Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meetingPUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEE: W6 DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 2. 4. ✓ I V C4' l��f J 11 N),s I �� 5. CI 7. 9. U. 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. .7. e. 9. !0. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1988, 7:09 P.M. (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE - Councilmember Alan Nettles 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTBS * 2. Regular Meeting of July 11, 1988 * 3. Regular Meeting of July 25, 1988 7:36 P.M. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BURGER PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS 4. Bike/Hike Trails PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT i"UG " OF illau l 6 5. #1286 Gary Roderic.-,, 1749 North Farm Road - Variance 6. #1300 Anthony Eiden, 2290 & 2:340 Abingdon Way - Conditional Use Permit 7. #1304 Bloomquist/Super Valu, 3333 Shoreline Drive - Variance 8. #1291 Alfred Iverson, 2835 Casco Point Road - Variance * 9. #1280 Wendy Weihe, 1376 Baldur Park Road - Variance - Resolution MAYOR'S REPORT 10. Orono/Long Lake Discussions 11. Lake Minnetonka Regional Park CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 12. Bohns Point Feasibility 13. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Operation Policy 14. Financing Alternatives - Sewer Installation 15. Budget Meeting - September 16. Administration/Persinnel Policy Amendment *17. Crystal Bay Sewer Hookup Status *18. Authority to Designate Depositories *19. Appointment of Election Judges for Primary Election September and General Election November 8, 1988 - Resolution *20. Refund Rainey Andersen *11. Golf. Course Re -Roofing *22. Salary Adjustment - Teri Naab *23. Salary Adjustment - Jamie Bosma *24. 3536 Lyric Avenue 13, 1988 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETINj SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1988, 7:09 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued *25. Administrator's Information Livingston Tower Park Sculpture 1972 Shadywood Road 3508 Ivy Place Water Conservation Regulations Orono/Minnetonka Beach Interceptor Goal Setting Status CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (26*) BILLS (27*) ADJOURNMENT t A '' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:05 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten, Peterson, and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Clerk Hallin and City Recorder Scheffler. City Attorney Barrett and City Engineer Cook were also present. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan and seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda subject to the revision of the following item: N2 - Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 27, 1988. Councilmember Goetten requested that the minutes be corrected to reflect that she had more comment regarding Request of Ordinance Amendment - Solicitor's Ordinance (page 12 of June 27, 1988 Minutes). Rather than merely commenting that the situation was unfortunate, she further commented that she "felt that the Council needs to be looking at the County Road 15 area as a total picture including this specific area". There were no objections to this correction, Callahan moved to adopt the Minutes as corrected, Peterson seconded, all in favor, motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commissioner Cohen was present and had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: =1025 ED HENRICH 4115 DIGHWOOD ROAD VARIANCE CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION It was requested by the Applicants that this matter be tabled until the July 25, 1988 Council Meeting. #1275 DOUGLAS JOHNSON 1399 PARR DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION /2463 Mr.and Mrs. Johnson were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was a request for several variances for a substantial reconstruction of the house on the property. Zt does require A hardcover variance in the 0-75, although the harccover is actually being reduced from 6.51 to 4.5% in the 0-75. A new deck is proposed to replace an MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 existing deck. It requires an average lakeshore setback, a. existing sideyard setback, which it's not going to further encroach, and one foot building height variance. Mayor Grabek questioned the walk -out feasibility and was advised that the walkout grading aleady existed. Bernhardson added that the house itself generally sits out of the 0-75, it's the decks that are in the 0-75. There were no comments on behalf of the Applicants. Councilmember Goetten had some questions for the Applicants, but had met with them at a time prior to the meeting and had nothing further to ask. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adopt Resolution #2463 approving variances. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays 0. Douglas Johnson, per staff recommendation, Peterson seconded, all in favor, motion passed. #1278 RON TIMM 4496 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2464 The Applicant, Ron Timm, was present for this meeting. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a request for a variance to average lakeshore seti-ick, plus a hardcover variance for construction of a deck. The hardcover vArianee request includes a proposal to reduce the existing from atjut 44% down to about 35% in total; the Planning Commission recommended approval. Mayor Grabek .inquired as to whether applicant had any comments or questions regarding the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Applicant stated that he had plans to reduce the hardcover to less than the Commission recommended. Councilmember Goetter commended Applicant on doing that, stating it usually is the oti ,r way around. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Goetten to adopt Resolution #2464 approving variances. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. #1281 DENNIS MEYER 4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION 12465* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adopt Resolution #2465 approving the variances. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 #1283 GARY ESCHER 3556 LIVINGSTON AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2466* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adopt Resolution #2466 approving an after -the -fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. # 12 91 ALFRED I V ERSON 2835 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2467 At the request of the applicant, this matter was tabled to the Council meeting of July 25th. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table to the July 25th meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. #1296 MERRIT J. PETERSON/RICK STODOLA 1895 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION Mr. Peterscn and Mr. Stodola were present and were represented by their attorney, Mr. Al Michals. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that these individuals purchased a piece of property from a Mr. Gustafson, known as Tracts F 6 G, and constructed a dock on that property. The application involves an after -the -fact variance request to see if they would be allowed to maintain such a dock. Ordinances are such that the dock is an accessory structure and they have no principal structure on the property. Additionally, during the review it was determined that Mr. Tillotsen had also constructed a dock that is not on his property, but on this of property. A related issue to this is whether this of property, in and of itself is a buildable lot so they could actually have a principal structure. Another issue that has been raised, but may need to be reviewed by the City Attorney, is the fact that private docks are defined as an accessory usage and to the extent that that would require a possible variance, it would be a use variance and not permitted under State law. City Attorney Barrett commented that he felt there were two arguments to be made. It seemed to him that there is a statute which prevents the City from giving a variance for uses and that this request would fall in that category. This was just his preliminary conclusion and he will be further discussing this with City Administrator Bernhardson and Zoning Administrator Mabusth. If it is concluded that this would require a Use variance, he is not certrin whether the Ordinarce would allow the City to grant Duch a v. --nce. The Applicants and their Attorney, Mr Michals, requested the opportunity to present their case. r. Michaels began by commending the staff for their outstanding r,�port. He stated that in his original discussion with Zoning Administrator Mabusth he MINIITES OF THE RI9GUL1hR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 asked her what the possibility would be of dock usage in the area. He said that her comment to him was that the question at hand was whether or not the lot was buildable. It was obvious that a 5,000 sq. ft. lot is unbuildable, so it was suggested the applicants go before the Council to see what could be done with this lot. Mr. Michaels referred to the comments regarding the dock as an accessory structure and does not see anywhere in the Ordinance where a dock is referred to as an accessory structure. He went on to confirm the location of the property in question as being a channel near Lord Fletcher's that abuts County Road 19. He addressed the recomendations made by staff: There is no question that there is approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of area, or that the area is inadequate ~o build a home and that it has never been assessed for sewer ane *pater. The tax valuation is nominal. He cannot disagree that t.ie lot is subject to f i oodiny but there have been no findings or eviuence or expert testimony that there has been any flooding. There is ro question that the lot is substandard. He finds it difficult to believe that a dock would create any problems with surface water Drainage. Congestion in the area should not be the result of maintaining a one or two slip dock. Referred to the finding of dimunition of value to surrounding properties as a bunch of nonsense. With regard to the problem of parking in the area he suggests that the issuance of a dock permit for one or two boats should not create parking problems in the area. Mr. Michals responded to Finding $8, referring to hardship by stating that the Applicants cannot build a house or any structures and the only tiring they can use the property for is a dock. He does not see how the granting of a dock permit would be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the City of Orono. He respecfully requested that a permit be issued for the dock for at least one or two boats. Mayor Grabek asked for any questions on the part of the Counci 1 or the staff. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated to Council that the findings noted by Mich^'.s dealt with the development of the property as a building site and had nothing to do with the installation of a residential dock. That they first had to deny the fact that it was a buildable lot and those were the staf f findings for building on this lot, not having a dock structure on this lot. Mr. Michals stated that his clients never asked to put a building on the lot. Mabusth noted that the first thing to to determined is the buildability of the parcel before the City can deal with accessory structures. Councilmember Goetter stated that she has never seen an incident where a dock was approved for building on a parcel without a stru-cure anc' is afraid that a precedent would be set. Mr. Michals addressed the Mayor and mentioc 1 that it was his understanding that his clients do have a dredg :g permit from the LMCD and that his clients could go ahead and i —tall a seawall to 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 serve the same purpose. He hopes that he will not have to challenge the Ordinance but his clients paid a substantial amount of money for the land and they do currently have a dock there. He questioned whether granting this permit would set a precdent due to the fact that there are not that many 5,000 foot lots on a channel in the City of Orono. Mr. Callahan and the Mayor asked about the Tillotsen dock. It was mentioned that the dock had been there for many, many years and was there when applicants purchased the property. Goetten asked the applicants when they purchased the property. The Applicant replied a year and a half ago. Goetten asked if at the time of purchase whether the Applicants asked the City whether or not it. was possible to put up a dock; Applicant responded no. Goetten informed them that it would have been wise for them to have determined that prior to the purchase. Applicant stated that he had spent a great deal of time with the LMCD about their rule3 and regulations and assumed that the LMCD rules would coincide with the City rules. :"._. Callahan understands the staff to be truly concerned even =,,bout the use of the property as a place to dock even if they were to grant permit. The staff does not feel that there is parking that meets the requirements for parking, even if they just had a dock there. Also, the dock area not only is not close to any principal structure owned by the Applicant, but it is rather blocked by buildings so that it would be difficult to watch the boats on the dock. Mr. Michaels asked why the City would be concerned with the so-called criminal aspects of someone stealing the boat or equipment. Goetten responded that the Orono Council is concerned about the health, safety and welfare of all of its citizens. She suggested that if Mr. Michals checked with the Police Department he would see that boats are a prime target for stealing. Goetten stated that that was only one of many concerns that she had, and she assumed the entire Council had regarding this issue. Mr. Michaels does not believe that you cannot park two cars on 5,000 sq. ft. of land. Mr. Callahan reiterated that the Planning Commission and Council find this to the contrary. Mr. Michaels stated that the Council is not being practical about the usage of a piece of land. Mayor Grabek stated that this matter does set a precedent and that there are problems with placing docks on such small pieces of property around the shoreline of the City of Orono. It has been the policy of the City for years and because the Applicants did not come to the City and investigate the purchase of the piece of property is unfortunate. City Administrator Bernhardson commented that Mr. Michals felt that the ordinance did not Ladr-ss the issue of accessory use. He thounho, that the City Attorney had researched that issue under one of '_he lakeshore zoning classifications that applies to all of the lakeshore zoning classifications; and it does specifically list the use of a private dock. That term may also apply to docking at a seawall. He recommends that conceptual direction be givan to staff regarding this issue and to have City Attorney research the usage issue to set if that is something that should be included in the bounds of resolution denial if that is the Counci's direction. Goetten questioned whether the Council need be concerned about Mr. Tillotsen docking a boat on his neighbor's property? rt was agreed that. this issue would be dealt with separately at a later date. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 Mayor Grabek suggested that more research be done on the 0'-75' so that there will be no loopholes. Motion made that item #1296 be tabled until appropriate wording can he establ' hed to state a denial to protect the intent of the City Code and Ordinances. Callahan interjected that it is clear that they can and must deny the lot area application. It seems to him that the Council could conceptually turn down the accessory dock on the property leaving It to the City Attorney to further advise the Council as to whether or not they would be prohibited from doing such a thing, even if they wanted to. He suggests that in light of fact that he is not in favor of issue, that the matter be denied rather than tabled. Mayor Grabek: said he had no problem with th_s but wanted to find out if the :additional time for research was needed by counsel. Attorney Barrett stated that he could not give a conclusion at the moment, but wouldn't advise that there is a difficulty with denying the lot area application upon the staff's recommendations or the point disussed at tonight's meeting. Callahan stated that because they do not have a specific resolution here, either on the basis of the Planning Commission's recommendation or otherwise, the staff is suggesting that the Council give them conceptual direction. The Mayor said he had no problem with that and withdrew his motion. It was moved by Councilmember CaLlahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek that Council deny the lot area application of Rick Stodola and Merrit Peterson and deny application for an accessory dock on the basis -f the Planning Commission's3 recommendation and findings and that Council direct the staff tc prepare a resolution enbodying those concepts and request that --he City Attorney advise the Council. as to the status of the use. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, motion passed. #1299 NANCY HIGGINS 3017 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2468 Applicant Higgins was present. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit on a property that currently has a principal structure, a guest house and a caretaker structure. At one time these were two separate lots. The applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit issued in advance of removal and new construction of the principal structure. The guest house does net have heating and cooling and is being used as a guest horse only. The one issue, and the staff recommends that the propcsed resolution be amended to include putting the applicant. of notice there is a screened porch in the 0-75 and language should be included that applicant cannot r:!pair or replace that structure. The Mayor asked for any comments from the applicant. Applicant indicated that. they are going to put the house further to the east, as suggested, in a someone wants to subdivide in the future, they will then have one acre. The Mayor asked about subdivision. Zoning Administrator explained that applicant 6 MINUTES OF THE F3GULAR ORONC COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY Il, 1988 Mayor Grabek suggested that more research be done on the 0'-75' so that there will be no loopholes. Motion made that item #1296 be tabled until appropriate wording can be established to state a denial to protect the intent of the City Code and Ordinances. Callahan interjected that it is clear that they can and must deny the lot area application. It seems to him that the Council could conceptually turn down the accessory dock on the property leaving it to the City Attorney to further advise the Council as to whether or not they would be prohibited from doing such a thing, even if they wanted to. He suggests that in light of fact that he is not in favor of issue, that the matter be denied rather than tabled. Mayor Grabek said he had no problem with this but wanted to find out if the additional time for research was needed by counsel. Attorney Barrett stated that he could not give a coa,clusion at the moment, but wouldn't advise that there is a difficulty with denying the lot area application upon the staff's recommendations or the point disussed at tonight's meeting. Callahan stated that because they do not have a specific resolution here, either on the basis of the Planning Commission's recommendation or otherwise, the staff is suggesting that the Council give them conceptual direction. The Mayor said he had no problem with that and withdrew his motion.. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek that Council deny the lot area application of Rick Stodole and Merrit Peterson and deny application for an accessory dock on the basis of the Planniny Commission's recommendation and findings and that Council direct the staff to prepare a resolution enbodying those concepts and request that the City Attorney advise the Council as to the status of the use. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, motion passed. #1299 NANCY HIGGINS 3017 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2468 Applicant Higgins was present. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit on a property that currently has a principal structure, a quest house and d caretaker structure. At one time these were two separate lots. The applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit issued in advance of removal and new construction of the principal structure. The guest house does not have heating and cooling and is being used as a guest house on :r The one issue, and the staff recommends that the proposed resolution be amended to include putting the applicant on notice there is a screened porch in the 0-79 and language should be included that applicant cannot repair or reFlace that structure. The Mayor asked for any comments from the-pplicant. Applicant indicated that they are going to put the i�ouse further to the east, as suggested, in case someone wantf� to subdivide in the future, they will then have -_ne acre. -ti,e Mayor asked about subdivision. Zoning Administrator expl, _ned ttlat applicant MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 proposes to move the house :nd, and in selecting the new site, she will consider required setbacks if there is a future division of the property. Mabusth explained that the house would be positioned on property so that at least one acre could be subdivided in the future. Goetten stated that she just assumed that the house was going to be built about where it was and was concerned about any other additions now that the location of building has been moved. Mabusth state,4 that everything would be left as it is depending upon where the driveway for the new principal residence would be located. Callahan inquired as to how far it was from the Channel to what appears to be the lot line running parallel to the vacated alley? Mabusth said it was farther than 75'. Is it possible to divide this property into three? Mabusth stated it was if they meet the 140 ft. lakeshore standard. She has no idea where the Applicant proposes to place the house. Bernhardson stated that it was approximately 380' wide and it would take 420' of width to create three lots. Goetten expressed concern as to whether the City would be giving Applicant a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house and caretaker house and they are now talking about moving the house. Mabusth explained that that was the whole reason why they had to ask the Applicant to come in for the Conditional Use Permit, because of the proposed construction of a new residence. The City Planning staff has to give the Applicant the most background so that when they are planning for the future, when they place that new principal residence, if they are planning to divide the lot in the future, that it has the correcrt setbacks. More than likely the guest house and caretaker house would not stay. Mayor moved to accept the Planning Commission recommendation as stated, seconded. Goetten asked for additional findings showing the additional non- conforming structure. Motion by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adopt Resolution #2468 approving C.V.P. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. #llu.; now;.20 EISINGER REQUEST TO R.-TEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTI ON # 2 � 9 2 Howar,' Eisinger was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Eisinger was granted a Conditional Use Permit for his property on Wayzata BoulevLrd last year that rare for one year. The expectation is that he is going to get fill from the I-394 construction and use substantial fill in his property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth outlined some of the options. She Council could deny any extension of the Conditional Use Permit that was granted last year. They could approve it for a specific period of time with an extension, as suggested by Mabusth until October 31. we have been given an indication that the bond has been extended. The conr-ern of the City, which stems from a conditional use permit that was granted after Mr. Fisinger's, is the issue of the amount of time a person has to complete the construction once the construction starts. Mabusth suggested in her staff repo•-t possibly within a 30 to 60 day time period. Applicant has indicated that that would not be a sufficient period of time. The City is concerned with two issues: How long this would be extended in total; and from 7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD :,ULY 1.L, 1988 start to finish alternative they have Mr. Eisinger price. how long they would be filling. Another may have since the deadline has elapsed is to submit to renew a Conditional Use Permit at half The Mayor asked the Applicant how much time he felt he would need. The Applicant Stated that there was a delay in obtaining the fill and that he would rather do the project from start to finish. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked Applicant if he had read her memo containing the three options. She asked Applicant if the October 31, 1988 deadline was realistic: or if it would be best to apply for a renewal conditional use permit at this time. Applicant stated that. that would be fine and that's all he could ask for. Mayor Grabek interjected that the F-rmit would be issued at half price. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to extend Resolution #2192, Approving Conditional Use Permit and to issu a renewal conditional use permit for half the price. Motion, Ayes--4, Nays-0. ENGINEER'S REPORT:* Change Order #1 - Woodhill Road - It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to approve Change Order #1. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays-0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: Orono/Long Lake Discussions - Mayor Grabek referred to the letter received from Arlo Vande Vegte in which he states he looks forward to hearing from the Mayor to confirm Orono's agreement to use Ms. Arnev and implement the mediation process. Mayor Grabek suggested that the City Administrator set up a meeting as soon as possible so that we can start the process going. He asked for other comments from the Council. Councilmember Callahan had the following comments: This originally begar, at: a meeting in front of the Long Lake City Council. "he V.ayor proposed that the Council shiuld discuss only the issue whether or not Long Lake was going to take over the old sewer property in Orono. Callahan it ccncerned that is the only thing .hat the City of Long Lake was going to discuss with the City of Orono. Since that time, Callahan has heard that there is the continued pursuit of the idea tha; Long Lake would take over the Rebers property. The Mayor -on,_i,rred Chet he tco had heard the same. Callahan stated that it is undesirable to engage in mediation or discussions unless the Coun- ? has a clear idea of what they are trying to attain. Mayor Grat agreed with this and asked how this matter could be discussed n executive session. City Attorney Barrett does not believk _.hat that would be possible; the matter would havt- to bp ;(-ussed in an open meeting. Mayor Grabek arcked if the Counci` . ted to discuss this matter now or hold off until later. He s'r. that he would like to get resolved the sewer plant proper v and not talk about annexation of any other part of Orono, r,: he opposes; he is opposed to annexation of the sewer plan me is willing to discuss someway financially, politically, •unity -relation wise to facilitate or resolve to Long Lake's or, )petty in Orono and meeting certain codes. Getting t1lis cut (. way would lead to e MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 discussions in the future on shared services, more economical approach to fire and police and facilities and would open opportunities for the two Cities to more closely interact. Callahan reiterated his concern over Long Lake not making it clear as to whether they intend to ask to annex only this one property, or will suddenly ark for more than this one. Goetten expressed that she was likewise concerned. She understood that when the City was being threatened with annexation and legal recourse that that would entitle the Council to go into executive session, but apparently not. City Attorney Barrett addressed Mayor Grabek and Councilmember Goetten stating that if there is a threat of litigation over annexation, then the Council would have the right to an attorney/client privilege in terms of advice coming from the City Attorney or his experts. F-wever, in this case, where the Council is preparing for a Pubic Meeting, thev would not be allowed that privilege. Mayor Grabek stated that what he really wants to do is to .,cilitate a meeting where the City would avoid annexation and ask Long Lake how Orono could work out their needs to this piece of property and Orono's needs for the ordinances and restrictions. Councilmember Callahan addressed Barrett stating that since Long Lake is still actively pursuing annexation and indeed are talking to people about it and having people to their Attorney's Office, and since the Council is engaged in looking for a solution to wnat is a legal threat, the meeting is sir.,ly a vehicle related to solving the problem being brcught about by the legal threat of annexation, that they should be allowed that privilege. Barrett stated that if the Council treated thin as a settlement conference perhaps, but his instinct is that the Council is talking ahout preparing for a Public Meeting with anoth r City Council and is reluctant to conclude that it could be done in private. Mayor Grabek stated that perhaps they should give this meeting their best shot, open and as free es possible, sit down and try tc talk it out and resol :,e this issue. Goetten expr,,--sse�l the fact that she welcomes the opportunity to sit down with 7,ong LakA since this is the first time it has been done. Would like to have it start on a positive note. She feels that because of that and other issues that may be involved or not involved that the C-�uncil should look at this one item only, rather tht,n opening a pandora's box. COUNCIL CANDIDATE IVTSRVISMS - City Administrator Bernhardson reported that Mr. Hollander called and stated he had a family _mergency and would be unable tc attend, but would like to oe consieered at a later time, if Possible. Mr. Di 1 lman conta,ted the City and requested that his name be withdrawn from consideration for Council and irdicated that if there was an openiiq on Planning Commission or Park commission that he would very much like to have his name included for consideration for that position. 9 MINi1TES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DULY 11, 1988 Mayor Gr.abek welcomed all candidates and stated that each candidate would give an initial statement and them would answer questions from the Council. 4RD C. BROWN, III . Brown is concerned with the I-394 Project and the resulting pressure on the community of Orono for various forms of development and building on Lake Minnetonka. He has lived in this area all of his life and would like to give something back to that area. He would like to control the pressure and see that care is taken of the Lake. His attributes include being a resident of Orono for 12 years and has lived near the Lake. He has been on the Planning Commission for almost a year, which has been helpful in giving him perspective on the issues and problems here. He has built a home in Orono and understands the issues involved with home building; he has some leadership skills and background in starting a small business within the First Bank System that he feels would be transferable to what goes on with the Council. It is a service -oriented business in which he is involved, as is the Council; he also has a record of Community involvement as pointed out in his resume'. Mr. Brown is concerned with the Highway 12 corridor development. Does believe there should be low density development, mainly office buildings, institutional kind of development with a minimum of retail activities to avoid traffic congestion and pressure on that area that already has too much pressure. Navarre Development - He does not know what exactly can be done there and has not paid too much attention. He says it is not a pretty sight right now. If there is some ability to upgrade the building materials of the properties, an overall architectural design for that area may help, including more landscaping, etc. Interaction between the Council and Planning Commission - He understands that the Planning Commission is an advisory body and is appointed by the Council so there must be a limit to how much authority the Commission can have. He feels, however that it has been frustrating for him being a part of the Commi-FRion not to have more authority to make decisions on the planning issues and activities in the City. Maybe the concept of a Board of Appeals might make sense to handle variances and some of the mo-e routine things that come before the Commission so they could be more involved with strictly planning. One interim step might be more joint meetings with the Council to make sure both bodies think alike. 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 He feels the things the Council ought to focus on in the future are: Where Highway 12 will go through Orono if it changes the route that itis on currently. There has been some discussion to that effect. Mayor Grabek asked for any questions for Mr. Brown and stated that both his commitment to the Community and service to the Commission are very much appreciated. His past record and accomplishments are very impressive. Councilmember Goetten told him that the Council is now looking at a study for a new City facility and asked what his feelings are about that? Mr. Brown stated that :ie feels that the City should not spend a lot of money on that since he assu-es the funds will come from the tax be,e in the City. If there a way to minimize the expenditures in general, that would be one thing. Perhaps an addition to the existing structure would be the answer. JAMES H. GILBERT Mr. Gilbert feels that there are a lot if things happening in Orono and s always been active in public politics, not in this area, he has only been here for 2 1/2 years. His family goes back many decades here so he is very familiar with what has been going on in thie area. He believes there will be a lot of development pressure happening out in this area because it's a very prime area, not only with Highway 12 opening up, but with all of the choice real estate that is located here, which he feels will :)e an area. in which the Council will be spending a great deal of time. He has had a great deal to do with real estate through his law practice and individual development in office buildings and residentiAl buildings. He feels that the Highway 12 corridor development is a significant if:sue and that if this was a better economic environment right now we would see all kinds of development. Not only in this area, but in the Navarre area as well, but with the economy the way it is, he doesn't know how soon that will happen. It is something that the City should plan for so that when it does happen, it happens in the right way. He reiterated Mr. Brown's observation about Navarre being in a bad state of repair. Although he feels it does not have the financial support for the cute shops you see in Wayzata, nor does he see any need for any comprehensive redevelopment plan, unless that City is willing to finance it or fund it. He thinks some cosmetic changes could be done. As far as facility needs for the City. He feels that yes, it is a necessity - the present offices are very quaint but feels it is difficult to get professional work done out of the staff and the coordination of the different departments with the present situation. