The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting7 l l 7 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE 1 COt.U4 tu., PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NA A (pl , m p int) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) C Jftz , t5 i•� ��.. 3 I 17) 5. 'ALI; 7. �./C Al (A;-/ /j C9� ,' 1 z f 3 . �Peaj AvOet_ cy t-�kL . 4. L'Wet1 ► / S. 6. ,7. .9. !0 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Orono City Staff From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Date: September 21, 1988 Subject: Agenda Date for Council Meeting The regular Council meeting scheduled for Monday, September 26, 1988 has been postponed to Wednesday, September 28, 1988. COUNCIL MEETING SEP 2 3198a CITY Of ORONO LNG MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 �.,..+., , ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. � The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Counc;ilmembers Goetten, Peterson, Callahan and Nettles. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Public Works Director Gerhardson, and City Recorder Scheffler. City Attorney Barrett was also present. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion, Ayes=S, Nays=O, Motion passed. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - ROBERT KOST Mr. Kost resigned from his position as Park Commission Chairman in August of 1988. Mayor Grabek presented Mr. Kost with a plaque and expressed appreciation on behalf of the City of Orono for his years of service and accomplishments as the Par? Commission Chairman. Mr. Kost accepted the plaque and told the Mayor and Councilmembers that it was his pleasure working with the City of Orono and he appreciated all the support he received from the City Council. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the August 22, 1988 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative Cohen was not present for this Council Meeting. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: /990 WARD FERRELL 3405 W# TKRTOWN ROAD VARIANCE The applicant was not present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that in February, 1986, the Planning Commission recommended denial of building two houses on applicant's three aczes of land. They indicated that they may approve building one additional house. Mr. Ferrell's property is located within the RR-lB zoning area which requires a minimum two acre lot size for a building site. When this matter was brought before the Council, it was again denied, but was tabled before the resolition was drafted. These same events took place in May of 1987 after applicant requested to reopen this item. MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #990-FERRELL CONTINUED Mr. Ferrell is now requesting that this matter be reopened once more and has a revised plan for consideration. Applicant is seeking a variance on one of the two vacant lots. Bernhardson stated that there are some alternatives for this matter. One would be to combine the two westerly lots, which would create a parcel of approximately two acres, leaving the easterly portion with a little over one acre. Another option would be to do a lot line rearrangement so that the total three -acre parcel would be splir exactly in half. The concern of approving Mr. Ferrell's request to develop only one of the lots is that both lots are substandard and it would be difficult to apprcve building on one lot and deny the other similar lot. In light of applicant's revision to the original application, staff is recommending that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. It was roved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to refer #990, Ward Ferrell, back to the Planning Commission for review. Councilmember Goetten stated that she would hope this was the last time this matter was brought before the Council. She felt that the City Council had been very accommodating in trying to resolve this matter, but Mr. Ferrell had commented to the contrary. She suggested that should there be any additional costs involved with the review of this new proposal, Mr. Ferrell should be responsible. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1303 ALLAN REZABEK 1989 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION The applicants were not present for this matter. Prior to any discussion on this matter, Mayor Grabek removed himself from the Council, due to his personal association with the parties involved. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Council had previously given conceptual direction to the City pertaining to the approval of relocating a fence. At the August 22nd Council Meeting, it was discovered that the Applicants were in the process of selling this property. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron had tried several times to contact applicants but had been informed that Rezabek's phone number had been changed. The Resolution, once drafted, will require the signature of the current resident at 1989 Fagerness Point Road. It was staff's recommendation that this matter be tabled for two weeks to ascertain who currencly owns the property. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to whether the current homeowners would be advised to attend the Council Meeting on September 26th. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that if !MINUTES OF RBGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1303-REZABEK CONTINUED indeed there are new property owners, the City would ask them Lo attend the Council Meeting so their intentions regarding the fence could be determined. If it is their desire to reinstall the fence, the Council could proceed as planned, otherwise the matter would be dismissed. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this matter until the September 26, 1988 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nayes=0, Motion passed. #1311 JOBN PURDY 1975 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCE City Administrator Bernhardson advised the Council that the Purdys were asking to renew and revise variances granted in 1985. The Purdys were seeking approval to construct an addition consisting of a 3-season, porch and bathroom. They would require lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances. Mr. Purdy made reference to a written statement that was included in the information given to the Councilmembers. He did not agree with the Planning Commission's findings and asked the Council to reconsider their proposal. Applicant stated that their hardship was that the house was built 80 years ago and only has a bata and a half. Mr. Purdy did not feel that their proposal was obtrusive to any of their neighbors and the addition would not be visible from the lake. There would be no drainage problem created by their proposed addition. Councilmember Goetten stated that she would look at this application more favorably if it were for a bathroom only. She did not feel that a 3-season porch was a necessity. She also questioned the feasibility of putting the addition on the kitchen side of the house. She stated that she would have a difficult time approving the addition because it would be in the 0-75' zone. Mr. Purdy replied that the proposed location of the bathroom was the most sensible and accessible. The remodeling and addition they did in 1985 eliminated the screen por-h they had. They now find that they miss the porch and wish to build one that would allow them a view of Lake Minnetonka. Placing the addition where they currently propose would eliminate the need to make any new accesses. In terms of minimum costs, their present proposal. is the most economical. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to the location of the previous screen porch. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron indicated that the porch had been located on the street side of the house. Mr. Purdy also volunteered to remove hardcover in the form 3 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1311-PURDY CONTINUED of a kennel and storage shed that were presently located within the 0-75' zone. Councilmember Goetten expressed her concern to be that a 3-season porch becomes a room addition. Mr. Purdy stated that he had no such plans and asked if it would make a difference. Goetten stated that perhaps the applicants would not turn the porch into a full-scale addition, but future owners of the property may do so. Councilmemoe.: Goetten asked for the hardcover calculations of the shed and kennel. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the shed was approximately 52 s.f. and the kennel area, which is partially underlain with plastic, was excluded from the current hardcover calculations becauje portions were removed as a result of the previous variance granted to the applicants. Mr. Purdy stated that his calculations totalled a net gain of 83 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Gaffron stated that staff had calculated the net gain to be 101 s.f. Councilmember Callahan asked what the calculations would be if it was presumed that the areas where permeable fabric was used were considered hardcover. Gaffron stated that if rockbeds and permeable fabric were considered hardcover, the percentage of hardcover would be 21.6% in the 0-75 and 28.2% in the 75-250. Mr. Purdy stated that their variance approval in 1985 was conditioned upon removal of the plastic under the rockbeds. They complied with this request and replaced the plastic with permeable fabric. Gaffron referred to a Planning Commission Exhibit B that indicated that the kennel pad has had the block and plastic removed so it could not be used in the trade-off calculations. There is still 360 s.f. of fabric underneath the trampoline pad that would be considered as hardcover. Councilmember Callahan aired his opinion that permeable fabric should be considered hardcover. Mr. Purdy replied that the only reason the fabric was installed was because the City directed him to do so. Councilmember Goetten stated that it was her understanding that the City had not taken a formal stand on the permeable fabric issue, and believed that the fabric was better than the plastic. City Administrator Bernhardson pointed out the fact that the Purdys already received "credit" for the removal of hardcover under the kennel and rockbeds. To include those areas again in this application would allow them "double credit" for hardcover. Mrs. Purdy responded that they did not add all of the approved hardcover in their construction in 1985. Bernhardson confirmed that fact and added that there would have to be a determination made as to the hardcover tradeoffs that actually occurred as a result of the Purdy's 5-year plan. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator r fron clarified what the 5-year proposal ertailed. Mr. Puru led that the 5-year plan involved a much larger additi_ and substantially more hardcover than their current proposal. 4 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1311-PURDY CONTINUED Mayor Grabek stated that the Council has to be very cautious of any variances for construction in the 0-75' zone. If there are alternatives that could be utilized to avoid that area, he would prefer to proceed in that manner. The City has always taken a stand on construction in that area and they should not deviate from that policy. Mayor Grabek agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Purdy expressed his belief that 83 s.f. was a minimal encroachment into the 0-75' zone. Their addition would not inflict any hardship on anyone, it would not be visible to anyone, and it would not affect the drainage. He asked the Council who this plan would hurt, if approved. Mayor Grabek reiterated his concern involving precedent setting for construction in the 0-75' zone. Councilmember Goetten did not see a hardship that required a 3-season porch. She suggested that the Purdys reconsider putting the addition on -:ne side of their house as they initially planned. Mrs. Purdy a.ldressed the issue of cost involved with proposing a new Flan. Councilmember Goetten replied that financial. considerations were not an allowable hardship in the Council's decision making process. Mrs. Purdy stated that their current proposal was the most logical and affordable. Mayor Grabek sympathized with the Purdy's situation, but added that he could not ignore the issue of preserving the area within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. He would have to draw the line somewhere. Councilmember Goetten offered to have this matter tabled to allow the applicants time to revise their plans. She informed tie Purdy's that should the Council vote against their plan, th:y would have to start the entire variance procedure again from the beginning. Mr. Purdy stated that the present proposal was the only proposal they had. It was moves'. by Ma -or Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations and give conceptual direction to staff to prepare a denial resolution for the Council's consideration at the September 26, 1988 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. 1313 RICHARD ELLER 2655 SHADYWOOD ROAD 'VARIANCE - RJSZ3LUTION #2491 City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the intent of the applicants was to replace an existing second story deck with a first floor level screened porch with a deck above it. The hardcover percentage would remain the same due to the Ellers removing portions of a concrete patio. Most of this property lies within the 0-75'zone because at one time the property was not considered part of the main Lake and the 75' setbacks did not apply. however, now the lakeshore setback does apply to this property. There is currently 29.6% of hardcover in the 0-75' zone and appll.cant will be removing an equal or greater amount of hardcover in this zone. MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL METING SEPTEMBER 12, 198E ZONING FILE #1313-ETLER CONTINUED Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron gave more details involving this application and showed the Council where the removals and replacements of hardcover would occur. Councilmember Goetten mentioned that she had visited the site and thought that the applicant's proposal improved the present situation. She appreciated the fact that the Ellers were removing as much hardcover as they were installing. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2491. Motion, Ayes=5, Nayes=0, Motion passed. #131 4 GERALD ROWLETTE 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2492 Applicants were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Rowlettes were seeking a street setback variance for the purpose of installing a sunroom. The sunroom would be located in an existing indentation along the north outer wall of the house. The main issue is hardcover and a patio that the Rowlettes were to have removed in accordance with a variance granted in 1976. The Planning Commission recently recommended approval of this current application based on the removal of half of the concrete patio. Since that time, it had been determined that the patio was split into three sections rather than two. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron inli ated cn a diagram the configuration of the patio. Councilmember Callahan questioned why the Planning Commission did not have any concern over the number of concrete slabs. Applicant stated that he had informed the Planning Commission that there were two slabs, but upon re-examining the patio, found there to be three slabs. Applicant stated that he would like to remove the outer_ slab, which would mean a removal of lesLi hardcover than recommended by the Planning Commission. May-r Grabek asked applicant why he had not previously removed a concrete patio as directed by thn City. Mr. Rowlette stated Ic.at he had an ice build-up problem in that area. He could remove the ice from the concrete surface, but could not chip the ice from a wocd deck. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Rowlette if he would also find a reason for not complying with the City should they redirect him to remove a portion of the patio. Applicant stated that he ant the Planning Commission had ?is:;ussed this issue and the slab would have to be removed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the sunroom. City Administrator Bernhardson reiterated that applicant was requesting that only one-third of the concrete patio be remcvPd 2 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1314-ROWLETTE CONTINUED as opposed to one-half. Gaffron stated that the resolution could be revised to reflect the Council's decision as to the extent of removal. The resolution currently directs that one-half of the patio be removed. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to amend Resolution #2492, to direct that applicant remove the most southerly 7' x 20' section of patio, which will leave two remaining 7' x 20' slabs. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motir- passed. #1315 sOUNTRYSIDE MANOR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WILLOW DRIVE AND COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2493 Mr. Phil Miller was present as a representative for the Countryside Manor Homeowner's Association. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that applicant was seeking a variance to construct entrance monuments for Countryside Drive that exceed the 3 1/2' height requirement. The City and Homeowner's Association previously discussed the issue of signage on the monuments and determined that there would be none. Mr. Miller reported that the Homeowner's Association had prepared some elevations and drawings of what they were proposing. The Association had no plans to include any signage for the monuments and had no problem adhering to the City's determination. Mr. Miller also addressed the situation involving undesireable behavior on behalf of one of the Associatio,, members. During a Planning Commission Meeting, this person made rude comments pertaining to the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller stated that this person was out of .line and he extended an apology on behalf of this individual. Councilmember Goetten thanked Mr. Miller for his apology and stated that she had jeen seated directly in front of the individual. Councilmember Callanan reiterated Councilmember Goetten's comments. