplished this would ser�.ice the lower part of the late. Tle docl: could al3c be used as an impound site. Slocum offered the services of the Wa•;zata Yacht Club for the same type of accommodation. Grathwol moved, Feese seconded, a recommendation to the Board to encourage the Water Patrol to find dockage at either the Wayzata Bay side of the Gray s Day causeway when property becomes available to Henneoin County, or at the Wayzata Yacht t:lub, so they have dockage to serve the lower late. Motion carried Unanimously. �. the Committer received a copy of a memorandum from Greenwood City Attornov Franl Kslly which was presented to the Greenwood Citv Cuuncil August 1. The memo sugoests a study committee within the City regulating docks and relatvrl watercraft 1SSLIeS. Discussion followed along the followinq lines: 1) 'the District has no objection to individual cities having more restrictive dock requirements as long as they do not conflict with district policy. 2) Tak.inq inventory of doc!:s would be helpful to the District. 3! There is a possibility of over -lapping authority developing, particularly if they get into the multiple dock area. The City should limit it regulation to residential docks. 4) This memo could have been precipitated by several items involvtnq the city and the LtiCC recently: The St. Alban 's Bay Ilarina and Yacht ClUb matter, a drodoinq and dock involvement on a channel at Manor Drive, unauthorized dock additions at Bean's Greentiuod Marina and a neighborhood docl, use area dispilte on Fairview Avenue. The Comn,itL­, supporter) the concept of LMCD rev iowl nq its dock requIZtIuns as they relate try oL!,er agencies, as well as LMCD's enforcement prcc_dures of its code in these areas. Cochran accepted Grathwol's offer to dc�elop this review. Stratom sn reported a public hearing )n deicing will be held 7 p.m., Wednesday, August 27rd prior to the Board meeting. Notice of the hearing has been sent t: permit holders and interested agencies. The purpose is to be more definitive as to when fencing i5 needed, part'cularly in the time period when it is necessary to deice but not practical to qj out on the thin ice to place the fencinq. The J=nuary 26, 1986 orchitition cr+ deicing permanent doc;.s .Ill be reviewed. Public safety is a primary consideration of the deicing code. Slocum agreed to talk to sor-.e people Inowledgeable on the subject of deicing to formulate some thoughts before the Hearing. Richard Anderson, James Wyer (Deephaven) and Bert Fos «. (DeaFhaven) were resources suggested to Slocum. ENVIRONMENT a) Reese reported there has been considerable down time on Harvester N2 due to mechanical difficulties. He believes it is time to strengthen the harvesting operation given the a;:Ver►enr.e gai1,91 in several cream. More specifi=e.11y, r_he data base must be r-liable. Information-eauired to qualify for the Corps of Engineering funding m-st be in place. Liaison with the Freshwater Foundation, preparinq to take on the research for a long-term solution, Must be folio,+ed cicsely. Winter storage and maintenance of the equipment must be arranged. A program for the 1900 season must be +inaIice•J. Communication between the district, contractor and equipment surlier requires freq,+ent attention. Continued contact with the MN Department of Natural Resources, as the state involved agency, .s mandatary. Reese suggested contar_tina Rob lierille, who is familiar with the program, having served as a volunteer this summer. He has a degree in fisheries and bioloqy, with a journalism minor. If available, Meriila could anely:e and fol'ow-up on reports, procedures and need for the Eurasiai+ Water Milfoil Task Force. He would be accountable to the Expcutive Director in addressing the above mentioned concerns. It is