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 He has been involved with politics and believes that intergovernmental relationships are very important. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Gilbert if he had an ideal situation on Highway 12 Corridor, what it would be. Mr. Gilbert responded - some more light commercial development along that area of Long Lake. Also thinks Highway 12 is not a very safe highway. He stated more safety features have to be planned in the area. CHARLES KELLEY Introductory comments - He has been on the Planning Commission for the last 6 years and has chaired the Planning Commission for the last year and half. He got interested in the City politics back in the early 80's having moved to the City of Orono in 1978. He moved here for definite reasons. Rural characteristics, the 2 5 acre minimum lot sizes. He would like to see future property developed within those statutes. Attributes - thorough knowledge of the current statutes and zoning. Highway 12 Corridor Study - Believes that something must be done on Highway 12 and does not know how much should be commercial or residential. He is not in favor of total commercial of the whole parcels between 12 and 6. He is in favor of some portion of setback from Highway 12 being commercial and is in favor of lighter commercial, but not fastfood restaurants or a lot of retail, more offices, libraries, churches, etc. Access to Highway 12 is very important to him. The potential i:or.th/South link concerns him the most. He is against going North. Redevelopment of Navarre Area - He has not been involved with that at all, but believes area does need work. Facilities Needs - He realizes that the staff needs better facilities. The location of a new facility is utmost important to him. as is the cost and the City's taxpayers taking on that cost. Cooperation with other cities - Mr. Kelley feels the City definitely has to cooperate, especially since we contract a lot of services, i.e. firs protection, police. The only way the City of Orono will improve standard of living is through cooperation of those other cities. Council/Planning Commission relationships and responsibilities. He does feel something should be done in this area. He has seer. an increased work load for the Planning c:ommissionl that will continue to increase as I-394 is upgraded and additional pressure is put upon City. Some joint responsibility or delegation of responsibility has to be worked out. Long Term Organizational Planning - He feels that there are areas in the City that definitely need attention. Solid waste Management - He is totally against sewer and water in rural residential 2 and 5 acre areas. Hc- came to Orono to keep the 2 and 5 acres and keep the deer and pheasants running through MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 his backyard. His major reason for applying for City Council is his concern over the I-394 pressure. He believes it is going to come, especially if you take a look at what has happened out in Apple Valley and Lakeville. He believes Orono is a very unique community and wants to keep it that way. Housing will be an issue and he believes we can keep our bedroom community a bedroom community. Councilmember Goetten stated that she is sure that ev-ryone appreciates Mr. Kelley's help and leadership within the past few years as a member and now Chairman of the Planning Commission and welcomes the opportunity to have him before the Council. ALAN R. NETTLES Mr. Nettles is a new resident to Orono and is a lawyer. He has a lot of interest in the area. He very consciously picked the Orono area in which to live. He had a lot of positive feedback from people they know who live in this area. He agrees that there is going to be a lot of pressure put upon the City as the I-394 project cor,Linues. He would like to partake in the decisions made that will affect the Community in which he lives. He would like to uphold the positive factors - larger lot sizes, good schools, etc. He has had a number of experiences that brought him in contact with environmental law, both in law school and with being an administrative law judge for the last 10 years. He feels he is versed in corridor studies a foil as highways and so on. His law school project was to .vne and outline every national environmental policy as thNy ..me down and most of them were highway siting decisions. 1�, reels with respect to Highway 12 project, if you don't plan it, it will plan you. It is just too prime not to have a lot of commercial development that is either going to happen as a result of some conscious planning or will happen willy-nilly. He would like some light industrial or commercial development, with no fastfood. He would like to see a mandatory buffer that would protect the residential areas. Redevelopment of Navarre - Mr. Nettles reiterated Mr. Kelley's and Mr. Gilbert's feelings. He would like to see some kind of requirement to adopt a cosmetic similarity that would have to be met. The store owners would have to do it themselves, as opposed to the City footing the bill. Facilities needs - No question that they need to upgraded, but the question is where do you do it. He thinks it would be natural for it to be on Highway 12. Courcil/Planning Commission Responsibilities - Mr. Nettles senses what has been going on based on what has been said by others. He feels the Planning Commission implements what. the Council indicates as being the law, so if the Planning Commission is doing a reasonable job interpreting the rules and regulations, then the Council probably ought to stand behind it. 13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 Mayor Grabek questioned candidate Nettles about disappointments he has found in the City. Mr. Nettles said that the City has a hard time forcing people to live up to some of the bargains made with the City. CHARLES D. NOLAN, JR. Mr. Nolan has grown up around the Lake Minnetonka area his entire life and understands and appreciates Orono and the changes it has gone through as well as what it is now facing. Mr. Nolan is in the development business and considers it his expertise. He would like to serve the Community whether it be as a councilmember or in some other capacity. His attributes includes having a significant background in development. He has a formal education in that field which gives him planning, architectural experience. He can read plans well because he is a general contractor for commercial and industrial projects. Mr. Nolan has a great deal of experience in going before Boards in various communities in different states and he understands both sides of the fence. He holds a strong opinion that development is good if done properly and does not agree with anti -development attitudes. He feels that Orono needs to look at an overall comprehensive plan to deal with upcor^ing growth. Highway 12 Corridor Development - Believing that si ty needs to be addressed, he would like to see the area developed in a light commercial/institution manner. Retail should be developed on a residential scale and He does not: care for what is in Long Lake. Redevelopment of Navarre Area - He agrees with what Mr. Gilbert said in that Navarre cannot compete with Wayzata but there is an opportunity now for some sort of development. Facilities Needs - Mr. Nolan believes that there is a need to improve the present facilities. He thinks it is important in order for the City to be ready for what is to come. Mayor Grabek commented on candidate's degree from M.I.T. Goetter: inquired whether candidate lived in Boston area for a while. fie affirmed that he had. The Mayor told candidate he had a good background, good education and a lot of experience and his excitement and enthusiasm is contagious. ALEXANDER G. VONGRIES Started by saying that he would like to follow in Mr. Sime's footsteps with regard to containing costs. He is interested in the challenge of reconciling the interests of the community and citizens with the rights of the individual property owner. He would look forward to the hands-on learning experience that would come witr councilmembership. Dr. Vongries believes he could make a contrioution to the City Coonci 1 - he has been a homeowner in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota for over 36 years and understands the homeowner's interest. Through his profession of a physician, he has had to evaluate available information, often less than he would like to have, and make important decisions 14 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 based upon that information. He does not believe that he could add anything further to the issues being discussed by each candidate. Mayor Grabek asked candidate how long he had lived in Orono - he replied less than two years. Mayor asked him ghat things have disappointed him since he moved to Orono. Vongries replied that basically he feels that Navarre has a lot to offer. He does not like the fact that many citizens seem to have a disinterest in maintaining their properties in an aztracti,le state. He is sure that there will be pressures on the Communi from Minneapolis and that the Council should endeavor to maintain the kind of standards Orono now has. He feels the number of boats per property on the lake should be given more attention, as should the issues of drug abuse and AIDS that are national issues that should be given local attention. He mentioned that Orono is #5 for taxes in the State and would like to see more attention paid to containing taxes. Mayor Grabek asked for any more questions of Dr. Vongries and stated that he had quite a distinguished past and a tremendous amount to offer his Community and the Council. Mayor Grabek stated that he was very impressed with the candidates and their enthusiasm. It is a shame that they cannot have a council with 8 more people. He personally would like to take some additional time and consider all of the candiaat.es' applications. He asked the Council if they would agree to take time to examine the candidates and give those not present an opportunity ::o meet and be heard and make the decision at the next Council meeting. Councilmember Goetten concurred with the Mayor's comment. She stated that she was really impressed with all that was said and what each candidate would have to offer. She has not seen such an array of candidates. Motion by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten to table appointment until July 25, 1988. Callahan felt that the qualifications and people applying were outstanding. Agrees that more time should be taken to determine appointment. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passes. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: BOHN'S POINT ROAD - FEASIBILITY STUDY - RESOLUTION #2469 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this had originally been presented back at the first Council Meeting in June. At tha* time Council had stated on a 4-0 vote that they did not want to have the feasibility study co^sidered. In discussions with one or two of the Counci lmembers they felt that they did not understand the split between the public portion of the private portion and the interest on behalf of the people on the public to have the stud_ done. Due to that confusion, it was aF propriate to bring this matter back for further discussion by Council to see if they do in fact wart to undertake it because of the public portion, which is $2,000.00. The Engineer says it does not make any difference whether they include the Bohn's Point Circle or nct in 15 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 the feasibility study, the price is the same. Mr. Dayton was present representing the property owners and had indicated that approximately 54% of the people on the public portion of Bohn's Point Road have expressed an interest in the upgrade. Engineer Cook explained what the study would entail and why there is no cost difference in including the Circle. He stated that what he was providing the Council was an estimate of time. That their time would not exceed this time, and could possibly be less. Goetten stated that she drives Bohn's Point Road all the time and that she has no problem in looking at the fact that an upgrade needs to be done there. She understands that the City would prefer to have a 24 foot road. Public Works Director Gerhardson reported that the problem with the road is that it varies in width just simply from repairs over the years and is 19 feet in some locations, 21.6 feet in other locations. He feels the idea is to even it out. He talked with Mr. Dayton and Mr. Winslow and agreed on an even 22 feet. Goetten stated she has no problem with upgrading the road, however, she is concerned with curbs and gutters. It is Mr. Gerhardson's belief that the intent is to provide bituminous curbs. Mr. Dayton stated that the residents definitely do not want concrete curbs and would be very flexible in that area. They mainly want something to control water run-off in the area. Councilmember Callahan clarified that the purpose of the feasibility study is to tell the Council how much the project would cost and whether 22 feet is appropriate. Mayor Grabek inquired as to who would decide whel`her the project would cost too much or too little, once the study is complete and a cost is determined? Callahan suggested that the people on Bohn's Point Road could just submit plans for the upgrading, as opposed to the feasibility study. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Dayton what the agreement of the people on the road was. Callahan stated 54/45. Mr. Dayton clarified by saying that everyone they talked to said absolutely, go ahead with doing the feasibility study. He informed the Petitioners that they were only indicating interest in having the study done, and not making a commitment to having the roadwork done. He was just conforming to the requirements necessary for paving the road, should it be decided that it is feasible to do so. Peterson asked about the snowplows and whether they would have any affect on the curbs. Public Works Director Gerhardson responded affirmatively. Callahan mentioned that when Winslow was in front of the Council regarding his property, that he stated there was no erosion control and no problem or possibility of erosion control and that there was a culvert built to take care of erosion control. Gerhardson said that the slopes by Winslow were not as steep as they are throughout the majority of the Road. Mr. Dayton stated that he did not want to make a big issue over the curbs and clutters because tt_y would be happy to do whatever the City would be willing to go along with. Mayor Grabek inquired of Gerhardsor. i6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 198P whether this project was really necessary. Gerhardson stated yes, that the Road was in really bad shape, and it appears that the residents were willing to pay for the repairs if they were reasonable, which is a good way to get the job done. Callahan questioned a previous statement that the Road was in remarkably good condition and did not need repairs. Goetten stated that she went out there and the road is not in good shape. Gerrtlardson stated that the road itself is in good condition, however the patchwork that has been done is not the best looking and it does not conform to a consistent width throughout the entire area, which is what the residents would like to have done. The Council is concerned with the cost involved with one more feasibility study. Goetten pointed out however, that Mr. Dayton is correct in that the study does have to be done before anything further could be done. She wanted to discuss Bohn's Point Circle, which is private road maintained by the City. She feels that the City should not be involved in taking over private roads until they look at the situation in the City as a whole regarding private roads. She feels this issue must be addressed since it is becomming more and more prevalent. The question was asked of Gerhardson as to just how these private roads were maintained. ,Gerhardson explains that the roads were there and it was easier to take care of the road as opposed to backing up in someone's driveway and turning around. Callahan moved that the City not undertake the feasibility study for Bohn's Point Circle deferring any action until the City makes a determination as it relates to public and private roads. Peterson seconded. Mr. Dayton inquired as to whether Council approval would be necessary after obtaining a cost to do the project.? Callahan confirmed that that is correct. If the Council approves, then there is an assessment hearing. Mayor Grabek asked Callahan what his reason for omitting the Circle from the study was. Callahan said that since he did not intend to vote for the road to be repaired or changed on the Circle, that he sees no sense including it in the study. Motion, Ayes-3, Nay-1. Goetten is •ed to approve the feasibility study for Bohn's Point Rcad. Mayor Grabek seconded. Callahan inquired who would pay for feasibility study. Goetten stated that the cost of the feasibility study, should the project go ahead could be incorporated into the cost of the project and be assessed against the property owners. Goetten read that s`aff-ecommendation is that the study be done providing the residents , re wil ling to pay half the cost. So the words "per staff recommendation" will he included in the motion. Peterson questioned what would happen should the project not go ahead; who pays the $2,000.00. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that staff recommends the residents pay half if the project does not qo ahead, should it go ahead, it is built into the cost of the assessment. Mayor Gral)ek inquired as to how they would obtain the approval of the residents that they wi l 1 inde-d pay for half of the study. City Attorney Barrett stated that they would need a Contract drawn MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 up. Mr. Daytor: stated that he had not approached any of his neighbors about costs so that would be something new he would have to do. Dayton inquired whether that is something that they would contract with our Engineer.. Cook indicated that he works for the City and if they authorized him to do this, he would do it. If the Council authorized Cook to do this for the residents and they were to pay the City, he would do that as well. Mayor Grabeck asked whether a Contract could be made to that effect. City Attorney Barrett indicated that yes, that would be possible. Motion, Ayes-2; Nays-2. Mayor Grabek asked what could be changed to make motion acceptable. Peterson feels that residents should pay for entire feasibility study, rather than 1/2. Callahan agrees with this. Mayor as's if this varies from what has previously been done. Mayor asked if the Council wants to change policy to having residents so that residents in the future will pay for feasibility studies? Callahan stated that if the majority of the Council wishes to do so, he will not stand against it. Callahan is against the feasibility study because he does not feel the road needs the improvement. Dayton then asked in the alternative if the residents should do the propject as a neighborhood project an3 approach the City Council for a permit? Goetten reminded everyone that the Council is short one member. Callahan suggests in that light of this and the fact there is a tie vote, they shoul,9 table the matter until there are 5 members to vote, the July 25th meeting. Callahan moved to that effect, Peterson seconded. Discussion - Timing. Mr. Dayton stated in his opinion there would be nothing done to the road until Spring, s o there is no problem with tailing. Goetten commen,.ed that all one has to do is drive down the road to see that Bohn's Point Road does reed some attention. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. MASTER PLANNING - NAVARRE AREA - City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a request to engage Mr. John Shardlow to undertake a master planning study of the Navarre area in a process much like what was done for Highway 12, to figure out in public meetings and through his expertise a land use plan for that area. Counci)member Goetten stated that she would definitely like to see something happen in Navarre if the costs are such that they could do so. Even if there was nothiny more than a cosmetic uplift, that would accomplish quite a bit. She would like to have the opportunity to have someone look at the options. She asked if Mr. Shardlow's report then go to the Planning Commission. Bernhardsor explained that the main focus of this would be use orientated. One of the concerns is that back in the late 601s, early 70's there was an individual that came in and started buying up many properties and was talking about highriFes and substant-al redevelopment. The fact that there was not a lot of public input to his plans killed the efforts. Goetten stated that it is sad that there was virtually no interest in the Navarre business owners, which she is sure is duEr to economics, but believes that lP MINUTES OF THE RBGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 there should be something that the City can help them with. Bernhardson said that the City needs to find out what land uses will be appropriate in the area and have a plan in place that would serve as the framework for any redevelopment. He went on to note that the traffic on Highways 12 and County Road 15 are projected to increase significantly in the next 20 years (18,000 to 33,000 for Highway 12 and from 13,000 to 22,000 for County Road 15). There will be an upsurge of traffic through the Navarre area. Councilmember Peterson asked City Administrator Bernhardson if Mr. Shardlow will go and speak with the property owners when he does his study or does he just do the study himself? Bernhardson replied that he does take inventory of the area with respect to current land use, storm sewers, storm water ponding, soil types, sewer and water services, transportation numbers, etc. From that he and the City set out some goals for the planning process. The goals would be determined by public meetings and as they continued the process property owners, as they wished, participated in what suggestions they had. Mr. Shardlow would not specifically contact ,the property owners, but would send notices to everyone in the area affected by the proposed plans. Peterson questioned whether there would be any interest in the project at all, in light of the fact that there was little interest expressed by these owners regarding the County Road 15 project. The !Mayor believes there will be a variety of responses. If the City does not begin to initiate a formalized plan, he believes the Navarre area will stay as is for some time to core. Peterson expressed that she is in favor of this study. Navarre really needs the upgrading. Something should have been after the 1965 tornado. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmamber Callahan to approve contracting with John Shardlow for a Master Plan for the Navarre area. Callahan believes that unless there is ar economic drive from somewhere, whether it comes from the property owners in the area or outside sources, the Navarre area will not go very far. He is not sure that what Shardlow studied for the Highway 12 project was anything he really wanted to know. There were items that needed to be studied before the plan could be determined because of existing pressure to do the development. However, the Navarre situation mandates an impetus for development, there is no interest for development at this time. Callahan believes that the study will not be enough to prompt the Community into action. That concerns him about spending the money on the study. He would prefer to see some development interest first. The Mayor believes there is the need of the City to have a plan and approach the property owners. If not, the property owners will be happy to keep things as they are. If the City understands the situation and builds the parameters he believes they can utilize that and raise some interest He does feel that the study needs to be done. Councilmember Goetten believes that it's the role of the Council to get involved with this. She feels that property owners would be inclined to upgrade their property if they knew everyone was going to. She believes that residents of the Community are a MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 looking to the Council to provide some direction. Peterson is hopeful that this process will not put anyone out of business. She would like to get some input from the business owners. Callahan does not want to seek out developers putting up tax increment financing, etc. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-•0, Motion passes. RESPONSE TO ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT - City Administrator Bernhardson directed the Council's attention to a draft, issue #2 which should say that any development involving grading or building construction. The issue raised on the accessory uses may have to be woven into that. The playing fields should be considered as a conditional use and the City wants to spell that out and see if there are any accessory uses. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson that tle Council take the direction that the City has proposed, Callahan asked that an addition be made to the letter notifying she School District that the City is n.Dt definitely set on what it intends to do with that property and the City is in favor of a positive working relationship with the School District. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. 1989 BUDGET GUIDELINES - City Administrator Bernhardson stated that rather than waiting until September as traditionally done. He stated that the preliminary budget guidelines are being given now to elicit any comments that the Council may have either now or over the next 2 months as the budget is prepared. He felt it would give Council more of an input into the budgeting process. Next year it appears as though the entire budgeting process will be moved up 2 months and begin in the middle of May so there can be some preliminary numbers for the Council to look at by the 1st of July. A property tax will be established by the 1st of August under the new Truth in Taxation Law, and complete the process by October ?r--h- Councilmember Goetten inquired as to how the Council goes about being more vocal regarding the legislature and the issue of taxes. She feels that the Counci 1 is being blamed by residents for increased taxes caused by the Legislature. Council acknowledged receipt of 1989 Budget Guidelines. WATER CONSERVATION REGULATION AND GUIDELINES - City Administrator Bernhardson stated that there was a newspaper article drafted about the drought. Councilmember Goetten stated that something is going to have to be done to get people to stop pumping out of the Lake. She wondered whether the Freshwater Biological Institute should be contacted to get their forecast for the near future regarding water conservation. She requested that that perhaps something could be put on }he water bills informing the residents about this matter. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan to have staff follow through on Counci Imemter Goetten's suggestions. Bernhardson commented that long term, over the ne^t S years, there wi l 1 be a lot of attention toward water conversation. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passes. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - P".IVATE IMPROVEMENTS OM PUBLIC RIGHT -OF MAY Councilmember Goetten stated that .rncerns she had regarding MINIMS OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL NESTING HELD JULY 11, 1988 easements of private roads now exist and it should take care of any problems there may be. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that staff wished to make the addition to include roadway surfacing and private improvements. They appear in certain places, but not in others. The staff will bring back a summary for publication at next meeting. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - UNDER -AGE CONSUMPTION - Councilmember Callahan asked whether Council had read any of the Liquor Laws on this matter. Discussion took place regarding the term Non -Intoxicating Malt Beverage. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the ordinance amendment and the summary ordinance regarding under -age consumption. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. BOULEVARD - COUNTY 15 - City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this matter involves the issue of grass vs. asphalt along the County Road 15 boulevard. Councilmember Goetten stated that Orono is such an advocate of having green space. In order to begin the proceas of upgrading Navarre, she feels this is an excellent opportuni-.y. The concern is that commercial properties will not take care of grass as it would be taken care of in a residential area. City Administrator Bernhardson continued to say that if the Council wanted green all along the way, the City would try it. As far as trees are concerned there are approximately 100 trees in the nursery which could be utilized. It is estimated that it will cost approximately $45.00/tree to have the City workers plant the trees. Goetten asked whether the business couldn't take responsibility. The Mayor feels that this won't happen and the area wi 11 look terrible. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, that both the commercial and residential areas should be grass. Peterson asked for cost difference using cement. Public Works Director Gerhardson estimated the difference to be $6,000.00 Ligher using concrete. Motion, Ayes-3, Mayor Grayrek opposed, Motion passes. ORONO INTERCEPTOR PROJECT UPDATE - RESOLUTION 12470 - It was moved by Couci lmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmen er Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2470 involving no delays of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Project 85-67. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. CONFIRMATION OF EMPIn)YMENT - CITY RECORDER it wits moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to confirm the employment of Laurie Scheffler at a rate of $8.19 effective July 11, 1988 for 32 hours per week with prorated benefits. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. SALARY ADJUSTMENT - FINANCE DIRECTOR - It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 Peterson, to approve an =.ncrease in the Finance Director's salary level of to $42.812.64, effective June 14, 1988. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. CRYSTAL BAY SEWER HOOK-UP STATUS - It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to direct staff to continue to work with the legal staff to determine appropriate action and to proceed with legal action if necessary. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION - It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept City Administrator Bernhardson's information regarding: Highwood Storm Sewer; Highway 12 Task Force/Corridor; Sexual Harassment S minar; Lincoln Drive; 3508 Ivy Place - Water Usage; Goal Setting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays 0. Mayor Grabek commented on the Lakes Areas Mayor Conference. Has been asked to support the City of Minnetrista in two ways. One by a Resolution, which will be given to City Administrator Bernhardson so it can be passed or not passed in the next weeting to support their move against the Legislature. The second request is one for money. The Mayor is agains; giving money to the City of Minnetrista to fight their legal battles. Callahan believes the Council should give serious consideration to joining in the lawsuit on behalf of Orono. He believes it is a very bad law and very damaging to Orono and the other communities. A resolution of support for Minnetrista can be initiated, the money aspect should be discussed at another time. The Mayor moved to direct City Administrator Bernhardson and staff to issue a Resolution #2471 supporting Minnetrista, Goetten seconded. Ayes-4, Nays-0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: No report. LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the following licenses: Nolicitation License - Greenpeace USA 2637 Nicollet Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55408 Septic System Installer-Ouverson Excavating Route 1, Box ICI Montroce, MN BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Ffinds Accounts. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. MINUTEf -F TUB RH�ULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELL JULY 11, 1968 ADJOURNMENT 10 s 15 It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor GrA bek, to Pdjourn the regular Council meeting at 10:15 P.M. Motion, Ayes- 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk .Tames Grabek, Mayor f.0 G 81°%3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25. 1909-0 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten, Peterson, and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Public works Director Gerhardson, Building b. Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Recorder Scheffler. City Attorney Barrett and City Engineer Cook were also present. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda excepting item #t2, and also items #19, 420, #23, #127 and #t 28, which Councilmember Callahan asked to be omitted. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. EMPLOYER RECOGNITION - TOM KUEHN Mayor Grabek read and presented Mr. Kuehn, Finance Director, with a Resolution of Recognition, which explained the exceptional job performance and achievments of Mr. Kuehn. Mayor Grabek thanked Mr. Kuehn for all of his help and stated that he was a treasured employee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember reterson, to table approving the Minutes of the July 11, 1988 Council Meeting until the Council had time to review them. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passes. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT JoEllen Hurr, Representative of LMCD, reminded the Council that the August 6th LMCD boat trip for elected officials was coming up and encouraged everyone to attend. She noted that there is an application for L.Ly Island Veteran's Camp docks that require approval. She also noted problems the LMCD is having with regard to a barge that is being stored in Crystal Bay, near Crystal Bay Service. The location of the dock where the barge is being stored is zoned residential, not commercial. An application for commercial dock license has been sent to the owners of the dock and will need approval frcm the City of Orono for that application. Ms. Hurr does not feel that the application should be approved and has received several complaints frcm people in the area about the barge. When the LMCD met in June, there was an agenda item requesting payment to Mr. Mixa of approximately $32,000.00 for sick leave, vacation and severance pay. After further review, it will turn out that severance pay to which he will be entitled will be less that half of that figure. She said she will bs watching this very closely. The MWCC will be approving their budget and hopefully they will be going ahead with the Orot.o project. She appreciated Orono adopting the Resolution pertaining to this project. There has been a lot of inter - department turmoil within the MWCC with both their Chief Administrator and Chairperson having resigned. OI Mayor Grabek asked where the City stands with regard to the study and reporting basis for the LMCD report to the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Hurr replied that they adopted and accepted a cwo year plan, with the :.ondition MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 that they would like a quarterly report. The planning com.nitt a meets once a month and she does attend those meetings whenever possible. Mayor Grabek asked about the appointment of a new Director and Ms. Burr stated that she would bring the new Director to meet the Council sometime in September. Mayor Grabek asked about the conlition of Lake Minnetonka. City Administrator Rernhardson commented that the Lake was at its lowest point since the early 1940's. Councilmember Goetten asked Ms. Hurr what guidelines the LMCD were stressing at this time. Ms. Hurr responded by saying that at this time there has been no policy adopted. She was not sure whether regulating the Lake uses is within the jurisdiction of the LMCD and will be studying that issue. Mayor Grabek inquired as to whether there were any programs for dredging channel: in plane? Ms. Hurr replied that the Noerenberg Channel will be dredged and rip - x apped by the County. The Mayor stated that he had some feedback pertaining to Forest Lake channel, which apparently is at 2 feet. " Hurr said that the matter should be brought to the attention of thf nt.y Board since it is there from which the dredging funds are allocat Councilmember Goetten asked whether the LMCD is the proper body to be looking at a study committee for water conservation for now and in the future. Ms. Hurr answered affirmatively. Councilmember Callahan asked about the delay in the sewer project. Ms. Hurr answered that it was due to the need for an additional $600,000.00 which was not included in the budget for the project. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Chairman Kelley had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1O25 ED HENRICH 4115 HIGHWOOD ROAD VAPTANCE CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by table this matter until the Council receive Applicant to withdraw his application for a Nays=O, Motion passed. Councilmember Callahan, to a formal reque3t from the variance. Motion, Ayes=4, #1128 RAINEY ANDERSON 780 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ABSOLUTION 12473* The Applican's were not present for this matte-. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve the final plat of "Trees to Be" for Rainey Andersen, 780 South Old Crystal Bay Road. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0. Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 1207 GENE SCANLON 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2474 The Applicants, were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a request for construction, including hardcover, in the 01-75'zone, resulting from the July 23, 1987 storm. They would like to replace the deck, which was 210 sq.ft., with a deck that is 165 sq. ft. The existing shed that was also destroyed by the storm will now be tucked under the deck. Councilmember Goetten stated that she does not feel the resolution should include any language pertaining to the health of the Applicant. She does not want to set any precedent by allowing such language. Therefore, sub -paragraph E under Finding N3 of the Resolution, shall be removed. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Resolution 02474 as amended. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1280 MBNDY WHINE 1376 BALDUR PARK ROAD VARIANCE The Applicant was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was a request for hardcover and structural setback variances to construct an addition to the house, as well as decks all around the house. A significant portion of the existing house already sits in the 0'-75' zone. The proposal will reduce the amount of total hardcover in the 0'-75' zone from 30.4% to 30.0% and a net decrease in the 75'-2°,0' from 49.0% to 38.9%. There is an increase in the amount of structural hardcover Applicant pointed out that the deck is already there, not proposed. They plan is to reduce the size of the deck. Councilmember Goetten questioned whether it was necessary to have the road improved. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that it was not a problem at this time. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the variance for Wendy Weihe. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-0. # 12 91 ALFRED I V ERSON 2935 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION 12475 Ms. Iverson and the Contractor were present for this meeting. This is a request for hardcover variance in the 75'-250' Zone. The Planning Commission directed that the additional construction and remodeling be done without increasing the amount of hardcover beyond 38.4•. Councilmember Callahan stated that after visiting with Mr. Iverson, there was confusion as to how he would like to proceed. Apparently the calculations used for determining existing hardcover did not include the landscaping plastic around the house. It did include the asphalt pathway MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 #1291 ALFRED IVERSON - CONTINUED leading to the tennis courts. Ms. Iverson confirmed tha* all they required was a small backing -up area so they would not r, we to back all the way down the driveway. Callahan stated that the current plans seemed to be in accordance with what the Applicant was seeking and questioned why there was so much confusion about approving this hardcover variance. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that originally the Iversons were requesting an increase in the hardcover and the Planning Commission decided that the Iversons could not exceed the 38.4% coverage. Callahan asked why the issue of safety as it pertains to the driveway wa:: not discussed. Mabusth replied that that issue was never raised by the Applicants or their contractor. Councilmember Goetten asked if removing the landscaping plastic and pathway would equal the hardcover addition of the turn -around. Mabusth stated that she could not answer that question since the square footage of the landscat' g plastic was unknown. It was determined through further discussion that the ?.8.48 calculation is not accurate. Councilmember Callahan stated that timing is a factor for the Iversons because they would like to have the building completed in time for their children to begin school in the fall. He would like to see some decision made, either to hold the Iverson's at 38.4% or give them some extra leeway and limit them to 39%. However, there was not enough information provided regarding the driveway to make an accurate calculation. Councilmember Goetten stated that if a percentage was approved at least it might resolve the situation, as opposed to tabling the matter and putting it off another two weeks. Mabusth suggested that the contractor file his plans and start the building permit application process. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this matter. He explained to Ms. Iverson that it was very important for the contractor to get the plans in and the building permit application filled out. If he failed to do so immediately, this matter would not be on the agenda for the August 8th Council Meeting. The Mayer went on to say that the Iversons could expect that the Council will approve the variance, but they will need to fine tune the conditions. Ms. Iverson inquired whether the contractor should measure the landscaping, around the house. Mabusth stated that the Council is going to have to have that measurement to make their V.na 1 decision. Tne contractor explained that they do not file the building plans until the lots is staked out. They do not stake out the lot until everything has been approved. The Mayor explained that the Council needs to know what the contractor is planning before the variance is approved. They cannot run the risk approving plans now and then having the contractor vary those plan_ that the overall amount of hardcover changes. The contractor stated it is too costly for them to apply for the permit without the consent of the plans. He asked why he was not informed that there was a problem with the hardcover-. Councilmember Callahan explained that the problem arose following his discussion with Mr. Iverson the preceding day. The contractor pointed out that the turn -around is drawn on the original plans. It was Callahan's impression that Mr. Iverson wanted more turn -around area than what was presently being proposed. Mabusth added that there is additional hardcover that does not MINUTES OF I REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 i1291 ALFRED IVERSON - CONTINUED show on the plans. City Administrator Bernhardson recommended that the Council vote on the resolution at the 38.4% figure. Should that prove unattainable, the Applicants can bring the matter back. The contractor stated that all of the present landscaping around the house is going to be removed. Mayor Grabek asked Ms. Iverson if she wants the Council to approve the 38.4% and leave the plans just as they are? The plastic under the flower beds wit 1 have to be removed. Mayor Grabek withdrew his original motion, Councilmember Goetten withdrew her second. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the 38.4% as stated in the resolution, but also providing that if there is a change, the Applicants will have the opportunity to bring the matter before Council again. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1307 DOUGLAS HERZ 3195 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTIONS i2476 The Applicants were not present for this matter. There were no further questions by the Council or the public regarding this matter. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, secondell by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the variance in a street yard setback as set forth in the Resolution #2476. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1308 ROBERT OWENS 1700 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2477 The Applicants were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this a request for a hardcover variance in the 75'-250' zone. There is currently 38 hardcover in the 01-75'zone.. The variance is required to reconstruct a deck that was infested with carpenter ants. Mayor Grabek asked the Applicants if they had any questions. There were no questioi on behalf of the Applicants, however, Councilmember Goetten questioned the flagstone wall/garder.area. Applicant explained that those structures replaced exact same structures washed away in the storm of July 23, 1987. Zoning Administrator explained that there should have been a separate application for a permit for that particular structure. Applicant stated that structure was included in the permit application to restore the other damage caused by the storm. Councilmember Peterson had a question concerning a potential walkway. Apparently the sod had been removed indicating that some kind of walkway was going to '-e installed. Mr. Owen explained that they did not want to replace the flagstones because they were waiting to see whether the deck would be approved. Councilmember Goetten asked what Applicants were planning on putting under the deck. There is currently sane: there. Applicant responded by saying they were hopeful to plant either grass or some sort of vegetation (hostas) under the deck. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Counci lmember Goetten, to MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 #1308 ROBERT OMENS approve Resolution #2477, aproving the variance request. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. BIG ISLAND BOARD OF GOVERNORS RRQORST TO EXTEND TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WORK CREUS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan to approve the request by the Big Island Board of Governors to extend the expiration date for the temporary conditional use permit to October 15, 1988. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. SIGN ORDINANCE ORDINANCE #55, 2ND SERIES City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was referred to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The only change he would like to recommend is under sub -paragraph "H - Temporary Signs". He would like the language "unless permitted as sales or election signs". Councilmember Goetten asked about garage sale signs. She wanted to know if there was a time frame regulating the length of time those signs can be posted. Bernhardson responded by saying that those signs are not permitted. Councilmember Goetten would like some language added pertaining to a responsibility to retrieve the signs once they no longer serve any purpose. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt the sign ordinance #55, Second Series, as amended. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays=0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT: FEASIBILITY STUDY - LIFT STATION i10 City Engineer Cook explained that this matter involved the replacement or upgrading of Lift Station #10, located near the intersection of County Road #51 and County Road #19. The lift station is a part of the Metro Interceptor Project. Lift Station i45 is being relocated to allow for the elimination of Lift Station #10 by constructing a gravity line that would run from the Lift Station #10 location to the new Lift Station 445 point. The Engineering Staff also explored the option of upgrading Lift Station #10. The upgrading would require :Ouilding a new structure at the current location. The present Lift Station has a -apacity of 300 gallons/minute. There is some infiltration when.n there are substantial rainfalls causing backups to occur within the system. Lift Station #10 for the service area 4 has a projected expansion of 300 units. In order to accommodate that, the Cite would need to upgrade the Station to increase the capacity to 550 gallons/minute. In looking at the cost estimates for each of the options, it was determined that Lift Station #10 replacement would be approximately $81,000.00. The cost of constructing the gravity trunk line would be about the same. Cook went on to explain some futher upgrading that would improve the flow in that particular area. it was recommended that the lines be enlarged. The looked at the upgrading of lines, rather than the repl acecrent. He stated that the initial capi La l costs would be abou* the same, but there would be a $6,000.00/year savings in using the gravity 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DULY 25, 198c trunk line. If the project is to proceed, from where would the funding come? The possibilities of general revenue, sewer revenue bond or some kind of assessment or future trunk charge were all discussed. Should the City decide to proceed with the project, these options would need to be explored. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that this was the first time that the City has had an opportunity to look at this matter. If they do decide to proceed, construction would not be until next year. This project would then go into the capital budget for next year. Councilmember Callahan commented that should the MWCC's sewer project not go through, or gets delayed then more serious consideration would have to be given to upgrading Lift Station #10. If the other Lift Station is not constructed, the gravity trunk line option would be eliminated. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accep` the feasibility study of Lift Station #10. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: COUNCIL CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT RESOLUTION #2478 Mr. John Hollarder and Jim Dillman withdrew his name as a candidate. Mayor Grabek listed the individuals still in the running and complimented them on their outstanding qualifications. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan to nominate Charles Kelley due to his experience resulting from his position as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Coucilmember Goetten seconded the Motion and added that she concurred with everything Counci lmembrr Callahan had stated. It is her opinion that because there is a lot of planning for the future of Orono, that it is important to have someone with Charles Kelley's background on the Council. Motion, Ayes=2, Nays=2. Councilmember Peterson stated that she does appreciate what Charles Kelley has done for the Planning Commission.. However, she would like to see another candidate fill the vacancy. She stated that it was difficult to select one candidate out of so many qualified persons. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson to nominate Alan Nettles to fill the vacant Council seat. Mayor Grabek seconded the Motion. Motion, Ayes=2, Nays=2. Mayoi Grabek asked for any other nominations from the Council. There were none. Mayor Grabek stated that he would then excercise his prerogative to appoint a councilmember. He will notify the City in writing that Mr. Alan Nettles will fill the vacant seat. Councilmember Goetten expressed her displeasure with the Mayor making his decision to appoint without allowing adequate time to examine the possibility of another nomination. Councilmember Callahan stated that the Mayer was entitled to make an appointment and did not think that his choice to appoint Mr. Nettles was in any way precipitous. He stated that in his opinion, Mr. Nettles is very qualified for the position and did not see any reason to delay the appointment. Mayor Grabek offered to withdraw his appointment in 7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 lieu of another nomination. Councilmember Goetten declined to nominate another. Mayor Grabek stated that he would then proceed with his appointment of Alan Nettles. He expressed his hopes that the Council would welcome Mr. Nettles with z positive attitude. Councilmember Goetten stated that she would like it known that she will welcome Mr. Nettles to the Council. She does not recall any Mayor automatically appointing someone to a council position without more time to consider another candidate. She does not approve of that procedure. ORONO/LONG LAKE DISCUSSION City Administrator Bernhardson said that he is currently working with Mr. Vande Vegte and Barbara Arney, the facilitator, to set up a time to meet. Nothing had been set up as of the date of the Council meeting. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: WOODHILL AVENUE ROAD CONSTRUCTION City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was approved by the Council at the June 27, 1988 Council meeting. The neighbors at 1315, Mr. David Lindstrom and Jane Delaney became concerned when the property was staked out at the 5' offset the layout was not 22' as it had been staked last Fall. That perception was correct because the road was staked at 24' rather than the 221. There was a memo drafted depicting the areas where it was more feasible for the road to be 24' rather than 22'. Bernhardson met with the Mr. Lindstrom and Ms. Delaney and told them that since the road had been staked at 22' past their property, that is what the City would build. The request before the Council is to reconsider this project. Jane Delaney proposed that the 22' feet be maintained throughout the entire road. She sees no reason for a 24' road. She said that the homeowners on that road preferred a 20' road. She suggested that the 2 foot reduction needed to bring the road to 22' feetin that area come off of her side of the street. That would mean that the phone poles, utility poles and buffer brush on tha opposite side of the road would not need to be removed. Bernhardson had recommended that a foot be taken off each side of the road. Delaney does not feel that is an equitable solution since it allows everything on the opposite side of the street to be preserved. Bernhardson replied that after considerable research it would be more beneficial for the road to be 24'. The only e:cception that has been made In the past to a 24 foot road is the private section of Woodhill and Colin Drive. It is the City's recommendation that the remaining road beycnd 1315 be 24' wide. With regard to determining from which side of the road the 2 feet would come, there are two points of view. Taking one foot from each side is in accordance with how the road was staked last Fall. Secondly, the City did not want to take 2 feet from one side and create a controversey with that person. It is more equitable to remove equally from both sides and try to make all efforts to preserve the trees. Councilmember Goetten stated that if the City of Orono has designated 24' to be the standard width for their roads, then she does not want to set a precedent by having a 22' road. the believes that the road should be consistent whether it's 22' or 24' wide. A MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 WOODHILL AVENUE ROAD - CONTINUED Ms. Delaney stated that she initially brought up the issue of the pine trees being saved. Now it appears that inevitably the trees will die. She asked what provisions will be made to replace those trees. She also asked whether they would be responsible for the bank on their side if it erodes. Engineer Cook responded that the bank will be improved. It will be raised a foot so there will be less bank there. Cook clarified the width variance. He explained that especially large trucks driving down the road would break off the edges, which is what is presently happening to the road. A 24' road would allow trucks extra room, especially around the curve in the road, without being out near the shoulder where the breakage occurs. Councilmember Callahan stated that he agreed with Councilmember Goetten with regard to upholding the City's policy as to width and then making the entire road that width. Ms. Delaney asked why the City would build the road prior to the construction in that area being completed? City Administrator Bernhardson stated that it is necessary because the present road is deteriorating and it may take 5 to 7 years to complete the construction on the private residential sites. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, b__,,nded by Mayor Grabek, that the road be constructed at a width of 24', in a way that the plan was adopted. Motion, Ayes=3, Peterson -Nay, Motion passed. SUPPORT FOR MINNETR?STA LAKE MINNETONKA REGIONAL PARK City Administrator Bernhardson reminded the Council that at the end of last meeting the Council adopted a modified form of the resolution. The City wanted to bring forth the issue of additional support, as requested by the Council. The Popham Haik Law Firm usually represents the City of Minnetrista, but due to the fact that they also have represented Hennepin Parks in other matters, Minnetrista is using the Larkin, Hoffman Law Firm in this matter. If the City of Orono were to enter into the lawsuit the City would have to use a different law firm. City At`.orney Barrett stated that the issues in this case involve 2 questions: One is whether or not the legislature could give general condemnation authority or particular condemnation authority to the entities requesting it. His impression is that they can do so. The other issue involves the garbage bill issue. This arises out of a provision in the State Constitution that states that every law shall have one subject. Due to the fact that the legislation granting authority to Hennepin Parks and the Metropolitan Council was achieved in a "garbage bill" fashion, this should be a strong argument for the City to use. Councilmember Callahan be 1 iev,?s t bad one as far as the City of Orono more cities that oppose it, the bett The question seems to be whether the side of Minnetrista or whether they )at the legislative bill itself is a Ls concerned. He believes that the r chance there is of defeating it. ty wants legally put itself on the should continue along as they have 9 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 been. He does not feel there is any need to financially support Minnetrista. He would like to see the City initiate another lawsuit using separate counsel so it will. emphasize the fact that there is multiple concern. The basic issue is whether or not the Council thinks opposing the condemnation proceeding is cost worthy. Mayor Grabek thinks that the issue does need to be addressed. The question is why►t method of action would be most economical. He is uncertain whether the citizens of Orono would have enough interest to warrant spending money on a legal battle. He does not feel that this issue takes financial priority. Mayor Grabek would like to take some form of action that lets the Courts know the City of Orono has an interest in this without proceeding in a full scale lawsuit. City attorney Barrett stated that there would be a conflict of interest if lie were to provide the City with a letter to that effect. He feels that the Resolution of Support is a good vehicle to show the Court there is interest on behalf of the City. The City could also as a second option, send a representative to sit_ in Court and indicate that the City does not wish to intervene at this time, but is concerned. The third option would be to join with other concerned cities and file an amicus curiae brief highlighting the main issues. A fourth option would be to join in the existing lawsuit. Mayor Grabek asked for clarification of an amicus brief. Councilmember Callahan explained that its effect is that the City would appear to support one side or the other, without actually being a party to the lawsuit. It provides the opportunity to formally argue the City's position to the Court. Mayor Grabek opined that this would seem to be the best way to insure that. the City is apprised of developments in this matter. Councilmember Callahan stated that he would like to see the City try to involve other cities in drafting an amicus brief. Mayor Grabek agreed by stating these should be a letter drafted from the Council and Mayor to the affected communities suggesting such an action. City Administrator Bernhardson pointed out that there was an upcoming meeting at Mayor Smith's home that would provide the opportunity to discuss this proposal. Councilmember Goetten believed that a formal letter should be sent. She expressed her extreme concern over this issue and is happy to see that action is being taker.. It was moved by Mayor Grak:ek, seconded by Councilmember Goet{ en, to instruct the City to draft a letter from the Mayor and Councilmembers to the appropriate adjacent cities suggesting an amicus brief strategy and requesting a response thereto. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES RESOLUTION i2479 - ORDINANCE 53, SECOND SERIES City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the Council had asked the City to provide some language to put into effect an ordinance to regulate water usage. City Attorney Barrett submitted an ordinance for adoption. Bernhardson would like to add language that would give tr:e Administrator the authority to determine conservation requirements involving the City water system. lie stated that there are situations in which an immediate restriction may be mandatory. This amendment would have to be ratified, if a(.ce•ptable, at the next Council meeting. The City has drafted a Resolution 10 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 putting an Odd/Even watering ban pertaining to all water sources, effective August 1st. Councilmember Goetten asked to include the language "including pumping out of wells or lakes" to the Resolution. Warnings will be issued probably on a complaint basis initially. City Attorney Barrett believed that. the City has jurisdiction over the lake water when it is poured on land within the City of Orono. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Ordinance #53, Second Series and Resolution #R2479 pertaining to water conservation regulations and guidelines as amended. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. BOULEVARD RESTORATION - COUNTY ROAD 15 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that at the last Council meeting Council suggested green along the boulevard. The City explored the options of exposed aggregate or paver brick. It was determined that these two options were not economical and the Staff continues to recommend asphalt in the commercial areas and sod in residential areas. If there would be no additional action taken on this matter, Council's previous decision to sod throughout the entire boulevard would stand. Councilmember Peterson asked what the cost of plain cement. throughout the entire area would be. Public Works Director Gerhardson estimated it would be approximately $15,000.00. It was moved by Mayor Grabek to cement the entire area. Engineer Cook stated that concrete would be the best value for the dollar as far as longevity and maintenance. Councilmember Peterson inquired whether this project should proceed before or after the Navarre redevelopment took place. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that concrete would be much more expensive to remove should it not fit into any future Navarre development. Councilmember Goetten expressed her concern for maintaining the natural, green appearance of Orono She would like to see this concept of green carried through with the beautification of Navarre. She believes that the residents and commercial property owners would be pleased with the sod once it was in place. Councilmember Peterson stated that she had spoken to some of the commercial. owners and they were more in favor of concrete; they did not want the sod. Bernhardson affirmed that the plan presently calls for concrete from the street to the doorstep of the businesses in Navarre near the hardware store. Peterson said that the store owners did inquire about flower boxes. Mayor Grabek reminded the Council that his motion was still on the floor. No one seconded Mayor Grabek's motion. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to put concrete in the commercial area and sod in the residential area. Council-rember Goetten stated "let Minneapolis he Minneapolis, let Orono be Orc,no". Mayor Grabek stated that no one would care for the sod and asphalt would not continue to look pleasing, especially in hot weather when it would become soft and susceptible to marring and gouging. Motion, Ayes-2, Nays=2. It was moved by Mayor GraL,,ek, and seconded by Callahan, to have concrete thoughout the entire ,irea with exposed aggregate flower planters In appropriate locations, an(' obtain a report from the City as to the MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1S88 feasibilty of the flower planters. Motion, Ayes=2, Nays=2. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson, and seconded by Mayor Grabek, to have cement with planters in the business district and grass and trees in the reside-.tial area. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. BOHNS POINT FEASIBILITY* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to table this item until the August 8, 1988 Council meeting to allow the new Council Appointee time to review this matter. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-0, Motion passed. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT MICHAEL GAFFROIN* Councilmember Callahan questioned whether this increase was a regularly scheduled review or a merit increase. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that this was a regularly scheduled increase. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the increase in step level for the Assistant Zoning Administrator from $14.57 to $15.17. Motion, Aves=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT THOMAS JACOBS* Councilmember Callahan questioned whether this increase was a regularly scheduled review or a rierit increase. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that this was a regularly scheduled increase. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the increase in step level for the Senior Building Inspector from $14.57 to $15.17. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=o, Motion passed. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT SUB BOBEISN* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Counc.' lmember Callahan, to approve the increase i P. step I eve 1 fr r Sue Bobzien from $10.33 to $10.71. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. PART TIME OFFICER JAMES MORROW It wa- moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Ca I l ahan, to approve the extension of the employment of Officer James Morrow until such time as the situation with Officer Yirnyezuk is resolved or until December 31, 1988, whichever occurs f.Lrst. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-O, Motion passed. ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORY RESOLUTION #2480* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Pesolution 02480, Raking an adclitional depository appointment for 1988. Motion, Aye s-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. STUATEGIC GOAL SETTING AUGUST 3, 1968 Counci 1 member Cal 1 ahan stated ►r:eeting or. August 3rd. He wanted that he will not he able to attend the tc know if an alternate date could be 12 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 set. August 11, 1988 at 7:00 was set as the alternate date. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE 154 SECOND SERIESM It was moved by Mayc- Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve and publish the summary ordinance amending Sections 6.01, 6.05, and 6.06 of the Orono Municipal Code relating to ;—rovements on public and private roads and rights -of -way. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1387 FINAN "IAT, REPORT PUBLICATION SUMMARY* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve the summary publication of the annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 1987. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motior passed. RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITIO" RESOLUTION #2472* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2472 recognizing the efforts of Thomas Kuehn, the City's Finance Director, for the 1987 Audit Report. Motion, Pyes-4, Nays=O, Motion passed. AMENDMENT TO THE LIQUOR ORDINANCE UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION* Councilmember Callahan did not want to be construed as a person condoning public or private drunkeness. However, he does feel that this amendment iz an intrusion into the activities of the homes in the come+ounity. It also seems to be an ordinance that would be unen: orceable 99% of the time. He also felt that the Council had been passing ordinances that seem to come up on the agenda rather quickly. There have been two or three ordinances from the Chief of Police that seem to intrude more and more into the personal lives of the citizens of Orono. He would like to see some facts to substantiate the need for an amendment to this ordinance. City Administrator Bernhardson responded that there have been situations where there have been parties in residences where adults have been present in the house either actively serving alcohol to the minors or ignorant of the situation. The ordinance amendment is designed to place more responsibility on the adults in charge of the premises. Councilmember Gcetten stated that she agrees with Councilmember Callahan's views. Cal lahan went cn to say that he did net fecal that the number of incidents involving this type of problem warrant an amendment that would impose a criminal turden upon the entire City of Orono. Co,,ncilnemter Coetten asked whether it would be beneficial to have scm*one from MAUD come and speak to the Council. Callahan stated t%at he is philosophically in favor of the ordinance, but does not feel that the Council has the right to pass such an ordinance without the public's further knowledge or input. Bernhardson stated that the City had not had the oppor•unity to examine how the "noisy party ordinance" was accomplishing its purpose. He recommended putting this matter on hold for a month. Mayor Grabek concurred with Callahan's reasoning, but said that if Chief Piloo had seine strong reasoning for passing this ordinance., he 13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUh IL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 should notify the Council respectively. It was moved by Mayor Gral-ek, seconded by Counci lmember Callahan, to ble this matter until clarification from Chief Kilbo could be obtained. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-G, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION - Councilmember Callahan inquired as to why our City's Prosecuting Attorney was not prepared fox the Court hearing concerning 3536 Lyric Avenue. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that this was not the fault of the City Attorney because this matter was not schedulerl to be heard. The City Attorney was in Court for another matter. Mr. Reinke was in Court facing a Minnetonka c►-irge and mentioned that he just been ticketed by the City of Orono and .,,; ,,mod both charges heard at the same time. The Attorney from Popham Raik was forced to han•a a the matter even though he was unprepared. Counci lmember Callahan also asked what was going on at 1420 Bohn's Point. City Administrat.o? Bernhe*.dson explained that they were trying to stay on top of this. Goetten a • i if the resident needed a conditional use hermit for the amount of di chat he is moving. Bernhardson stated that it was all within the parameters of the immediate construction. She asked how long people have to complete their project. Bernhardson replied that the rules require the exterior to be completed within 2 years of the issuance of the building permit. If the project is not done within that amount of time, the builder should apply For another permit. There had been concern expressed by neighbors about the ongoing construction and the violations resulting therefrom. It was moved by Counci lmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Master Planning Navarre Area; Highwood Storm Sewer; 1535 Bohn's Point Road; 3536 Lyric; 1420 Bohn's Point; Councilmember Net Pay Change; Lit'ngston Tower Park Sculpture; County Road 15 Progress Report. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays=O, Motion passed. M I SCELLANNOUS ITEMS Mayor GreLek wanted to briefly discuss the application to participation in the Long Lake Parade on the 14th of August. City Administrator Bernhardson will supply the vehicle to carry the Counci lmemt,ers and will inform them as t.o the time they are to meet. CITT ATTORNEY'S REPORT: No report. LICENSES* I* was moved by approve the following special Mayor Grabek, seconded by Counci lmember Ca 1 lahan, to licenses: Events: Viking October 6:00 a. North S'. Bassmasters cf Minnesota 2, J 98F m. - 3:On p.m. lore Drive Marina 14 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 25, 1988 Minnesota Distance Runner's Association August 14, 1988 Foot race in conjunction with Corn. Days 12:15 p.m. - 1:00 P.M. Septic System Installers: McCarty Water and Waste 6250 Highway 12 West Maple Plain, MN 55359 Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT 9:35 p.m. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adjourn the regular Council meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James Grabek, Mayor a ffi iF BUG 819:., OF 1TN To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 4, 1988 Subject: Conceptual Review - Bike/Hike Master Plan For the pas`. year, the Orono Park Commission has been rev sewing the feasibility of a Master Bike/Hike Trail Plan for the City of Orono. The attached map is the result of the Park Commission's review. The primary goal of the study was to prepare a plan which would serve as a basis for discussion with the Planning Commission, City Council and the Communi�y, and which would lead to the adortion of an official City Bike/Hike Trail System. The following factors were considered during the review process, automobile traffic patterns, topography adjacent to road shoulders, destinations, connection to the Luce Line Trail, Baker Park, Orono recreation facilities and population distribution. The above information was presented to the Planning Commission on July 18th by Bob Kost. Mr. Kost will be in attendance at the Council meetiig on August P to expla;ii the plan and receive comments from the Council Members. To: Mayor Grabek & OrCouncil Members ".O y OF Okdft City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 2, 1988 Subject: #1286 Gary Roderick Construction, Inc., 1749 North Farm Road - Variance Application - Requesting a variance to allow a 6' hilh fence along the side lot lire adjacent to County Road 6. Zoninq District - LR-lA, single family lakeshore residential, 2 acres, unsewered Li ;t of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 7/22/88 Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 5/27/88 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of May 27, 1988. The applicant wishes to construct a 6' high privacy fence along County Road 6, adjacent to the house which he has constructed and has for sale. The applicant suggests that a 6' high fence is necessary to screen the property from traffic noise and headlights, and to keep young children from running out onto the County road. Planning Commission initially reviewed this item very :)rief ly at their June 6th meeting, and although the applicant_ was not present, voted to recommend denial. At the applicant's request, the item was re -scheduled before the Planning Commission when applicant could be present, on July 18, 1988. At that meeting, Planning Commission listened to the applicant and the comments of neighboring property owners, all of whom expressed that they felt that such a fence would not be in character with their neighborhood. Planning Commission :i-iefly discussed what alternatives the applicant might have, and then on a -0 vote recommended denial of the 6' high fence. Staff Recommendation - In keeping with the Planning -,-...nmission recommendation, staff would rpconamend that the Iroposed 6' high fence be denied. Additionally, staff would ask the Council to consider -i*.--ther certain elements of subdivision desiqn should be included in develrq-.-•nts such as this adjacent to a 60 mph highway. The use of berming and re--., red natur6: screening come to mind. Staff will draft a resolution ed on Counci l's direction, for your next meeting. ZONING FILE NO. 1286 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/22/88 ----------- •---------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Gary Roderick Construction COPIES TO: 770 Dickey Lake Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------------------- DATB OF MEETING: 7/18/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission indicated that a 6' high screening fence along County Road 6 would not be visually appropriate and is excessive in height merely for containing children. As for screening of traffic noise and headlights, Planning Commission suggested additional plantings, but as not unanimous in opinion regarding construction of a berm. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council August 8, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: May 27, 1988 SUBJECT: #1286 Gary Roderick Construction Inc., 1749 North Farm Road - - Variance - Publi.: Hearing ZONING DISTRICT: LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres, unsewered. APPLICATION: Requesting a variance to allow 6' fence along side lot line adjacent to County Road 6. LIST OF EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey/Site Plan Exhibit E - Pertinent Code Sections PERTINENT FACTS 1. The applicant is re,luesting a variance to the 42" maximum fence height requirement, in order to provide a noise barrier between the residence and the 50 to 60 mile per hour traffic flow on County Road 6. He is also intending that the proposed fence will provide for a degree of safety by keeping small children within the yard and off the County Road. Note that applicant is the builder of the home and it is for sale. 2. The proposed fence will extend from the existing North Farm Road sign post structure, and will be located approximately 10' to 15' inside the actual property line for its entire 300' length. The distance of the fence from the edge of the pavement will be approximately 35'. The proposed fence will cause absolutely no visual obstruction for traffic ortering or leaving North Farm Road. 3. The proposed fence is cation along its entire 300' length appears to be level with or no r+ore than, 2' to 3' below the crown of County Road 6. 4. The fence will end r�,proximately where the larger trees begin at the west end of the property. The applicant's intent is to have the fence run between the t%4, ::cws of existing small trees which have been planted along the lot ]in 5. Please be reminded "hr_t Orono Ordinances allow a 6' high fence along a County Road ( �or thoroughfare") only on lake frontage lots. The zoning coo.,? -:actions dealing wit.t� fences are 10.03, Subdivision 15 (c,d,e,f . .. -*4 'action 10.22, Su►'�ivision 1. Copies of these section are atta-he.-s exhibit F. Zoning File #1286 May 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 6. Staff would note that this application is unique in that the majority of previous variance applications for fence height have involved lake frontage properties and have dealt with the issues of ence height in relation to the road crown or in relation to the existing grade, both on major thoroughfares and minor local streets. The Rovegno application at 2010 Shoreline Drive resulted in ordinance language that prohibits any fence from being within 75' of the lakeshore. The Burton application at 405 Oxford Road, resulted in ordinance amendments that established that height of fence and its associated fill may not exceed 6' above the height of the crown of the road. However, the City has never established criteria for situations such as the current application, where properties next to a 55 mile per hour County road are seeking relief from road noise and safety for children. DISCUSSION Staff would suggest that Planning Commission review the requested variance by answering a number of questions: 1. Does the applicant have any reasonable methods available to him to accomplish the equivalent purpose? 2. Are there other forms of screening that would be suitable and still be economically feasible? 3. Will the fence create a hazard to the safety, health, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood? 4. Will the fence be visually obtrusive in the neighborhood, or can the fence itself be screened so as to become visually unobtrusive? 5. Will approval of the variances to allow this fence lead to many other similar requests, or is this situation so unique as to be different than :host other situations? 7. Based on the visual impact from the roadway, is there any reasonable basis for Orono Code to distinguish between lake frontage lots abutting a major thoroughfare versus nonlakeshore lots abutting a major thoroughfare, when dealing with 6' high fences? 8. Is there a justification to allow the 6' high fence only in the side street yard and rear yard where they abut a major thoroughfare? 9. Does the speed limit and average traffic speed to some degree dictate whether a thoroughfare is "major" or "minor", in relation to the issue of decreasing road noise impact? 10. Should there be elements of subdivision design that are required along major thoroughfares to eliminate tre need for requests such as this in the future? 11. Would it be feasible to approve the requested screening fence for a temporary term so that once the vegetative screen has matured, the fence could be removed? STAFF RECOMMENDATION V If the Planning Commission finds that the hardships of road noise and child safety concerns outweigh any dotrimental characteristics of the fence proposai, then a recommendation for-,r,proval, supported by your findings, would be appropriate. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI - Initial Application Fee $150.00! ($50.00 per each additional va nce),..;:•. Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees ( Double application fee) r rT •,r : iWnv l.A 1 I VI �'1f " -r ----------------------------------------------------------- N4.1 �;,t: JIFFICE PROPERTY LOCATION ;t,.- 1 'S r'VCV UV✓V Site Address - 4' ` Lei J,.V i! L.I 1.411 iL •JV. VV Property Identification Number (P. I . D.) 1 (:+ ( +��MT-MA.-,z1K• YOU 111C. 1 1 / JAIL Please check one - Property � abstract or _ torrens? oidrc Attach legal description to application if not included on I required survey. L;• ti- y . - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone (home) 4.1t-1 �1L,C Name C,1 t\)l' A F l i ( L t l ` , ` T'k ►( Phone ( work) ri i� 1 Ll i Address: l �i �� ,- ',. ���: c City: I '\�Zip: ------------------------------ , ---5----` -:F---- O1NER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name S r� , /7 T- Phone (work) Address: City: Date Property Acquired Zip: (month/year) I Wvt (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District LG Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in c:etail: 1,' 1, t <-,t ---------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) t Other II k /' HARDSHIP Describe undue enforcement of hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict zoning regulations: t«, 1�r ,I c..I �.-,•�/; ._ c-„ C_ ►'�d �ti:,t..f,.I 1'��,< �{. �� i; C._ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: 4 oJ- 5.. �t fie, A)<�►✓ Ner�< ��►•�•� w: �l, ye, m-,lt" C,4 '14.4-A --------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUHNITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners__ i-thin 150'_ (you must obtain this list from HennpRin _County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271) . " �""`� . ? a 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 tobtained 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. B. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature y Y � Date `%-a ONIKMS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature % -�uli� Date #7F ---------------------- ------------------------------------�r-------- Applicant must have all subr,_ttals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. :Tanning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. :)plicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plan,. Commission and Council. if an applicant is unable to attend a schedul,=,: .eting, please make arrangements to have an authorize] agent attend in place and to advise the Building & Zoning Offi .e of this change prior `.'ze meeting. 58'R clTr Oc ORONO 4`Q 740 V- ' ADD• OMPANY C AKE 1 w L E L.D WpL (Ner d N nCi.� E • •' ... 2 LAK.o. t UNT OZI 13 7 NJ 10 n 20 a t� 0 1 M W 1 H a • W �i n 9 W O Z 1A LL 00 W O O M OOLCH<OM N N L. W ®< Z1 Z J N L ct w toininL M S Ix Q tZ NC~C}}•n�W XO >L ON < OC7 M N 1� Y ZZ O 2 90 NO MO N Let NLL0, 1ZZ9 2O !w a<C00 O-.�wn O to M 0 6� .+ J M O w N 0 n r N w o o Z H W O O O �2 N S ►- < 1- MOHM O K •O MO O < •) O O ZZ o<OO OLn O pn IX uj� J IA a mLA IA zN W a W uu LX<w[ w wL pq NQH u uJ cli li O w C H w Z W W W .. H Z Y < a Y Or- r Op Y Y I o0u< I 1L.Ho< m JZZ J C. W NO•��OJ NTQ<Z 01 a Moo LDn J M000 to � Li z hl IL Zw Z W x Zo N N O• W •+Oz2 ALLA L oZ LA O�<O IA O M O Ex M O L 2 1 O M W 1A R 1A lA .r > 1A M T >- w Ln S a J .0 IA S <J O Z S Z`r' 14. L M l 0 M S< Z NXW M W W 2 y N YtHL z Z N[Z<ZwL >L tp H < O <<> O Z< 2 Z O S W Z g>V w Y.W W[ LM Z J O t I M V) ►� < I W W<` 1 CJ 1A 00 N J J N O S 0 ci4p O� t� J <j ` \ K1�� ap a0 Fz-� aD < a aD O at J co M O m m .+ J O u U •• N U W W 0 J sY O o o Ko W cz a O 0``oco W Q mL tl tlaQn " O O W< O Z W< < a < < > \ < ► \ I- 0 Op�WY fi a VI R m Ll U�- 40/• N � N u 10 Wuj I W p�1z-O W F H N < UH1- H �. < C W <a W W O .9aIx O W W F- O jH N 4 W W z uj O < v c a w < W W W N L p h H H J < U O T W O < W F {m]] tFou< z us H $H UJ <oao = H W W H I•" Z J > F W O z = Z 1- N W Y W a'/-L u a H 0000 Section B. Ordinance Section 1C.22 is hereby repealed and the following language substituted in its place: Subdivision 1. Lakeshore Setback Regulations. The setback from the shoreline for 1;3v--^hore lots: A. Shall be 75 few.,: all structures except that on lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare, a lock box not in excess of 20 square feet in area and 48 inches in height is allowed on the lakeshore portion of the lot and requires a building permit from the City. B. No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adja.3nt lots (Refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications) except that this does not apply to structure allowed in subsection A above. Subdivision 2. Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alters, ion Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall Le no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permane. structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there sh:.11 be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet :) 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. Subdivision 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline with a diameter of Six (6) inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City. Such Fc --mite shall be issued by t' City staff provided that st least a like numter replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable t the staff are planted, any quc-ction involving the number cF trees to be replaced will •ca;....e Council approval. C LI S 10.21 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty fee` in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Side Yard Trot Lot Front Side Adjacent to Rear Area Width Yard Yard Street Yard 172 acre 100 feet 30 Yeet 10 feet 15 feet 30 f,_et SEC. 10.22. `,REGULATIONS FOR "LR-lA', "LR-IA-1', 'LR-1B', "LR-1C" AND 'LR-1C-1" ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within---any--VR-lA", "LR-lA-1", "LR-lB", "LR-1C", or "LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply: Subd. 1. Lakeshore SeBack Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for lakeshore L,)ts shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distar;e from the shoreline of existiig re•idence buildings on adjac(nt and nearby lots.-�1J1Ory Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hard 3v-ar Regulations. Within 115 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permLnent structures. Within 7 to 250 fe-t of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 8 hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there sha be no greater than 30% hard cover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hard cover. Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No -zees within 75 feet of the shoreline with the di?meter of six (6) inches or more shall be removed without first obtAining a permit from the Council. SEC. 10.23. L^-IA ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-lA" One Family Lakeshore Residential Distri,..t is in_.;nded to provide a district which will allow a combinati^r of low density residential development and limited agrirgl ,utivity. Planned residential developments may be allowed _ 4itional use permits. The proposed land use may not endangeL quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka or Lona =;ke. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetu,��.-: or Long Lake, special regulations are necessary *o prote,:` those natural resources from the effects of dense devel pment. ORONO (.0 "'t> 3 1$-1-84) '.""'�'/ to ► � � , • � �,. �� � . � ' c; � , � , r ORDINANCE: NUMBER 9, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO THE NON -ENCROACHMENT AND AC"ESSORY STRUCTURE SECTIONS OF THE ORONO MUNICIPhL CODE 1 The City Council of Orono Ordains hs rollows: SECTION 1. Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by amending Sections 13.03 Subdivision 15(C), (D), (E), (F) and 10.22 Subdivision 1 to read as follows: SECTION 10.93 Subdivision 15 Non -Encroachments C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height fences not over six feet in height alcng the street lot i.,. of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combiner? helc1ht of both fence and M shall notnot__ exceed 6 feet aT�cve the TEtg•�,t of —the c�=of the road, -.___ �--- r Eerraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to cont.iin an area of more than twenty ,re feet, fire escapes not to Exceed a width of three feet, fenc .nd walls not to exceecj a height of six feet above 2 a_^'n_a_1 and open off street parking except for lakeshore lots, no fence or wall over forty-two inches but not in excess of seventy-two inches height above original rade m �e located c_Toser to the_ s ozeI ine_than th_e average distance from t ie' s�iorel inF of e ix sting rest-r,ce bu�_ijngs on a scent tots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline: E. Rear yard only; talconies breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and r,creation; equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory str4_:ure shall be closer Lhan five �__ __ _ feet from a rear tot line_nor shall a fence or ��constructed within a rear yard exc(iod a height of six feet above ro iginal F. Side yards cnly; n_^ accessory sr- •.tune steal l be closer _thAn ten feet f.1.Q'n aU s d , lot li-pe -ijc iNL1I- a fence or wall l cQpgtructed within a s -er! yard_ exec � a heinht _ of six feet above original grades - — — SECTION 19.22. P.( ,� tions fo.• 0r z Fami ly Lakeshore Reai- dent is 1 nistr icts. /1 Subdivision (shore Set Back Regulations. The set back f rom the shore 1 i1 akeshore lots sha 11 be at 1 ast 75 feet and no bui iding, r waI 1 over forty - two inches but not w• in excess of seventy-two _ncnec0n, height above original grade miy be located glos�x to "':'( shoreline than the average distance from the shorel ine of er . s. tng residence bui ldings on adjacent i lots. SECTION 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance sh411 be effective upon adoption, a.:d a short summaiy shall bi published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun and The Lake: newspapers. Adopted by the City Councii of Orono on this (I day of January, 1985, by a vote of 5 — ayes and 0 nay... �70 D othy M a11ii, City Clerk M y C. er, Mayor \ ',', Iv,�;!:>, I' ` 1-�Gl;'L1,rrrCt FFti� F►►�- 9 S LI 1? e r r 1 F! G A. ^r-1 Q/ J • ►1 c-,+ - S 10.03 liic •�f r l � :� r - Sub,�. 12. Crowding Principal Building. No accessory building or s ructure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered, or moved within ten feet of the principal building. Subd. 13. Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors thirty feet or more from the property line when said doors face on a public alley or street. Su.Dd 14. Yards and Open Spaces. A. Reduction Prohibited. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimensions so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by the Zoning Chapter and if the existing yprd or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. B. Application to Only One Dwellir,+g or Group. No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be used to satisfy yard, other open :'paces, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building or dwelling group. Subd. 15. Non -Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: I.. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornarnantal features, mechanical ces, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do no :tend more than 1-1/2 feet,'off-street parking except as hereLnafter regulated. B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; .s Lir illumina-ing parking areas, loading areas or yards for �_y and securit; purposes, provided the direct source of light i ►ot visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential f property,m ay be looted to within five feet of the front lot line. C. .'•,-rites which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over six feet in he.3ht along the front tot line of lak^ frontage lots which ('ront on a Major thoroughfare, Terraces, step_ uncovered porches, stoops or imila- structures, which do not extend above the heic-lit of the gr, and floor level of the p•r_:,cipal building and extend a distance of not lesE than two feet from any lot line. _* D. depth of two feet r-:;w feet, fire escapes malls not to excee,4 street parking. ORrvO cc ide or rear yards contain an area to exceed a width eight of six feet 2K only, bays not to en(~eec; a of -)re than twe quare of three Lee", ;es and above grade arc. men off- (4-1-84) § 10.03 ��- E. Rear yard only; balconies, accessory structures except that no structure shall be closer than five feet from the rear lot ling, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational. equipment, except as regulated hereinafter. ->,k-F. Side yards only; accessory structures except that no accessory structure shall be closer than ten feet from any side lot line. Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences, structures or planting more than three feet high in the "R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services, This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures i-icluding utility poles, and right -of --ways which are an integral Fart of a system for public transportation, as for transmitting porter, water, heat, communica- tions, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only aft--, a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Subd. 18. Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975 shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: A. No new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (25%) in animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the C-)uncil shall find that the ,.roposed "stock farm", if in existence, will not in its opinion be dk_. rimental to the public safety and the general welfare. <-- IB. The estarlishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl r-'.all be located 150 feet or more from the nearest offsite resider:-. C. Produc produced on the fara may be sold at retail. One temporary t-:. ^ic a stand may be est; ished for conducting such business. I� '_emporary in•> s s _n not over ORONO CC (4-1-34) i June 1, 1988 Orono Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Planring Commission, We are the residents of 1720 North Farm Road. We are opposed to Proposal No. 1286 of Gary Rodevick Construction, Inc."s request for building a fence along County Roid 6. We feel that the building of a fence would take away from the natural beauty of living in the country. Also, the ides of having a fence at the entrance of North Farm Road certainly would not enhance our small residential community. We can understand the problem of living so close to County Road 6, our lot also faces the road. In keeping with the natural setting of living in the country we decided to plant large evergreen trees in place of putting up a fence. We would like to suggest that Gary Rodevick Construction, Inc. plan something similar. Perhaps planting more trees or building a mound will provide more privacy for the future '-.omeowners and still keep the natural wooded setting. Sir.cereij yours, 7 ,Craig �. �1lanson Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin R. Field 1729 North Farm Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 May 11, 1988 Orono Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Planning Commission Members: We are writing to oppose proposal number 1286 of Gary Roderick Construction Inc. which owns the new home under construction at 1749 North Farm Road. It is our understanding that the proposal calls for a six-foot high, solid, wood fence over three hundred feet long between the new house and County Road 6. We are the owners of the property next to the Roderick site and have lived at 1729 North Farm Road for over four years. We oppose the proposal for the fence fo, the following reasons: 1. It is not in keeping with the Orono community to have artificial barriers which limit the feeling of open spaces and detract from the natural beauty of the area. 2. The fence would be just across tl'e road from Wolsfeld woods, a beautiful, natural preserve of virgin forest and would tend to destroy its natural setting. 3. The fence would tend to shut ot:" our home and the lots next to us from the natural view and opznness of WoL..eld woods. 4. The fence would create the a:Dp, -_-ante of a low quality develop- ment for the North Farm Road . : i and would set a dangerous precedent for future resident.iF .,velopment in Orono. As alternatives to the proposed t,,r v;e would favor birming the area next to County Road 6 or puuh,g to a row of trees and bushes, possibly with a split rail fence. ''' sol►_itions are in keeping with Orono Planning CommiEsion May 31, 1988 Page 2 the current Orono environment and work well all along County Road 6. We believe they should be utilized rather than an artificial barrier. Sincerely, Becky Field i Ben Field Timothy Adams 1810 West Farm Road Long Lake, MN 55356 June 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor, Distinguished Members of the City Council and Planning Commission Trusted Staff of the City of Orono I am writing in opposition to the granting of a variance for the construction of a 6' solid wooden fence for a distance of over 300 feet on the south side of County Road 6 just west of North Farm Road. (M1286) Consistent with the Comprehensive Play,, we have attempted to develop the Farm at Long Lake in such a way as to preserve the openness a. -id natural beauty of rural Orono. It is our opinion that a fence as proposed would work counter to these ob)ectives. I have driven County Road 6 from Plymouth to its intersection with Highway 12 and find only one instance where a solid barrier, was used to screen an unsightly storage area for dead tr- a removal. Where privacy and noise reduction were desired, I find many different uses of birrning and natural plantings. Where security and safety are desired, fencing that one car, see over, or through has been ernployed. The openness and natural beauty of rural Orono would Quickly disappear, if a solid 6' wooden fence were built Or, every subdivision lot fronting a busy street. I would also question whether there are hardships in this situatio;-, that would support the variance request. The lot is approximately 2.5 acres and has a depth of over 200' from County Rond 6. There would appear to be opportunities for creative a;rading and/--r landscaping that would alleviate problems relating to County Road 6 without jeopardizing the openr,�-_ss and natural beauty of rural Orono. We thank you for your coriside','F.t ion and hope that the city and property owner can fieid an acceptable SO 1 Lit ion. Sind:rely, T i mot hy'ogdams ti To.- Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members - City Administrator Bernhardson `'� U' hrtwi� From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator pate: July 14, 1988 Subject: #1300 Anthony Eiden 2290 & 2340 Abingdon Way - Conditional Use Permit - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lB Area - 4+ acres Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 Applicant requires a Conditional Use Permit to excavate a pond located within the shares :nt line o•. two residential lots owned by the applicant. Lot 8 contains applicants homestead and Lot 9 is currently undeveloped. The dredging of the pond exneeds the 100 cubic yards standard. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 No filling, grading, dredging, excavation is allowed within 26' of a designated/protected wetland area. Required - 26' Proposed - 20' Variance - 6' or 23% List of Rxhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - MCWD Permit Applicant Exhibit E - Cook Letter Exhibit F - DNR Wetlands Map Exhibit G - Original Proposal Exhibit H - Current Proposal Review of Application The applicant proposes the installation of a pond (aesthetic/wildlife) approximately 90' wide and with approximately 230' of length. The pond will be constructed with 3:1 bank ratios at a 4' depth. The original plan showed the encroachment of a designated wetlands protected with flowage and conservation easements taken with the Abingdon Glen plat. Review Exhibit G. In addition, review Exhibit F, the southeast portion of the proposal was also encroaching a DNR protected wetlands. As Cook's letter notes in reviewing the original plan, Exhibit E, the pond should be reduced 11 size to eliminate excavation in the designated wetlands area. If applicant chose to continue with the application seeking encroachment of the wetlands area, staff would have to ask the applicant to also file a permit application with the DNR. In consideration of the conflicts with the designated wetlands and the DNR protected wetlands, this applicant chose to have his engineer redesign the pond so that it no longer encroaches the E rotected wetlands area. Review Exhibit H. The excavation of the pond now located 20' from the (rotected Zoning File #1300 Page 2 of 2 wetlands area, requires a variance setback to the 26' setback standard of 6'. Review Exhibit H. The area of the pond adjacent to the designated wetland will not contain any exposed or disturbed soils. The fill and grading is to be done to the northwest side of the proposed pond with appropriate silt fencing to be placed at the lower elevations to prevent erosion into the lower pond elevations. After final graces are completed, seeding will immediately follow. Please note the proposed drainfield area has not been effected by the excavation of the pond nor the filling and grading to the northwest of the proposed pond area. The changes and alternations will not effect drainage as drainage will still flow to the wetlands area to the southeast. The island in the center of the pond will provide a natural habitat for the wildlife sought by the applicant. The pond will function predominantly as an aesthetic pond. The city engineer has also called note to the fact that the pond will be located over a drainage and utility easement, located along the shared lot line. He notes that this will not create any problems relative to the future use of the easement. Although the required setback of 26' has not been maintained from the designated wetland, once again staff would note that no disturbed soils would br located within the area of the wetlands and the drainage from the ne-ly filled area will be draining around over grassed areas before it reaches the wetlands to the southeast. In addition, the applicant will provide the necessary silt fencing until the ground cover has been restored. Staff Recos ndation 'o approve a Conditional Use Permit and setback variance application of .nthony Eiden for the properties located at 2290 and 2340 Abingdon Way based on the following findings: 1. The pond excavation will have no negative impact on the existing wetlands to the southeast, nor on ex -sting septic system or. Lot 8 or on the future drainfield areas Lot y. 2. The pond will provide a natural habitat for wildlife. 3. The applicant does not propose any disturbed earth being stored within the area adjacent to the wetlands. 4. Undisturbed soils will be immediately graded and seeded as soon as the excavation of the pond is completed. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Appropriate erosion control shall be maintained throughout the project, silt fencing shall be installed as shown on the plans by Coffin and Gronberg revised date, 7/12/88. 2. Applicant shall stake the proposed drainfield areas F rior to the excavation to insure protection of the proposed drainfield areas on Lot 9. 3. Upon complete of the final grades, the entire disturbed areas r shall be seeded and erosion control/silt fencing shall remain in place until ground cover is restored. Additional Cos nts and Planning Comission Recomendation August 3, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Additional Exhibit Exhibit I - Amended Survey Confirming 26' Setback 6 Dry Contiguous 2 acres The Planning Commission advised the applicant that they would not approve a substandard setback from the designated wetlands at 201. They advised the applicant that the plan had to be amended to show a 26' setback. In addition, they asked that the applicant's surveyor provide confirmation that each lot retain the 2 acres of dry contiguous land per RR-lB zoning standards. Please review Exhibit I, the amended survey submitted by Mark Gronberg that confirms a 26' setback from the designated wetland area and also confirming 2 acres of dry contiguous lands within Lots 8 and 9. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation that refused to grant a setback variance, recommending only approval of a conditional use permit for the pond, subject to the conditions noted in the .staff recommendation above. L City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COt'NCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1300 WHERE?..,, Anthony Eiden (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the properties located at 2290 and 2340 Abingdon Wa; within the City of Orono (hereinafte. "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Abind^on Glen, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has pp lied to the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to hermit the installation of a pond that would exceed the removal or excavation of more than 100 cubic yards of spoils. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1300. 2. The property is located in the RR-113 Si.ngle Family Rural Residential "-�ning District taquiring a minimum of 2 acres in area. Lots 8 and each contain '. plus acres of dry buildable area. 3. On July 18, 1988, the Orono Planning Commission approved the application as amended by the Commission based on the following findings: a) The Fond excavation will have no negative impact ct. existing wetlands to the southeast, nor on the existing sept system on Lot 6 or on tho future drainfield areas within Lot 9. b) The pond will provide a nature :1abitat for wildlife. c) The applicant does not p:^rose any disturbed earth being store) within the area adjacent to the wetlands that would encroach within the required 26' setback from the defined wetlands area. d) The disturbed soils will be immediately graded and seeded as soon as the excavation of tho pond is completed. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of the pond will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate su.rr-)unding property values and that the proposed level of use of the prote--ty will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning r e 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 " king Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the installation of a poi.d between the shared lot lines of the property, subject to thz following conditions: 1. Apprc..riate erosion controls shall be maintained throughout the project. Silt fencing shall be installed as shown on the plans by Coffin, & Gronberg, revised date 7/22/88. 2. The app 1 icai;t shall stake the alternate and principal drainf ie ld sites on Lot 9 prier to any land alteration to insure protection of the future drainfield areas. 3. Upon completion of the f-.,al grades, t, antire disturbed area shall be seeded and Bros_ on control/silt fencing shall remain in place until ground cover is restored. 4. Authorities Zted by this resolution run with the property not with the applican,, but are permissive only and must be exercized L,- application for a land alterati )n Lermit within one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit wi11 expire on that date (Au - 8, 1989). 5. Violation of or nor.-comlAiance with any of the terms and condi- tions of this resolut_on 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 al t licant has read, understood and her.t,-y agrees to the terms of this resolution rnd on behalf of himself, his heirs, suCcr­�r rq, and assigns, hereby agrees to the recordinq -f this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of August, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, M,yor Property Owner(s) , ,It;e I ()f 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ da« of , 198_ before me a Notary Public w. in and for said county, persknown to meonally ly appeared - the person(s described Tn and who executed ie foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) f -ee act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC a MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 0 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUN2J. OF HENNEPIN ) Gi, tnis day of , A. , before rie ed a Notary Public wither_ and for -aid Cok ow,n ptc�bH,p�lt �M1beearhe person(s) described it and who exec�a*�9 the foregcing i nstrument, and acknowledge<� 'hat he (they) t:xecutpd ti►e same aE- his (their) fzee act ar aeed. i NOTA?' [.IC e MY 'G` InN FXPIRF; Page 4 of A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAI. I -AND USE APPLI XTION ------------------------------------------------------------�-- PROPERTY LOCATIOA Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)/ Please check one - Property V" / abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use P.pplications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. /-I S ------------------------------.- 4 �' h�-=---- /��------ ���//�zz APPLICANT Phone (home) ----- -¢2 Name 4 Phone (work) Address �z� /i �'r/,r ,��i7 City - ( Zip .1J�3,56' ------------------------r--__ OWNER (if different ----*---------------- ----------------------- than app 16 Phone (home) Name '1en(' Phone Address City Zip Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PRRMITS - 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 15' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule O?�iR APPLICATIONS $150.00 $250.00 $150.00 $ 50.00 -- $250.00 _ $100.00 Other - Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation with Subdivision Re7oninq Appeals sere fee schedule No PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) cfa 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return addresF.. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic purvey (exi alterations involve changes 6. Construction plan, if appli 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this appl -----any-otherpersons -you -wish -n The applicant and Property Own remember that your application is not been included. -ertificat.ion by Zoning Departmen Zoning Officials Signature --------------------------------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE + d"y S51- ozsi �1N -s) if land nts). rate list of 7------------ on. Please ormation has ------------ complete. ------------ The applicant hereby agrees tc _ _ _.._. "11aLlu,i 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 intDrmation supplied is true and correct to the best of hiis/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investi.(,ation and verification of -this request. Owne:'s signature ( / Date >.{r App)icant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days he`ore the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetincas of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetinq, please make arrangements to have ar authorized agAnt attend in your place and advise the nuildinq 6 70ning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 0 a M M N J IL W Q lD L Q a (HY IL O IL L. O Q M pn M N M N Z O Z HGifflopS I,COH�t� W W I J J H Y d M � J O Ln O inLn M U M y r M y� uJ M O CON L W N N N N Cp t M H J O H LA o u J M L6 0,M on HM z N N W ]C u u W Y Z N> j- -j I y J F•' it nr u l W J O Q h �[ YW0. 1 O J< O M JO.JJ nC "1W O O IV G. M roll Y O M J 0 1n �. M O J J 04-1 Z M n W 2 H J O O W 9 1n O O J H W (ZS O Y Mf' o O M Z J u M N O Y LAno:Ck:<In M 0 W W = N P.. x < 1 H1-ui oIf i ad M Q� i P.- 0-In O W < In H O a0 N N > W M Y Co N Q a O M O O Y. M1 U z o 3 Z o M O H Y M MzHI-<�� N OI-Y3 N Ix y t z W u u'D O SOS z z {� M OOP Z COaJHHNO M O W W N J OL W m lz W Q i� lD w O 'r rx .O o Q M w 0 3 M <u> In S Z J < M N U w < 1 M < W Z N z a L O y Y y H Y M O OL < JCJ O 10 H F-O .r J J 10 O 1 Y N J M R N M M J M (�Ya OW u to W ao-c to Q UHH xT ,� h � � a ` �1 W W O IL a 1 o U. � Z Z W I!1 w 11 ui T W N Vfin Ixa LL Z ` W W W Q F- Ex .J u C F LL H m t N LL � pZa J 2 LL U ` r H n ZNI ZW M cc H U' <$ao y = N W W ►- H F 3 yJ n T T F W LL z 2 s O F- M W Y W R W y TQo JCL z C N CK 0 0 U z N IL Z n 1 it = 1 ANA 7r .1L r9SyE 0 DES` ... MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (See Reverse Side For Instructions) 1. Owner (P-1 or Type) Iraa�ssi IC,iil 1T14Pnone) (z.P) (owna srOn,t6r.) ,r Vft. (FOf, OFFICE USE ONLY) Permit pplication No. Date Received Notice Sent Agenda Date APPLICATION FOR PERMIT 3. Permit Requested For: (Check All Appropriate Boxes) B. Stcrm::ater t."anagement Plan C Commercial C Industrial C Institutional or Highway Residential C. C Floodplain Alteration (Do Not Write Above This Line) 2. Owner's Representative /rf�' T.�l%i fi rr /�J� L c' �✓r' e Ak (� (Aoor�st) IGbI (TaUpnonc) I�PI PE. R.L.S. ❑ L.A. ❑ Other D. -�<Wetland Alteration E. )< Dredging F. ❑ Shoreline/Bank Improvement G. ❑ Stream/Lake Crossing 4 Project Location: O��'�i0 (�//�/�� %✓ �✓�_ 3 1,17 (c,10 (coumY) {w Sac) (500 (TownsMp) (Sins;) 5. Describe the Protect: >�f— '.fF -r Id /�r&0�r%r^" �!/r f'fyi✓/�i✓ j 7/r/ �S•�rCJ'(! rn/i 6 If This Project Requires Municipal Approval or Review, Attach, Documentataion of Municipal Review 7. Body of Water, Stream or Wetland Affected by Runoff From This Site: c'�f<rr i��•%=ie% T^ %f f' -^r _.._. _ Distance From Project: 8 Schedule For Construction, Implementation of Temporary Erosion Controls, Substantial Completion and Restora - tion _ T4 � ------ Please (.all (612) 473.4224 it asto,,Iance in completin3 this lotm is required, In BuVmrtUng this tutnl, thu aapiscant ickno*ieayes all requirements for permit approval as deitmnined by the published Mules dated February 20. 1986 L forr" f -0 Bones t roo n Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects July 12, 198F City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: 139-1300 Anthony Eiden 2290, 2340 Abingdon Way Dear Jeanne: Otto G Bonestroo. PE Robert W Rosene. PC Joseph C Anderllk. PE Bradford A Lemberg, PC Richard E Tumer. PE James C Olson. PE Glenn R Cook, PE Thomas E Noyes, PE Robert G Schunichl, PE Manem L Sorvala. PE Keith A Gordon. PE RRha•d W foster, PE Donald C BurgardL PC Jerry A Bourdon, PC Mark A Hanson. PC Ted K Field. PE Michael T Rautmann, PE Robert R Pfefferle, PE David O Loskota. PE Thomas W Pefe'W" Pf Mil naH C Lynch, Pt lames R Mdland, PE Kenneth P Anderson, PC Keith A Bachmann, PF Mark R Rolf$. PE Robert C Russek. A I A Thomas f Angus, PC Howard A Sanford. PC Charles A F,Kkson Len M Pawel:ky Harlan M Olson Susan M Fheilm Mark A Selp The pond proposed 'between lots 2290 and 2340 Abingdon Way should be reduced in size to eliminate excavation in the designated wetlands area. The pond would be located across a drainage and utiI'ty easement. We do not feel this will create any problems relative to future use of the easment. The pond should be in accordance with watershed requirements protection of the wetland areas will be required. If you have any questions, please contact the office. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLiK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:kj I i 9687f Silt fence for 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota SS113 • 612 636 4600 SITE PLAN FOR TONY EIDEN OF LOTS 8 and 9. BLOCK 1, ABINGDON GLEN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ov/Qfv 9Jc N7°`�Jl\ 4�% J ?-..i_ _90 op - r �,Z \ ° fffrrr ,,, � •� �'i.Q�°WQo 7N rf�rl �9soa ' -, \ ti / ✓' . � / l~ 1 fib` \ \ ' I �; •f � 'P \ AALn • 1 � r! O ` O R I 1 ` II N mOa.,N IP E �resr /ot' 70.41 y _ — _ _..J I� 1 O V ' II y-. f Jste. Tifr I di!/ t"A ✓I A. / W . --� 3000 kto 0-14-8) +•1t1e coffIN i f fftiENu, INC. SCSIi: 1" . 1f5. F.nginer,s, LAnd Survoyo,-t, P;Afwwrs ..pv_.' [misting Ccnitouf : &oq Lake, Mlnro,sot4 --®--: ►rows-i Contoo. O1!yn: A-4o so 'ran' SITE PLAN FOR TONY EIDEN OF LOTS 8 and 9, BLOCK I, ABINGDON GLEN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 Data 6-14-8){ • ni+r'.• f =o'~ L4AFIN t ;.k sgblk,:. INC. frvwwwr .. L4fJ `rUfrhO:•, P-49AWrl _�,..-. i.ta)1� �c.ote�u iunq la!►�• f/ff�sata _AM_. oroyetM cantipw 00*W. 44M t*4 I It, SITE PLAN FOR TONY EIDEN OF LOTS 8 and 9, BLOCK I, ABING0014 GLEN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA a. . 00 tin, � � o\ I ��.4.•e � 44 ----- x -- -- 7+ �� N .19�S11' A E 519.01; I 7,1 ' i ut! : 0.•S? n. ,-'...,, r..r.a 'tdW I' 1fsl ~ • ff to Or, -.: (lilil.Iw cont'Ar• 4T,') —: If " t9n1 n it t.J•'tR: aw /04 Ir.•� Cfi F IN L 6N41HKRti, IK. twtir Pv,,., Lind Stwvfy9-. J MnfrS I M' I ILA• Fitntlowts r. U G 819, g To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley �� OF Planning Commission Members � City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: July 14, 1988 Suuj: #1304 Richard Bloomquist/nick's Super Valu/3333 Shoreline Drive Variances-Pu:)lic Hearing Zoning District - B-3 Pertinent Sections of the Ordinance - Section 10.61 Subd. 3e, Street setback for existing pylon sign approximately 20+ feet in height to be relocated as a result of County Road improvement. Required = 10' Existing - 10'+ Proposed = 3'+ Variance = 7' or 70% Section 10.42 Subd. 7d Section 10.61 Subd. 5k, - Street Setback for Parking Required = 20' (Navarre District City has Allowed 10') Proposed = 0' Variance = 20' or 100% Section 10.61 Subd. 4f - Parking Spaces - Size of Parking Area Required = 9' x 20' Proposed = 3'6" x 20' Total at.,a required for storage plus backout maneuver = 300 sq. ft. Proposed - 383 sq. ft. List of Bxhibitk - A - Application E - Property Owner's List C - Plat Map D - Applicant's written Position to County and City E - Applicant's Statement of Hardships F - County Road 15 & 19 Improvements and Dedication of Additional Right-of-way G - Existing Parkinq Plan with 9' x 20' Stalls H - Proposed Parking Plan with 8'6" x 20 Stalls Review of Current Application - Both the Public Works and Zoning Staffs have met at least two times out on the site to discuss the effects of the additional acquisitions of right-of-way by the County for the improvements and upgrading of County Roads 15 and 19 with the Navarre Super Valu representatives. The additional right-of-way to be taken from the Super Valu property totals 0,127 sq. ft. This acquisition along the North and Zoning File 01304 Julv 14, 1988 Page Two of Three East borders of the property have had a major impact on the Super Valu parking area requiring the removal of 15 existing stallp. Roth the County and the City staffs have reviewed the new location for the existing pylon sign. They find no problem with the sighting distance at the _ -rner because of the height of the sign and the ' act that it is placed at least 10' to 12' out of the travelled right-of-way of the roadways because of the width of the walking path and boulevard area. Once again both County and C4ty staffs see no problem with the location of the parking area commencing at the zero setback line. The County has agreed to install a 1' bituminous curb between the parking area and the cement walk. The bumper will serve to provide the additional area for the overhand of the car pumpers along east and north lot lines_ The applicant must explain the hardship that would require the reduction in area of the required stall size at 9' x 20'. Review the required parking standards below: Totai area of structure = 16,864 sq. ft. (reduce by 10% for hallways, offices, non-commercial/warehouse storage areas = 15,178 sq. ft.]. Required parking for net floor area at 15,178 sq. ft. of retail space 1 stall for each 150 sq. ft. of net floor area Required = 101 Stalls Existing = 122 Stalls 9' x 2C' Stalls - Proposed = 107 Stalls 8' 5" x 20' Stalls - Proposed = 1 1 4 Stalls The 9' x 20' plan clearly satisfies the required number of stalls for the use. Staff has discussed the applicants request to reduce the required stall size to 8'5" x 20' with the engineer. Cook has sratea that it does work when it is necessary to tighten up on parking areas and it is usually carried out by double striping the sides of the limited stall. The double stripes for^e the driver to tighten up within the parking area. Is it needed? Staff has never received a report of any problem with the parking not satisfying the existing t.se level. If at some time in the future, if the applicant has definite expansion plans, then staff would advise that we reconsider the request to reduce the stall size. Staff would also suggest that there is additional area within the far scutheast corner of the property that could be developed into additional parking. Also be aware that the City is looking at the possible redevelopment and rezoning within the area of Navarre and this may result in a more comprehensive plan to provide additional parking within the downtown area of Navarre. Staff Recomm&ndatJon - Staff would recommend approval of the setback variance of 7' for the relocation of the pylon sign, to approve the zero foot setback for the parkirg area adjacent to the north and east lot lines, Toning File #1.304 July 14, 1988 Page Three of Three and to temporarily deny the applicant's request for a variance that would reduce the required parking stall size, based upon the following findings: 1. The location of the sign will not. create a sighting problem for any of the users of the intersection of County Road 19 and 15. 2. The location of the sign will not present a safety hazard to the users of the publ.i^ roadways. 3. The parking area will in reality be separated by the county roadways by approximately 1( feet. 4. The Co,irty will provide a one foot buffer so that cars will not hang out over the wa 1 away adjacent. to the north and east lot lines of the Super Valu racking lot. 5. The loss of some 8,127 sq. ft. of parking lot area has created a major hardship for the applicant. The need for the setbacks has been created not by a mure intense use of the property, but by an immediate need to improve the intersections of 15 and 19 in Navarre. 6. Applicant's reque:,t for an 816' x 20' stall size may be premature and until a formal request for an addition or expansion in the use of the property is received, the City will postpone any acticn on this phase cf the variance a�_,I ication. ADDITIONAL CONKENTS - JULY 14, 1988 Planning Cosnsission Recoststendation The applicant was not present at the meeting, but the Planning Commission continued with the formal review of the variance application. Staff advised the Planning Commission that the applicant has already been made aware that the City did not feel it necessary to discuss a variance for a parkinq stall size since there was no parking stall variance required as a result of the reduced parking area because of the County's upgradinq of the intersection 15 and 19 at intersection in Navarre. The Planninq commission adopted the staff recommendation and ir, addition based approval on the condition that if the existing siqn is relocated or a new siqn is installed within the substandard setback area, that the aptlican# must apply for the City's altroval prior to that installation. The enclosed staff resolution has been drafted ler Planni• Commission recommendation. City of OROI`r O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.42, SUBDIVISION 7 (D), SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5 (B), AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 3 (E) FILE #1304 WHEREAS, Richard Bloomquist, an authorized agent of Rick's Supe: Valu (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property locate( at 3333 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") anc legally described as Tract D, Registered Land Survey Number 1422, Hennepi) County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances t, Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.42, Subdivision 7 (D), Section 10.61 Subdivision 5 (B), and Section 10.61, Subdivision .. (E) resulting from th, upgrading of County Roads 15 and 19 within the Navarre area; the applican, seeks a street setback variancE of 7' for a pylon sign to be installed from the newly aligned property line rather than the required 10' and as result of the redesignated parking areas within the parking lot seeks street setback variance for parking proposed at 0' were 20' would b required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of -rono FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1304. 2. The property is located in the B-3, Shoppinq Center Busines District requiring a minimum of 2 acres in area. The prope.ty consi.: of approximately 2 acres in area. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on Jul 18, 1988, and recommended approval. of the variances as amended base upon the following findings: A) The location of the sign will not create a sighting proble for any of the users of the intersection of County Roads 19 an 15. B) The location of the sign will not present a safety hazard t the users of the public road wa7 or r.arkinq lot of the Supe Valu store. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. C) The parking area will be separated from the county road improvements by approximately 101,these improvements consist of 1 1/2' wide bituminous/curve, sidewalk, and boulevard area. D) The County will provide a 1 1/2' buffer so that cars will not extend out over the walkway adjacent to the north and east lot lines of the Super Valu parking lot. E) The loss of some 8,127 s.f. of parking lot area has created a major hardship for the applicant. The need for the setbacks has I -,(-en created not by a more intense use of the property, but by G ublic safety need to improve the intersections of 15 and 19 in Navarre. 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, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (E), Section 10.42, Subdivision 7 (D) and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (B) permitting the relocation of a pylon sign locate 3' off the street right-of-way requiring approval of a 7' or 70% variance and the realignment of parking areas adjacent to County Roads 15 and 1 9 set 0' from the lot line rather than the required 20' requiring a 100% variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is hereby advised that if the existing sign is to be relocated or a new sign installed within the substandard setback area that this must be atl.roved by the City prior to the installation. Page 2 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ----- - -- 2. Authorities granted with 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 8, 1989). 3. Violation of of 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. 4. The undersigned applicant have read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chair, of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of August, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owners) Paqe 3 of 4 City of ORO O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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. 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 person(s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstrument I and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act. and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICAT Initial Application Fee $150.00- ($50.00 oer each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 - (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) ----------------•------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION - vv, Site Address 33 ��t�`tllr , ti !�!'� /��1k�'rliC,C r f%%/i.� Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ —/L 7-"2- 3 ' P. Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT ` Phone (home) 6l- _G`4 31 - �;14 7 3 �, / Name �C V L�/1l i` Ft �YYI Phone (work) Address: City: �£ l� �Et Zip:•6-S-417 -----------------------------------------------------�--------- ------ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name /i (�' ►'1 Ge f l� P o e ( w/ork ) Address: ��( '�� City• t ZN/1t// Zip: e'- •0'%1 Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District /, '-J Present Use of Property <-�t'f//1� 1 Other (specify) -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ DESCR•IPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail.: VARIANCES RE!)UIRED _✓ Let Area Lot Width ��� Hardcover Setbacx Variances ( L Fr nt ✓ Side Rear) Other �(�� r ! ( �A,!' 711 �" - c"C"•%J�il' �iJ.t f / •� f HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical/difficulty resulting .from strict e f orcement ,of zon' ng/ regu latiJons :��i. k 1r1< <t Ee< <-� '� I i1 Cr I n ---10 W, ---i---� --------'-------------------.--------------._----- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual propert conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Re L11 rementS :�� /7 �t't�%.t'!f� 'Y1 U�'/`�r=' r ��2'i'�' /'•� --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- �EQUIRED SUBMITTALS ✓1. Completed Application Form ..t,,%, Certified Property Owners List of owners A 'yin 150' (you must obtain �L9 this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). V13. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (A10) pre-a3dressed 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. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred 'r. review of this application, and certifies that the information supplie is rue and orrect t the best of his/tier knowledge. Applicant's Signature' [,� lZ eccl.' Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ack wledges and agre s to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission. Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent .ittend in your place acid to advise the twilding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. W n 0 Q O O N N Z W W W D cliW W J FM O LAO P 0 0 O Z W M O > `> Z Z N O O F + O O u u N V. O< T L P W R P .t W W M QQQQo p W J J �S � .» A O O in ..<r<ZN < N O U) M $ Q iO H 11 LA M r>> N O Cr iQ ZW M r Z N O < N PAX ul 6, n r N O r N I O 1/ W W I< J W 1 << M n �p nSNNyZ I�SIJ �O n mmNZ h W-J rYJ W y J .r 1 W W 1 .Ni W I I h H X W I Y~ < m n O O O W W K C)L L X O << O Ix O J= H J r N C, 0 lb 0 m N UNO C',Z Z m C •V -+ N WA r r N<{ Q< N J J m H H O> N L Z N r H r :I W f N t Q N< < M O M H M u U D N O O< M O �> U Z co N<< Qp M O G. a s L M • -.. • te a Z 1'> t C, O W u M L W W W O .. O Iv 0 n N J O O W �+ O W M O O O Q < O W F- O O M M O � M �' M O > W ! O S M W W Ill O W r N P S cn N W N J Z S JZ OQu��S M �8H W -i LaiNN N IN N 1fl J J Y In 20 W J t 1fl y W ~ 1 W W J H H< IM1 M U. F•"o Ln J y�Q Muj -J 20 Mr rl MYO<S•-J N M N > t M OO> ` n I { J Iix a , O Z� W i < N< N� J N n S<J •. n .. O7� yLL L L Y r> H I H H �NZZHu ZZ W 1 � N p, ZZ 1 J u U W H . ti I J J J W H I n ZZ.d n N O �00c O W LO SL O N YN O C',J W W J 1NJW . •+ O W m-4 O � O CL u O O Q N LL, >> W MOJ W N Z O U cr C X> N W O N O Lion a.W U <JX 1-l- 3I'l cc n X O O N W N N �+ OJ J NW M O n l m i 1�/ 0 O M ••+ L �1 a a N W ^ W W I -P J W P P 0 OaNa .Oi O O O `»< ` O O l J N Q O 0 N J < onCK 0 H O W O p W MZ J N P �M O J W J N J dZ«Zlfl O Z Z O N P M 0 M W O N Y Pon' O rr W S P -W J J H 611,1 W N J !� * W N �80 ip O O u m ,,,�� �N J i� LA µZ1w N J>> If1 r.<r< IrI < YI N M W W N Z M W W ►- > N ZQ `< M r N << M Wa C NO ON M W{{ N Y Y M T N O F N JQ 1� JX W •"1 L L-A U, 1 W I M N 1 F- F- O W I > ►•• W y1 OQ X0 or W 1 ]G < O W O` VIO VI O �i{Or NUI ZZ O a J C t NMUQ 1H M W Z N M t go N Z S f NMN W < O W I•+ r N L2 Nr +UJO> p 1 { { Q M J J J Jr-►- > S� N in in l u 4 M10 Z MI•-a/--�I D M Q O r- O O 1�/0 VI K x JUUO> M H H ` oa a s Z In N< < M` O 0N3 IA OyH��0 2 �^ O R II �+G �+�+ tSQ•. L '# L QQO {Q� l OOQ O Q S oO Q L R W{ xx{ O Z W< a . Q< W c.7 W` ! -9 \ Q x< Q< Q IL MI R t W a a t gQ. '•L gCO I t t l I L N N W um W CK W W r O r 4� - < Z W O W r ►ti H<r <o� <FY r Q W < a tW u O _ < 4 > < O O W Wr0 WN2 N < W �►►"-Q6� W W W ` O Y Wm O Mi S 1 F U < Z W N W W r � J Lt ►+ W Y H ffl W cz W S Y W r L u ..aoo I `. l�y�. •.. . n`I .- y •1 O •T W, s , 1 ''•I nM lo p. 4 l r ^ f w 1 N f ,1 .fin` �� "f •A+ IL /• �•,. ,, ec' •,do- �4�, ♦ ' •` ,� � Z j„. , • •r �� J�a• � y, +;.:,ys Of • N ' d cw' + / v! su �� "�•' ry. 1, � /t, • - i ♦ � � fV Wi .� N`•� / +�� P 1 to •t� 1 •C �/ J 7 • R I\ r' 'A �', i.i r/ Mx.Oc A a' Y 3, , •� •.} I ' 1 ♦\^lam',. l o• T, w. t n W •:- 1 - Iln d? N i N L i w � �; t � Vt•V w s N , y ��• - N + Y � . " •• „ i t '•1�. 'i. NdwH3, • ' w s o ) o r c Mgpor 0 Q.I J June 3, 1988 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administration 1335 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: The attached drawing will clarify my position on parking at my place of business we discussed at our previous meeting. In order to maximize my parking due to the Hennepin County condemnation of 8,127 s.f. of my parking lot, I have reduced the width of the stalls from 9 ft. to 8.5 ft. In order to further enhance my parking ratios, I would ask for your approval of the following: 1. Waiver of any landscapinq or greenspace required by ordinance. 2. Waiver of any setback requirements on the perimeter of my leased property bordering on County roads 15 and 19. Essentially allowing parking to the newly established property line. 3. That a bituminous curb be installed on the property line for the safety of my customers and the local residents who will be using the sidewalk for walking and recreational pu►poses. Furthermore, that Hennepin County incur the expense of the placement of the safety curb. 4. To enhance the maintenance of the buffer area, I would suggest that the 5 foot concrete sidewalk be placed near the roadway and that the bituminous surface oe installed on the inner portion of the buffer area. Please expedite this matter in your approval channels and thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact m,. at 471-8413 on any questions you may have. Sincerely, lo ick Sloomquist,, flick's Super Yalu RB:lja 74 Af 5 . a . I 1 .. I1 CO J Av Z �~ uj cc c0 was 1 To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson T.UG 819��8 OF owdst, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & 7oni r Administrator August 4, 1988 #1291 Alfred Iverson, 2835 Casco Point Road - Variance - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit B - Original Hardcover Plan at 38.4% with Limited Turn- around Area Exhibit C - Applicant's Revised Pldn Providing Expanded Turn -around Area with Additional Hardcover Exhibit D - Council Action Notice Exhibit E - Plan Designating Additional Hardcover not Included in Original Calculations - Hardcover. Now at 40.9% Revised Hardcover Facts Original Hardcover = 10,864.4 s.f. or 38.4% Revised Total Hardcover = 11,609.5 s.f. or 40.9% (paving = 219.5 s.f., land (per applicant's recent submittal) scaping area = 526 s.f.) Per applicant's plan, additional hardcover for turn -around = 11,094 s.f. or 39.1% (230 s.f. of additional hardcover or .7%) Staff Confirmation of hardcover per revised plan = 11,160 s.f. or 39.4% (296 s.f. of additional hardcover or 1%) rieview of Applicant's Current Request Please review Council Action Notice (Exhibit D), that advises the apl;liant that staff is limited to approving only a 38.4% hardcover allowance and that any requests for additional hardcover would have to ba approved by the Council. Applicant was also advised that it was apparent that the majority of Council Members opined that the 38.4% appeared to be an excessive amount. The Planning Commission Chairman, who represented the Planning Commission at the Council meeting, also advised that it was the majority opinion of the Planning Commission that 38.4% was a reascnabie amount to hold the improvements at. The applicant advises in the addendum (Exhibit A) that the turn -around provided by the contractor was not adequate for their use and asks the Council to reconsider in light of the 40.9% of actual hardcover on the property. If the Council wishes to change the 38.4% allowance, then direct staff to amend the original resolution to include the revised amount. Ct, �AYM cLoF.A, /L a !''