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt. Resolution #2493. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1316 GARY BARR 3034 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE Applicant was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicant MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUN-`IL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1316-BARR CONTINUED was seeking variances for hardcover, structure to structure setback and accessory structure floor area. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this application for the construction of a garage. Since that time, the applicant had proposed a revised plan which the City Toning Staff had not received or reviewed as of the date of this Council Meeting. Bernhardson asked Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron if that was stir the case. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron replied that he had not received any concrete revised proposals. Originally the applicant was proposing to use a common wall with an existing garage to construct an additional garage. This would create an extremely large accessory structure. There were also two alternate plans presented which would involve building the additional detached garage 51to 10' from the existing garage. The existing garage has a 2nd story, as would the proposed garage. The area above the proposed garage would be used as a workshop area. Gaffron referred to a letter that was received from the applicant's builder, Mr. Clint Gables, where4_n he mentioned that Mr. Barr would agree to reduce the size of the proposed garage so there would be no need for a. variance for floor area. However, the applicant would still require a variance for hardcover. Mr. Barr explained that he was now proposing a garage approximately 26' x 301. He reiterated his desire to have the extra area above the garage for a shop area. Mayor Grabek inquired as to the current use of the area above the existing garage. Mr. Barr replied that his stepbrother lives in that area and watches the property. Mr. Barr.'s occupation as an airline pilot causes him to be away extensive"y. In addition, Mr. Barr resides in Florida during the winter_ months. Councilmember Goetten asked whethe-r Mr. Barr's stepbrother rented the area above the garage. Mr. Barr responded affirmatively. Goetten informed him that he would need a ccndir_ional use permit to allow him to rent that space. Bernhardson added that a variance would probably be required whether the area is rented or not.. Mr. Barr restated that his stepbrother was a security measure, in addition to a mechanic. Mr. Barr was requesting the garage for the purpose of storing classic cars that he collected. He said that Florida was not conducive to maintaining old cars because of the excessive salt in the air. Mayor Grabek suggested to applicant that he put together more information about his revised plan and come before the Council again. Mr. Barr asked about the need for a variance if he were reducing the amount of hardcover. Gaffron stated that if the total hardcover percent could be reduced below 25%, a hardcover variance would not be required. Counc- lrr.ember Goetten inquired as to why applicant decided not to attach the proposed 8 MINUTES OF REGULF.R ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1316-BARR CONTINUED garage to the existing garage. Mr. Barr explained that the existing garage is nearly 1,000 s.f. Attaching another structure to it would put him over the maximum 1,000 s.f. f loor area requirement. He preferred to construct the addition-' garage in this fashion because it would be the least obtrusive. Councilmember Callahan stated that he would be inclined to agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. He can see no hardship in this matter. The applicant's lot is very limited. If Mr. Barr made revisions to his plan that would not require variances, that would be fine. However, he would not approve any other plan. Councilmember Peterson asked Gaffron what size limitations the applicant could meet without the need for variances. The current code allows multiple accessory structures as long as they are detached. Mr. Barr could have as many 1,000 s.f. buildings as long as hardcover area limitations are adhered to. The location of the structure and how much driveway would be needed, to access it will determine the maximum size the building can be to conform to an existing or decreased level of hardcover. There was a brief discussion pertaining to areas above garage structures and the potential for them to be turned into living space. City Administrator Bernhard3on suggested that the Council return this matter to the Planning Commission. It would be necessary for them to review this application since Mr. Barr had deviated from his original plans. Also, there would need to be a review for the possibility of an after -the -fact conditional use permit for the area being occupied above the existing garage. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that whether the applicant needed variance approval for his proposed constiu.:tion, he would still need to apply for a sepa..:ate conditional use permit for the dwelling above the existing garage. In light of that, this matter would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to refer this matter back_ to the Planning Commission to address the revised plan and the after -the -fact conditional use permit. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1320 DR. AND MRS. BRANDENBURG 719 MINNETONICA HIGHLANDS LANE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2494 The applicants were TICT. present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson apprised the Council that the applicants were seekinq hardcover variances to reconstruct a screen porch and existing deck on the lake side of their home. Currently the- i _ ? :. ° % hardcover in the 75-250'zone and would require an average lakeshore setback variance. Assistant E MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1320-BRANDENBURG CONTINUED Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron presented the plan as proposed by the applicants. He explained that the Brandenburgs were going to rebuild and slightly revise an existing second story deck and 3-season porch. They would also be revising the outside stairway. There will be no increase in hardcover and no further encroachment into the lakeshora setback area. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve this application per Planning Commission's recommendations and conditions, as set forth in Resolution #2494. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1284 WUGL.AS KIRCHNER 1520 BOHAS POINT ROAD REQUEST TO AMEND HARDCOVER ALLOWANCE RESOLUTION #2503 The applicant was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Council had previously granted an after -the -fact permit for construction of a lakeside deck. There were to be some hardcover trade-offs made as a condition to the approval. While removing hardcover to conform with the Counci l's directives, applicant's son removed more hardcover than necessary in the 75-250' zone. Mr. Kirchner does have a shed and tarbeque area in the 075' zone that were slated for removal, but have not yet beer. removed. Applicant would like to retain those two items, which would cause a net increase in 0-75' hardcover from 3.56E to 4.9%. Mr. Kirchner stated that approval of the original application involved reducing hardcover by the amount they intended to add Ila the lakeshore yard. Applicant planned to not only do that but to also decrease the hardcover back by the garage. When Mr. and Mrs. Kirchner returned home from their vacation, they discovered that part of the walkway to the lake was removed. Mr. Kirchner added that the walk -ay was a main sou-.:G for water runoff to the lake. • It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to approve the amended request for hardcover removal, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADDENDUM ZO ZONING ADMINISTRATORS REPORT f1275 DOUGLAS JOHNSON 1399 PARE DRIVE RESOLUTION #1275 The applicants were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Council "Ad F:revious1y approved the side setback and average lakeshore 10 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SP.i'TEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE i1275-DOUGLAS JOHNSON CONTINUED setback for the construction of a house. At that time, it was indicated that the foundation would remain as it was and that the construction would be merely an addition to the existing house. The Engineer's direction was that the house be lifted and the top course of block on the outside existing and inside gearing walls be removed. The foundation could then be strengthened by placing a #5 vertical rebar every 16". It was assumed that there were adequate footings underneath the block wall. The variances were granted upon the premise that the foundation was not to be removed, only strengthened. During the week of September 5th, the work began on the site. The house had been totally removed, and only a small portion of the f .-.!indation remaineu,. The question nov before the Council is whether the proposed house must be relocated to meet "he required setbacks. It had been determined by the City's Puilding Inspector that the footings under the remaining .':cundation were ncnexistent and therefore could not support a new st:uct:ure. Staff is recommending that the house be moved back to comply with the setbacks. However, the applicants have set the forms for the new footings on the property, but they have not yet bear. poured. Mr. Johnson reiterated Bernhardson's explanation of the situation. He felt that he had complied with the City's directives and that the stop -work order was unnecessary. Mr. Johnson referred to the Planning Commission Minutes for the June 6, 1988 Meeting. The paragraphs referred to Chairman Kelley's inquiries and comments rep-arding the replacement of the existing foundation. The motion f. approval of this item was conditioned upon the house being moved to meet setbacks should the foundation require removal. Mr. Johnson stated that be would not have proceeded to the Council without the Engineer's a opz ova 1 or recommendations. Mr. Johnson apprised the Council of his proposal which included the addition of foundation in one location and the removal of a portion of foundation .in another location. However, an additional portion of the existing foundation needed replacement because it cracked while the structure was being removed. The entire front portion needed a new 42" foundation to support the structure due to a lack of adequate footings. The structural engineer Mr. Johnson hired was referred by the City. Mr. Johnson made reference to paragraph ##5 in Mr. Zimn.iewicz's letter dated June 29, 1988. This paragraph recommended that a 6' to 8" cap be poured on top of the outside and inside bearing walls. The engineer also recommended adding a 4" wall to the existing 8" ,all and fill all voids in the existing walls. There were only two options available to accomplish the recommendations by the engineer. one would be to lift the rouse and replace the block or tear off the existing and replace it with adequate support for the proposed structure. 11 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEKBER 12, 1988 ZONING PILE #1275-DOUGLAS JOHNSON CONTINUED Mayor Grabek drew the applicant's attention back to page two, paragraph D, of the Resolution which indicated that the applicants' intened to add to an existing structure. At this time there is no existing structure and the stipulation is that under that condition, the proposed house must be moved to meet the setback requi ants. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Johnson if he had revised his pi to conform with that stipulation. He also asked whether it .s the applicants' intent from the very beginning to remove the existing structure. Mr. Johnson responded that per the engineer's recommendations, yes, he did intend to remove the existing house. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron told the Mayor that it was staff's understanding that applicant would try to retain as much of the old structure as possible. The key point is that the City Building Inspector had determined that there are not sufficient footings for the proposed structure. Mr. Zimniewicz's recommendations were based upon the assumption that those footings were adequate., The City cannot approve building a house with the existing portion of foundation as is. New footings would need to be installed under that wall and that cannot be done. The wall will need tc be removed which would leave nothing of the initial structure. That would result in the proposed house being moved to meet the setback requirements as set forth in Resolution #2463. Councilmember Peterson asked it all the remaining wall would need to Le removed? Gaffron replied that yes, due to a lack of sufficient footings, all walls would need to be removed. The applicant asked why the engineer did not notice this problem when he examined the property. Gaffron stated that Mr. Zimniewicz assumed that there were 12" x 24" footings, there were not. The City cannot allow a 2-story structure to be built without proper footings. Councilmember Goetten added that Minnesota Codes dictate in this case, not the City of Orono. Mr. Johnson stated that he was just going by the findings of the structural engineer. Gaffron stated that the engineer's assumptions of what existed were found later to be incorrect and there was nothing that could be done at this point to change that. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the original application and plans were requesting a remodelling of an existinq house. There was no mention of the foundation or redoing the joists. Mayor Grabek was alarmed by the aspect of this application being a request for rerrodeA ing only. Mr. Johnson objected to the implications that there wa,; no existing house on the property. Councilmember Goetten explai.. �d to Mr. Johnson that in cases such as this, she would like to ;ee the applicants' uphold the setback requirements. They are no 'onger remodeling :n existing structure; there is no existing structure, the; are building a completely new house. She reminded the applicant that she had discussed this with him and warned hi.: of 12 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 7.ONING FILE #1275-DOUGLAS JOHNSON CONTINUED the possibilities should the entire house and foundation be removed. The applicant expressed further reasons why he Felt the setback variances should be granted. He would not be encroaching upon his neighbors. He was originally misrepresented as to the condition of the existing house and just what portions of the lot were his. Mayor Grabek said that they needed to address only the issue at hand, not the history of the property. That issue was that the applicants were unable to save the existing house. He was understanding of the fact that there was not much that could have been done to save the house, but nonetheless, it was entirely removed. The applicant referred to the Resolution, under the Conclusions section, paragraph #3. Mr. Johnson noted that there were no specific indications as to the amount of foundation that he had to retain. City Administrator Bernhardson asked Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron for clarification as to how much wall remained and what would be removed. Gaffron replied that the foundation yet standing would need to be removed. There would be no way to support the walls while pouring footings underneath them. Mr. Johnson disagreed and stated that the wall could be braced while the footings were poured. Mr. Johnson went on to say that moving the house to meet the side setback would require the removal of a 150' Poplar tree. He had the house designed so that it would fit the lot. Councilmember Goetten stated that she appreciated that, but now they were dealing with a far more serious issue than the setbacks and that was the poor condition of the existing foundation. Mr. Johnson stated that there would be a lift station and well that would interfere with relocating the position of the house. Councilmember Callahan reminded applicant that he had agreed to relocate the proposed house if none of the existing house could be saved. Mr. Johnson stated that he made that agreement, but did not have all of the facts at that time. Councilmember Callahan stated that neither the house nor the foundation of the original house exists, therefore the applicants must meet the 0- 75' lakeshore setback and 10' sice setback. Applicant stated that he did not want to change the drainage of the lot. Moving the house 10' would not change the drainage of the house, but it would cause the removal cf the tree. Gaffron indicated that the current proposal places the new house within 10' of the tree. Councilmember Callahan inquired as to how far back the house would have to be moved. Applicant replied, "8 feet, if I build a deck, none of the house is sitting in the 0-75." There is only a portion of the deck which encroaches into that zone. Councilmember Goetten stated that she had no problem with the proposed deck, but re;teratea her point that in a case such as this, the City requests that all setbacks be adhered to. 13 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING FILE #1275-DOUGLAS JOHNSON CONTINUED Councilmember Goetten asked Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron if moving the house would impinge upon the lift station. Gaffron stated that the lift station would have to be replaced if the house were moved over. However, an examination of the lift station indicated that the current proposed location of the house would still allow access to the lift station. A portion of it would be under the line of the house. Applicant stated that he planned the design of the house with the lift station in mind. He did not know how large the cavity was. City Administrator Bernhardson asked Mr. Johnson if he would have gone ahead with this project if a determination was made from the onset that the entire foundation woul require removal? Mr. Johnson stated that it would have changed his thinking as to the design of the house. He added that the farther back on the lot the house is placed, the more of an incline there would be to contend with. Councilmember Callahan surmized that the Johnson's neighbors chose to build their homes up on top of the hill, farther from the lake. If the Council were to insist upon the average lakeshore setback being met, the house would have to be built up on the hill. Mr. Johnson concurred and added that he could not use the existing house plan. He has already obtained a mortgage based upon the existing plan. Mayor Grabek stated that he could not look at this matter in any other light than what had previously been agreed upon. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, that since the entire structure has been removed in order to meet Minnesota Building Codes, that the new structure be located so as to meet the setback requirements. Applicant asked for clarification that if he met the setbacks he could build the house as is? City Adminstrator Bernhardson stated that an average setback variance would still be required. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reported chat the Building Inspector suggested some minor revisions to the proposed plan in light of relocating the house to meet the setbacks. Mayor Grabek reiterated what the motion entailed. Gaffron asked if the deck would need to meet the 0-75' setback. The Council answered affirmatively. Gaffron acknowledged that the average lakeshore setback variance would still be granted. Councilmember Peterson questioned the height variance. Gaffron st-ated that the height variance would still be granted because there would be no change in the height. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion pa3sed. ENGINEERS REPORT: WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12 FLASHBR* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the maintenance agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the flasher liqht at Willow Drive and Highway 12, and to bill Long Lake 50% of the 14 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL METING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 WILLOW DRIVE FLASHER CONTINUED cost. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. PAY REQUEST #1-HARDRIVES, INC. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve Pay Request #1, Woodhill Avenue Street Project, to Hardrives, Inc., for an amount of $13,569.00. Motion, Ayes=4, Councilmember Peterson, Nay, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE -BRAD VAN NEST RESOLUTION #2495 Mayor Grabek read the Resolution commemorating Mr. Van Nest for his numerous contributions to the City of Oronc. He added that Mr. Van Nest not only had a love for the City of Orono, but for Lake Minnetonka as well. Mr. Van Nest was a strong individual and there were many people who agreed and disagreed with him. Mayor Grabek said he did both, but respected Brad's commitment, time and effort he gave toward the conservation of the City and the Lake. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt the Resolution Commemorating William Brad Van Nest and that a commemorative plaque be presented to the Van Nest family. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Moticn passed. LAKE MINNETONKA REGIONAL PARR City Administrator Bernhardson explained tb°. this item was being presented as "an information only ,,' He had communicated wi;.h the alternate attorney and iim letter requesting that he review the matter and dete_ ," r:e the best method for the City to proceed. He expected a response from Mr. Soth by the September 26, 1988 Council Meeting. Councilmember Goetten reported that she felt this matter needed more attention and presentee it to the Metropolitan Association of Municipalities Committee. The Committee showed interest in supporting the lawsuit and has referred this matter to the appropriate Policy Committee of the League of Minnesota Cities. Goetten is hopeful that she will receive feedback soon and will apprise Bernhardson of their response. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information from the Administrator regarding the issues on the lawsuit, together with issue discussions with the Attorney, and directs that this item be tabled until the September 26, 1988, meeting. Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. ORONO/LONG LAKE DISCUSSIONS City Administrator Bernhardson reported that following the individual discussions, the Facilitator recommended that 2 people 15 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ORONO/LONG LABS DISCUSSIONS CONTINUED from each Community meet to establish ground rules for the eventual joint meeting. It was recommended that Mayor Grabek and City Administratcr Bernhardson be the persons to meet witi, the Faciltator and representatives from Long Lake. Councilmember Goetten asked when they were going to meet. Councilmember Callahan warned of the open meeting law. Councilmember Goetten understood that the agenda only involved discussion of this one item. She inquired as to what other items would be discussed. Mayor Grabek clarified that it was not agenda items that would be discussed, but an agenda for the discussion of the one item. He suggested to the Facilitator that the Council as a whole partake in this pre -meeting discussion. However, the Facilitator thought it best if ground rules were established with a small group of representatives. There was no motion on this item as a meeting date has yet. to be determined. PROCLAMATION OF CONSTITUTION WEEK RESOLUTION #2502 The Daughters of the American Revolution were requesting all local governments to proclaim September 17, 1988 through September 23, 1988 as Constitution Week. Mayor Grabek believed that the Constitution deserved a week of observance. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2502. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: BOHN'S POINT FEASIBILITY REPORT City Administrator Bernhardson explained that ~he Council had previously discussed this matter at their August 8, 1988 Council Meeting. The Council indicated that they wanted the feasibility to include redoing the Bohn's Point Road at a 24' width. That directive was presented to the residents of Bohn's Point Road who indicated that they only wanted the Road 22' and would not fund the feasibility study if it were to include a 24' study. Bernhardson consulted with the City Engineer who said that the study could be done at either the 24' or 22' wi th. A determination could be made as to which width was desired prior to the plan specifications being drawn. Mayor Grabek inquired if the residents would still be liable to pay for he study if the Council decided against their wishes. City Admi- -.rator Bernhardson stated that an agreement would be made as t :4' or 22' prior to proceeding with the study. Mr. Clark Winslow was present and stated that he had met with Public works Director. Gerhardson and the City Engineer. He 16 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTE14BER 12, 1988 BOHN'S POINT FEASIBILITY STUDY CONTINUED and some of the residents measured to see what effect a 24' road would have on the area. It would require removal of some trees and would affect the roots of other trees. It would also bring the road within only a few feet of electric poles. Due to these problems and the fact that Bohn's Point Road has a unique characteristic, the residents prefer the road width to be 22'. Mr. Winslow compared Bohn's Point with Woodhill and felt that there was a significant difference between t'De two roads. Woodhill was far less inhabited and had a lot of open, marshy areas. Bohn's Point had considerably more residences and tre- The residents are requesting freedom to redo the road and spe . their money in a manner they feel would best suit their neighborhood. Councilmember Goetten asked if there was a concensus of the residents to do the road at 221. Mr. Winslow stated that those residents who were asked, were emphatic about the road being 22', and would not even discuss the possiblity or the road being 24'. The residents felt that 24' would be too wide for a dead-end street and the penninsula characteristics. Mayor Grabek inquired of City Administrator Bernhardson as to what the 24' included. Bernhardson replied that the 24' width woule be from curb to curb and there would be an 8" berm curb beyond that. Councilmember Goetten stated tbat they had battled for months over the road width of Woodhill Avenue. There were trees that had to be removed. She explained to Mr. Winslow that the reason she would find it difficult to approve Bohn's Point at 22' was because 2.4' was now the standard width of roads in Orono. Mr. Winslow stated that there would be no point to doing the feasibility study at 24' because the residents on the Road would not pay for the study or the Road. There would be :several mature Maple and Oak trees that would be lost. Councilmember Callahan advised Mr. Winslow that should the City Council decide to put in the Road at 24', it would be installed at 24' and the property owners would have to pay for it. Mr. Winslow stated that the residents would fight that decision in Court. Councilmember Goetten told Mr. Winslow that he and the residents had initiated this matter and brought it before the Council. Now that the Council was requesting the road be 24', he and the residents did not want to follow through. Mr. Winslow responded that the matter was brought on the premise that the road he 221. Councilmember Goetten said it was unfortunate that the road width standard was 24', but she would have to abide by that standard. Mr. Winslow asked how many times there had been a request to vary from the standard and how long the 24' standard had beer. `.n existence. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Winslow if the 2 feet would make that much difference? Mr. Winslow responded 17 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1988 BOHN'S POINT FEASIBILITY CONTINUED affirmatively. City Administrator Bernhardson reported that the City Engineer determined that widening the road from the existing 16' to 22' would require tree removal. However, the difference between 22' and 24' would not cause any significant tree removal. In response to Mr. Winslow's questions, Bernhardson replied that the 24' standard had been adhered to for both private and public roads in all but 2 cases in the last 5-6 years. Mr. Winslow stated that he would like Bohn's Point to be an exception to Via 24` rule. He and the Bohn's Point residents would like the road no more than 22' because it would be safer and would not be as costly for the City of Orono. Mayor G.rabek pointed out the options available for resolving this matter. It could either be tabled to determine whether 24' would be acceptable to the residents, or they could vote on the 24' road. Mr. Winslow indicated that there was no need to table the matter because the residents would not change their minds. Councilmember Goetten inquired as to whether the residents were aware of the fact that 24' was the standard. Mr. Winslow replied that the residents did know the standard, but widening the road to 24' would be unsuitable for the Bohn's Point penninsula. If the road were 24' it would be 2' from existing electric poles running along the east side of the road. In addition, it would require the removal of large, mature oak and maple trees. The residents' mailboxes would have to be moved rack and quite a bit of lawn and sprinkler systems would have to be n:ovPd back. If the Road was 22' none of these problems won1d occur. Councilmember Peterson inquired about the future burial of the electric lines. Mr. Winslow responded that approximately half of the lines on the southern half of Bohn's Pol.nt have been buried, but the lines on the northern porti-.)n have not. Councilmember Goetten asked about the impact constriction t.-uck.3 would have on the road. Mr. Winslow stated tha': :he construction projects should be coming to an end. C :.v Administrator Bernhardson stated that he would confer with the Cir.y Engineer, but it was his understanding that the road wculd be built with the truck traffic in mind. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this J_tem so that further information could be obtained from the City Engineer with respect to alternatives. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. 1989 GOAL SETTING City Administrator Bernhardson explained that he had drafted goal setting changes for 1988/1989. He wanted the Council's comments and suggestions or for them to make a motion to adopt his proposal. 18 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 GOAL SETTING CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt the attached material that is representinq the Council's Goal Setting for 1989. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. ANIMAL PERMIT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FEE SCHEDULE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this involved putting a permit system in place to efficiently handle the issuance of permits for the keeping, transporting, treatment and housing of animals within the City of Orono. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this matter until the September 26, 1988 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=-5, Nays=O, Motion passed. 1989 BUDGET MEETING - SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 - 7:00 P.M. City Administrator pernhardson reminded Mayor Grabek and the Councilmembers that there would be a budget meeting on September 20, 1988 ar 7:00 p.m. ORONO/MINNETONICA BEACH INTERCEPTOR CONSTRUCTION City Administrator Ber:iiiardson explained that this was "an information only" item. WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS RESOLUTION #2496 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this item entailed the removal of the odd/even watering ban but reimpose them April 15, 1989. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2496, removing the restrictions of the odd/even regulations. effective September 15, 1988, but re- imposing them April 15, 1989. Councilmember Nettles inquired as to the rationale of replacing the restrictions in April of 1989. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that to date, there has not been enough rain to replenish the system. Water levels may be critical in Spr: - of 1989. If water levels are satisfactory by that time, the restrictions would be withdrawn. Councilmember Callahan expressed the idea that removing the restrictions now ,could ease the task of reimposing them in the April. Councilmember Goetten stated that a water conservation/quality policy was desperately needed. She has been working with JoEllen Hurr of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District in that capacity. Councilmember Nettles said that he had been receiving feedback from neighbors about this policy. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. TEMPORARY TRANSFER STATION-HENNEPIN COUNTY City Administrator Bernhardson explained that there may be a temporary transfer station at the Hennepin County Public Works. 19 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBI:R 12, 1988 TEMPORARY TRANSFER STATION CONTINUED Indications so far have been that this location would be used as a weigh station. The City has concerns about that and will be sending a letter to that effect to the County. This was an information item and there was no motion. HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS -SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE RESOLUTION #2497 It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to set a public hearing for October 10, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. at the Councl Chambers to consider the special as:;essment roll for the 1988 hazardous buildings. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. LMCD REPRESENTATIVZ City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Representative JoEllen Hurr's term expired September 30, 1988. The City is recommending that Ms..Hurr be reappointed as Representative. Mayor Grabek concurred with this suggestion and added that JoEllen Hurr was a very dedicated Representative. Councilmember Goetten felt that Ms. Hurr had done an excellent job in that capacity. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to appoint JoEilen Hurr as its Representative to the LMCD. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION ROBERT KOST, PARK COMMISSION CHAIhMAN RESOLUTION #2490* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2490. Motion, Ayes=5. Nays=O, Motion passed. ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES AND ELECTION JUDGES' SALARY RESOLUTIONS #2498 AND #2499* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2498, appointing a: ditional election judges for the Primary Election to be held September 13, 1988 and the General Election to be held November 8, 1988; and to adopt Resolution #2499 establishing 1988 Election Judge Salaries. Motion, .Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion Passed. TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT - GOLF COURSE* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to employ Brett Marquardt as temporary greenskeeper helper at a rate of $4.25 per hour effective September 3, 1988. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. 20 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - LONG LAKE CHAMBER AND ST. GEORGE CATHOLIC CHURCH RESOLUTION #2500* It was moved by Councilmember Geetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2500, thanking the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce and St. George Catholic Church for the excellent work they did in sponsoring Corn Days on August 12, 13, and 14, 1988. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. SALARY REVIEW - JAMES MORROW PART TIME PATROL OFFICER* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve a salary increase for part time Officer James Morrow from $6.50 per hour to $7.00 per hour, effective July 1, 1988. Motion, Ayes=5, Nay.:=0, Motion passed. 1989 CABLE T.V. BUDGET RESOLUTION #2501* It was moved by. Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2501, giving its approval to the 1989 Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission budget. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION:* It was moved }y Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: 3508 Ivy Place; County Foad 15 Progress; LMCD Executive Director; 801 Tonkawa Road; and Goals and Objectives. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: City Attorney Barrett stated that with regard to the Art Center, he had not received an offer to present to the Council. There was to be a Court Hearing involving this matter. The Plaintiff was alleged that this matter had been settled. Councilmember Callahan inquired as to the length of time of the settlement negotiations. City Attorney Barrett stated that a tentative conclusion had been reached in November of 1987. Councilmember Callahan stated that should the matter not be settled ':)y the Court Hearing, the Apt Center would have now gained a year of the five years while negotiations were ensuing. He suggested that the Art Center be advised that they now have four years. City Attorney Barrett stated that in light of their interpretation of negotiations breaking down, he placed the matter back on the Court Calendar. Mayor Grabek asked �f the Art Center was having a successful operation. It was Councilmember Goetten's opinion that they were not. It was her understanding that they were trying to open up more for children and adults, but things are not going very well. Councilmember Callahan stated that the Art Center was a positive institution to have in the City. 21 MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the following licenses: Residential Kennel License: Septic System Installers: 16 Annual Firearms Permit: Julia Kimball Whitney 4470 Forest Lake Landing G. James Spinner 940 North Arm Drive American Sewer and water 1O8 Lakeview Circle Buffal , MN K`R Mechanical and Excavation 208.- Nowthen Blvd. Elk River, MN Dave Perkins Co. 15775 Juniper Ridge Drive Anoka, MN Park Gun Club 3660 Sixth Avenue North Trap Shooting Motion, :dyes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:15 P.M. City Administrator Bernhardson requested that the Council go into an executive session at 9:15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:20 -3.m. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. ATTEST: Doroth7 M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor 22 3 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members t City Administrator Bernhardson •J � From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: September 23, 1988 CII 1, S: t: 41303 Allen Rezabek, 1989 Fagerness Point Road - Variances - Resolution Staff has not received a response to the letter (see attached) sent to the new owners on September 21, 1988 regarding their desire to continue with the original application presented by the Rezabeks. Mr. Rezabek has advised that the McGoverns wish to continue with th,= application in order to re -install the subject fence sections within the south side yard. Staff has attempted to contact the McGoverns via the phone on Friday, September 23rd, but was unable to reach anyone at the residence. Staff would recommend tabling the application until staff is able to reach the McGoverns in order to have clear direction for the Council so that me may proceed with final action on this application. PROPOSED MOTION! Moved by , seconded by , to indefinately table Application #1303 until the new owners of the property confirm that they wish to proceed with the variance application. Ayes , nays CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 21, 1988 Mr. & Mrs. P. McGovern 1989 Fagerness Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. & Mrs. McGovern: Allen Rezabek the former owner of your current residence, has advised my office that you wish to proceed with the reinstallation of the 6' high privacy fence along the newly defined south boundaries of your property. As you know the Rez•abeks had proceeded with a variance application that was required by the City in order to allow the reinstallation of portions of the fence which are located within 75' the 'Lakeshore. Council was to originally act on the proposed approval resolution at the September 12, 1988 meeting but was advised that Mr. Rezabek was no longer the legal owner of the nrcperty and could not legally complete the execution of the resolution. Please advise the City of your intention regarding the installation of the fencing at your earliest convenience. In a recent call Mr. Rezabek advised that he would be contacting you in order to advise you of the need to call my office so that we may complete formal action on the original variance application by the Council. If I have not heard from you by Friday, September 2 3rd I will remove the application from the Council agenda of September 28, 1988. Sincerely, �I A. 0. AA r�,� JeaVnne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/ jlb BUILDING & ZONING - 473.7}S7 • ADMINISTRATION • FINANCE - 473-7358 • Pt BLIC WORKS - 473 - 334 ASSESSING September 28, 1988 City of Orono c/o Mrs. Jean Mabusth Dear Jean: Io light of the change in ownership of oor former residence at 1989 Fagerness Point Road and the desires of t;ie new owners not to proceed with our variance application, my 4ife and I withdraw our variance application request to move the existing fence and reinstall those sections of same fence that were taken down separating this property and the 1991 Fagerness Point Road property within the receptly-established judicial property lines of our former residency at 1989 Fagerness Point Road. Respectfully, IV-64c �COOA Allan E. Rezabek y T LL 1t;I9 �rt-:ETING r P2B�g'<3 TO: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members �i^ �'��+ City Administrator Bernhardson Ud.iy 1F `•k c FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: September 21, 1988 SUBJECT: #1311 John & Susan Purdy, 1975 Fagerness Point Road - Variance - Request For Consideration of Revised Proposal At your September 12th meeting, Council voted 5-0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of the variances for construction of a bathroom and enclosed porch addition which would encroach further into the lakeshore setback. Subsequently, the applicants have requested a deferral of that resolution and they request consideration of a revised plan. Although that plan has not been submitted as of this writing, staff would recommend that the resolution for denial be deferred and the proposed revisions be referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Proposed Motion: Moved , Seconded , To refer the revised proposal of John & Susan Purdy for additions at 1975 Fagerness Point Road, to the Planning Commission for further recommendation. Ayes, Nays. APPLICATION NO. 1311 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9-21-88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: John & Susan Purdy COPIES: 1975 Fagerness Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF !MEETING: 9-12-88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - !MOTION: Council voted to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of the requested variances per the Planning Commission recommendation. However, per your subsequent request, staff will defer drafting that resolution and recommend that Council refer this item back to the Planning Commission for review of a revised proposal. Such a propo:31 must be submitted at least 7 days prior to the Planning Commission meetin, at which you wic'^ to appear. Deadline for the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting i- )tember 26. Deadline for the October 17th Planning Commission meeting is Ober 10. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minLtes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. J To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 3 t pp From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administra Date: August 10, 1988 TING (7 Subject: #1312 William J. Lauer, 3165 North Shore Driv Variance - Public Hearing p- ie AyyQyj r� Zoning District - LR-lB 719Y Total Area = 62,308 s.f. or 1.43 acres Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance required within the 75-250' setback area. Total Area = 26,533 s.f. Allowed Hardcover = 6,633 s.f. or 25% Existing Hardcover = 7,748 s.f. or 29.2% Proposed Hardcover _ 8,250 s.f. or 31% * (Staff approximated hardcover at 8,005 s.f. or 30.1%) Hardcover Increase = 502 s.f. or 1.89% * Please note that staff has not received a complete survey showing all hardcover. Exhibit E is a staff sketch of existing hardcover finding hardcover at the 8,005 s.f. level. Applicant's inventory shows an increase of 245 s.f. over staff's calculations. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Hardcover Fact Sheet Exhibit E - Staff Sketch of Hardcover at Time of Building Permit Application Review Fxh?uit F - Survey Exhibit G - Floor Plans Exhibit H - Elevations Review of. Application - The applicant proposes an addition consisting of a grade level attached two stall garage, an expanded family room to the rear, and a second story bedroom expansion over the new addition (review Exhibits G & H). The proposed improvements result in a 1.8E increase in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Applicant notes that there is no hardcover within the 0-75' setback area and that the house is located approximately 175' from the lakeshore. The majority of the surface drainage from the improvements on the site run over the expansive grassed yard before it reaches the lake. In addition, the applicant notes that there is no excessive amounts of hardcover within the 250-500' setback area. In light of recent Planning Commission and Council action, applicants have been held to no increase in hardcover where excesses of hardcover exist with proposed new improvements. In cases where a turn- around is required so that a resident did not have to back out onto a public roadway, Council has re -considered the policy of maintaining hard- cover at-, present levels. Zoning File #1312 August 10, 1988 Page 2 of 2 If the Planning Commission holds that the 1.8% increase is excessive and that the findings of the applicant that note that there are no excesses in hardcover within the other setback areas, that there are additional areas that could be removed without providing major hardships to the applicant. Planning Commission may consider a trade-off, asking for the removal of the accessory structures within the 250-510' setback area (approximately 417 s.f. of hardcover) to offset 502 s.f. of additional hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. There are no height concerns in reviewing the elevations of the additions, (Exhibit H) no major land alterations are proposed outside of the normal excavation for the foundation, no changes in drainage are proposed with the majority of drainage continuing to flow over the expansive grassed yard towards the lake. Staff Recommendation - To approve the hardcover variance application (*) of William J. LauPr for a proposed addition to the existing residence at 3165 North Shore Drive, based on the following findings: 1. There is no hardcu - within the 0-75' setback area. 2. The existing house is lccated 175' from the defined lakeshore at 929.4 elevation. 3. There are no excesses in hardcover within the 250-500' setback area. Options Available to the Planning Commission Regarding Conditions of Approval - A. Maintain hardcover within the 75-250' setback area at 29.2% and require the removal of 1.8% of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. B. Allow hardcover to be increased to 31% within the 75-250' setback area but require the removal of 1.8% of hardcover portions of that hardcover may be located within the 250-500' setback area. C. To approve the application as proposed providing an increase of hardcover of 1.8% within the 75-250' setback area and require no additional removal of hardcover within either the 75-250' setback area or the 250-500' setback area. * The applicant should be advised that a hardcover variance must be addressed because of the new construction/new hardcover. Whether Planning Commission approves or disapproves of an increase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback area, a hardcover variance must be addressed. Zoning Pile #1312 Additional Comments September 22, 1988 Page 3 of 3 and Planning Commission Recommendation Additional Exhibit Exhibit I - Amended Survey The Planning Commission advised the applicant that the application would not be presented for Council actin until a revised survey was submitted showing all improvements on the property. The revised survey was submitted to the City showing all improvements. In addition, the existing hardcover to be removed has also been designated on the survey. The Planning Commission accepted Option B, noted above in the staff recommendation, calling for a removal of 1.8% of hardcover within the 75- 500' setback areas. The amended hardcover facts are as follows: 75-250' Setback Area = 26,533 s.f. Allowed Hardcover = 6,633 s.f. or 25% Existing Hardcover = 7,748 s.f. or 29.2% original Proposed Hardcover = 8,250 s.f. or 31% Amended Proposed Hardcover = 7,850 s.f. or 29.5% Total Reduction = 400 s.f. or 1.5% 250-500' Setback Area = 23,400 s.f. Allowed Hardcover = 7,020 s.f. or 30% Existing Hardcover = 5,742 s.f. or 24.5% Amended Proposed Hardcover = 5,640 s.f. or 24.1% Total Reduction = 120 s.f. or .4% Total Reduction Within the 75-500' Setback Areas = 400 s.f. or 1.5% 120 s.f. or .4% -------------------- - Total 1.9% Required by Planning Commisssion 1.89% The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commi lion recommendation that would allow the proposed improvements subject to the applicant removing 1.89% of existing hardcover within the 75-500' setback areas. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE CAl Initial Application Fee $1 .00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 CITY 1-117 rr•L�iv' - nrrrrc (no change from original application) r"I'MAur , .� DMICE ,,,� After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) 1 .lJVtVVV V V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cl i rr.l PROPERTY LOCATION - - . - �^\ 1 _ y� ` /./j . - -- (. ��E� I�� IL I 1 \ �� 4% �• t I V e, I«L:�S, l I.Ynlv� 1(JV Site Address ti VAIt V LV L 01 T.;l Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 09 Please check one - Property -�— abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ APPLICANT Phone (home) 49 1 - g1ell Name I Hom T La u e Phone (work) Address: 3 �,� !��. S�)ORP. Da)ve City: �r'CLYIO Zip: ---------------------------------- ---------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address: / Date Property Acqu ed Ci (work) Zip: (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /U OHO Oa.pa Describe request in detail: . JG4"v' X7K, ! Lz"—� qr4i��, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other f � T U HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical --dif f iculty resulting from strict Cenforcement'•of• zoning rre ul tons: 0 r del h T� e a h eri Ct, DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I RED SUBMITTALS SCompleted Application Form 2. Certified Property._ Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain ,this lis�from Hennepin County Department 'of Finance A-603 Govt Center �348-3271) .' (:D3. Stamped;-7.egal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no retu::n address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 4.Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. —' _ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, pleaae attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __a.- 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 2.rformation supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verification'of this reques - - /, 4�T Owner's Signature A/ I �LC�M'1 dam- Date AI ---•--------------------------------------------------------------r--------- Applicant must have all submitals tals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Panning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend i,i your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN OATE 07/13/88 BATCH 002 38 09-117-23 32 0018 PROP ADDR 03135 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME J A D DURDA TAXPAYER JOSEPH DUROA NAME/ADDR 3135 H SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0003 PROP ADDR 01420 BOHNS POINT RD OWNER NAME M A V NAGENER TAXPAYER MAURICE J WAGENER NAME/ADDR 1420 BOHNS POINT ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0013 PROP ADDR 03145 NORTH SNORE OR OWNER NAME H F JANECKY i T J JANECKY TAXPAYER HAROLD F i TERRY J JANECKY NAME/ADOR 3145 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MH 55341 PROP ADDR 0144ER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH 002 00009 NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 09-117-23 33 0001 031SS NORTH SHORE OR JACK F RHODE JACK F RHODE 3155 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MH 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0004 01480 BOHNS POINT RD C BRUCE SOLOMONSON ETAL C BRUCE SOLOMONSON 1480 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0015 01406 BOHNS POINT RD B J LINDAHL JR A S B LINDAHL B JOHN LP OAHL 1406 BOHNS POINT RCAD WAYZATA MH SS391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3 38 09-117-23 33 0002 01430 BOHNS POINT RD NM J LAUER ET AL TRUSTEES WILLIAM J LAUER 15409 WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0009 03175 NORTH SHORE OR FREDERICK T MILLER FREDERICK T MILLER 3175 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-ZA 33 0016 03185 NORTH SHORE OR T t S ENLON THOMAS C i SUSAN S ENLOW 3185 N SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 Ito I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPFP TY TAXATIONs �H�HE BEST /n OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. // ,1 _ _/ DATE �\ \ RM• 6 \ • ��-.0 � .. Ire Ire jr or 0 a 3 CD 43 ' w AI., . : � • • • - - b f fie'%! � GVdcc.G,. ^ ..F.. w � • roe•. E � liSJJ• o• �V �S1 I1'SSE r.t '�L w.