recooni.ed that the E:ecuti,.e Director is reaching the point where the Managen•ent Plan study Hill require e:!tra-ordinary attention along with the on -going reEponsibilities of the Di=_+:rict. Reese moved, Cochran seconded, a recommendation to the Board to retain Rob Merilla on a rrntract basis to ser�,e as a prcgr.am manager at $20,1.11'+(annually, subiect to a progress reviev after sixty days. Because of the urgency to start the program and availability of a qualified candidate, Board ratification would be neres=_ary in Auatisc. (lotion carried unanimously. 5) Pillsbury; reviewed the history of dredging at Libbs Lake. The Watershed District is c-orrently trying to determine the land elevations prior to the dredging. The Committee tales the position that the LMCD should politely insist that the responsible agencies resolve the problems created by this situation. 6) Additional bu17rne!�s a) .tI.na+n+?r+ furnished the Committee with the proposed ordinance relating to the introdu_tion or removal of we.�ds from the !ale. The proposed ordinance will he presented to the Pocrd, the Lsecutive Director recommending that the distznee of S�.i leet from the shoreline for removal of :+eels from :ratercraft could be changed to a more appropriate distance, depending upon launching facilities. b) it comG13111t involvinq the docl. at the Bowers/1•lorris property on Fairview Avenue, Lower Lake South in Greenwood was summarized by the E::ecutive Director. Powers responded to a violation notice that the dock is located on her neighbnr's !o'., Christi?n Schrock. A second site inspection indicated that while there are dock -use -area infringements, navigation is open to the Morris property. Babcock moved, Pillsbury seconded that it be recommc-nded to the Board that the docls remain as installed this year, and any infringements be rectified before installation ►n 1990. Motion carried unanimously. c) For the Committee's information, Lra%thwol repurted fifteen applications for the pr-5ltlun of Attornev to the UIC? have been reviewed. Six candidates were interviewed. The selection committee is recommending tyro firms, Celt and Flaneq_-:n, 8nC 11off and Allen, for a final selection by the Board. 9oard members ere in•rited to tall to both candidates to resolve any glestions, c3ncerns and secure any a-iditional information. Full hackground information is being sent to the Board membeis 8117. d. iliere b�inq on further business, the meeting was adiourned at 9 a.m. For the C,)mmittee: Eugene Strommen, E::ecutive Director David Cochran, Chair 3 DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAX AND PUBLIC RECORDS A607 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 0067 HENEPIN - - - - LFU AUG 18 Crossroads To Service August 16, 1989 Mayor James R. Grabek City of Orono POsox 66 Crystal say, MQI 55323 Dear Mayor Grabek: As you are aware, cities with populations over 2,500 have to hold adverti,;ed public budget hearings before their budgets are certified by November 9, 1969. The Department of Rr*enue has designated the auditor of each county to coordinate the budget hearing dates of the various taxing districts in the county to avoid any conflict. Hennepin County will conduct its public budget hearings on November 2, 1989 at 5:30 p.m. and on November 6, 1989 at 5:30 p.m. As soon as we get the dates se* by the Met Council and the Regional Transit Board, we will notify the superintendent of each school district of the three dates. we will be requesting the school districts to notify us of their hearing dates prior to September 8, 1989. We will then give you written notification of the budget hearing dates established by the Met Council, Regional Transit Board, Hennepin County and each school district in your city. we will notify you as ;,00n as we get all the school district dates pertaining to your city. If you have any questions, please call Marie Kunze at 348-5100. ncerely, Daie G. Folstad, Directo Property Tax and Public Records DOF:al HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer COLWELL ADDITION R.T.DOC.NO T 46 a�e ti O4 LW L �P � r L_1 GOVT LOT `J i sf 7 r ,°► / \ �-1!!1 dq w. or TAB e r o CHOELL & MADSONJ e" . ZMMT z yr 49 am= .