� �� l �^ G }'L,� �k. • C t. �1%' � ���. �,( ci (.�. ('f' C � L Q � � �� 1. �, � G1tC �4' . 4,6 SI-- L / •,�-cC 1,lot. Lbe- � � _1 ' f Cr•. 1, c -i--J li � •� G ,� 4 Q�i � • �, M C� /�-e _ ,';. �- �.� L� L �L L +1 �c��.. „ry CZt�..�-• cl;1,ca 1 `f �..6LtiLycVLC et Lt,%,) L C j., � !ivLl�' �,� , � ;, �C'1:'�L.t l „4 �t �,(.F-tcZ 1 i. i►'� i lea A --'I -%- r� Nrn;. � Y r ;41 it 1 , 115 i-:o^1. 2 0 APPLICATION NO. #1291 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 07/28/88 --------------------------•------------------------------------------------- TOs Mr. 6 ';rs. Alfred Iverson COPIES: R. Olson 2835 Casco Point Road Randahl Construction Inc. Wayzata, MN 55391 4809 Idaho Avenue North Crystal, MN 55428 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ------------------------------------------------------------ DhTE OF NESTING: 07/25/88 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - NOTIONs To approve your hardcover variance application subject to the findings and conditions of the resolution sent to you prior to the meeting which held all improvements on your property whithin the 75-250' setback area at 38.40 In response to certain questions posed to Councilmember Callahan on the site prior to the meeting, please be advised that the hardcover noted by you, specifically, the landscape area with plastic and the bituminous path to the tennis court were not included in that existing hardcover calculations. Per the Council directives this can have no bearing on your request for additional hardcover for a turn around, as they have agreed that you must be held to the 38.4%. Your contractor advised that a turn around had been provided based on the 38.4%. This was confirmed at the meeting in reviewing the revised site plan presented by your contractor for the most recent review of the Council. Council did not wish to delay the construction of your new addition realizing the uncoming fall and winter months and advised your wife that they would approve the 38.41 limit for hardcover and that you were to work with your contractor to determine if this was going to be acceptable. If the 38.4% is not acceptable please contact my office and we will arrange to reschedule you before the Council meeting of August 8, 1988. You should be aware tha' . veral members of the Council felt that 38.4% hardcover was excessive . ount and felt that the property should be limited to the 38.4%. If you do require additional turn around area you may have to consider reducing hardcover through other proposed improvments not your driveway area. You should also be aware that your contractor has already stated that the hardcover from the plastic underneath the landscaping adjacent to your home would be removed anyway with the new construction. In addition the 38.4% approved would also eliminate the existing path to your tennis court. If you have no questions and are able to proceed with the original approval resolution directives please make arrangments to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. Please note variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes and approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. Permit application must be submitted no later than 7-25-89. MIAJ. Jurn � E1.UG 81h a T ~l OF VR44i.> To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates August 3, 1988 Subject: #1280 Wendy Weihe, 1376 Baldur Park Road - Variance - Resolution Consent Agenda Attached is a resolution for approval of the hardcover and setback variances granted to Wendy Weihe at your last meeting on a vote 4 to 0. Proposed motion: Moved, seconded, to approve resolution t granting hardcover and setback variances to Wendy Weihe, 1376 Baldur Park Road. ayes, nays. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIAINCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 i 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 - FILE #1280 WHEREAS, Wendy Weihe (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1376 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 20 and that part of Lot 21, Block 1, "Baldur Park" described as follows: beginning on the meander line at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 21; thence Northwesterly on said line a distance of 50' to the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 21; thence Southwesterly on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 21 a distance of 231; thence Southeasterly to a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 21, 66.5' Southwesterly from said Northeasterly corner; thence Northeasterly on said Southeasterly line 66.5' to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions being less than the required 75' setback from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and constituting hardcover in the 0-75, and 75-250' lakeshore setback zones in excess of the 0% and 25% hardcover percentages normally allowed in those respective zones. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 41280. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 20, 1988, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The area of the property is approximately 13,450 s.f., of which 10,800 s.f. is located within the 0-75' setback zone. Page 1 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. B) The existing residence structure is located 28' from the shoreline with a secona story deck located 20' from the shoreline. Existing hardcover on the property in the 0-75' zone is 30.4% and in the 75-250' zone is 49.0%. C) The proposed additional structure includes completion of the second story over the entire existing house, with a 3-level addition between the existing house and the garage, plus a new second story deck at the northwest end of the house. None of the additions will be closer to the lake than the existing house and deck. D) The applicant's original proposal showed a reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' zone from 30.4% to 30.1%, and from 49.0% to 44.4% in the 75-250' zone. The initial Planning Commissior review of that proposal resulted in direction from the Planning Commission to further reduce hardcover on the property, hence applicant returned with a proposal for 30.0% in the 0-75' zone and 38.9% in the 75-250' zone. The Planning Commission found this substantial hardcover reduct__ to be a positive aspect of this application and recommended approval. E) Due to the fact that this property has lakeshore on 2 sides, with a relatively small area in the 75-250' setback zone, the property has some unique hardships in that it could not support any additions without variances. F) The proposed additions will create no significant visual encroachment of views enjoyed by neighboring property owners, and will not be visually obtrusive within the landscape due to the topography within the immediately adjacent areas. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Ltaff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon- strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 ` City of OR ONO RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL Mel CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 6 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence which will constitute additional structure and hardcover in the 0-75' zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and which will constitute hardcover in the 75-250' in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover on the property is allowed only as follows and per the site plan attached as Exhibit A: House plus addition 1529 s.f. Deck plus stairs 605 s.f. Sidewalks 157 s.f. Garage 637 s.f. Driveways 1303 s.f. Retaining walls 43 s.f. Total 4274 s.f., of which 3242 s.f. is within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone and 1032 s.f. is within the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. All other existing hardcover including decorative rock beds underlaid by plastic sheeting shall be removed prior to final inspection and occupancy of the additions. The applicant is advised that any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting in no net increase of hardcover. 2. The applicant is advised that the lower floor level of the addition shall be at an elevation of 932.5' or higher. 3. The applicant is further advised that if for some reason the foundation of the existing house has to be replaced, that further Council review may be required to determine whether a relocation of the house is required. 4. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 8, 1989). Page 3 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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 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 Orono City Council on this 8th day of August, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 5 w City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198 before me a Notary Public within and for saj'cV county, persona to be ly appeared the persons 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 red a Notary Public within and for said Cokn w/n ptosome11to abeeathe person s escribed 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 8488. 2 C0URN C11 I N G UG 8 T. iJi:�� TO: Mayor and City Council OF �" : • �, ff FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJRCT: Orono/Long Lake Discussions ISSUE_ - Establishment of dates for the discussion between Orono and Long Lake. INTRODUCTION - During the past two weeks I have been working with the facilitator and Arlo Vande Vegte of long Lake in establishment of the appropriate dates for the discussions. DISCUSSION _ - As a preparatory step to the joint facilitation meeting, Barbara Arney would like to meet with each of Councilmembers from both communities on an individual basis for approximately 20 minutes each. These are presently scheduled to be held between 4:00 and 8:00 P.M. on Monday, August 29, 1988. Please contact me if this presents a problerr, for any of you. Subsequent to that a joint meeting will then be held on Thursday, September 15, 1988, to focus on the issue of the Long Lake sewer plant property. Location for the meetings will be established at a later date as will times for the individual meetings. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Establish the dates proposed 2. Modify the dates 3. Table RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council establish August 29, 1988 as an individual discussion meeting between the facilitator and each of the members of the Council together with Thursday, September 15, 1988 for the facilitated discussion on the sewer plant property. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , the Council established August 29, 1988 as an individual d scussion meeting between the facilitator and each of the members of the :ouncil together with Thursday, September 15, 1988 for the facilitated discussion on the sewer plant property. Ayes __, Nays cc: Barbara Arney 8488. 3 f TO: Mayor and City Council �.0 r FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park/Lawsuit Attachment: A. Draft Letter Regarding Lake Minnetonka Regional Park ISSUE 1. Providing information for the Council regarding the Mayor's meeting in Lake Minnetonka Regional Park lawsuit. 2. Provision to the Council of additional legal. information related to potential co,:rses of action. INTROD_UCT_ION - At the Council_ my 25, 1988 Council meeting the issue of financial support of -innetrista or in the alternative legal support was reviewed. As a result of the meeting the staff drafted, for the Mayor, a letter requesting that the communities around the lake join together in amicus curiae brief in zupport of Minnetrista but not as a party to the lawsuit. DISCUSSION _ - Present at the Mayor's meeting in addition to the Mayor's of Mound; Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista and Orono were Council representatives from Tonka Bay and Shorewood together with Neil Webber the Hennepin Parks representative for this area, and Shirely Bonine, Chair of the Hennepin Regional Parks System and Tim Thornton an attorney with Briggs and Morgan who will be undertaking the case on behalf of the iandc iers. The initial reaction, by the landowner's attorney, to the idea of the amicus curiae brief was that it would be of little effect at the trial court level, although more effect at the appeals level (indicating that either party would probably appeal a decision) and that for approximately $2,000 apiece the cities around the lake could participate as a party with the City of Minnetrista. Over the course of discussion this was reduced to the range of $300-400 and finally at the end of discussion for perhaps as little as $50-100. Orono's Mayor questioned au to why the reduction in price together with the need for the cities around the lake to try and # expend $15,000-20,000 on an issue where the City of Minnetrista and Hennepin Parka were only differing on a small number of acies. fie indicated that the issue of the condemnation authority and the law were a separate issue and may need to be dealt with in a separate manner but that the parties should work hard on solving the Minnetrista/Hennepin Parks problem. Following that discussion I discl!ssed the m,,tter with our O attorney who in turn is contacting Tim Thornton and Dave Sellergren the Attorney for Minnetrista regarding the legal participation and/or support obtained the views from Jim Thorton with Briggs and Morgan. ALTERNATIVES Issue 1 - Information 1 1. Accept 2. Acknowledge and request additional information 3. Table Issue 2 - Further Courses of Action 1. Determine the level of interest in the amicus curiae 2. Refer back to the City Attorney for further legal recommendations 3. Undertake support of Minnetrista as a party in the lawsuit 4. Table 5. Take no action RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City go forward to determine if there is interest by others around the lake in participating in an amicus curiae brief particularly at the point that it is appealed above the trial court level. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Orono Council direct staff to undertake the survey of communities around the lake to determine the level of support for an amicus curiae brief or other support for Minnetrista and bring that back to Council fir their consider?tion at a subsequent meeting. Ayes __, Nays __ 7298A 1 4T-TAO-HaCNT A Mayor Dear Mayor Recently you recieved a letter from Mayor Smith of Mound regarding a resoltuion of support for the City of Minnetrista in their lawsuit against Hennepin Parks over the Regional Park issue. At its July 11, 1988 meeting the Orono Council adopted a resolution of support. In discussing what support beyond a resolution was appropriate, the Council indicated an interest in possibly undertaking an amicus curiae brief. It was felt that a joint effort by the cities around the lake may be an effective way to support Minnetrista. Should you have an interest in this effort or alternative ideas please return the attached sheet to determine preliminary interest. Should sufficient support exist it would be appropriate for those interested to meet and discuss issues related to: - Issues to be addressed in brief - Legal form t( handle - Means to fini-ace Returning the form is only a indication of interest and does not entail any commitment on your city's behalf. Sincerely, James R. Grabek Mayor LAKE MINNETONKA REGIONAL PARR AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF TheCity of — ----------------------------------------- Interested in exploring the submission of such a brief Not interested in such participation Is interested in ----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- as an alternative means of support Please return to: James R. Grabek, Mayor City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 !.0 G 8191'(1), To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator r:,'y''a6.d From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 3, 1988 Subject: Bohns Point Feasibility Study At the July 11, 1988 Council meeting the Council tabled the Bohns Point Road Feasibility study. Since that time I have had discussions with Mr. Clark Winslow 1595 Bohns Point Road regarding the cost of the study. Mr. Winslow has stated that the residents will agree to paying for 2/3rds of the cost of the study as compared to 1/2 of the cost previously. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by the the Council direct the City Engineer to undertake the necessary feasibility study for Bohr's Point Road upgrade and curbing together with the expanded width '-ut that the City not at this time undertake a feasibility study for Bohn's Point Circle deferring any action until the City makes determinations as it relates to public and private roads. Ayes _, Nays __ tip TO: Mayor and City Council ►�:; . O: FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator '!�L 11 DATE: June 22, 1988 (Le ' y SUBJECT: Bohn's Point - Request for Feasibility Study Attachment: A. Bohn's Point Request for Feasibility Study Dated 6/7/88 ISSUES - 1. Request for reconsideration of the issue of a feasibility on Bohn'E Point Road, a public street. 2. Reconsideration of the issue of feasibility on Bohn's Point Circle. INTRODUCTION - During discussions with one of the Councilmembers I felt it appropriate to bring back the issue of the feasibility request for the upgrading/widening and curbing of Bohns Point Road feasibility study. DISCUSSION - 1. Bohn's Point Road - The publicly owned portion of read of which 54% oAl the people have requested an upgrade as noted in Attachment B. Desire tc have the road widened and the issue of curbing explored. The cost for that feasibility study would be $2,000.00. The cost of this feasibility study, should the project go ahead, would be incorporated into the project cost and be assessed against the property owners. 2. Bohn's Point Circle - This privately owned but publicly maintained roac has been requested to be increased from 16' to 201, and that the City woulc take this portion over. There would be no change in the cost of the feasibility study if the circle was included in the study. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Bohn's Point Road A. Agree to reconsider B. Choose to undertake C. Table D. Choose not to undertake Issue 2. Bohr's Point Circle A. Feasibility Study 1. Reconsider 2. Choose to undertake . Table 4. Choose not to undertake B. Public Take Over 1. Consider the take-over 2. Indicate the City has no desire in the take-over 3. Table for further consideration on the public/private road matter Bohn's Point - Request for Feasibility Study June 22, 1988 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council order the feasibility study provided the residents are willing to pay half the cost of the feasibility study on Bohn's Point Road. It is additionally recommended that the City not undertake the feasibility study of Bohn's Point Circle at this point. PL)POSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council direct the City Engineer to undertake the necessary feasibility study for Bohn's Point load upgrade and curbing together with the expanded width but that the City not at this time undertake a feasibility study for Bohn's Point Circle, deferring any action until the City makes determinations as it relates tc public and private roads. Ayes _., Nays _ cc: Judson Dayton, 1655 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata I I RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF Orono, Minnesota: 1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of Bohns Point Road and Bohns Point Circle, filed with the council on June 13, 1988, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. 2. The petition is hereby referred to Glenn Cook, City Engineer, and he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the Council this llth day of July, 1988. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk pi Management CorporWK �C 1+t5i it I' 1 ,dXA_j /)'.a 3600 P�psr Jalfray Tow( WrineaMlis. Minnesota 54( CIarM J. Window Senior Vice Presidenl ; PETITION (612) 332 1544 A1fianceCapttal ,D, representing more than 35% of the owners of property locates on tsonn's Point Road, in the City of Orono, do hereby request that the City of Orono perform a feasibility study to determine the feasibility and cost of widening Bohn's Point Road to 22 feet, the circle at the end thereof to 20 feet, and repaving the same with a bituminous overlay. We further request that the study examine the feasibility and costs of various curb installations, particularly a tar curb. Na6f' i Address Date N An e/ /� ,2 -�-- �� jL1. /y kd Address Date A tiame ^ J Address Date Name Address Date Name Address d-0;1-W _ Date 1 1 Name Address Da e — - = D� JUN - 7 b .4 Name Name Address Address Date Date Name Name Address Address / Date Date Name Name Address Address �^ CL Date Date Name G G Address Date Name Address Date INN E Ti �11 f /. pj � 'f qX+'f' LL oAYJ ,� � � � �%Yo 'r%, • .\;-�: =`` fit, � �!a -''' "' . • 2 ''y\'f v,_ �� J%`/ •� w�CtG" Cc:l• vt IF may', ,i� I . V •!' _ . �' Cl. to OKA 1 x 0 no. His �� CHI :. -% I •..►(f � h •w... .1�.:'n•- `� •` -�� ^` 'A '• DNS N g (�>~+i � ar..�P4 Pr. �I+ psi (n �• "" /,/'o (ii«l (•l—� 53 Ali UB�D.' ' f •• i ' too Y • �tiS''�� %a wa•rvw�• • \ N •.ry i KE _: r s 8488.6 / TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Operations Policy Attachments: A. Art Finkelstein Letter Dated 6/27/88 B. Lake Minnetonka Lake Level Memo Dated 4/l/88 ISSUE _ - Presentation of information to Council based on research done by Mr. Finkelstein in relationship to the control structure operation policy by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 11, 1988 meeting they ed addressth_e issues raised by Mr. Finkelstein by requesting that he do research with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding its operation policy and provide feedback to the Council. D_IS_C_U_S_S_ION - As noted in Attachment A Mr. Finkelstein has had an opportunity to review the operating policy with Jim Mahady of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. At the end of Mr. Finkelstein's report he raises three issues which he would like to see addressed. They are as follows: Public Information Headwaters Management Policy renewal Orono representative on the MCWD 1. Public Information - As you are aware the Council does receive copies of the -graph related to the lake levels on a monthly basis from MCWD and recently those have been published in the Weekly Ntws. It may be appropriate that MCWD provide these also to the Pioneer/Laker. A related question as noted by Mr. Finkelstein to this is that the graph is not a linear graph in that the time periods on the horizontal axis are not equal time periods and he has shown in his graph how that changes the perception of the graph's progress. 2. Headw_ate_rs_ Management Policy - It is appropriate that the C_ ity of Orono have input on —the --management review policy when it comes for renewal in March of 1989. It is my understanding that this will transmitted to each of the cities in the watershed district substantially in advance so that each city can have its input. specifically as for the suggestion of a higher lake level over winter that issue may oe difficult to predict on the cycle of dry periods, but will be a suggestion that can be to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Orono Representative - In the initial memo I incorrecting 1 stated that there no lake representatives. In the fall of 1987 two individuals from the lake were appointed as representatives, however, neither of these are Orono people. To the extent the Council would like either an Orono representative or an LMCD representative on the MCWD the City should continue to submit its support of such individuals when there are vacancies on the MCWD. ALTER14ATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Request further information. 3. Table for further action. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Counci 1 accept the -------------- report from Mr. Finkelstein and bring the issue back to the Council when it receives information regarding the Waters Management Policy in advance of the March 1989 renewal date. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , the Council accepts the report from Mr. Finkelstein and instructs staff to bring the issue back to the Council when it receives information regarding the Waters Management Policy in advance of the Marc, 1989 renewal date. Ayes Nays cc: Art Finkelstein Jim Mahady Manager Spensley, MCWD 4T-rA 0- 4 M Arthur B. Finkelstein 1140 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 July 27, 198S Mark Be.nhardson, City Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Lake Minnetonka Water Levels At an early April meeting of the council, you were kind enough to allow me to query MCWD on policy and procedures regarding Lake Minnetonka water level maintenance. On April 15th the MCWD Engineering Representative, James Mahady, forwarded tc me a copy of the Managemc t Policy and Operating Procedures. On June 3rd I t with Mr. Mahady to discuss some questions I had on a procedures and my concerns about practices regarding the Gray's Bay Dam. Specifically, my concern was on the regulation of Laub Minnetonka water level, per existing policy and the possible deviation from this policy. The increase in water levels after the July 23, 1987 rainfall and the rapid outflow of the water suggested that there was discharge a' the dam Letwien the storm and first ice Specifically my concern was not so much on the policy but my suspicions that the policy was not being followed. The inc- .n water levels after the July 23, 1987 rainfa- the rapid outflow of water thereafter suggc to me that there had been discharge at the dam even though levels indicated otherwise. After my m eting vith Mr. hahady, I felt more comfortable t-at policy has been followed and that the water level in Lake Minnetonka is more a factor of the drought than any ossible discharge to Minnehaha Creek. Periodically the MCWD via the District Engineer sends A to the various municipalities new data on lake levels that are graphed. A copy is enclosed. Two things should be noted: 1) The date axis (x axis) is non linear. This tends to distort the d:-ata a bit. 2) On the 5th of January, 1988 the zero elevation for the lake gauge was adjusteJ down 0.22 feet. This effects the )raph in that comparison of data is made mere difficult. since the baseline has shifted without a correction made to all data. 1 am enclosing a graph that I developed usinq the same data readjusted to 1987 gauge sittings (the preferred way would be to readjust 1987 to 1988 gauge settings). I hope to complete the grap`, with the latest data, and I will send a copy to yoc. when completed. In reviewing tha data Lwo dates immediately jump out, 14--16 July and 24-26 August 1907. The rate of lake level reduction during these periods exceed any other period; .03 feet/oay and .035 feet/day respectively. The dffuct of lake level change is minimal compared to the overall; but, it is cur-ous that these two dates c,ccur before the Aquatennial and State Fair rious because there were rumors that the dam w. jened during these times to allow water to flow „.er the Falls. It should be noted that there his been a rumor in the Orono area that the dam was opened just prior to a visit by a Japanese deleaation in the spring of this year. I tend to discount these rumors as just that and to explain away the increased rate during the beforementioned periods as ca, ^d by natural phenomena. I am interested though in to ng at the new data lust to satisfy myself that the coincidences are lust that. I would suggest tte following for the future. 1. Keep the public aware of lake levels and causes of increases and decreases. The tremendous evaporative �.—ffect especially on hat, windy days really is rna-- understood t-y the average citizen. What is also r,r>t generally realized is the affect ,! reduction in the aquifer and a generaily dry watershed hi- in reducing the rainfall affect to the lake _%--.). In dry periods rain has less affect on the --,ke le.,tsl them in wet pt•riuds when the waterst -{i approaching sa'urat ; �n and tte aquifer is high. in wet periods, 1" of rain might increase lake level up to 3" to 4". In dry periods, 1" of rain might increase the level only 1". 2. Review the Headwaters Management Polite It is up for renewal March 1989. Now is the t'm* o get Orono input into the new policy. I would suggest that some provisions be made to keep the lake level higher over winter than 926.6' NGVP to compensate for forecasted cyclical dry periods. 3. Have an Orono representative on the MCWD. 930.00 929.30 929, a 929.40 929.20 929.00 928.80 928.60 928.40 928.20 92tY.i:` 927.80 927.60 927.40 LAKE MINNETONKA Water Levels 1987-1988 NOHW(929.4) RUNOUT ELEVATION{928. 927 ?0 927.00 09-Jon-87 13-Apr-87 01-Jul-87 31-Jul-87 31-Aug-87 16-Oct-67 05-Jaii-88 GE-Apr-88 DATE KAD Miter Elevations - Lake Minnetonka Date Elevation Dat, Elevation FI ,4 Date Elev:tion Flow Date Elevation Flaw 09-Jan-e7 928.38 u. 06-Jul-87 927.48 0.00 08-Srp-87 128.52 0.00 17-Feb-88 927.94 0.00 21-Jan-87 928.37 O.OG 14-Jul-e7 927.43 0. M 14-Sep-87 928.48 0.00 25-feb-68 927.96 0.00 30-Jan-87 928.38 0.00 16-Ju1-07 927.37 0.00 18•Sep-S' 929.53 0.00 07-Mar-88 927.96 0.00 05-fe0-87 928.40 0.00 21-Jul-87 927.71 0,r 21-Sep-87 928.47 0.00, 15-Mar-88 928.00 0.00 18feb-87 9'.. "i 0.00 22-Jul-87 ;'27.71 0.00 25-6ep-87 928.44 0.00 24-Mar-88 928.06 0.00 26-Feb-87 929.,4 0.00 24-Ju1-67 929.62 0.00 28-Sep-e7 928.42 0.00 30-Mar-88 928.08 0.00 06-Mar-87 928.35 0.00 27-Jul-97 In-73 0.OA- 05-Oct-87 9:8.32 0.00 04-Apr-88 928.14 0.00 13-Mar-87 928.34 0.00 28-Jul-07 S23.73 0.00 12-Oct-87 928.1' 0.00 06-Apr-88 928.16 0.00 26-Mar-87 93.37 0.00 30-Ju1-67 Q8.79 0.00 16-Oct-87 929.16 0.00 1;-Apr-88 928.14 0.00 W-97 928.28 0.00 31-Jul-67 S:'1i.81 0.00 w'-kt-87 928.15 0.00 13-Apr-88 928.16 0.00 -87 929.23 0.00 03-kq-87 S?Q,81 0.00 26-Oct-67 929.12 0.00 18-Apr-88 928.20 0.00 21-Apr-87 9,29.20 0.00 06-Auq-87 r,., .79 0.0. 024bv-87 M.06 0.00 27-Apr-87 928.22 :.00 10-Auq-6J 17-- 79 0.00 09-Nov-87 928.04 0.00 04-fty-87 928.22 0.00 It-Aua-87 523.77 0.00 16-Nov-87 928.04 0.00 12-May-8'1 929.23 0.00 17-kO ' : I.e3 0.00 244bv-67 M.00 0.00 21-P-d -P7 927.94 0.00 18-Au94' 1.0 0.00 01-D%-87 928.10 0.00 Wftillr-V 927.93 0.00 19-Auq-ei .17 0.00 07-Dec-87 928.08 0.00 03-Jun-e7 927.89 0.00 24-Auq-0 7 0.00 14-DE*.-07 71-9 _9 0.00 15•Jun-81. Vi,%68 0.00 26-kg-e7 0.00 05-Jw -88 927.86 O.C:, 23-Jun-F7 927.67 0.00 31�iuq-6' 0.00 19-Jan-88 V.88 0.00 01-Jul-B'i 927.55 0.00 Cl-Sep-07 (;.00 0340-8E 927.96 0.00 z3 - 3a . b - FA, 13 _ 20 - - Z0 - � 27 - 1 S - n- r* f'! r? - _ zt - r - LL - l _ 7 - � /�+�t fit• - . - Lvir .s �•�t t r _ 0 1 )3 - _ 30 — Nov 13 - ao - 4 - Dw u �Y - aS - r- Cf, rl N - n - oY - of - rC - c _ - spec 11 T• Ir -L /E I _ PC j1 CI�'C - {z - L� - s - - cz _ — oT - L'C li3 - 9 -11 (I.Vc 4188. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernt- 3rdson, City Administrator+��� DATE: April 1, 1988 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Lake Level Attachment: A. Art Finkelstein Letter Dated 3/15/88 B. Lake Minnetonka Lake Level Report Dated 3/17/88 ISSUE 1. Determination of Council response to Attachment A. ITRODUCTION - On March 16th the City received a letter from Art finkelstein, 1720 Shadywood Road, regarding his concerns on the lake level. The Council has for a long time monitored the lake level and it has been Council direction to work to have a "cross representation" between the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board, who regulate the lake level via Grays Bay dam. DISCUSSION - The lake level of Lake Minnetonka is a function of contributions made to it in various for,ns together with various means by which water leaves the lake. The following represent the major items: CONTRIBUTIONS Rainfall snowfall - Underground pumping - Amount of runoff from precipitation in the watershed WITHDRAWALS - Evaporation (function of temperatures/humidity and winds) - Outflows over the Grays Bay dam - Aquifer/lake interaction - Pumping out of the lake As noted by the fact that the 'Lake level has varied markedly over the last year and there has been no outflow over the dam, the principal lowering of the lake level has been the lack of precipitation coupled with evaporation together with an unknown, aquifer/lake interface, which may drain out a portion of (Dependent to some degree on amount of water in the aquifer.) Balancing of Lake_ and Creek_ Usage - The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, whose Board is mostly of people downstream from the r,rays Bay dam, has the means afforded it to try and balance the needs of both the lake people and creek people as to how much water there is in the creek. This is tenth an issues of high water for lake and -reek people when there is an over abundance of precipitation and a lower level when there has been a lack of precipitation. Recalibration of Benchmark at Grays Bay - During 1986 it was de _ termined that the calibration of height at the Grays Bay dam was 2/10ths of a foot off, this has been recalibrated and is reflected in the change 2/10ths of a foot lowering in the height of the marks. There has been no change however in the ordinary high water mark and so that would mean that the lake will be' raised 2/10ths of a foot higher now before the outlet takes effect. Control of the Lake Level - While the lake level is principally a natural phenomenon composed of precipitation, the amount of runoff that is not absorbed, the evaporation, the aquifer lake interface etc. the outlet at the dam is the one variable that has human control. This is under the governance of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and as such this interface would be the most appropriate through which to work. Impact the City of Orono_ Task Fore May Have on Lake Level Issues l While the City could appoint a Task Force related to the ake levels, it may be most appropriate that this be worked through at the Watershed District level. Current_ Lake Levels - Current lake levels are a result of some rather dry times the last two years. These dry times are small in comparison to the 130's when the lake was out as much as 100 feet in certain areas and certain parts were platted and/or farmed. The current levels however are some of the lowest in the last 10 to 15 years. ALTERNATIVES - The following represent alternatives the Council can take r 1. Take no action on the matter, thanking Mr. Finkelstein for his concern and directing him to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. Have the Coune-il send a letter to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed ;-strict concerning the problem and recommend that tie— undertake a study of the issue. 