• / s JLM i10 ♦OSS• y•r JLMAM JLM s JLM Ig IZIO) (IZ40) 12 . S�'sr v.+.rt'4t:'�•'•�'Tw•fr. +.l'i•_'1 .; L A (:400) / 11 (3410) ao ,9�1a� �"• ...diver. ti. ,....,_........: v .. ., - D. HARDCOVER CALCULATION SUMMARY., A. B. _� i.C. D. �.�n E. F. .Existing Final Lakeshore Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Allowed Setback Lot Area Hardcover Percentage Hardcover Percentage Hardcover Zone, ,.- In Zone._._ In Zone .(B/A)x100 In Zane (D/A)x100 Percentage ------------ `......«.. -. - -..-........ .. ...................... --------- 0-75' of PJ of 0 ! 75-250' s33 sf -7 -7 Lf t3 of 250-500' of 51 4-L- sf 500-1000, of of COTE - MUSE 1S SOT HARDCOVER LIMITATIONS cca,.-q ;t-��, LAB£ FCc- 0`y,,cP L l.- ,5,�j1/ /� P f ROAD \ ' n \\ •• T + E. OTHER LAKESHORE REGULATIONS of • 0 ! �25o of 25 ! 4 of 30 ! ! sf �! 35 ! HARDCOVER INCLUDES: - Structures with roofs - Decks, even if slatted - Sidewalks - Driveways (paved or gravel) - Decorative landscaping areas underlain by plastic sheeting - Tops of retaining walls, rock walls - Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground SEC. 10.22, REGULATIONS FOR "LR-IA', 'LR-lA-1', "LR-1B', "LR-IC" AND 'LB-IC-1' OWE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any "LR-lA", LR-lA-10, 0'.R-lB", "LR-lC", or "LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply: Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance fr,m the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater.than 301 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 trees within 75 feet of the shoreline with the diameter of six (6) inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the Council. i10R1CSHSBT A. HARDCOVER ORDINAIN#1a n 1:c;a 3no adopted an ordinance limiting the percentage ofrea covered r1::ich mpervious surfaces ('hardcover") such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. 'The intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that r.ainfal l run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. B. HARDCOVER SETBACK ZONES - PERCENTAGE ALLOWED I. 0-75's in the area within 75' of the lakeshore, No Hardcover is allowed (01). II. 75-250': in the portion of the lot located between 75' and 2::0' from the lake, 251 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered. III. 250-5009: in the portion of the lot located between 250' and 500' feet from the lake 300 of that portion of the lot may be hardco-ered. IV. 500-1,000's in the portion of the lot located be sr. 500' and 1,000' feet from the lake 350 of that portion of the lot may be ha gyred. NOTE: These regulations apply even if you have a lot that does abut the lake but is within a lakeshore zoning district. C. HOW TO DETERMINE LOT AREA WITHIN EACH SETBACK ZONE (To be used as denominator in all hardcover percentage calculations) I. 0-75' Zone Area - 75' x /Average width of lot in 0-75' zone) measure parallel to shoreline J 75' x IV9 ft. - I1-17,75- s.f. (1) (Avg width) Area of 0-75' zone II. 75-250' Zone A_ea - (1751or avg lot depth in zone) x(Avg width of lot in 75-25C' zone\ �r� measure parallel to shoreline J 175' x (`1� ! 'h ft. !� rj33 a.f. (2) (Avg width) Area of 75-250' zone III. 250-500' Zone Area - (250' or avg lot depth in zone) x�Avg width of lot in 250-500' zonel measure parallel to shoreline l -25A' x S5,5'( (I .tad ft. . 23,'�oc s.f. (3) (Avg width) Area of 250-500' zone IV. 500-1,000' Zone Area - (500' or avg lot depth in zone) x(Ameasure vg width of lot in 500-1000' zone\ parallel to shoreline J 500' x ft. - s.f. (4) (Avg width) Area of 500-1,000' zone A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1312 WHEREAS, William J. Lauer (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3165 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Secti(:n 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing residence resulting in an increase of 502 s.f. or 1..89% of new structural hardcover within the 75- 250' setback area where 7,748 s.f. or 29.9% of hardcover improvements exist already and where only 25% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1312. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a min_num of one acre or 43,560 s.f. The subject property consists of 1.43 acres or 62,308 s.f. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August. 15, 1988 and recommended approval of the proposed variance as amended based upon the following findings: A) There is no hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. B) The existing house is located 175' from the defined lakeshore at he 929.4 elevation. C) There aie no excesses in hardcover within the 250-500' setback area. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 1 of 4 V 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a major addition to the existing residence resulting in an increase of 502 s.f. or 1.89% of new structural hardcover within the 75-250' setback area where 7,748 s.f. or 29.2% already exists and only 25% is allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Pricr to the issuance of a building permit by the City of Orono, the following hardcover removals must be completed per the revised survey by 'Bruce W. Grivna of Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc., Surveyors dated revised September 1, 1988: A) Within the 75-250' setback area: 400 s.f. of rock and plastic landscaping located to the southwest corner of the existing residence. B) Within the 250-500' setback areal 120 s.f. of a steel shed. 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 (September 28, 1989). 3. 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. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of September, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 Attachment A• Resolution # That part of Government Lot I, Section 9, Township 117, North,, Range 23 west of the 5th Principal Meridan described as commencing at a point in the west iine of said Government Lot distant 1160.8 feet North from the Southwest corner of said Government Lot; thence East oarallel with the South line of said Government Lot a distance of 442.93 feet, passing through a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 11475; thence South parallel with the west line of said Government Lot a dis- tance of 102.5 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Government Lot a distance of 211,0 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the actual point of beginning of the land being described; thence West along the last described line to a point distant 442.93 feet East of the West line of said Government Lot and 958.3 feet North of the South line of said Government Lot; thence North a distance of 102.5 feet to the North line of the South 1160.8 feet of Government Lot; thence West on the North line of the South 1160. 8 feet of said Government Lot a distance of 197.93 feet ( or to a point 245.0 feet East of the West line of said Government Lot l; thence South parallel with the West line of said Government Lot a distance of 175 feet; thence Southeasterly, deflecting to the left 78 degrees 00 minutes, a distance of 330 feet, more cr less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Northeasterly along the shore of said Lake a distance of 180 feet, more or less,, to the point of beginning. TO: Mayor Grabek and Council City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Michael Gaffron, Asst. Planning & DATE: September 22, 1988 Zoning Administrator SQBJ: #1301 Fredrick C. White, 180 North Shore Drive West Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution Application - During the course of review, this application has been revised, and now is simply a subdivision to split off 2 dry buildable acres and some wetland with the existing residence structure, leaving the remaining 14 acres as an outlot for future development. Zoning District - RR-lB, single family, rural residential, unsewered, 2 acre minimum lot size. List of Exhibits - A - Memo and Exhibits of 9/15/88 B - Proposed Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of September 15, 1988. Originally, the applicant wished to create a new building site in addition to splitting off the existing residence. However, after the Planning Commission review, at which it was indicated to applicant that anything more than a simple split to put the existing house on a separate lot would require dedication of interior roadways and a topographical survey, applicant reduced the scope of the proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal and voted 5-0 to recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Based on the limited scope of the revised proposal, and based upon Hennepin County's review of the acceptable access sites, the Planning Commission finds there is no need for dedication of interior private roads or border private roads at this time. 2. The Planning Commission recommended approval of dedication of an additional 17' of right-of-way for County Road 19 to bring its width up to the 50' centerline -to - property line width, consistent with the width of McCulley Road which extends to the north, connecting County Roads 19 and 6. Zoning File #1301 September 22, 1988 Page 2 of 2 3. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Hennepin County's request for an additional 7' of right-of-way along County Road 84/Bayside Road, finding that the relatively low amount of traffic on County Road 84 would not support the nee"' for additional right-of-way. 4. Appl;cant shall qrant a conservation and flowage easement over the wetland in Lot 1 and in the outlot parcel. 5. Appropriate drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be granted on the plat drawings. 6. The parcel with the existing residence shall be known as "Lot 1". The remaining parcel shall be designated as "Outlot A", with the stipulation that no residential construction may occur on Outlot A until Outlot A is developed. This stipulation is recommended in order that a comprehensive development of Outlot A and the neighboring properties can be effectuated at the appropriate development stages, thus avoiding a piecemeal, one -lot -at -a -time type development. A further stipulaton for Outlot A should be that all future development in Outlot A must be served by interior roadways. 7. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the north line of proposed Lot 1 will have to be moved an additional distance northward to maintain the 2 dry buildable acres required for Lot 1, as a result of dedication of additional right-of-way for County Road 19. The Planning Commission recommends approval of such a revision "sight unseen," and notes that the front set:,ack for the existing house will then become 831, meeting the minimum 50' setback requirement of the RR-lB zoning district. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the above conditions. A resolution for preliminary plat approval is attached for Council review. PLAN To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 15, 1988 Subject: #1301 Fredrick White, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminary Subdivision - Second Review - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - The applicant has revised his request to exclude the second building lot from consideration at this time, and has revised the lot lines for the parcel to contain the existing house. Zoning District - RR-lB List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/21/88 Exhibit B - Glenn Cook's Letter of 7/15/88 Exhibit C - Hennepin County Department of Transportation's Letter 7/27/88 Exhibit D - Staff's Sketch of Potential Access Locations Exhibit- E - Conceptual Area Development Plan Based on Feasible Access Locations Exhibit F - Memo & Exhibits 7/14/88 Exhibit G - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit H - Planning Commission Minutes of 7/18/88 Discussion - The applicant has revised his proposal, noted above, to include creation of just a separate 2+ acre lot to contain the existing house. The remaining parcel could then be designated as either a second lot or as an outlot. Note that designation as an outlot would be appropriate if the City's intent is t-7 not allow a separate house to be constructed on the large parcel without further subdivision. The reverse option, to make the large parcel Lot 2, would allow a single residence to be built without an additional subdivision, and would have potential significant effect on how a future subdivision ir..ight occur. The applicant states that his intent is to complete this initial one - lot subdivision now, then perhaps come back later with a proposal to divide off a second lot. Applicant notes that he has interested parties looking at the large parcel for possible development. Zoning File #1301 September 15, 1988 Page 2 of t Note a so that per Planning Commission's apparent attitude at the July meeting, th t a single division just to split off the house would be received in a -tore positive light than if additiinal lots are considered at this time. A . rographic map has not been provided. Access Sites and Area Development: The applicant and a potential developer of the property have discussed the potential development of this property with officials from Hennepin County regarding feasible road access sites. Note that per Exhibit E, there is only one good access site for this property, and that is off Bayside Road at the northeast corner of the property. There are two other access locations that strictly speaking would meet the sight distance requirements, due to hills and valleys in the road. The most southerly of those two points would encroach into the two acres of dry buildable as necessary for the proposed lot around the existing house. The most northerly of the two access points is much closer to the County Road 19/County Road 84 intersection than the County would like to see, plus it would involve a major revision of the right turn lane on County Road 19. Those are the only sites feasible for this property. There were two other access sites for a potential road that were looked at regarding the development of the area. The first is about 700' east along Bayside Road and the other would be approximately 280' south of the existing driveway for the white house. The access point south of and adjacent to the existing driveway was determined to be a very unsafe access point, hence would not be a reasonable location to consider for placement of a future road. Given the above information, staff has put together another Area Development Diaqram that hopefully gives a conceptual idea as to how the neighboring properties might develop. It appears that no dedication for private roadway would be necessary in the area of the existing house. It would then seem appropriate to require future roadway dedication only upon an application for subdivision of the parcel remaining after the house is divided off. Zoning File #1301 September 15, 1988 Page 3 of 4 I would also note for the record that the applicant has discussed with the Armstrongs, who own the property to the south, their plans for development of the property. Given the location of the wetland on the Armstrong property south of White's house, most likely development would be on the easterly 2/3 of the Armstrong property with potential to be served by a cul-de-sa,-- extending from North Arm Lane. This would seem to be an extremely long cul-de-sac proposition, that would provide for a logical extension up to Bayside Road as the area develops. City's Road Development Policy: At this time, the City has no defined need to create a north/south road from North Arm Drive West to Bayside Road, nor to connect to the west to County Road 19. Therefore, any development in this area would normally be with private roads constructed by private developers to the City's private road standard. The developer would be responsible for all costs of road construction, and would presumably reflect those costs in the price of the lots when they are sold. It is likely that as the properties individually are subdivided, the City would require dedication of private outlot extensions so that a future through road would be feasible. As is current practice and policy, as evidenced by the connecting outlots on a similar type of subdivision area, namely Woodhaven/Golden View Drive/Silver Meadow Drive, the City certainly would be well served by providing the possibility for future road linkages to occur. Staff Recommendation - Considering the information presented above, and considering that the subdivision application has been revised to include only creation of a lot line to divide off the existing house from the remainder of the property, and given that adequate drainfield sites have been found for the existing house, staff would recommend approval of this subdivision. Although the applicant has expressed concern that the remaining width south of the "exception" parcel is only 150', and not meeting the 200' standard, it appears unfeasible to have two dry buildable acres with the house and still maintain a 200' width south of the exception lot, unless an unreasonable gerrymandering of the dividing line occurs. Zoning File #1301 September 15, 1988 Page 4 of 4 Staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. At this time there is no need for dedication of a private road outlot along the south end cf the property. 