—*o -.. it Aak. r" a.;. .'o ze••B le'-o le•-e FINA,. GRADE ELEV.-- -•�-- ---- vARIF.S. SEE PLAN - DRIVE' AY B•AGGREGATE BASE (CLASS 5) 3-CROWN 9 6' TOPSOIL (MIGINAL 1 / (TYPICAL) GRAUE --- % GRANULAR TILL - - / MATERIAL -- 1'-0 STRIPPING SECTION B-B (TYPICAL THRU ORIVEMAYI SCALEHNONE SE--TION A -A HORIZONTAL SCALE I'=20' VENT]CAL SCALE 1'=5' f #,'141"7 . ORONO SUBSTATION (OR0) GRADING LAYOUT SHT.2 SECT ONS NGRTH(AN STATES POWER CDWMY "H NF-116505-2 i' R •\[EEE Iq3 ,1 \ `i 111AM-- \ `\t�\` -- -- -7 f --_ 1 _ - `\\ • `\�• Y o.l rE• .6yF.y, a-rNllr [EFr.+>4it ----------------- _._. �;3:a -•-•� ,'N,wi - �osT roT-' -- -, 1 - ' _ _--_ I I I, / I / I / I I / � I tg]!k NOTES llZrll[pllll p NKx NDIM ttip w[¢ t[EVEtiw If [ ItW [lh K S[M IµMxl IKfI_ [451[, p NIIWIK )swrx0[I,p,![r IiDDi 6 p EDR alµ KIK rlµ, vtY1L3 l �iEp.f. apirrK IFo arNR for a wR[b[i nfs Datopo IUNa r[o RGrtO wi[xYt [rtat R KIOvfD ilpt SI,[ µ DDD[t[D [r q[DR bL fxRt R S,¢Fr4[D KO wDL 1 K rD, t a stlpF[, wr NIWw6 bt R NNIKD MI[! [vfl0.r ptE 1N L1F µ S.prR0r.,N.Rr[pI [xn1„Ki[1,IKfMK�µ SRWKFnfIEKtEW,w K DFtR OIa1.WiD1N 1 111L W1 ED1 1, p RSvIK [CK tl.x 3m rxs D. N,dnrKSDL 1N 16 N Si[rt i +wK xutK/t S1R p 1 IKn n[ a u ocvec R.rzxW.. rlp[[x CtW 3 wD [DR¢x0. 0. KfRrAt[ w5( wt[q[t SNII R R�KlO gr�Dt IxtK I• K ). E !II[tl R RK[D Ix t[rtt. INtOµ .r[M Wl i0 lrt[l0 t KK) IS ID[D rEE. IK.(x A SµRI iIW,Dxr [DIE(µ M IT KNs w(R oNx mrtu ca�Knw EauNx, Is uun 0. R t� wpia � MIDI �SI,CO�i[tild at K RlOniluwlD �r IN r�NC,OIi(lKp D{,x 0�6Y� • [MKtpl irwf R A„Pm Ftix M[NYWt•, x[Fli EttL/DIICRM •M.Dllr p MS[[D TIDn CDNt[t !KM 4rt11 i0 ,N RCVDD NDDDNMS ID. K Fpt— tllx�r'I'[*�Df r NNw�iDr 9pt. LrNK -C ,KFD NKr rp f[[Dlxt YaSElSEN ` iKx,[6 ) ��•K r LIKE R DDt NFO[ S[I,[M[n 1113F3 .No wRt R ntolm1E Krum 11CLiWSb DR M,[ CEDr[x IS. r[[N�iN�i•D iSipr wrW'[wN [tax !S. wFI DMrw ryF Ib W+N rtt,4 •[ r'r ,r rrt[ y��p r ArN �I,r, I)M• •9w)• i ,N 11iD p 1Ex yN yEK[ r[[r. IE. Nl�v[ Kr Dolt K[00. Y[M w4 rKl3 vIM —,[0 OI l�[ M[xDL4 DISipS[ q4 rwFrtErlM — p 1N —11 el w YwDv[0 DISKfi 411E. DRAWING REFERENCE REYIS� r� shoo au��ia LOT s •.+ruara vr. ccAPo 1 1IntW OO I rEwcviw. r uwrts,siP r• dI•WO Owt W COWi. LOTM2 LOT : trt. touts �+TE a �WM a�uAn C[Pllq[4 Po+Er WSEPSEO ,PEES TWES wm 4 y .y -ruP N[ELE (y EYFPRfK T RP[[ WILLS S[M1R PEO NPE 2R5 P. u ORONO SUBSTATION (ORO) LANDSCAPE LAYOUT STATES POVER COMPANY " NF-'115071, _ REVISIONS �.K «-, s�n s-u-w Z..T �hrn v1 It./1-7 u ORONO SUBSTATION (ORO) LOCATION PLAN STALES POWER COMPANY ""' �'�' NF- 1)506 ��. T, '� � 1 " ,.y. � �.SL� y � 1 !.z iv �� 4 � �:' `��, �. + ,nit2s0��•-b. lr-a��y " a i R :.-7M . i .�.. .1' ./t � �`S'� f — �; I+ � .- "7�.•y/ / Y; �.?`-L`1 y i?7 Fil Q. ,� iVLi. f�` �..iC•1C`i ;'a I .q�'' • \;a�.`7: �y 1 Y I i i 1 i 1 i 1 �- �A � 1 I i I i 1 I ' 1 V I 1 i 1 I i 1 1 yl 3TDN FARM ADDITION " j ' - ]T 9LW 1 I I .................t......i.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-\..... ... ...... 1 rL CO. ROAD 6------------------ --- --------------------- -------------------------��j- I i i ORCHARD PARK iC, HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA HOUSE LOT 15 ID -r FXOA/r F—LEVATIOAI No sme, - PROPOSED BURGESS RESIDENCE WEST LAFA YET7E ROAD i FIRCNi SL F VA'T /O M NO SWfQ, PROPOSED BURGESS RESIDENCE WEST L4FA YET7F ROAD 2F= GUT HW S,CNFIV — ,Oz." J otR+QD S-IL ROCK-� rspEe '� c'v p CissE