3. Appc,. -fitment a committee locally to deal with the issue. 4. Table f,)r fur.` — consideration. RECOMMrN')ATION - I'-. is ncnded that the Council forward Mr. Fin_ke_1stein1s l.e�.e- to :•Iinnehaha Creek Watershed District and to the Lake lei^,i-,tonka nervation District ro also offer the City's and i. -eke` s assistance if he is agreeable) to determine it re ny other - -tions that can be undertakr,n in t:,, t, level. CC: Mr. Art Fin'-�i� March 15, 1988 Mayor James Grabek City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, M14 55323 Dear Mayor Grabek, I � . � MAR r s 1st i For the past two years I have watched with interest the "ups and downs" of the Lake Minnetonka water level. Local news- paper articles have addressed this issue with comments on water evaporation, the Grays Bay Dam, Minnehaha Creek, lack of or excessive precipitation etc.. As an interested party who lives on Crystal Bay my concern has been aimed primarily on how long should I make my dock or how many spare props should I have or whether or njc to expf:�ct my basement to flood. To say the least the information that is available about what is or is not the proper lake level or whether or not the dam should be open or closed has been con- fusing at best and misleading at worst. I would like to volunteer as a --cmnittee of one to gather information to dispel this confusion and to pro,,jde the council with a report summarizing the salient facts on this issue. My reason for <<)proaching you is to receive the approval of the council since I believe I am more apt to get information from the appropriate agencies with that approval. Respectfully yours, Arthur B. Finkelstein 1740 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 MEMO TO: Board of Managers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District FROM: Eugene A. Hickok and Associates DATE: March 17, 1988 RE: Lake Level, Flow and Precipitation Summary for February 1988. Lake levels in Lake Minnetonka have stabilized at approximately 928 in February as illustrated by the attached graph and lake elevations. There has not been any discharge from Lake Minnetonka to Minnehaha Creek since November 17, 1986. Creek flow at the Browndale Ave. dam in Edina is not treasured during the winter months. The 30 year average precipitation for February at the National Weather Service station in Maple Plain is 0.78 inches. The actual precipitaiton recorded in Wayzata for February was 0.19 inches. A sugary of precipitation follows. PRECIPITION SUM:iARY Actual 30 Year Average Maple P.:in February -- 0.78 Minneapolis -St. Paul Intern'l Airport February 0.30 0.85 Wayzata February 0.19 -- 930.00 929.E0 929.60 929.40 029.20 929.00 928.GO :2B.60 928.40 928.20 928.00 927.80 927.60 927.40 927.20 527.G0 LAKL MINNE I'ONKA Woter Levels 19B7-1988 '40HW(929.4) RUNOUT ELEVATION(928.6 C9-Jcn-87 21-Moy-67 31-Jul-V 21-Sep-87 05-Jan-88 DATE Date E'evat�,:n Flow Date Elevation. Flow Date Elevation Flow Date Elevation Fiow 09-Jan-87 928.38 0.00 21-Jan-67 929.37 0.00 N-Jar,-67 929.38 0.00 cS-Feb-87 5:2.40 0.00 18-Feb-67 9??.75 0.00 26-Feb-C7 928.34 0.00 06-Mar-67 9 d.35 0.00 13-Mar-87 9n.34 0.00 26-Mar-87 929.37 0.00 Ob-. pr-27 928.28 0.00 13-kr-87 92t.25 0.00 21-P,-r-a7 K3.20 0.0 27-kr-67 92E.22 0.00 04-f'.37-E7 972.22 0.00 12-ray-e7 92-3.23 0.00 21- -y-F7 927.91 0.00 2C-rwy-07 9:7 93 0.00 03-Jun-E7 92,.0 0.00 IS-Jun-87 777.68 0.00 21-Jun-87 927.67 0.00 CI-Ilel-$7 927.55 0.00 06-Jul-87 927.48 0.00 14-Jul-87 927.A- 0.00 U-Jul-87 927.:: 0.00 21-Jul-87 927.71 0.00 22-Jul-87 927.71 0.00 24-Jul-67 928.61 0.00 27-Jul-87 928.E 0.00 28-Jul -87 M. L �,. 00 30-LI -P 928.7" 0.00 31-Jul -87 92£.01 J.00 03�q-87 928.'J1 0.00 06-Aug-87 93.i8 0.00 lO-Aq-97 9 0.?s .00 I1-Aug -E7 92B.77 ^.'9 17-AuQ-67 92. %. ..1 . W 1844-e7 92£.'- ire 19-Aug-67 f,'K. ; ^ - �, ,I 24-kq-67 M:, ' .00 26-Aug-87 9-T , 31-Aug-87 52%._ , 01-Sep-E7 -,r,. AO CS-Sep-d7 926.52 0.00 14-Sep-87 928.48 0.00 16-Sep-87 97P " 0. CO 21-Sep-67 921, 0.0�j 25-Sep-67 92'd.• , 0.00 22-Sep-67 928.12 0.00 05-O`t-87 928.32 0.00 12-Oct-87 928.13 0.00 16-Oct-87 929.16 0.00 20-Oct-87 928.15 0.00 26-Dct-67 928.12 0.00 02-Nov-81 928.06 0.00 09-Rov-67 92L.04 0.00 16-Coy-87 9M.04 0.00 24-Rov-87 928.00 0.00 01-Dec-67 929.10 0.00 C7-Dec-87 9:0.09 0.00 14-Dec-67 923.03 0.010 * 05-Jan-88 927.e5 0.00 19-Jan-89 927.88 0.00 03-fcb-£9 977.96 0.00 17-Feb-98 927.94 0.00 25-Feb-88 927.96 0.00 07-har-68 927.96 0.00 15�1ar-83 M 00 0.00 *NOTC: The zero elevatiI lake gauge was adjusted dolor 0.22 feet this adjustmcii'. -1 n_''ve Jan. 1,1968 8488.5 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Financing Alternatives - Sewer Installation ku G 819H ISSUE - Provide the Council with information related to financing of initial sewer installations that may be applicable in various areas of the community. INTRODUCTION - As a result of the outcome on the ultimate financing of the Crystal Bay Sewer Project the Council had indicated to staff a desire to research alternatives financing arrangemerts for future projects particularly in established areas. DISCUSSTION - Staff has been working with the City Attorney to determine what methods, if any, would meet the objectives of fully financing a project by those effected property owners should the City choose that financing route. This research does not preclude the City from participating in the installation of that sewer ;�:t a level that it may deem appropriate in the future. The elements of the financing strategy would be as follows: A. Special Assessment - Based on the market value benefit to the property the City would assess within the total amount of that estimated benefit a special assessment to the property. In the case of Crystal Bay this amount was deemed to be $ 5, 500 per unit. This inay or may not be an applicable number in the Stubbs Bay area. In addition to getting an apprisal of the properties in advance of deteLmination of the special assessment the Attorney suggests that the Council may consider it appropriate to undertake any preliminary appeals by a review by an Administrative Law Judge prior to adopting an amount for the special assessment. B. Connection Chug - This would e a charge paid by the property owner upon hook-up. The statutes and state law are somewhat vague as to the extent of the charge apart from the dire;tion that the amount has to be just and equitable. Elements for a connection charge including the actual expense of the City involved in the connection which could include according to the statute: "To pay for the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement ...... and the maintenance, operation and use of (sewer systems), the governing body may impose just and equitable charges for ..... connections with them and make contracts for the i charges as provided in this; section." Minnesota Statute 444.075 Subd. 3 (1987) In Subd. 5 of the same ­.tion the City may impose a sewer connection and %, vote the money received in construction maintenance or use." According to the case law the connection charge can be an addition to the special assessments and does not have to reflect the improved market value by the improvement. Based on the statutory language the City may include a wide array of charges in determining the connection charges. It must not however, be arbitrary and capricious and must be in equal value on similarly situated property. The City can not rapidly increase connection charges, however, in trying to force hook-up but probably may be able to escalate connection charges based on the value of more; for the ini'Aal connection charge to meet the equitable standard. C. Use and Availability Charge - These can be in addition to both special assessme-t and connection charges using in the same "just and equitable standard" as a connection charge. The advantage to this charge is that it can be made on all properties to whom service is available without regard to whether they are actually hooked up or not. The City does use this type oc charge forwater service in areas where people are not presently hooked up. ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to further refine strategy for connections to be incorporated in the capital budget. 2. Request additiona'_ information regarding the types of charges. 3. Tablc for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council direct staff to estaElish e policy utilizing the three elements outlined above to have a po., -`y available for financing the charges with any City contribution being an additional element should that choice be undertaken. An issue that has not h-_ answered at this point is whether the City can couple its co,tiection charge togethei with its mandatory hook-up in order to achieve tliie connection charge. This concern may be eliminated by the usP and availability CtJULgc. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct staff to further refine a policy for financing sewer installations in an established areas in the community. Ayes Nays 2 2888.4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: July 27, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Budget Review Meeting ISSUE - Establishment of a date when Council can discuss th Ci`.y's budget at a separate meeting devoted to that purpose. INTRODUCTION - During the past three y� rs the Council has met in a special meeting to review the budgcc for the following yea,-, generally in mid September. This has generally been one to two hours in length with adoption generally being at the following meeting. DISCUSSION - While the budget process is taking a slightly different_tact with th%-! budget message being given to the Council in July and the opportunity to discuss th? general objectives of the budget in conjunction with the strategic goal setting in August, an opportunity needs to be made available for the Council to discuss the entire budget apart from a regular business meeting. It is suggested that the Council select Tuesday, September 20, 1988 as the date. It is anticipated that the budget document will be to the Council the fiLst wt-zk in September and if a budget meeting is held before the 26th oi: September the mill levy can either be certified at the September 26th or October loth meetings, plus allow for any additional meetings desired. The budge,_ levy has to be established by October loth and given the calendar this year our meeting on October loth would meet that criteria. ALTERNATIVES 1. Set date established. 2. Select alternate d tes ludi^^ September 14, 15, 21, or 22. 3. Table setting a date unti. -he .,igust 22nd meeting. 4. Incorporate the budget revied in pie regular business meeting. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council establish a budget meeting for /.t:Q P.M., Tuesday, September loth at the Counci i Council Chairbc-s for a review of thy, 198 Operating Budget. PROPOSED MOTION - Movet 5j7 _ seconded by _, that the 7ounci 1 establish a ;pf-ciai Cc -.cil meeting for presentation of the budget for review on ^u_a 'ay, September 20, 1988, aL 7:0() P.M. Aves Nays __ cc: Thomas Kuehn, Finam irector 72888.5 / 6 r1 "'VOTIR, TO: Mayor and City Council 1, FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato AU G 81988 DATE: July 28, 1988 SUBJECT: Amendment to the City's Administrative and Personnel Policy Attachement: A. Proposed Revision to the Cit;'j Administrative and Personnel Policy ISSUE - Determination as to whether the Council desires to amend the policy to strerighte.. provisions related to sexual harassment. INTRODUCTION - The City adopted a revised personnel policy in November of 1985. To date we have made no changes to that pol icy although we have made "additions" through the compensation plan and part-time benefits plan earlier this spring. As was noted in Lhe July 11, 1988 Administrator's Information the department heads and City Administrator had attended a four hour seminar on sexual harassment. DIS_C_USS_ION_ - Based on information gained in that seminar and the implications that this aspect ^ould have on the organization the proposed draft changes to the policy have been made to more clearly define what constitutes sexual harassment, A. The delineated process for filing a complaint b. Cite examples of inappropriate and u.exceptable behavior ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt as presented 2. Amend and adopt Under the authority granted the Administrative rnanL�l :ff could make a separate policy clarification to incorporate nose elements in the policy 4. Not adopt 3. Direct that no fur .her action be takFn 6. Table 7. Refer ':o legal staff R_ECOMMEN_D_A_TION -- It is r(,commencg1 thot the Council adopt the amendment ro the policy to fully state he Council's ,eriousness in relationship to this matter. As t. f: ')ilk of r'.,e guidance placed in the policy is already mandate, ;n !7' ate law as to M'iat constitutes sexual harassment. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , sec -on! , , that the Orono City Council adopt: as ,n amendment is Ad7-ir :strative and Perms nnel Poli—l. ryes , Nays 71588.2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL POLICIES 213. PROHIBITED PRACTICES 4. As part of the principal of equal opportunity employment, the work environment shall be free from sexual harassment and intimidation. Such conduct interferes with an employee's work performance and creates a hostile or offensive work environment. In carrying out this policy, the City recognizes that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and as such is subject to applicable state and federal laws. ;exual harassment consists of unwelc sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other inappropriate verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature when made by any member of the City staff: (a) When submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a ter:., or condition of an individual's employment, (b) When submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is use -s the basis for employment decisions affecting U _ individual, or (c) When such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's .rofessional performance or creating a!n intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment environment. "he City assures al J employees, including (for these: roc; ::ites only) casual, day, or independent contractors, have the right to file c:fiplaint concerning harassment, sc3tiAl or otherwise. If the ' e,np1L:ee' feels that she or he cannot go to their immediate supervisor, he or she may speak to the C�ty Administrator. If a complaint is filed against the City Administrator, the City Co_ :%. 1 shall appoint an --oendent invest•i "aLor to review the complaint and to report dirr,'.iy to the City Council. The City assures that all claims of harassment will be handles' n strictest confidence. The City assures that no - 3liation tri11 fall t-) anyone complaining of ,e• ual or other forms of ha;:assme t, even in those .tistanr,is when, after investigation, the allegations are either unsubst_,ntiated or incorrect. All personnel are cautioned tha, certain tyFss a: nncwingly false statement— hich are hurtful to otht:s may ress.lt in defamation charges y person found to t.ave defamed another, wil l be subject pi ropriate civi 1, crininal and internal discip:inary procedures. Sexual harassmant may include, but is not limited to, the following: - Verbal harassment or abuse of a sexual nature; - Pressure for sexual activity; - Repeated remarks with sexual or demeaning implications; - Unwelcome touching; or - Suggestions or demands for sexual involvement accompanied by implied or explicit threats concerning one's job. Protection from harassment in the course of employment is provided in the following categories: - Harassment by supervisors or persons with managem-: it authority; - Harassm from peers or co-workers; and - Harassr, by way of a sexually degrading work environm 2 mnm wum 17 AUG 819a `• It 9A8`Y'1Tt4 To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Frost: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 3, 1988 Subject: Crystal Bay Sewer Connections On June 13, 1988, Council received a list of Crystal Bay residents that had not connected to the sanitary sewer system. The list consisted of thirteen addresses of which, one had connected just prior to the Council meeting, three had indicated to us tt ,t they would be connected by July 1, 1988, one uninhabited dwelling, one vacant lot, three are involved in easement negotiations, and two in assessment negotiations. The owner of the uninhabited dwelling has been notified that the dwelling cannot be habited until the connection is completed. The following property owners will receive, by way of Certified Letter, notice that they are in violation of Section 9.02, Subdivision 1 and Section 12.30, Subdivision 4 (B) requiring connection to the sanitary sewer: 1271 Arbor Stred% 1271 Arbor Street 2140 Prospect Avenue 1290 Briar Street 1245 Arbor Street We will continue negotiations with the property owners that are in easement and assessment negotiations. Be advised that the City of Orono has not connected its facilities to the sewer due to a defferal approval by the Council on August 24, 1987. The deferral was allowed until December 31, 1988 dependant upon the outcome of the facilities study. TO: Mayor and City Council i v- FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat ki Forwarded as information at this time. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by that the Orono Council accepts the information regarding the sewer hook-up status in the Crystal Bay area. Ayes _, "lays _ TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director DATE: August 4, 1988 SOBJ: Council Delegation of Responsibility to Designate Depositories of City Funds Attachments: Proposed Resolution to Delegate Responsibility of Designating Depositories of City Funds At the first council meeting of each year, the council adopts a resolution of appointments for the year, including a listing of approved depositories for the city funds. There are times throughout the year, however, when we have the opportunity to invest in bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit and the timing is such that the investment decision must be made before the institution can be formally approved by Council. To avoid that situation, Council can, under Minnesota Statutes, delegate the responsibility of designating depositories of city funds to the city treasurer or chief financial officer. If the resolution is adopted, Council would be informed of any additions made by myself to the list of approved depositories through the Administrator's Information in the agenda packet. ALTERNATIVES: Approve Table Deny TO: Mayor and Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to adopt P Resolution 4 euthorizthe City Treasurer to designate depositories o City Ada. : City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TREASURER TO DESIGNATE DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes do authorize the City Council to delegate the responsibility of designating depositories of public funds to the City Treasurer or Chief Financial Officer; and WHEREAS, the investing of City funds does, on occasion, occur prior to the formal adoption of the institution as an approved depository; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized to act on the City's behalf and designate additional depositories of City funds. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held on August 8, 1988. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 8288.5 chillf,jr1l,1"L Tlhif !.iiG 819,46 TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Appointment of Election Judges for: primary Election - September 13, 1988 and General Election - November 8, 1988 Attachment A: Proposed Resolution Appointing 1988 Election Judges State Statute 2048.21 Subd. 2 states that the City must appoint election judges for the upcoming primary and general elections 25 days prior to the election. I have prepared a resolution, Attachment A, listing the names of qualified persons who have indicated their willingness to serve as election judges at the primary election, September 13, 1988, and the general election, November 8, 1988. :t is requested that the proposed resolution be adopted at the August 8, 1988 Council meeting. At the current time ,.3 judges have indicated their intent to work during the primary election. The City will be using the new Optech III voting system for the first time at the primary election, therefore I feel it appropriate to have six judges at each precinct. A general news article has been placed in the local newspaper and on the government channel of cable TV requesting persons who are interested in being election judges contact the City. In addition to having enough judges at each precinct, the Litt states political party balance must be maintained at the precincts. In the case of an odd number of election judges one more than half the number of a major political pa:ty may serve. If more persons indicate their ability to serve another Resolution will be brought before the to Counci.1/, 'mt Mayor and City Council �ji{, FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato4) Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , the Council adopts Resolution 1 , Appointing Election Judges for the Primary Election to 6e Held September 13, 1988 and the General Election to be Held November 8, 1988. Ayes _, Nays. 8288.4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO, A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION TO PE HELD SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 AND THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 8, 1988 BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Election Laws - 2048.21 Subd. 2 the following persons are appointed as election judges for the Primary Election to be held September 13, 1988 and the General Election to be held November 8, 1988. Albert J. Ackerman Wilbur Andersen Mary Butler Marlene J. Deschler Betty Ekeberg Barbara Garcia Ruth Hoffman Mariam I. Johnson Dolores Lauer Eileen Nicholls Christine Peasley LouAnn Powell Eenneth Turnham Phyllis M Andersen Vernice Berg Connie Carruthers Ruth D. Eisinger Eleanor L. Ferril Marjorie F. Gasch Jan Johnson Sandra Larson Rose Madden Barbara Olson Marni Platteter Dorothy RausChendorfer Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held August 8, 1988. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Doir ot� M. NaIITn, City Clerk To: /mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator '- Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Front: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning a Zoning Administrator Date: August 1, 1988 Subject: Refund Request, Fee Overpayment - 11128 Rainey Anderson It has come to my attention that Rainey Anderson paid her final plat fees twice, once in August, 1987 and again in July of 1988. Fees for this subdivision have been as follows: 1. Preliminary Application Fee $ 380.00 ($300 + 4 lots at $20/lot) 2. Private Road ($600 + $0.50/lin. ft.) (280 s.f. to center of cul-de-sac) $600 + (280 x 0.50) 740.00 3. Septic Review ($30/lot) (No charge for existing lot) (No charge for lot exceeding 5 acres) 2 lots at $30 60.00 ORIGINAL TOTAL APPLICATION FEE $1,180.00 Receipt #20527 Paid 3/31/87 4. Additional Application Fee Due to RevismN of Proposal: a) Additional 450 s.f. road x $0.50/ft 225.00 b) 2 Additional lots at $20 lot review fee 40.00 c) 2 Additional lots septic review, $30/lot 60.00 5. Final Plat Application Fee 150.00 6. Legal Review and Filing Fee 150.00 7. Park Dedication Fees 4 lots at $200/each 800.00 1 lot at $100 100.00 FINAL FEES $1,525.00 Receipt #016090 Paid 8/10/87 ----------------------------------..._-----__--------------------------""- 8. Road Signs Fee 150.00 Receipt #101110 7/13/88 Paid $1,675.00 NET OVERPAYMENT $1,525.00 (to be refunded) Rainey thought she had pai,, f.;e f. - 'ice but I could not find any record of earlier ):ayment. On Augtss­ 1, '. 9 she called and said she had a cancelled check for $1,525 from ]:-t Ac_:. at. I then searched the file again and found the receipt frc. .'10/87. Technically, her check on 7/13/88 only needed to be $150.00 ,u giver he cost of road signs. Therefore, Mark, I am requc : that you authorize Mr. Kuehn to refund a check in the amount of $__,, .t0 to Rainey Anderson, 138 Groveland Terrace, Minneapolis, MN 55403. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by - , seconded by __, the Orono Council authorizes a refund to Rainey Anderson for a total of $1,525.00 for overpayment of firal subdivision fees. Ayes __, Nays __ 8388.1TN To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Frm: John R. Ge,hardson, Public Works Director Dates August 3, 1988 Subject: Golf Cou:-se Clubhouse Roof Replacement During an inspection of structures at the golf course, it was determined that the clubhouse roof is in need of replacement immediately. The person inspecting the roof stepped through the roof in one area and also noticed other weak areas throughout the roof. We have received two estimates for repair, as follows: S.A.I. Construction $5,995.00 Plymouth Roofing 4,840.00 Because the above repairs were not budgeted in the 1988 budget, the monies will have to be borrowed from the general fund contingency and paid back in 1989. RECOMMENDATION - To approve the replacement of the clubhouse roof at a cost of 4,840.00 and to borrow the monies from the general fund continency to be paid back in 1989. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _, seconded by to approve the replacement of the c ub� roof at a cost of $4,840.00 and to borrow the monies from the general fund contingency to be paid back in 1989. Ayes _, nays TO: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members Frans Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. The roof replace was originally to be budgeted for 1989. 8288.1 COURM WETING AUG 81g88 TO: Mark Berih ..<dson, City Administrator iROM: Dorothy Ballin, City Clerk - DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Deputy Clerk Step Adjustment Deputy Clerk Teri Nash had an annual review date for step adjustment purposes of July 1. Teri is classified as being in Group 4 under the City's Compensation Plan. she continues to perform at a level that exceeds the expected performance level. She assumes the responsibility of scheduling tha clerical wGrkload between the two part-time positions and herself. In addition she has completed the three year Minnesota Municipal Clerk's Institute sponsored by the University of Minnesota. I recommend her salary be adjusted from $18.33 per hour to Level 4 Step IV, $18.71 per hour, effective July 1, 1988. TO: Mayor and City Council `��/�1{A9�I FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrat r"fV' v Fowarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ , seconded by , to approve the step adjustment for Deputy Clerk Teri Naab from $18.33 per hour to Level 4 Step IV, $18.71 per hour, effective July 1, 1988. Ayes _, Nays 8288.1 o/� COUNPI TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator AUG 81966 FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerkyy DATE: August 3, 1988 SUBJECT: Clerical I - Step Adjustment - Jamie Bosma Jamie Bosma has an annual review date for step adjustment purposes of July 1. Although Jamie is a part-time regular employee she continues to be very flexible in her scheduled work hours as demonstrated during the three month period that the Deputy Clerk was on a leave of absence. Jamie is classified as being in Group 2 under the city's Compensation Plan and I recommend her salary be adjusted from $7.27 ier hour to $7.679 per hour effective July 1, 1988. TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by __, to approve the step adjustment for Jamie Bosma, Clerical I, from $7.27 per hour to $7.679 per hour effective July 1, 1988. Ayes _, F s _ ✓':_ 8488.4 TO: Mayor and City Council 111a 819cJ-: • 9r• '- 1R0lIx Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato ✓ii y YJ fy rD'R��� DATE: August 2, 1988 SUBJBCTx 3536 Lyric Avenue ISSUE - Providing information to the Council regarding the prosecution by the resident at 3536 Lyric Avenue. INTRODUCTION - As a result of Attachment A Council had questions iege[ding the prosecution of the appropriate charge. Subsequent to the Council I had an opportunity to discuss the matter with Brian Crawford, one of the City's prosecuting attorneys. DISCUSSION - On November 30, 1987 the City issued a ticket to Mr. CHxarles Henke for inoperable vehicles on his property. This matter was heard by the Judge in March 1988. The matter at this time was continued for dismissal provided that Mr. Henke rembves the inoperable vehicles. On July 11, 1988 tickets were again issued to Mr. Henke for inoperable vehicles, this time as a result of flat tires. On June 18, 1988 Mr. Henke was at the Ridgedale Court on another matter involving a disorderly conduct and careless driving charge in the City of Minnetonka. At that time the Minnetonka prosecutor was present and Mr. Henke indicated that he would not be able to discuss settlement of the Minnetonka charge until all the other charges could be resolved, presenting the Orono charge to the Judge at the same time. The Judge who was faced with a six member jury trial and the need to call people out from downtown requested that the Minnetonka prosecutor work with the Orono prosecutor to resolve all the issues. The Orono prosecutor had not been given a case file as this item had not been regularly scheduled on the court docket. Mr. Henke indicated to the Court that the only violation to the inoperable vehicles was the tire issue and that the vehicles were currently licensed and that all he had to do was lnf late the tires and remove the vehicles from the property, which he promised to do. The Judge then "instructed" the Orono prosecutor and the Minnetonka prosecutor to see if the matter could be negotiated for settlem^nt. As a result of that direction the matter on the inoperable vehicles charge was continued for 1 year provided that Mr. Henke corrected the violations. He has corrected this matter at this time. (Note: If violation exists on the property again a new charge will exist and the two charges that exist on Court records will be brought back into Court.) The outcome was a result of Mr. Henke insisting to the Court that all the matters should be handled at once, Orono prosecutor not having been apprised of all the information or appropriate preparation time as it had not been scheduled on the docket together with the Judge who was trying to avoid a jury trial on a substantial charge in Minnetonka when there was an ability to negotiate for settlement of all the charges in front of him. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information 2. Request additior l information 3. Take no action 4. Table for further discussion RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the in €Olmat;0T1 wfth staff working on insuring that the vehicles are removed, ticketing Mr. Henke for any additional violations together with having the prosecutor seek the revocation of the suspended setence from March 1988. PROPSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council accept the information from the staff regarding the July 11, 1988 violation at 3536 Lyric Avenue. Ayes _, Nays _ cc: Brian Crawford TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City DATE: July 28, 1988 72888.6 Administratort� SUBECT: Administrator's Information /.UG 81968 LIVINGSTON TOWER PARE SCULPTURE - Mr. Nick Legaros who was commissioned Vy the City 07 Orono to construct and place a bird bath sculpture for Livingston Tow^r Park has experienced repeated problems with casting the sculpture. Most recently Mr. Legaros received a very Qecious injury to his left hand, severing a tendon. Mr. Legar a has assured me that as soon as he is able he will complete and place the sculpture. 1972 SHA_DYWOOD ROAD - As noted previously a letter has been sent to the pr opecty owners regarding the City's total ban on waterfowl feeding. During the next two months the Police department will be periodically reviewing the property to determine if any violations of the new ordinance are occuring. 3508 IVY PLACE - The manufacturer of -water meters used by the City of Orono has stated that they will perform extensive testing of the water meter from 3508 Ivy Place. I notified Mr. Wilson's representative of this during the last week of June but have hear" nothing from him to this date as we must be able to get into the house to remove the water meter. WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS - As a result of the article that was published in the paper regarding the water conservation restrictions, a number of people interpreted the ban to be a complete ban on all lawn watering. This generated a number of calls and the City subsequently placed news releases with both the Wayzata weekly and Pioneer/Laker newspapers together with informing the four major TV news stations. As noted in the attached documentation the City will be providing this as an informational item for the first two weeks and subsequent to that will be undertaking warnings and if appropriate citations. ORONO/MINNETONRA BEACH_ INTERCEPTOR - The City has received word mom JOE ilen HUCC that MWCC did app[opr late a 1989 Capital Budget program that included the interceptor. Construction start - shortly after Labor Day 1988. GOAL SETTING STATUS - See attached. 8188.2 y TO: All Department Heads (Please inform Your Department PersoTQ) FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato4l\\\Y\K'+J7�/�, DATE: August 1, 19C8 SUBJECT: ORONO WATER CONSERVATION REGULATION It is NOT a total ban - the paper is incorrect, residents can water EVERY OTHER DAY. It pertains to all sprinkling - The City is attempting to conserve a natural resource that is in limited supply by Fegulat£ng outdoor watering - supply source is not an issue. It is an ODD/EVEN CONSERVATION REGULATION (not a total ban). I£ your house number ends in an odd digit/you can sprinkle on odd numbered days. If your house number ends in an even digit/you can sprinkle on even number days. Exceptions presently allowed from the odd/even conservation regulation are: - New Sod (sodded this season) - Newly Seeded Lawns (seeded this season) Trees, shrubs, gardens, lawns and etc. can be watered on the appropriate odd/even day for the house address. From August 1st thru the 15th residents who are sprinkling inappropriately will be requested to comply, with possible warnings given when appropriate. Enforcement after August 15th will entail warnings and if appropriate citations. 8188.3 IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE ORONO WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS In an effort to conserve our limited supply of water resources, the Orono City Council adopted an amendment to Section 3.18 of the City Code to incorporate regulation of outdoor watering regardless of the source of supply tnroughout the community. As of August 1, 1988, the City will be limiting outdoor water use, regardless of supply source, to an odd/even ban. If your house number ends in an odd digit you can sprinkle on odd numbered days. If your house number ends in an even digit you can sprinkle on even numbered days. The only exceptions to the odd/even ban are; new sod and newly seeded lawns (sodded or seeded this season) which can be watered daily. Trees, shrubs, gardens, lawns and etc. can be watered on the appropriate odd/even day for the house address. From August 1st thru the 15th residents who are sprinkling inappropriately will be requested to comply, with possible warnings given when appropriate. Enforcement after August 15th will entail warnings and if appropriate citations. pDAt. SETTING CiTrfIP WIDIO MD MAWr E. ®YiAeu cm ADINQM2 " 1 h 19" - A APMIL 19" 187 M - 1987 Cwrcil Strategic Phoning Short Term Objective 'BB S'Ml - 19N Short Ten Objective A0p tiJ1i. AJER miRTl06 1. me9iMm Devi2aHffier Higtmmy 12 '87 S10 A. Cra rehaaiye Plan AneldmaK 92 15/8T Receive track frm Het Cmmll Pinl plan approval zoning AOe .tor Draft - Plaminq Commission crosideratim Council consideration Megotiatimm an utilities (LO lake-bdina) '88 m B. Corridor Selectim Study Ad Hac Task Pwce a Cople.e Phase I DRAPE 4/20/98 5/01/88 5/31/80 6/30/88 3/29/88 won � 5/15/88 extension to 5/15 granted to Metro Council follwiog 4/8/88 meeting re: Urban land denmds 5/12/m approved by Metro Council Hatro Caaril 6/15/88 Final Cwrcil approval 5/23/88 6/15/88 currently being drafted 2/l/88 Contact Sherdlw ragarding assistance in develgmant 8/10/88 Contracted nitb Shatdlw 5/23/88 Draft it= ShardlcO to Cascil to PC - 6/27/88 7/6/08 0wk sessim m draft 8/1/w to be 2td 0w1, maim scheduled 8/17/88 public hearing Received ltr from hladim re: more ¢emm[/negxlatima 6/24/88 Re pWM sitb letter 7/21/88 to Medina 10/l/M Ad Hot Task Force - 1st meeting 5/19/88 5/19/m nesting held T�Cing feetil/I held - Srdeduled 3rd A4q aoai. AI®i 1. meamm 6EPFdlQlPlEIllf tort. Navarre aarl v lopnent '88 M .88 M 681 S'83 County 15 Development 88 S3t3 '87 M Cr wnity ltareportatim Plan -86 BCD '87 M Store Vatw W�t Plan N M lugs cmaultants 3/25/86 requested Wotatim - planning lb In detemired from J. Bherdlw regarding cost to - Legal do master plan development for area. Initiate oea2/objective 10/l/W 7/11/88 p,ci adapted Betting Process Cider MW formation 6/15/88 2/80 Peguest Attorney ratline Solicite ideas/proposals process requited to establish Core if Decide w do 9/L/M 3/l/88 received outlires for establishment of MW. Staff revleving for mment -:mire desired 5/30/88 Issue aE lighting to 2/22/88 .. atca4anying Council meeting iwtovements 2/22/88 Council mailers lighting 5/23/88 C oril approves lighting Financing Pl 5/30/88 Conceptual approval 12✓18/83 Financial revieim prapered 2/22/88 3/28/88 tabled to 5/23/88 5/23/88 approved financing Complete cornstruction 12/1/88 To or . e/15/88 0efine capital i Prwement 7/l/88 program prim to 89 budget oetereim bridge replacement e/1/88 prograe Cotioued analysis Public/Private Ogoiy Evaluate Cry llfi 7/1/88 M 8/11/88 xoting m strategic g l Setting 3/17/88 received renpMst fr. 1lydina 8/25/88 C wU elects not to support emaolutim 1. U]aUNITY O6VF.ICPF]R cult. Cora. nev - nirsctim and progress Review advisory/Policy babes 7/88 4/11/88 presented co Council. tb be 88 m role/f"onsibilities ceviaad by Planning C®issim Review 9 revise as necessary 9/88 Mticipate 1/11/88 disaussim with staff/advisory/policy bay Cmncil/PC reps. prates. for develtgasnt review Tabled to 8/8/88 meeting f e[ecutim wa[ki, twa[ds M[wioe i results oriented 'Ro Surprises' process BMance effective control m 8/88 mires 1. @NIR(Za0fb1L PaRBT '87 M Stubbs say Cnplcte reeds sssesaens,nt 2/88 anticipate reeds assessment '88 6Tn caplet ion 2/80 2/22/88 Information presented Project feasibility-caaence 5/m Sumitted rar Iest for feasibility update cost Feasibility study approved 6/13/88 mticipabe to 8/9/88 meetirg betemiae assessment area 8/88 Interest ' Financing nptitns 10/88 To 8/8/88 seetlsg Cas,ider develapcent moratorim 10/88 If NApgpiapdate - In- In t�ject 10/88 - Project Did 10/88 - Craseece project 12/88 - Aries project 8/89 - Caplets project 19/89 solid miss. amrg m Aseeea racyclim efforts to goal 6/m City in mrjuictim witti West Hennepin met 182 goal Aaser other overeas to rat galls 6/08 Currently exploring mats of selected including laal cc 8 tin0 subside pick up meiew regulations, ts9arding 9/88 solid emste Gplore cagani9eC collection 6/88 mf®t mac umt radsrlges DeRS segos J. 01GI W I ZATtQAf. OtV EI DpRl! 1989 Council Goal Settinc Camea:e 7/88 Meeting set for a/11/88 Cotplete 9/88 1999 Budget Process Assessment Board a aeviev 4/88 4/2I/88 initial meeting held. Mticipate aclusim on 5/9/88 5/19/88 Board included 7/11/88 190 Budget message/ Guidelines to Council Capital budget Adnpcim 8/88 Budget Adcptim 9/26/88 1989 legislative Pralrma Cca lete 12/88 Team Bulldrry Staff 11/88 Couch - Consider F." 2/89 Undertake if desired 1/89 a. S Ind DfMIVOrY '87 SID Facilities Study To Planning Camissim for review 5/18/88 -88 M Phase 11 Completion 6/88 Site citeria to Council 8/22/88 Implement any recommdatiats 7/88 -87 SID Lay Paige Pin tial Policy Draft policy to Council 7/88 2/22/88 Initial draft capital budget discussed Council adoptim 8/88 Golf Course Develc ent of business y/et strategy Animal Control evaluate pragtsm 8/88 Otmded service to Ling Lake/Spring Park/Miaptmka Seart,1988 5. K4 W U W S 6. WJIX M co �atlm Explore Petfotaaze 8/88 Formal plan to 2/88 Irc otl a as aadeM. Formal plan ard adjustments to co,ensatim plan presented 2/22/88 3/25/88 plan adopted 4/12/88 coif votth tepott su�itted to State Co nity Infotwtlm/ mayq'e Articles ONOi:q N Iettet E aluatim of rystem 8/88 maycts-s Ftticle format to a Uooe to 8/88 for next evaluatlm ���tEr,,;+�y:srxNG orh qP OF LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR HEFTING OF August 8, 1988 . Septi.c System Installer: Clover Hill Co, Inc. Route 1, Box 372 A Waverly, MN 55390 Garbage and Refuse Collector: Westonka Sanitation P.O. Box 94 Navarre, MN 55392 CITY of ORONO """'a1ism SEPTIC: SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICENSE APPLICATION RVII..)INGa ZONING-B]JS51 ASSESSING - All questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewsige - Treatment Workshop attendance must accompany this applications., All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. _- 1. Business or trade name C-&utr 2. Business address at_ t.•'L_ 37 Z [a...0 iy 5r3?0 - 3. Business phone 6 i T - YY 3 ( Residence phone Sce ) C. 4. Name of applicant or company representative holding MPCA certification 5.,.., ?asie,- 5. Type of certification held: '_ Installer _ Pumper Site evaluator System designer Is this a Provisional Certificate? g( Certificate No. to yo 6. If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at one of the On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshops held immediate prior to the current construction season. 7. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? ,may_ Most recent year 81 8. Have you ever had a license revoked? IA� When? Where? _ 9. Du you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes yts No SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 1. $25.00 license application fee. 2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono as obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted. _ 3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence at On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately prior to current construction season. i:xf' I' �, LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. n Date - 8 Applicants Signature Staff recommendation, Approvals_:\_ Denial _ Date CITY Reason for denial: USE City Council Action Date Approve Denied ONLY Date license mailed _ CITY OF ORONO License Year //9 - / P.O. Box 66 Date Received -)- a 9-)191 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Fee Paid %S. Initials =AA) 473-7357 GARBAGE a REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business Phone NumberV7-/3%9 Phone Number Check One: ` Individual Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono Partnership Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): CbYp' ation,� Loaded Loaded Year Mfqr. Gross wt. Rear Axle wt. Size/Yards License Number 78ro� 3 GGO dGG_ d %J�.GUe s%7Y3 � 3a� 'A' ✓GG 3�, boc a.5 �� General area of City served A//fYi9/i".PE Schedule of Collection charges/ dates �47, Approximate number of customers in Orono /J G Location of dumping area l� L- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO.BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE TUB FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in the amount of $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. Annual fee is a $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxpa required by law. The abovinformation is correct. ClAk waorm CI.tFA/ri -?Y WlicantvDate --'--"----------------------------------------------------------------- FO ITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends• pp val r Denial Other (specify) -,a ghature of gity fficial Date CITY OF O ON [\ P A Y R EMPL_NO /NAME DIV GROSS GROSS E%P/ALLOU ANDERSON BL 31 20634.20 1357.09 BERNHARDSO ME 12 29620.12 2044.08 BOBZIEN SA 31 12988.73 903.88.. lE ;'.,•i 1. ��.;;'"t�]+'•(r BOSMA JL 12 7543,04 514.35 BOYLAN 80 93 C216.40 331.50 1 L1 a,9=;� BRINKHAUS JF 42 22SS7.SS 1390.31 ,.1 CARLSON MD 35 S40, 60 30.60 CHESWICK GB 31 21253.49 t418. 00 �y C�ryq �1•di VPIJ � l 4! CORNICK JL 31 19308.96 1282.63 DENNESON RJ 35 2720.50 0.00 ENGLISH 11 IH 31 19224.63 1281,10 ERICKSON DJ 93 1005.39 99.75 ERICKSON KR 31 20394.10 1273.52 FARR PS 33 1449.00 521.50 FISCHENICH DT 31 17614,8'1 1212.88 FRITZLER JM 31 20545.06 1273.52 GAFFRON MP 33 17481.06 1166.40 GERMARDSON JR 42 24522.16 1636.08 GREGORY JD 42 17274.44 1068,40 MALLIN OM 12 15438.01 1030.00 HANSEN SC 42 15C47.11 959.21 MANSING CJ 31 6866.25 436.72 JACOBS TJ 33 17481.05 1166.40 JOHNSON BP 31 18898.07 1284. 33 KILSO MM 31 26346.79 1760.00 KIRNYCZUK M 31 5232,00 132.13 KNUTSON CA 15 10953.23 771.13 KUEMN TM 15 24212.OS 1769.14 LINDSTROM DJ 93 140.26 0.00 MABUSTH JA 33 21257.09 1418.24 MEYER MA 35 193.80 109.65 MIKELSON RA 15 12967.94 868.64 MILLS JR WH 93 1327.70 154. 28 MORAN MF 31 21940.26 1541.87 MOROWCZYNS J 31 20434.58 1314.75 MORROW JS 31 5139.SS 331.50 NAAS TL 1C 852T.06 826.40 OAS DO 93 961.89 0.00 OBREEN RL 92 670.00 670. 00 OMAN LE 33 14491 12 964.06 PALMER PB 31 505.00 0 00 PETERSON RU 93 0 00 0 00 GUAST WA 92 16913.96 1153. 33 RATHBUN BJ 92 1069 12 822.40 ROSS JA 93 510. TS 65.25 SASS JJ 42 1S347 50 9S9.20 SCHAUSS CR 31 13895.12 1040 07 SCHEFFLER LK 12 630 63 630 63 SKREEN DS 42 IS373 07 959 20 STEFFENHAG RE 93 16079 49 10T2 80 5TEVEN5 BG 93 1970 00 262.50 CITY OF ORONO P A Y R Y-T-O • - - - - - - EMPL-NO NAME DIV GROSS CROSS EXP/ALLOW THOMTON MR 31 16317.47 1091.40 TOMCHECK LF 31 16523.25 1112.07 TOMCZYK MW 31 19074.51 1319.47 WALSM KL 31 211.65 211.65 COUNT GRAND 47,024.23 PAID 00050 TOTAL OOOSS TOTAL TOTAL FICA TAX CROSS a M 201.02 EMPLOYERS FIC, A a CROUP HEALTH B m PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN C = BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD D a MEDICAL CENTER PLAN E a PRUDENTIAL F = COORD. HEALTH CARE C m MINNESOTA HMO H a TRANS-AMERICA OCC. I m BANNERS LIrW J a MUTUAL SERVICES K m MUTUAL OF OMAHA L a EMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT M a AETNA N m NICOLLET EITEL 0 a LEAGUE OF CITIES P w METROPOLITAN HEALTH PLAN 0 w SNARE Z w HEALTH CARE MAINT ACCT. MISSING HOSP CODE FOR SOME EMPL'S ,IN CITY OF Mpp CHECK REGISTER 10-+6-011 PACE 1 CNECN MO DATE .,MOSS,, VENOM ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO, INY. 6 P.O. t NESMEE fPIeOG 06/I1196 141.0. ALL STM PRO 0WF CO PRO SHOP RESAL[ T1-N01 -511-N 101.N . tt100E O01.3166 •1 .5 ACRO-n I NNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES al-K16-e31-12 1t160. N/0I/e6 .I .AS ACRO-NI NKtOTA INC OFFICE "PLIES 01-4416-OS1-14 It, Ua N10310 AI .S ACROMINIIEt011 INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 61-4211-661-IS tt1 Oa 08/O3/66 1.as ACRO-n I NNESOTA INC OFFICE "PLIES 61-Kle-It+-3I [O.Oa 01tl166 la a5 ACRO-Al NNE60TA INC OFFICE "PLIES 61-K16-IH-JI tp 00. 000316e •1 AS ACROMI NNESOTA INC OFFICE eUPPLI[D 01-K16-H1-K ' u1ee6 sE/0]nt Ist IS Acto-n INN[wlA INC CHAINS u-•SN-Eta-.G • ...... ...-ua ztlue 011.31.0 Ia Is AT&T IWO SYSTEM TELEPHONE e1-4306-175-M It is . • ...... ....CNt E0030 061031u 11 .l AT a I IWO SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING u-NN-O+-It to OJ. o1/e3106 11 .] .T e T IWO 6Y6Tt. DATA PROCESSING 01-434e-es+-14 tel.31 o1/e3109 11 .] .T s T ... [Yattn DATA .GMCESMW e1-Nae-ets-n 88113e 05/e]n1 Y]. a. AT 6 T INFO SYSTEM D.T. PNOCLSSING ttun .1/evee 1+.4] AT 6 T INTO SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING 01-4340-174-33 • all$J+ a/.31.1 1+ •] AT L T IWO SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING 01-434e-E41-4E lea. as Sam, o✓o]/es 61.5. EARL F ANDERSON ASSC A... SIGNS O1-4013-tN-42 • 821011 .a/el/p ... 00 COIL P ANDERSON A16C LAND USE SIGNS 01-43EE-174-33 ' l]Y Sa • •..... ...-Ma It... 01.O3109 SO 00 If JULY RENTAL 74-4311 KU-SJ • -0 00 . ...... ....CNN 291014 06/03/88 10 GO WHESTROO NOUN AM END RETAINER MY 61-4304-E16-.1 221.74 OVeI/U 5..50 WHIMINOO ROWN AM END CONSULT MAY 01-.3e9M41-.t • 291674 01/63/0 I.SN.N Rome,." RDUN AM END CONSULT MAY 01-43OS-6+1-71 1,1H.11 • eo... ....=a !lull e9/e3/68 MY.la COMMERCIAL SLOG MT RW MINT 01-a141-611-1+ • tIIIL OVq/61 a's I CpNI1C0L ROG MT SLOG MINT 61-.141-129-11 11U.30 . • u.v. u.�qe sell., 66/63/6.0 IS.00 CORCORM PET CAN ANIMAL CAN 11-.160-1SS-3E • IS.$$ I14, CITY OF OEGO CND[ REGISTER 6E-9E-04, PAGE E CHIC. NO RATE ANWT KNgG ITEM 0[KEIFTIW (CCWNT W. IW • F.O. 0 WSGC[ o•uB .u-IXS ttl l.) N/Ol/\0 10. 00 CSWN IWN1W INC HEFTING ESP r 0.0-O31-I8 I O. rO B owu r..-Gt QLI15E 00/63/09 !BASS CYSNMN WON W INC EQUIP MINT 74-434E-510-13 ez ro . ...... ....GAS fens) 00/0311, N,131.10 G..ff. SMA"OW CON FLY WY le 01-4306-E11-TAR I,1J1 )F . eellfe ........ 1\. IY EIIII ICN EYIW c0 CONCESSIONS NEGLE 11-409e-511-14 n n . ...... ...-IX0 YL Ytr e01VI's I1S. [I .1EO-RITE CONTROLS VTIL SYS (MINT 72-4914-641-11 H1.01 . ...... ....INS YQIYS. 00/Ol/q ll. {! GENERAL WEIR u MINT LIFT STATION )J {e . .uu• \ u.-GB • [zIYN 00/Ol/EO tl{.N GOPHER OIL CO EWIF FARTS 01-4231-241-4E eu to . ...... .—CHI [:I[N U/ovu aes Fe GOUT TRAINING KNv HARASSMIT GRIND 01-43S(-639-1e • ws fa . .....• ...-INS G•fli 00/Uq0 Uall GWF HEALTH IW N09F IN\ MISS 01-(1[I-Ifl-ll lflel5 00/r]q0 SO{. [l GOW NEKTM INC Wp IRA\ MISS 01-11 L1-1[9-JI [ St4lt 1r/OAE )5. RE BROW NEKTM INC WO IRA\ MISS el-.IfI-IH-]] fLltlL 9r/Ol/G I](. GI GWF N[KTM IML NO:F IW ANG 11-.ILIKH-1J LIH ]1 • tID300 04/I3/09 YL Or ASIAN CTY [RING com OOOIq r1-HN-lE1-]i fr sr. CX t 196e CITY or MOMo CHECK MOISTER M-fe-Y PALE ) r cxSCM No. o:rE AMOUNT vENooR ITEM DESCRIPTION, Aecou•r W. INV. r P.Q. • ME<MGE r ezupT ps/rues ll. esr.0 M[NN eo nuWRu OR Is/W1WR[ e{-tsx-gel-sa p Up • eEl3l0 OB/Ol/BF Bt aT ICM RETRMMT COOP ICMA 1-II TO 1-84 .1-9140-011-I2 F ea.OT • •..... ...-CMa [E1195 os. of/ee 05. 18 IMTER[TATE MTTERY EW IP PART: 72-{[R-54-1I • [[I155 pt/O/tt <5. 11 INTER[GII aATTERM <OUV PARTt 1]-{ 61-le SI 1S . . uu.• ...-CNe 111 Tti ot/pvaa 11.0 To. J.Com MILEAGE e1-43e1-179-33 ceuee os/o]/:: 29,11 Mnso-nELVIN MEEIwo 01-4356-+e9a1 e2. u . • [f U91 0:/Ol/:: Is a, NUEMN-TNOMAS MILEAGE JUL9 01-91:1-ON-IS • C[1 ]11 p</S)/a: 4.61 ...... THOMAS MI1-5A0E JULY pl-9]a Y11f-A L[1]9T .41.316[ 4.11 MUEMM-THOM" MILEAGE JULT r]-sal-S{1-1C • TO H . I ` •••o• u._CN6 _ 221909 O:/ol/aa Ill tl THE LAMER JBLIaMIK ol-9lPP-oN-Is o:/Ol/aa Sl. <0 THE LAMER JBLI:NIK lt-a22-591-f1 [[19p. 0:/p)/et 19,31 THE LAMER 1WLI:MIMG T]-93= 1-11 f [L H09 pe/Ol/Ie ST.e: THE LAMER IU:LI SANG T9-9][1-S10-1) ]:L la . • • 000 .u-CMS • YYI III O:/Ol/:i IS. aO CITY 0< LORD LANE UTILITIES 01-a[1-101-)1 •' M 1437 0:/0)/U I3,a)t. S. CITY OF LOW LANE COUNT MVt CE 72-435f-SI1-11 I3,70a. 10 . • u.o. u.-CNt tt1.16 Oe/O]/6< t5.13 MWSTN-JEANW MEETINGS 01-4351-IT4-I1 F M 11 . tY19U oa/O]/of 70,40 1•o CTR MALIN CARE NOW IN[ AM 01-a154-o11-11 • <!I1{1 061.31.6 H.1p PRO CIA HEALTH CARE met INa AYo 01-4151-aa1-IS HO CITY OF DROAD CHECK RECISTEN \\-e\-w PAM . . CNECN NO. DATE eMUNT Kam ITEM OESCNVTION ACCOUNT W. INV. 8 F.O. 8 "S"" Ee Ha] 981O3144 l\AB FIND CTR WEALTH CARE NOSF INS "a 01-.ISI-IE6-31 t • 891417 081O3168 Ia5. 11 FIND CTR HEALTH CARE NONA INS Am 01-4ISI-129d1 881161 at/ovst 111.61 NEO CTR WEALTH CARE Now In w5 01-41SrlT4-]] «ual 00,03,89 3Se.02 AND CTR MEAL" CAME as, Iw Am 01-A151-us-49 +ee.l4 ...-ESe ...... EEL1. a8/03/88 14.152. 11 METED WASTE CONTROL AM SERVICE 7]-I[«-080-60 1•. t52.11 o-CMt u•u• ' R YEL\0 OB/OIIB\ 5. ]5]. s8 MI..T .BFMKT ...I MINT MAY 01-4211-1!.5-41 ' ....Me [[L90 OB/O"AN 8.31 nIM Chace UTILITIES 01-.]ta-l[9-]t ]..T NI wGAACQ UTILITIES \I-.x.-541-91 eel•90 aa/0]n\ ].. la nI1NEG.8c0 YTILnIE\ e1-.]24-5.5-91 oe/ovs\ ].na nIMMeGA\cD UTIL 1 n-.x.-ss-sl oe/0]/88 ].0\ nI M125.t10 UTILITIES 13-432.-S«-Se 41.11 . OB/03/\\ 1.00 IN SENEFIT ASSN LIFE INS 01-41M-126-31 1.0G .uu• .u-CN[ ' M [e1S05 08/03/88 ` 1e.. ea MY FIRE A SAFETY EQUIP FATS 01-Qt 1O9-31 [««S 0\/03/09 580.e0 nIMN uC FUND uL-MCGONAN 01-4150-es9-1e se9.so eelsse ae/O/aa 1o. os TESl NAAS MILEAGE 01-4361-174-33 N 1 o. os eelss9 oe/0]/« e90.\. wF UTUITIE\ oI-.x.-Ie9-]1 eelss9 Ge/Gva\ 11a.0e wF UTILITIE a1-.x:X 42 eelss9 oe/Gvee s.sS wF umITIES el-.x.-t5\-u [miss, GE/nn\ lll.0 wr UTILITIEa v-.x. s'.. e1 . , • eel saa 0./0]n. 95.4E MI SaV «ATIOI EO MAINT EQUIP 41-4xt-099-11 I1N CITY OF OxgMl CHECK REGISTER M-M-![ PALE L CHIC. M0, DATE AMOUNT VENOOR ITEM DMCRIPTIOM ACCOUNT M0. IMV, f P.O. ! MESSAGE C :S.15 f .e u• o.-CYB 1 etl LfB OB/o]/SS SJ.N US WEST CO. TELEPHONE [I-Ixe- e11-1! f tYISN OS/OJ/N S].N US C01111 TELEPHONE 01-Ixe-ON-11 + tIISN OS/O]Al tf.H WefI US COIN TELNMOM[ fl-lxf-ON-IL p [LISN N/Ol/N Sf .00 Vl Y[tT COMI WIN T[LVM011[ 01-Ax0-IYf-]I I CI S{\ N/OJ/ee IL2.L] Ul UNT C-AN TELEPHONE 01-Ax0-ILf-]I f en s{a e:/oa/ee 5].N U[ U[tT COMM TELEPHONE ol-A]eo-n:a] e:ls{l ee/ovN N.e1 Us U[tT collll 1 1. AMONG n-Ixa-ITS-]A «IaN oe/oJ/N sJ.w Ut US I COIN I='WHRE el-Ixe-:If-1: eels'. ev O]ne 10 ne Ul MST COHN TuvNOlt T!-Ixe-sw-fl •A eels.. 0!/O]/.e If.10 Ut HELT CNN TELEPHONE rJ-Iles-sal-f! eels.. 061.31E IOs. ff US Y[!T CqN TELEPHONE ]I-IIN-NO-f] • ells6e OV O]/N Ios. 10 Ul HEST Co. TELEPHONE 71-I323-sb-13 • TCO LI • ...... ....Me !i eelsn N/e3/06 1.1E rU[LIC EARL NET ASSN PENA e+-I+a-ON-Ie • YYILfT .:.0]/\[ a.1 rvnlc FAIL NET A.N r«A n-IIII-1«-]I • :e1sn Ov 0]m 1.e0 PUSLIC FINAL ART AIM uFE Ixs IFIT 11-II5e-Ie2-3I N en Nl ../O]/N !T].:t INY:ICINE WEALTH xter INS AuL e+-xle-sae-oe •) en fL1 os/ov\: Ja:.0 rn Oln ME xNLrW Hour Ixt Nc el-au-eaf-le 11 nO. as N1 Tl TC UNI HEALTH xOY Nt Aus el-asl-eN-Ie • e21[21 E./!]ne Aw. TO rnn lC]ANs H[ALrx WON N[ AM el -II EI-«[-a1 • ."It, oe/N/N +, oe a. Tz rxm curl HEALTH NN Ixt AUG el-Ilsl-I«-n .else, Oe/N/:e Ale.ss runtCux: HEALTH HOeP Ixs WC s1-nsl-nA-]J E «ueI Os/0]na TeL eO Fxn ICUN MALIN x0N INS AUe e1-Aln-en-AN euzl Ol/el: Ge a.sE PHYIICIAMe HEALTH .OSP INS AUG lo-usl-sA1-:1 -:latl o:/N/:l 'e.n PHYSICIANS HEALTH NO$I INS AUG n-AI LI-sN-fY : I, OYI.S: e O ses e!I[l: N/.... IB5. a5 ::AINIE OFI OFFICE WrfLI« EI-NIO-e]:-Ie [!I t]S N/ol/Bl IIS. oL PN u6 OFFtCT O:IICE SW:LI[v el-A:IS-I1: 33 • ]10.10 . 4 eels: N/ol/.. Ise.eO DIME NTRo-CHEM UTIL NIS NNr x-In1-51f-11 a Ite.ee . • f tenu 0./Nnl 182.1e NR[ICH[N EQUIP '"TO fl-llx-In-al • 402.10 . • uu^ ....CNA 19" CITY OF MONO MIN SUISUN N-U-M PAGE t e CHECK W. DATE ANWNT KNOB ITEM DESCRIPTION .ACCOUNT W. IM. 0 P.O. 0 NEt\NEE H een90 O[/OJ/\\ 1U 00 TENAMMIES TO CO IWVIOTO YE 1/I5 61-4301-039-le U 1110 06/03/16 100.00 TEI•MaR IRS To to NMVISTO YE IIIG 01-I341-111-03 ]10.00 • Y lE1NI 0\/OI... J]. 00 WTER PRODUCTS CO EQUIP PUTS 31.00 ...... .S•-aa EEUSE eE/ovo soo.eo u WW PIONEER OHN MNYµ V CMTRIN al-Ixs-100-e1 q so9. so .•.-a\ N ...... 2216.1 081O3118 3I5. 00 WONfll was IMINr WTES LINES Tt-I1HsK11-11 • ]I{.00 • II ....Me ...... • LLIBIS OB/pl/U e.10 WICXT XENN ELECTRIC UTILITIES 01-I311-e49-III 1 110 • 111901 OL/0]AB Is. 1. COWELLY IW ELECT EQUIP PARTS 18-4232 541-11 ,Is .. • :L190L 00/0]A\ IT0.00 ELM. HT[11SON PLVW SLUE MINT 01-I3I]-01)-1l ! 10.00 • [L190J O9/O]/\B ♦IE. SO 00[E[T OMLNE nEE REWVNL 01-IDI-IfO-U 0 ![HO] 0[/0]/8B IIII.50 ROKET p=, TREE MPDVOL 09-q90-t11-I! \YS.00 • L21901 001O31\0 ]E0. 00 Na.U.TA CLE SCHOOLS 01-IJ5a-ION-]1 ]II0..0 . [L190s 00/03/18 10]. 00 TYIN CITIES TR INLIW LETTERING tWOOS 01-Ie32-i Lf-T 163 . • Y L[I10{ 00113/\S .GO WICNWAY EXCAVATING REFUND IERNIT tl1 Oh!!l1-000-00 Lel )Ot 001031.6 ]0... WICKYAY EXCAVATING REFUND 9P11tT 1T\ 01-J1J1-000-00 • U.S. • 4 00 orCat G • IILTH.H FUND al TOTµ C[NEllµ FWD G BAR .n PINES,11 TOTµ 11•ROK a tW11 OUTLAY F x.OfT.I♦ i t1 TOTAL PUN IMRWE REVOLVING F • 11. {1J. tJ FUD 1t TOTµ : WATER OPERATING fUND , f {.011.T1 FOND n TOTAL NWER OPE[ATIW FIRM a]a.N FUND 11 TOTAL GOALS V W O ATtM AS • 0 93, naa.x TorAL • 1 N un vy ft ( /10 f"t V U U Vf CITY OF WAYZATA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Wayzata Planning Commission at the City Council Chambers, 620 E. Rice Street, Wayzata, Minnesota, on the 1st day of August, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as time permits, for all parties to be heard to consider the application of Lincoln Property Company for rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Single Family Residence District) to Planned Unit Development, and for concept plan approval of a 295 unit multiple -family development. The 57.04 acre parcel, presently owned by the Wayzata Country Club, is located between Wayzata Boulevard and new U. S. Highway 12 (PID 01- 117-23-21 0001). Publisned in the July 18, 1988 SAILOR NEWS July 18, 1988 Jean, The enclosed public hearing notice is the one that we talked about last week. I don't believe there are too many properties effected in Orono, except those on Myrtlewood. If you could send copies to those addresses it really would be appreciated. Thanks, Joan Evans k,--j LB u v ig Ifll 74� i / I TO: Board of Managers Mlnnehaha Creek Watershed District FROM: Eugene A. Hickok and Associates DATE: July 21, 1988 RE: Lake Level, Flow and Precipitation Summary for June 1988. Lake levels in Lake Minnetonka have declined through June as illustrated by the attached graph and lake elevations. There has not been any discharge from Lake Minnetonka to Minnehaha Creek since November 17, 1986. Creek flow at the Browndale Ave. dam in Edina during June is shown below. The 30 year average precipitation for June at the National Weather Service station in Maple Plain is 4.83 inches. The actual precipitation recorded in Wayzata for June was 0.10 inches. A summary of precipitation follows. PRECIPITATION SUMUIRY JUNE 1988 Actual 30 Year Average Maple Plain -' 4.83 Minneapolis -St. Paul Intern'I Airport 0.22 4.07 Wayzata 3.10 -- MONTHLY FLOW SUMMARY Grays Bay Browndale Ave. Dam (cfs) (cfs) June 1 0 .87 June 3 0 .40 June 6 0 67 June 8 0 0 June 10 0 0 June 13 0 0 June 15 0 0 June 17 0 0 June 20 0 0 June 22 0 0 June 24 0 0 0 June 27 0 June 29 0 0 930.50 930.00 929.50 929.00 926.50 2 O 928.00 927.50 927.00 LAKE MINNETONKA Wate, Lar/10 1987-19BB NOHW(929.4) ELEVATION(928.6) LAKE ELEVATION 226.50 09-Jan-87 21-NaY-87 31-Jul-87 21-5/p-87 05-Jan-BB 28-Ap2-88 24-Jun-eB DATE ra IIW mt. 11.01. - WO 1/mnWO. W0 [Indlw H0 W. Elnnlu Ha NU El0n110 Nw NU El.h. [I0 WO 1I0N1s 110 01-J0W mm 0.0 whl-v WJ.O 0.0 0&[o-A MLw 0.0 11iAi W.N 0.0/ 0[-tuei W.m Am 21-W-0 MIT 0.0 10-Ju1-0 WAS 0.00 10-60417 M.m 0.00 m46-1111 %F% 0.00 WMA WI.16 OM > J" MIS 0.0 16-Ad-117 M.31 0.0 11-W-11 M.0 0.0 07 Wi M.% 0.0 0-Aai W." 0.41) Woo M.0 0.0 21-J01-11 W1.71 0.0 21-W-11 M.01 0.0 10 -m M.0 0.0 1}Aa TA 0.0 I1400-111 mu 0.0 m-mv W1.11 0.0 2}fl0-17 M.H 0.0 24w -m M.a 0.0 16-A W.32 0.0 WONa M.m 0.0 N-MI-W M.62 0.0 m-W-11 M.02 0.0 a -i M.0 6.0 m A 917.46 0.0 MNv Mu 0.0 21-Mv M.21 0.0 0-mt-11 MIX? 0.0 0+1W-111 M H 0.0 N-Ani1 0.9 0.6 13# v M.m 0.0 m-mv MITI 0.0 IMt-o M.13 0.0 01-*w M.16 0.0 21-Awi11 M.m 41.01 M , v M V 0.0 1}J01i1 M.N O.W 16Qt-Il M.II 0.0 Il,*-m M.10 0.00 3}A0H W.11 4.0 Ww♦1 M.m o.m 11-40-07 MAI 0.0 NAt-11 M.11 0.00 13-*-m M.16 0.0 WA0-110 Me /.0 131I-111 M.0 0.0 0-M-11 M.11 0.0 264t-11 M.12 0.0 11-Ip-0 M.m 0.0 01-1A1i W.0 0.0 It-*v mm 0.0 0-A1a1 M.m 0.00 02s 47 M.% 0.0 2 v M.0 0.0 11-Jh1a M." 0.0 V+wv mu 0.0 I~1 M." Cat 0# 17 1,211.41 C.0 211-1►+ M.0 0.0 WMAIII W1.0 0.0 04,N1 M.m 0.0 1,-"47 12.17 cm 1~17 MM 0.0 0NAr0 M.0 0.0 1}p1i MA 0.0 Il v mu 6.0 IIA'A1 M.0 0.00 20-16.17 MM 0.0 %ft, M.0 0.0 I}A0.0 M.0 0.0 mwwa W.0 4.0 II-M"0 M.0 0.0 01-W-12 M.10 0.0 OiWi M.10 0.0 11-Jtl-1/ M.m 0.0 Z}ftm W1.13 0.0 H#0-0 M.11 0.0 ^)Ilt-11 Im.O 0.0 is t,m M.0 0.0 W-J0v WI.O 0.00 mayil M.12 0.00 11-W'17 M.0 0.% 11-ry1'0 M.0 0.00 I}J0-0 W).0 0.0 m'N0-0 M.0 0.0 0-100-1111 OP.m 0.0 W1.06 0.0 11-mv WI.N 0.0 M.0 0.0 11 J.-0 ME 0.0 m-Mi W1.0 0.0 O-mv M.m 0.0 01-W'17 M.H 0.0 0340-0 121.0 0.0 3l�,m W.0 0.0 SIX MONTH PRECIPITATION RECORDED JAN. OB FEB. BB MAN. NB APR. BE MAY NN MOIVTN ® MAPLE PLAIN AVE. ® wAY2ATA ACTUAL S11 RUNTN PRECIPITATION RECORDED P:LS. AIRPCRT BPLS. AIRPORT AVERARE ACTUAL 3AN. 11 0.12 1.37 Oil. IN 0.15 0.30 MR. 11 1.17 1.33 VA. 11 2.03 1.51 RAT AN 3.20 1.70 )UN. No 4.0 C.22 MOLE PLAIN NAICATA AVERANE ACTUAL 0.84 0.96 0.70 0.11 1.52 1.31 2.35 0.95 3.93 1.06 4.13 0.10 Rum on aOMID WYYp Rab.rl R.,Cop. Cnalrmen BMxwvoo0 JOEOm Ourp Vlp Lnan m.n O an Carl M. WNwr. 9acrs , E¢ablw MMM WaNIurM. TNNrar W.Y.a M.rvin Bldlln ianYa BN Jm Ba.wlnhN MlnnebnYa BanCM1 aNle c«n.En or1.. , •INrI O Ogar DaaMawn qon Nrumar awlro vm Jonn Lswrrun MInnN,l W Jpnn G. M.Ilnb vrnon. p«.n I(. Rilltbury MlnnNpny TMmas W. RNN M RONrI E E. al«um Yv«eMne LAKE MINNETONKA CONSER% 402 EAST LANE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOIA 5509 EUGENE R. July 27, 1988 Creetingsl Your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is looking forward to your attendance at its Saturday, August 6 Public Officials Lake Outing. The boat leaves the Lafayette Club at 12:30 P. M. You will find the view- ing of lake dock installations end current water con- ditions an informative update on the lake. May we have your RSVP, acceptance or regrets, by Wednesday, August 3? You are welcome to bring your spouse/guest. We are also pleased to include an introductory out- line on our recently -appointed Executive Director, Gene Strommen. He and the Board of Directors will welcome meeting you. Thank you :or your interest. Sincerely, Robert Rascop, Chairman LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 7-21-88 I N T R O D U C I N G . . . Executive Director EUGENE R. STROMMEN The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors is please to introduce Gene Strommen who Joined the District as its Executive Director July 1, according to Board Chairman Robert Rascop, Shorewood. gene succeeds Frank Miss who retired June 30 after almost 19 years of dedi- cated service. A University of Minnesota graduate in School of Forestry, Gene brings an unusual combination of business and non-profit management experiences to the LMCD. Following five years in the wood preservation field in St. Louie Park, Gene the ged careers by becoming manager of the �t. Louie Park Chamber of Commerce. After six years he was invited to serve assistant manager e.` the Minneapolis Aquatennial in 1970. During that same year the St. Paul Winter Carnival selected him to mar-ge the nation's oldest winter festival. A move to re-enter chamber of commerce management brought Gene to the Suburban Area Chamber of Commerce headquartered in Roseville in 1984, where he served as executive vice president until June 30, 1983. Significant among the skills Gene brings to the LMCD are extensive adminis- trative, communications, volunteer business and community leadership organiza- tion and motivation, government relations and fund-raising experiences. Successful budget management and fund raising brought and sustained finan- cial strength to all of the organizations under his direction. Internal membership and external public communications have beem demon- strated. Quality newsletters for members and related constituents kept these audiences informed. News releases were directed to area, regional and ' the Winter Carnivals case, international audiences. Volunteer talent has been an integral part of Gene's bringing community, civic and government human resources together for a common cause. Coupled with adequate financing, Gene can lead an organization to deliver the priority service for which it is committed. "I am enthusiastic about Joining the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District at such a significant Juncture in its formative years. Frank Mixa, with the support of the LMCD Boari„ fourteen titles and related county, regional and state agencies, has put a r.ubstantial organization and governing Lake Minnetonka Code in place," Gene note.: fn accepting his appr'.ntment. "The execution of a :Udy to develop a Comprehensive Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka now under ey with Arndorfer Associates, Inc. is a major commit- ment. The results will b-Y:g all the leading forces, community concerns and influences together to make Lake Minnetonka a natural model for a recreational and community resource,^ ';-o. added. Gene concluded by L'ptixg. "I look forward to bringing all of our area, regional and state constt:'.:eoctes together in arriving at the most effective management plan and outeomo for Lake Minnetonka." Bond success tied to Moody's, S&P Poor grades can break local issuers .1 U."MiBA gONAYSY Me Y.LIxexY.Tn vmsw In udy\wreA nl In.n,w_ un,mn INm,n e., rin.l.rm.nrw ledoenwi ra..v Mma IrrM Ey Nrry end . I • Inrmnm wnY. M 11 In a n, I,."r end real Ilnem- N 4mnNallll Trr m[N IN/ .urpr - In[IWm[ IN [e,MN mP4-A mA IN..In D,. C nmIV rlrm.INPrnea p^'mmun[ • L. 4vnrvm[mumy r I. rA4n thole 1 eAJdw J I. N n .�mw. xend m a.,e wl.n[n 1wy.n ,r �•��n..m.I ltr pra' nlw.1 rlMl Mrv, 11, nnnm tnnft Ire, NVnmrm .find, "urw.... aua.r were,.. Bul loth Iwo m more .IrYe IM1.n atl4r 1111[ ..I. I.. tlunq IM 11.1 I,.0 d we. rmt BMP o- wwr- we Ito nunN. m IMF drrvwr•A.n..a.ry, v 11 nl- Nm wt Im In IM' Ina nAer. A dawnv. Mr.,J.'a nmLwuJ In u . earn.+ , m.1. m blrnnnN MYvmn In u I.. wI %-,. In I'nr0mu hlM, n. s . aIv n,n yr..Y -n., n.lru .nr nurl. nJrll.�nr11.4.. Here's how they operate YWef•. bNB1U1. $HYb NC Mb1 nY0 en IM: {612 Won In rd oral. See.d W $,a, 5 dmw rn sek^} mi m `wgnv Ideas I. IMlem raprMlwr:thHY[lmpa Me r Ga. IYYuunW rlpl len' Lob IMn S1mYlruv1100C,W C, vs. nuM+N ODS" OCtl f50.fWm MnSB.Wa.ff P.M] slop n.11nn M 1's19.99o-us r9W NunWb a pwbndsm undaw 2.l:N RYYJ .wars. 9. W 0 nN ..I. 6NIpN.R In munlelp. swerl[Mnl, vnew in9 eupppl ~; 2111 fa dden9 year: Open ,brq mwvewl Nrba rn 1919 O ,wane.: end". ba orowRla by 9ro4.ep1¢ a end by we owes. TNre we sn_ wy wunwas, 1p bam1M. ev ry Swwd pwe9 end Iw — — In we d Innu MA". W gp9rw re", rprwb wll orally wr .ran M .. were, wINInnerM Ia1 Gbr and Idni,We, Oren+. GnA r9wNsr Cap. Mee yeve .. �q. Nne kN up: 9ards. emarserI. 9Y efew m.", V1rV.1.1. 4xN g .,;wwe n.Me b. kny am +.nro. [uen -kve,ne alMne41ae q -I.. Jed, end WtTI -1. e Fewer new, rMgper MWn lam I. va. enw, �. s1Y &V o tldlB wXu.a nIn 'If.s. awn wltlmn. n. AJr1r b Ensue w^ .. apl! 1YYB N IM: N! bbn n rd 1 u sown. In rrwW: m1 Il— L' YrN. n b%al By {I01 a bias n knV' nnl.mrn. mvn.ar nl a4V'. PYCIr[ le— torn mm[ped Mb. epla dmanmml Percents a of lon -term municipal vl•lume 9 9 P murww wm.11. fM r Ow1.111. aw.l.mrt w lM srµ. rlwtwn lb.r. wwnn.e Issues rated by both Moody's and 58P {b WO.O.Irr 0 G o..raOebbb: rear M1u'I#M1luno ml r' rwwml moor t. First-half volume:$8.4 billion W lawnwi°^v.deo" r...PMre ui,. f1301reww".00) Mtrw.n�. ,r ,..I M. pamn nun. p.: ypr!'a Mreuan 5emce lm 6WWMa{PCp.Cap. IluOU {A"YmN•Y��'1f0aW 0.6WI r�IrN..ly. N0.1apRbvilO.UN{ta.aa0 f ea�rwnmr r.rrJ l'r\nl u Abler'lY MA N] {IW nrYblwlp upll2.pW 6MUpp . ..'L'rFurvJ. e116rY1we I1 0.n. u.�y'n "1 . I M kYe10kW : Opa u16.ar rr xnwY- N a91 M Its f A• � m�n1nrn+v.newrMme Plen AIll. M Q l F1WeYeNT.I1kIFI rF1MYM. •FWrNN,lra.^ Over OJ A SM. ItsY1r1iM NVI11IaYB: l2a mn .um W Ak..Wrrr. V. I s We a, .. rrr townn v e- sw, . .rang n..vw h.lYe rear: Bon heI In1e�k .W . r e wa r.I Ae...Mrr. 1a.. Qler o. anw 0) bp1yN 1M0. Imm r.uM. M.. I— Nel ,W . Mew. r. M ew. nw Mr.dvl M..nbknW. OI.YIYIYYI Mil'M N a{Prted PY In LruN M.[Y. NY, Iw. kwyn,. nXr twens. pleNtl a they I. Yl Y pMwY Cppe roily rtrrr.A.. un rrlnrl. 1114,r^n.rn nI.r..r.M' wwww.a ,4 newrelrgl.gy YnreapynraprheaµNeuayyurvr pplp1ryMNy rrlpdYrr ay. r eY.awrlwww inn mI.rurlr.. p=NrinrmrpmYawMe'"weW,—ewPew r^+^w a"eTalwerYrrLe. aleM. Mpywardpr.ryN Nl dd w..Yeeaarasn<ene.n. r...rm..r.r. .Yn... � bbPYlele. wrplef�V muo-.ma .nth la om weuo NYder1.new l.rso- uemep.r. I. Yre Nre lr 1...—w, Yr M I -m InnnwalotYM1dr Mrl4 RWwilW xRw en1Wwa.N erwlwlM aBelewYeral lba.ikMpefNnr w ryw mn,kwn:Y'p^ we,Idva'" Walteryears, Nkw nvg.vxbmn re.rdY'. rm. e.Yr d .. In <aR11e dark. Yw ne[e10 PY ab lMr nr ml w I:ryelWn Mprryln 1'm0.1WnY nn rM lrnl nllw lw vmmuarllWa. IsllmewwWn rnl 1Mlwrnd lm wd N I . nnI rmren w 6ww1 w v. PM raunY e . rnY n enw. m _ ew ar"wwnWw ..w. MrlFrym eLlrurvlmmr lnrre rrr lM.4nd merY ...I wool...Imr». IM mrw: w rnyddlc nn4 rrvev re.rmmry rn IMLw.eW onems nnnau IeallPWrle Nr w.Y.ue .0 u.Yuuuw rnm M.ndy. rrlM WY.r .11 Ia .. .. rr .nLy v.'n.rl krn. n. l.welul N.NnlrY rr4Y .ryll N p... nr nr.. vr... t. YI' Awn nnud uuM ew..nWl bob.. r. 1Y1Y .m....nn I.nIY. a. le. sal.. YP. eRRn ..suer. nn Crw}Rl. w rc mo YlnYa mmMn .nrl ..Y YII'mlw-rwrM1W.M wm lM1 .rw+w: wae9 uweun wrui. reY vVutlu Irnur.. nNr. YV uenm�I eereelwa welly Mru Yea 1 We.nwnnrr.[py,a