2. Planning Commission should consider granting the Hennepin County request for an additional 17' of right-of-way for County Road 19, considering that this would be consistent with the City's 100' right- of-way corridor for the McCully Road connection between County Roads 19 and 6 (3. Option A - D signate the large remaining parcel as Outlot A, with stipulatio at no residential construction on that property can o r until the entire property is developed; OR Option B - Designate the large parcel as Lot 2, which would allow construction of at least one residence on the large parcel, with a statement in the plat approval resolution warning the property owner of Lot 2 that any residential construction on Lot 2 would be subject to access restrictions by Hennepin County DOT, and would utimately have to be served by an interior access roadway when such is constructed. Furthermore, no future subdivision would be approved unless interior private roads are provided. 4. Granting of a Conservation end Flowage Easement over the wetland in Lot 1 and in the remaining het- e outlot. 5. Granting of the appropriate Drainage and Utility Easements along the property lines. >.D ial of additional right-of-way for County Road 84, pe`current licy and practice. CPC . s*+a Tb peLE""W 7"V)S .� iTz'Gt' �+r'Z-� /v Lo r- L r N r, 0 L. I N m5bf-VI -M G Fe- w-le-r. � ,,-v-, iq s c.A q qs-si6 ZONING FILE NO. 1301 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/21/88 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: David & Fredrick White COPIES TO: Marvin G. Lovlein 14195 Pauls Drive 6025 Abbott Ave N Rogers, MN 55374 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 7/18/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recomends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Planning Commission requested that the applicant wcrk with neighboring property owners to consider a logical, comprehensive development plan for the area, in order that future road needs can be addressed. 2. Planning Commission felt that a topographical map of the entire property is necessary in order to determine future development potential given this division of one parcel into three parcels. 3. Planning Commission requested that staff investigate the City's policy regarding development of the anticipated road connection between, North Arm Lane and County Road 19; i.e. Would it be public or private if i. was a throunh road? Who would build it? Who would pay the costs? Planning Commission was unable to take formal action on your request to reconsider division of just the house and three acres from the larger parcel, because the application had been tabled until August 15th and the interested members of the public had left. However, Planning Commission did suggest that a topographical map would likely not be required for a division to split off just the house, but that they would likely condition approval upon dedication of a portion of future roadway at the southeast quadrant of the property, and require that any future division of the remaining large parcel be required to access from internally provided roadways, not directly to County Road 19. It would appear feasible to have an interior road serving the entire northerly remaining parcel, so that at most only 1 new access point is created on County Roads 84 and 19. Staff would support approval of the one lot division wil:hout a topographical survey based on the conditions noted above. Staff would suggest a reconfiguratiort of the north boundary line as showr on the attached conceptual map. Zoning File #1301 Notice of Planning Commission Action July 21, 1988 Page 2 of 2 In order to proceed with this application, you must advise staff as soon as possible of your intent. If you wish to continue the proposed three lot plat (two buildable lots and an outlot), you must provide a topographic survey of the entire property. If you wish to merely split off three acres with the existing house, you should arrange to meet with staff to discuss the necessary roadway dedication and lot line reconfiguration. It would be appropriate and helpful to have your surveyor involved in this meeting. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 15th, 1988. In order to continue discussion of your application, you should contact staff no later than August 5th, 1988 to discuss how you wish to proceed. Staff will investigate the City's road policy for this area and will be prepared to address that at the August 15th meeting. Regarding the Planning Commission's direction that you work with the neighboring property owners to develop a comprehensive development plan for the area, it is staff's opinion that the City is responsible for this type of coordinated planning, hence staff will pursue discussions with neighboring property owners to verify their future intentions. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (413-7357). 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. ' Northwest Quarter of /Sec. 6, Twp. 117, Rpe. 23 `North line of Northwest Quarters' I I , / Hennepin County Cast Iron D DUNN d Sec. 6, Twp. 117, Rpe. 23 anucE p MANGE 1 Monument , „ , 1991 98 O I y PETEa 4CNET I I snot[ a I_Anc: N189 3522E , i \ ROAD / —I --- a -----655.08- W ;-33.010 COUNTY ROAD NO. 84 33CO- 25.00 60 -- I MS5.14Hennepi C, \ N00 39'50"W Nort ea �— �30.00 �� Range of Sec' N00.39'50"W -M Mo W w e: I W � 1 of 7, -u - 88 j 0 o) 0 OUTLOT A Y fn C N CY _ C W N sg Z � Do e o ZP 'D . u In line of North N y 33 33 0 `seo.00 r.., N89.35'22 E Ens, I ne of west 27477 j 241.77 of Wen Malt of Northwest 0uvur of Sec. 6, Tap. 117. RQe 23 %I 1 OCR 0In , Q t` o j 150 1�1 III!I � in on e 3 07 DONALU P LANGERT N Q R. 1 Os I Qj, 1- z d 0 M CY 00I 241.77 381.72 M� a� Z- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O - �Nvlh line of SuuM 623.490 54534 feet N89.27'19" E .�. LOT a� U \� an OQ. a 3,49 E a` SOO Ni I Z f � ti NO I U VtJ , 1� $. ILA R IIII i + �I W E L A N D' it ~ �P In LOT SEPTIC TANKS SJ�i 4 I 2STORTour 911, 10000 • rj[_._a'j e R".DRAW ItLD �O r{.96 00 .�_nit RA _ f -- 1 I 624.47 N8902VIVE J[AN T ARMSTRONG souM no of west Half ,11329 37 a Northwee, *,,W to s 33 33 / of Nor rher, ouster 12 So. d Sec I; 'wo I I ?, Ppe ' 1 Deb cArwt Pit? Y Hennep,r County :ust Irun Monument Southwest Corner of Northwest Ouorfer F�4 T N a of Section ll, Townshlp 117 North Range 23 rveet _ Bonestroo y Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers a Architects July 1.5, 1988 E"XJ� � B q •�s- e � Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. Keith A. Gordon, PE. Thomas W Peterson, PE. Charles A. Erickson Robert W Rosene, PE. Richard W. Foster, PE MKhael C. Lynch, PE. Leo M. Pawelsky Joseph C. Anderlik, PE Donald C Burgardt, PE. James R. Maland, PE. Harlan M. Olson Bradford A. Lemberg. PE. Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. Kenneth P Anderson, PE. Susan M. Eberkn Richard E. Turner, PE. Mark A. Hanson, PE Keith A. Bachmann, P.E. Mark A. Seep James C. Olson, PE. Ted K. Field, PE, Mark R Rolls. PE Glenn R. Cook. PE. Michael T Rautmann, PE. Robert C RUSSek, AIA. Thomas E. Noyes, PE. Robert R Pfeftene, PE. Thomas E. Angus, PE Robert G. SchunKht, PF David O. Loskota, P.E. Howard A. Sanford, PE. Marvin L. Sorvala, PE. City of Orono BOY 66 Crystal. Eav, MN 55323 Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: 139-1301 White Pond Estates Dear Mike: We have reviewed the preliminary plat on White Pond Estates. The proposed levelopment is shown with all property access onto County Road 19. We would recommend that an internal road system be developed to provide property access. The land developer should work with the city in preparing a more desirable access plan for the site. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook ,;RC:ci 01 2335 West Highway �6 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 O,-It-9& DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South HEcNNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Li U 935-3381 Lrc July 27, 1988 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: RE: Proposed Plat - White Ponds Estates CSAH 19/84, Southeast quadrant Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1657 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewea the above plat and make the following comments: - For future improvements to this segment of CSAH 19 the developer should dedicate an additional 17 feet of right of way where necessary along CSAH 19 to make the right of way a minimum of 50 feet from the center of CSAH 19. - For future improvements to CSAH 84 the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way making the right of way 40 feet from the center of CSAH 84. - Any new access to a county road or revision to an existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Maintenance Division for entrance permit forms. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail deve,opment, and landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. -• The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please di -t any response or questions to Les Weigel' Sincerely, David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning OWS/LOW: Iw HENNEPIN COUNTY an e(; •i oDporfurnty empicyer G � a POTE A-cciss �`�; �i O s p r • ti; I N, q P Acc.CPTABLJe ONLY IF S Nor AVA I I -AOLLI� Lloo LAB J►t'w �;cL� It: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Pros: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planninq & Znning Administrator Date: July 1.4, 1988 Subj: #1301 Davia and Frederick White, 180 North Shore Drive West - Preliminar Subdivision- rublic Hearing Application - Request for Subdivision of 18 acre parcel into two 2 acre buildable lots and an outlot of approximately 10 acres. 7t. .ng District - RR-lB Single Famil,• Rural Residential, 2 acre unsewered. List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Own(z's List - Letter from Neighbor Across Co. Rd. 9 D - Proposed Fula E - Copy of USG;, Tr-djographic Map F - Copy of Prelimin-ry Plat with Staff Notations G - Staff Conceptual iketches Impending Pertinent Facts - 1. PRY BUILDABLE WETLAND TOTAL Lot 1 2.006 AC 0.998 AC 3.004 AC '.ot 2 3.087 1.721 4.808 uut Lot A 9.402 --- 9.402 Total Parcel Excluding Poads 14.495 2.719 1 i.214 2. Lot 1 contains an existing house with existing trench type drainfield. An alternate si�4 has �n tested to the North of the existing house and i.: suitable for nd stem. The existing trench drainfield appears to he functionir, quately now d?l-ing tr dry weather! our records indicate that th., stem has been - problem in the pasu and ultima*-ely w111 require rep.acement in staff's opinion, in the relatively near: future. Proposed Lot 7, as shown on the preliminary p- at, was d,termined by the applicant's site evaluator to not contain sa:table sites for septic systems. The site evaluator has recommended that an additional area from proposed nutlot A be incorporated into Lot 2. That proposed area comprises approx1+*'5t«!ly 1.3 additional acres. Staff concurs with this eco�,;.nendatior and notes that Lot 2, as it is rrently proposed, has a se-,e- ely lim building envelope without s additional acreage. Appp cant has ayreed to this revision. The aApplicants have provided septic testing within the proposed Outlo' Staff would note that if applicants' intent is to build a house within the Zone File # 1301 July 14, 1988 Page Two of Four large parcel, it should not be designated as an outlot but as a separate lot that is large enough to be potentially divided in the future. Conceptually, an outlot is only designated when a parcel is intended to not be used until further developed. Staff would note that all of the sites tested on the property require mound systems. This is not unusual considering the Kilkenny loam -type soil located in this area of Orono. 3. Note the "gerrymandered" configuration of proposed Lot 2. It is staff's understanding that this configuration came about because the applicants are compelled through a Court Order to sell a 2-acre parcel tn Donald and Judy Kempf as a result of a Purchase Agreement entered into by Kempf and Whites in 1984. You will note that Lot 1 just barely contains 2 acres of dry, buildable land. Staff has drawn in the building en•7elope for Lot 2, and suggests that while there may be a feasible house location directly south of the Langert exception, a more probable and attractive building site is east of the drainfield sites tested within the 1.3 acre recommended additional parcel. It would seem to staff that the east/west line between Lots 1 and 2 could be straightened out to provide a more useful potential secondary alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, while still leaving a plus -or -minus 150 foot wide corridor to the rear for Lot 2. 4. The applicants have not provided a topographic map of the property. The topographic section of the CSGS Maps is of a scal` 'hat it has little value in discussions of the development of this properry. Based on the fact that the property contains a significant area of wetlands, staff feels that it is appropriate for Planning Commission to require that a topographic map of the entire property be provided. 5. In Exhibits G, 1 through 3, you ire provided with a plat map sketch showing existing development 4n the area, showing the proposed division and the probable future request for development of Outlot A without the need for an interior road, and finally a conceptual diagram of how the areas to the east of County Road 19, south of Bayside Road and north of North Arm Drive West will likely develop under the 2-acre standard. Given the existing developments along North Arm Dr.'.ve West, staff would see North A-m Lane, extending northward and then west to County Road 19, with the outlot road being taken from properties on either side. It probably is not feasibl( to ask for dedication of roadway south of the existing White house, since it is only 45' north of the existing side lot line. Staff would also anticipate a northerly extensi,7 up to Bayside Road that would allow 2 acre lot development on either side of it. Looking at exhibit G-3, the question becomes, is there a need to dedicate property within the currently proposed plat for future access? Summary .f Issues - 1. The north lct line of proposed Lot 2 is intended by the applicpnt Zone File #1301 July 14, 1988 Page Three of Four to move north 150 feet, leaving about 4.5 dry, buildable acres within lot 2. Based on this configuration, Lot 2 would not be further subdividable under the two acre unsewered zoning. Planning Commission should then discuss whether a lot width variance as measured at the 50 foot setback from County Road 19 is appropriate, and should discuss whether or not the east/west line between Lots 1 and 2 should be straightened out rather than gerrymandered, as is currently proposed. 2. Is Outlot A intended for immediate development as a single residential lot, or is it strictly to be held for a future subdivision? If it is going to be subdivided in the future, what configuration does Planning Commission feel would be most appropriate? Given that determination, .s there any need to dedicate future accesses with the current subdivision? 3. Topographic map was not provided. Is a topographic map critical to this Subdivision Application? Discussion - The tested drainfield sites and proposed building site on the property are 250 feet or more east_ of County Road 19. In walking to the rear of Lot 2 around the north end of the wetland, it was apparent that portions of this property have been us:,d as a dumping ground for many years. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to this prcperty would be development into 2 acre lots with subsequent individual owners cleaning up the dump sites. For the record, staff would note that most of the junk on the property wi l l have to be hauled out and not buried on the site. kewise, you will note the excessive amount of outside storage on the property, including vehicles and building materials. The existing house is currently rented, but upon completion of the subdivision it will be sold to a new owner, and presumably the storage will disappear. A further comment: If you plan to walk to the rear of the pr:)pe.rty to see the building site fir lot 2, there is a pathway that generally follows the edge of the wetland and it was dry the day I walked it, but wear your hiking boots. Staff Recommendation - Staff would recommend approval of thij subdivision, subject to resolution of the issues noted above. If Planning Commission does recommend preliminary plat approval based upon the proposed configuration or one similar to it, such a recommendation for approval should incorporate tr following condit'_ons: 1. Payment of appropriate park fee for Lot 2. 2. Place specific stipulations on Outlot A that define the reasons it is being approved as an outlot rather than as a separate Lot 3. Zoning File #1301 July 14, 1988 Page Four of Four 3. Granting of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland i.1 lot 1 and 2. 4. Granting of the appropriate drainage and utility easements along all property lines. 5. Considez the probable request by Hennepin County for additional right-of-way width along County Road 19. 6. Make a policy statement regarding the City's position on the future access to these properties. CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATI ----------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address I80 OATH 5Nan pR. l.j- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 003 Please check nne - Property abstract or X torrens? H Attach +legal description to application. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT �tt - Phone -( (home) 4� 2 S Z 3 G oA LI /O s: GJ f7I T •� r Name FR "b R/ C Atf C • W111 �� Phone (work) Address:�/`'�9_ PAal-S - City: 1966,F-PS Zip: ------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: (attach list if more than one) ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- MCISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) l/ r . v rr ..'!r1ru�t 6'1 1 / L'/ {Vlt r: Acres Dry Land sf*-AAAL L•/ 1 Acres Wet Land v`�"`•`•Y .'4 /V AVV cres Total, all arcels- "' ""� � -1 .1A P lXrN, 1 -liv AA V/ILblt IL LIJV. YV i,LILI I—Iu,,Ah` YO \LLL1 I I I1 Ifl YOU Residential; no. of units,, � other (specify) ,.L'�' \Y1 111•l Present Zoning District-� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Units per Acres Minimum Lot Size: Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) Residential Other (specify) — MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form 2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of. Survey. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4. 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). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date ------------------------------------------...-------------------------------- 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of form;.l plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. S & 4j "5; t' �,� ,, G-;�_7-.1--J- Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application :s complete. J Zoning Official's Signature \ ,,,,,, , C, iyy ,,� Date Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & III) $150.00 iZ?O,o o Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) 150.00* *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this appl ,, motion and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordin ,~ Applicant's Signature Date fo,�2O�15 Owner's Signature ��/i C �%�� 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 agant attend in your place and to adv'se the Building & Zoni-7 Office of this change prior to the meeting. �6uxtb 1. 1#4mn �1afv offirt.4, *.A. May 31, 1988- HOPKINS OFFICE CENTER 33 TENTH AVENUE SOUTH SECOND FLOOR HOPKINS, MN 55343 (612) 933-5151 Frederick C. White 14195 Paul Drive Rogers, Mn. 55374 Re: Donald Kempf, et al v. Dr-vid L. White, et al Our File: 85-959 Dear Fred: (D1 14 In accordance with our conversation, I am providing you with the elements of the settlement agreement that was entered into the court record before Judge James Rogers on May 9th of 1988. The following are the terms of the agreement: I. . The Whites would provide an approved plat of the property within six months from the date of the agreement. 2. The Whites would convev a lot on which the house was situated that contained a minimum of three acres and approved by the City. 3. The purchase price for the parcel described above would be $85,000.00. The terms would be $1,000.00 earnest money, which has been paid; $9,000.00 at closing; and a Contract for Deed bearing interest at the rate of 10% per annum, due and payable in full four years after the date of closing. Payments on the contract would be at the rate if $E50.61V per month. 4. The Kempfs would pay their pro rats share of taxes on the lot transferred to them, and the Whites would pay the differential between the homestead and non -homestead taxes. The Kempfs would apply for homestead immediately after closing. If YOU need further verification of this agreement, please have a repro tative of the City contact me. 1 have _ closed a statement with regard to attorney fees, as a separate attachment. This statement is in accordance with our conversation. Please -call if there is any additional question. Yours very uly,'' RONALD J. HNSOIyl' LAW OFFT'CES P.A. nald J J o h neon RJJ:aej (/ encl. I9Y ;025 64.40 (I # ® 6410 1230 � i2so I• ` * '\ �7 0. L. C Y Its I �2L.i9 5A93243E �� ' A 'OY J: 10 re 'y! o Y A 209 .19 1 -00•410 „•°o ff` ` 5�0 o a,� 2 •oN s o t I "> i 1. 1,7901 1101 ��2�� 7��14 �r S f I�0 ~� fir- ' � �1 .✓P, 1 •n N (�� 1 W i 1485 ' 1 � 3 i100� T C*) t ZC) a ry 41-aa Ya c•_ J00 OS 721. St + « C i ,!� •��` 14) 2 - C — fie Mc. RUN DATE 06.'02/88 BATCH 002 36 01-117-24 11 0005 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME GARY 0 t THERESA A REIERSEN TAXPAYER GARY 0 i THERESA A REIERSEN NAME/ADDR 13320 NORTHRIDGE RD MTKA MH 553,43 38 06-117-L3 22 0003 PROP ADDR 00180 NORTH SHORE OR W OWNER HAKE DAVID L WHITE ET AL TAXPAYER DAVID WHITE NAME/AODR PT 3 BOX 614 BUFFALO MN 55313 38 06-117-23 22 0008 PROP ADDR 04645 BAYSIDE RD OWIIER NAME R 5 A M W OLSON TAXPAYER ROBERT S OLSON NAME/ADDR 5010 HILLSBORO AVE N MPLS MN 55428 38 31-118-23 33 0006 PROP ADOR 04720 64YSIDE RD OWt4P NAME B PETER ACHE' ETAL TAAYER MR B PETER ACHEY H /ADDR ROUTE 2 BOX 88B MAPLE PLAN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0011 PROP A07R OWNER NAME PAINTERS r,REEK DE'V'EL TAXPAYER EPUCE R LANGE NAME/ADDR ,UITE 1442 53 W JACKSON BLVD CHICAGO IL 6C604 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 01-117-24 '_1 0006 GARY 0 i THERESA A REIERSEN GARY 0 3 THERESA A REIERSEN 13320 NORTHRIDGE RD MTKA MN 55343 38 06-117-23 22 0004 00100 NORTH SHORE OR W UONALD P LANGERT ETAL D014ALD P LANGERT 100 NORTH SHORE DR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 23 0001 JEANNE T ARMSTRONG JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 31-118-23 33 0007 04740 BAYSIDE RD L YOGERST 3 D OUNN D DUt1N & L YOGERST 4740 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 70 36-118-24 44 0009 00087 MCCULLY RD LARRY i SUSAN VENSEL LARRY 3 SUSAN VENSEL 87 MCCULLEY RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 36 01-117-24 14 0001 00205 CO RD NO 19 CHESTER H NORMAN i WIFE CHESTER H NORMAN 205 COUNTY RD $19 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 22 0007 04665 BAYSIDE RD I T 8 M L GEFFRE IRVIN T GEFFRE 4665 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0005 04660 BAYSIDE RD B 3 N CUFF BOBBIE L NEVA CUFF 4660 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0010 PAINTERS CREEK DEVEL BRUCE R LANGE SUITE 1442 53 W JACKSON BLVD CHICAGO IL 60604 TOTAL BATCH 002 00014 i JUL 12 1988 jz� /,-0 3 T O LkGE Lll� T'All c,� • I IIle6Oo (-'� -2 C2— ' �rzoa�� µ� ��cezr �� nN'►"toT � I � I a . ( w � O o � w • TT y► � pJ, r.I"i�I�iery�* W+ oa' I � k sTAFir CoNt..srY OF P&OtA4,�E ^' LKCt LINE 4 � r IRA y i M • ir 41 V � i •T \ i r 1 LAicVVIt'� 7 e� � MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley, Johnson, Moos, Cohen, and Hanson. Brown arrived at 7:25 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning 4 Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Councilmember Peterson was also present. #1301 DAVID L. WHITE i FREDRICK C. WHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST CLASS 3 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Fredrick White was present for this matter. Gaffron explained the proposed subdivision, noting the location of the existing house and garage. The Applicants propose to leave a 2+ acre parcel with the existing house and also create a second buildable lot. Their site evaluator found an alternate site for the existing house with its proposed 3-acre parcel, but testing resulted in a recommendation by the site evaluator to add about 1.3 acres to Lot :,) accomodate drainfield sites, leaving Lot 2 with about 4.8 acres total. Applicant has agreed to this revision. They intend to leave Outlot A for future development. This would result in a subdivision of three lots that would access from County Road 84. The City Engineer, Glen cook, recommends that interior access be developed for this property. Staff put together a diagram showing anticipated development in t.'- area. Mr. Armstrong, property owner to the east, expressed concern about access. The Armstrong property could easily be served by a road along it north boundary. The Olson property directly North of Armstrongs could be served by a cul de sac. Applicant stated that he doubted the ahility to put a sewer system on north part of the outlot due to topography, and was not sure whether there would be enough land to put in a cul de sac and still have 2 acre lots in Outlot A. Hanson suggested an alternate cul de sac location to avoid access directly onto County Road 19. Gaffron suggested that a stipulation of subdivision approval be that once an interior access road is developed, all lots would have to access from it. Hanson noted that a topographic map had not been submitted and Coh.?n agreed that since the Outlot area is of concern as it relates to a comprehensive development plan for the area, that topography would be necessary. Hanson commented that, more than any parcel he has recently seen, he feels that the total acreage here and development possibilities adjacent really do require a more comprehensive approach to the development. Mrs. Armstrong,, who is the owner of property to the east and south of Applicants stated that she is interested in the ability of coming in with a road from 19 since they may wish to sell that property. She questioned whether plans to do so would need to be written into the present proposal. Mr. Kelley informed her that the dedication of 20 feet for future roadway would probably be one of the conditions of the subdivision on this property. Gaffron inquired whether road construction costs would be shared given that 2 of Applicant's lots may ultimately require usage of that road? Kelley commented aff-rmatively and went on to say that he MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELP JULY 18, 1988 #1301 DAVID L. WHITE & FREDRICK C. WHITE -CONTINUED concurred with Mr. Cohen's request for a topographic map. The PC has to be sure that the development of this land is in line with the comprehensive plan of the City. He felt it is important to limit access from County Roads, especially 19, because that traffic will increase over time. Commissioner Johnson agreed that a more comprehensive workup was needed as to development alternatives for the property. Kelley asked for further public comments, there were none. Johnsor questioned whether it was Hennepin Cnunty's position to limit access to the County Roads involved as much as possible. Gaff ron responded that althougr they have not yet responded in this application, typically they would like to limit as far as possible the number of accesses. It was moved b} Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table #1301 pending Applicant's iurthez consideration of a comprehensive development plan and submittal of topographical map, and review by the City as to the position and cost of the roadway. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1207 GENE i CATHERINE SCANLON 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT i VARIANCE THIRD REVIEW Gene and Catherine Scanlon were present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Applicants were seekinc the replacement of structures that were damaged in the storm of July 23, 1987. The specific structures involve a lake shore deck, access stairs anc a 7' x 7' storage shed. Applicants now propose placing the storage shec underneath the existing or proposed deck, which will allow for a reduction in the hardcover from what was there prior to the storm. The total hardcover for the proposed deck is 165 sq. ft. The plans have beer reviewed by the buildinq inspector. Commissioner Kc ' ley asked what the 165 ft. included. Mabusth statec it includes just the decking, and not the 149 sq. ft. of access stairs Kelley questioned recommendation #2 regarding plantings. Mabusth repliec that this procedure is very consistent with what they are now asking of al: persons who replace retaining walls in lakeshore yards. She noted that the Applicants have volunteered to reduce hardcover within the 75-250' setbac} area. Hanson commended the Applicants on making every effort to work or this. Mabusth added that the Scanlons are going directly to the Council or this. In regard to the date the hardcover remo•;als are to take place, Hansor asked Applicants for a date they felt was realistic. Applicants repliec next Spring, and June 30, 1989, was agreed upon. The specific hardship! that apply in this particular variance are the extreme slope of the lane and the necessary work required to stabilize that area after the storm. Johnson stated that he did not think this variance was consistent witl the 0'-75' policies in that there is a retaining wall, stairs, storagE structure and deck all within 25' of the Lake. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of #1207, Gene & Catherinc 2 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST APPLICATION #1301 WHEREAS, Fredrick C. White and David L. White on June 20, 1988, filed a formal subdivision application with the City of Orono for approval of a 2-lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358, et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 1.8, 1988, and September 19, 1988, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 1988, the application was revised by the applicants from 2 building lots, plus an outlot, to included only a split of the existing residence from the remainder of the property, leaving the remaining large parcel as an outlot for future development; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on September 28, 1988, the Orono City Council considered the revised subdivision application of David L. White and Fredrick C. White, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR-1B, single family, rural residential zoning district requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 17.2 acres, of which approximately 14.5 acres is considered dry buildable land. 3. The proposed plat contains 1 building lot to be known as Lot 1 containing the existing residence structure, such lot exceeding the 2.0 acre minimum dry buildable lot area requirement and contains an outlot to be known as Outlot A, which is approximately 13.7 acres in total area for future development. 4. Lot 1 is proposed to continue use of the existing driveway access serving the existing residence structure. Access locations for future development of Outlot A shall be subject to City and Hennepin County requirements at the time Outlot A is developed. Paqe 1 of 3 5. The designated wetland area within Lot 1 and Qutlot A shall be subject to a Conservation and Flowage Easement. 6. No additional right-of-way will be dedicated for County Road 84. 7. An additional 17' of righ-of-way for County Road 19 will be required to be dedicated to increase the right-of-way width to 50, from the centerline. The north lot line of :.ot 1 must be moved northward to maintain at least 2.0 acres of dry buildable land within Lot 1 after the dedication of right-of-way. 8. Lot 1 has been demonstrated to contain suitable sites for an alternate drainfield to serve the existing single family residence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon one or more of the Findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Fredrick C. White and David L. White at 180 North Shore Drive West, per the survey attached hereto as Exhibit "B" by Marvin G. Lovlein, dated June 17, 1988, revised September 10, 1988, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat drawings shall omit the east/west line shown extending eastward from the southeast corner of the exception parcel. An additional 17' of right-of-way for County Road 19 shall be dedicated on the plat, as shown on Exhibit "B" attached. The north line of Lot 1 shall be revised northward as necessary to maintain 2.0 dry buildable acres within Lot 1. The remaining parcel shall be designated as "Outlot A". 2. Lot 1 shall continue to use the existing driveway access onto County Road 19. All future development within Outlot A shall be served by interior roads. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the plat along all lot lines, including along the perimeter lot lines of Outlot A. 4. A Conservation and Flowage Easement shall be granted over the wetland located in Lot 1 and Out lot A, and shall be shown on the plat as a drainage easement. 5. No building permits will be iesued for Outlet A ianttiI nutlot A is further subdivided and served by an interior road system. Such interior road system shall have access to existing roads, subject to the requirements of the City of Orono and Hennepin County. Page 2 of 3 The following list of final submittals must be provided to the the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two ( 2 ) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=2001. Drawings to include: a. Lot line platted per preliminary survey by Marvin G. Lovlein and revised as noted elsewhere in this document, and per Exhibit "B" attached. b. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' in width along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. C. Designation and dedication of the wetlands as drainage ease- ments on the plat. 2. Legal documents required: a. Title Opinion addressed to the City of Orono. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b. The applicant must provide copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c. Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation easements; blank area requiring descriptions may be filled out as follows: "over the drainage easements as shown on the plat of (plat name)". 3. Fees to be paid. Total due: $150.00. a. Legal review and filing fees of $150.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held September 28, 1988. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 3 of 3 / Hennepin County Cost Iron 0. UUNN or Jec. 0, Iwp. it r, till..ca o^ � Monument • u I 8. P[TER ACNEY I i 1991.98� ~.., � I BRUCE A LANOE N 89 35 22 E ,/ \ • W ; 33.00 COUNTY ROAD NO. 84 33.00-: I No z —25.00 ■ 605.14 Hennepin I : �G; �\ N00'39 SOW Northeast `+ of Sectic 30.00 I N00•39'50"W Range 2 W W W a! R F o J► ,�'�� 0 ti �+ 0 OUTLOT A wi cq I v N 0 6 • ti Wcr 0in ' —_ I M Of 0 to 0 South line of North 50 A y 133 33 se0.00 feet O o 1 N89.3S� East line o rel 274.77 I 241.77 of west Hot of Nprtnwes. Gloater of Of B wes 117, RQe. 23 t�4 ---, 'I �; 3 �N ti G DONALD P. LANKRT N D 0 : 241.77 381. M� G Z----——— — —— — —— — — — t Nath line of South ? ■ I 1 0 z o, 3 i` s� s.3• an N89 19 E O i i Z tA 0, o � i Z'yE N68'27'19"E 1 r u f t I 189.3� I z j I N8902719"E W ' � \ \IyIP • I 1c0 I I I' NF / PPNPG� i J I "jt sib= W ETLAND w LOT \ S ; / I W \ I 46 o �ir \ u I sane roost y\ i n� n t W a o o aa � 100.00 .doo-")PA■, FIELD\ ' 80.96 ? m t 390.00 624.47 234.411 N 19•JEANT J 1 �T13+EARM5 1AN�TggNO NM was eet NMI /Q 29 37 � M NerlAwee/ amorN � N flee. i, hM► 117, 11N. ii / v Of 01 CM01 Cost Yon Monument 3odMsMt Cw w of NertAenN Ouorta C-c) of Soctw % Tow"hip 117 Nadi pww 23 WON 0 To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: August 9, 1988 'pj8 Subject: #1318 Saud H. Azhari, 1745 Fox Street - 's9 196"0 Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District RR-lB Total Area = Approximately 25 acres Pertinent Code Section - A. Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - Non -encroachments (fences which do not exceed 3h' in height are considered non -encroachments). The gate structure would be required to meet the 50' street setback for the zoning district. 1. Height Variance: Required = 3�' Proposed = 8' Variance = 4h' or 128% B. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 W - Required setback of 3'6" height is exceeded. 1. Setback Variance: Required = 50' Proposed From Right -of -Way = 10.3' Proposed From Travelled Road = 34' Variance = 39.7' or 78% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Elevations Exhibit E - Survey Review of Application - The applicant/contractor was asked to stop work on the proposed monuments being constructed at the entrance way. The contractor advised the inspector that tine owner proposed to install a gate and the monuments/posts were to reach a maximum height of 8'. The owner has filed the necessary variance application and claims the need for a security fence in light of recent property damage claims. It has been reported that unauthorized cars drive into --he property. The gate will attempt to prevent this form of trespass. zoning File #1318 August 9, 1988 Page 2 of 2 The gate structure provides no sighting hazards to the users of the private driveway nor to the public who use Fox Street as it is lccated 34' from the travelled roadway. Staff has contacted the local fire chief to determine whether the 18' width between the two pillers meets the adequate opening for emergency vehicles such as a fire engine. Mr. Perry confirmed that a fire engine requires a 816" clearance and added that if the vehicles had side mirrors, 10' would be a minimum clearance required. He confirmed that the 18' width would be an adequate width. Staff's concern is that the owner must realize that if the property is developed at some time in the future, the entrance must be re -designed for a private road, the pillars and gate would have to be removed based on the travelled road standard of a minimum 24' width. The code sets no limits for the height of lighting on a private residential property but staff would only caution that the lighting must be directed downward and if a lantern type or open lamp design is to be installed, the intensity is to be held down so as not to create a viewing problem from the public roadway. Staff Recommendation - To approve the height and setback variance for the gate to be constructed at the residence located at 1745 Fox Street, based on the following findings: 1. The gate/post structure does not create a potential hazard to the users of the public roadway nor of the private driveway because of the 34' setback the travelled roadway. 2. The width of the gate shall provide clearance for emergency vehicles that may have to service the property. 3. The gate structure will provide necessary security for this secluded property. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is placed on notice that if at some future time this property is further developed, the 18' wide clearance of the gate will not satisfy the road design standards for private road. 2. Lighting at the gate entrance must be directed downward and if an o)en/direct lighting is to be installed, the intensity must be reduced so as not to create a viewing problem for the users of the public roac:,aay. . Zoning File #1318 Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation September 22, 1988 Page 3 of 3 A member of the Planning Commission asked the applicant if a 3h' high gate would not serve the same purpose as a 8' high gate. The applicant advised that he did not feel it would have the same lmpac`.. Other members concurrered with the applicant agreeing ti►,-` in their exc_.rience the higher gate structure provide a more formidable, defined presence, to deter unauthorized vehicular traffic from entering the property. One member felt that gate structures should not be included with standards for fences and walls and felt that they required separate standards and added t}%at the safety/vision factor was more pertinent with the consideration of such structures. The r:.anning Commission voted unanimously to approve the plans as presented by the applicant and adopted the staff recommendation noted above. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's approval recommendation. or A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 (C) AND SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1318 WHEREAS, Suad H. Azhari (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1745 Fox Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 117N, Range 23 West of the fifth principal meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property") ; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the installation of a entrance gate to tze property requiring a height variance of 4�' or 128% at a maximum hc,`_ght of 8' where only 3h' would be allowed and a setback variance of 39.7' or 78% for the gate structure set 10.3' from the front/street lot line instead of meeting the .required 50' setback. MinnFsota: NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1318. 2. The property is located in the RR-lB Single Family Rural Reside::Lial Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The property consists of 25 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 1988 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The gate/post otructure does not create a potential hazard for the users of the public roadway nor of the private driveway because of the 30' setback from the travelled roadway. B) The gate shall provide clearance for emergency veh Iles that may have to service the property. C) The qate structure will provide the necessary security for the very secluded property. Page 1 of 4 r 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of t',A Planni^g Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of `he 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 qenerally 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 ',ntent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) and Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the completion of the installation of in entrance gate to the property allowing the gate to be 8' in height instead of meeting the allowed 3h' height and setba:k 10.3' from the front/street lot lint instead of the required 50', subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is placed on notice that if at some future time this property is further developed, the 18' wide clearance of the gate will not satisfy the row: design standards for a private road. 2. Lighting at the gate entrance must be directed downward and if an open/direct lightin5 is to be installed, the intensity must be reduced so as not to create a viewing problem for the users of the public roadway. 3. Prior to completing the installation of the gate structure, the applicant must obtain the required building permit from the City of Orono. 4. 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, cr tnis variance will expire on that date (Sel.tember 28, 1989). Page 2 of 4 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 grented herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of September, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI9N Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional va ce) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees ( Double application fee) CI Y Cr gr,,! D ------------------------------------------------------------ ...., PROPERTY LOCATION �l c Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) V r1/TiAhk V J AVL i0VVLVVVVV V. i r u r r, 1 .L,l c; if..� r,fni MMtLV ri ; Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICAJ Phone ( home ) 11- 7 3— 3 Z Z 2 Nang S / -2- etf 2 \ Phone (work) Address: � City: QRCIUO Zip: 97 32 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District 1? R-Ig Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ��•� Describe request in detail: gy \� �� G qp— C iJ�f _ ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES RHQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( 0ther' Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: S cLU�L`� S Q IV S --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed -Application Form - 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). '7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. -- Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning official's Signature Date .. _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURB 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 5 �_-� Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges e.nd 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 r quest. - ;�Date-Z2 , Owner's Signature _- ------------------------I------------ Applicant must have all Submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeti:,g. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. PUN DATE 07/19/68 BATCH 001 HENJEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 02-117-23 33 0003 38 02-117-23 33 0010 38 03-117-23 41 0002 PROP ADOR 01410 SHORELINE UR 01620 FOX ST OWNER NAME ALBERT D HANSER A HARRISON A I L HARRISON CARGILL MAC MILLAN TAXPAYER ALBERT 0 HANSER ALFRED A INGRID L HARRISON CARGILL MAC MILLAN NOW/ADOR 40 GREENWAY GABLES 6941 BEACH RD DEPT 28 BOX 9300 MPLS MH SS403 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 MPLS MH 55440 38 03-117-23 41 0003 38 03-117-23 42 0007 38 03-117-23 42 0008 PROP ADOR 01700 FOX ST 01840 FOX ST OWNER NAME CRAIGBANK ASSOCIATES WILLIAM L WALDRON ETAL H H TEARSE JR A B F TEARSE TAXPAYER CRAIGBANR ASSOCIATES WILLIAM L WALDRON H H TEARSE JR NAME/ADOR PO BOX 9300 DEPT 28 1880 FOY ST P 0 BOX 15105 MPLS MN SS440 WAYZATA MN 55391 MPLS MN 55415 03-117-23 43 0002 Q�- PROP ADOR 38 03-117-23 42 0009 01820 FOX ST 38 03-117-23 43 0001 38 01925 FOX ST OWNER NAME CHARLES N MARVIN SUAD H AZHARI P H WATSON A J W ASHDOWN ,,4 TAXPAYER CHARLES N MARVIN SUAD K AZHARI P H WATSON A J ASHDOWN NAME/ADOR 1820 FOX STREET 1745 FOX ST 1925 FOX ST WAYZATA MH 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 43 0003 38 03-117-23 43 0004 38 03-117-23 43 0005 �h PROP ADOR 00680 BROWN RD S 00760 BROWN RD S 00800 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME C L ANDRUS ETAL T R BROWNE A S R BROWNE R A VICKERMAN ET AL W/L EST TAXPAYER COLEBERT L ANDRUS THOMAS R BROWNE RUTH ANNE VICKERMAN NAME/ADOR 680 SOUTH BROWN ROAD 760 SO BROWN ROAD 800 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MH 55391 38 03-117-23 44 0001 38 03-117-23 44 0002 38 10-117-23 11 0001 PROP ADOR 01685 FOX ST 01745 FOX ST OWNER NAME SALLY 0 HANSER SUAD H AZHARI SUAD H AZHARI TAXPAYER SALLY D HANSER SUAD H AZHARI SUAD H AZHARI NAME/ADDR 1685 FOX ST 1745 FOX ST 1745 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 11 0002 38 10-117-23 12 0001 38 10-117-23 12 0003 PRC' ADOR 00860 BROWN RD S 00930 BROWN RD S 1� Lei OWNER NAME BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY DAVID M SKEIE A WIFE GARY D FRETHEIM ETAL TAXPAYER DAKOTA RAIL INC DAVID M SKEIE GARY D FRETHEIM - NAME/ADOR NAShINGTON AVE A ADAMS ST 860 BRONI ROAD SOUTH 930 BROWN ROAD HUTCHINSON MH 553SO WAYZATA MH 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE 07/19/88 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 2 BATCH 00! 38 10-117-23 12 0004 PROP ADOR 00940 BROWN RD S OWNER NAME CAROL SENN TAXXPArER CAROL SENN NAME,ADDR 940 SO BROWN RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH HAME,ADOR 001 00021 38 10-117-23 12 0005 01005 HERITAGE LA D A A BEAL DAVID J BEAL 1005 HERITAGE LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0001 01700 SHORELINE DR IRWIN L JACOBS A WIFE IRWIN L JACOBS 1700 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESF14TED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO fHE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 0AI F��YffBY i- Wb ;, • q 404 1-9 pot 4IF / le 000r, a 2,, 'l 1 ,r 2]� y i J ; i S+ x 1crx' ' (') ENA NEhHOT0O19N0 - LAKE \ IMOTO-19b-1 i 1 0 =-I Side View View A Ct�rtif ieat.e of Survey for Ana!; Abukhadra r0.,, ...►� 1 in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec.3-117-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota Fox Sheet i T � � E ua>'in9 pil�0/' bases i IV 1464 bne a/ $t�bJeF.i61 or*-' .. 3-111-23 N «1 o/' 1rx/frbp I hereby certify that t`tin ty a true and corroct representation of a survey of the location of two existing pillar bases in relation to the Norlth and lviceRt lines of the East half of the Southwer.t Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, rown-hip 117 North, Rango 23 wost of the Sth Principal Mi•ridian. It doett not pm -port :o n1mw .-ny ot.h.•r improvament!t or encroachments. COFrIN t, GRONBLItG, INC. :u. 11755 8 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Date: September 20, 1988 Subject: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park 92688.2HD cE ATTACHMENT - Regional Park Issue Dated 8/29/88�' OF A. Lake Minnetonka Rej1d g ._� ISSUE - 1. Update the Council regarding the use of the alternate attorney. 2. Providinq the Council with information related to the issue of the City standing. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's September 12th, 1988 meeting, it was indicated that the City was pursuing the issue with the City's alternate attorney. DISCUSSION - The attorney has made a determination that they have no significant conflicts of interest apart from some bond work they had done in the past three years for Hennepin Parks, but because of the State of Minnesota is a significant client that wo-ld be pro:)lematic and therefore disqualified themselves from consideration. Staff could seek a firm that has a familiarity in the area yet does not have the State, Metro Council or the Park District as a client. (As a side note, Tim Thorton, the attorney for Minnetrista, as this case has been appointed General Consel of Northwest Airlines and an attorney to handle the case may not be identified yet.) ALTERNATIVES - 1. Direct staff to undertake tecoming a party to the lawsuit. 2. Direct staff to send a letter of intent of possible inclusion of lawsuit. 3. Request that the cities around the lake again consider the possibility of an amicus curiae. 4. Take no action. 5. Table for further discussion. 6. k another opinion on standing. Lake Minnetonka Regional Park September 20, 1988 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended at this time, because of the inclusion of the Veterans' Camp in this issue, that the City for a price not to exceed $300.00 become a party to the lawsuit with Minnetrs sta strictly for the issue of the Constitutional question. This relates to the Legislation being in violation of the requirement for local approval for special Legislation and that should it go further, the City seek another firm to advise it, if appropriate. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to approve at this time, because of the inclusion of the Veterans' Camp in this issue, that the City for a price not to exceed $300.00 become a party to the lawsuit with Minnetrista strictly for the issue of the Constitutional question related to the Legislation being in violation of the requirement for local approval for special Legislation. Ayes F nays 82988.3 /o TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: August 29, 1988 CiM ri3'.7yV4r."� SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park Attachements: A. 1988 Legislation - Hennepin Parks B. Excerpt Minnesota Constitution Article 12 C. Minnesota Statutes 398.09 D. Feasibility Study Lake Minnetonka (Undated) E. Draft to Alternate Attorney ISSUE 1. Refinement of the issues related to the suit. 2. Updatingcommunication of the alternate attorney as it relates to the City's standing as a potential party to the Minnetrista lawsuit. 3. Delineation of further avenues of action. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 8, 1988 Council meeting they discussed the issue of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park and direction to be undertaken. As Popham Haik was the primary attorney but does have a conflict of interest, the matter is being referred to the City's Alternate Attorney, William Soth at the Dorsey firm. In a subsequent phone conversation, subsequent to the August 8th meeting, Councilmember Callahan and myself discussed the issue of standing and he requested that we ask the alternate for a preliminary determination as to the City's standing, which is the reason for Attachment F. In addition, since the last meeting Councilmember Goetten has raised the issue of lawsuit support through the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) and this was discussed at their August 25, 1988 Metropolitan Affairs policy group meeting. This group held it of significant enough interest to be referred to the appropriate Policy Committee of the League of Minnesota Cities. DISCUSSION 1. Refinement of the Issue. The issues related to the lawsuit have generaf-fy -been ieentified as to two constitutional issues relating to; a.) special legislation and b.) "garbage bills". A third relating to eminent domain is one that is more a pol icy issue for the State. S ecial Le illation - As noted in Attachment B the Constitutl.; o-TMinnesota prohibits any special 1 legislation that applies to a local government to go into effect without it being adopted by the local unit of government that it affects. This is the principal issue that Councilmember Goetten has presented to AM M. As you will note in the attached legislation that was passed, the legislation itself is much broader than acquisition of park land in Minnetrista. The issue then becomes, if the language on its face is general enough to avoid the constitional problem, whether the specific intent that the Legislature is trying to achieve makes it a constitional violation. This general language not only would allow the possiblility to argue the constitional provision but also allow the right to condemn any land for "Lake Minnetonka Regional Park" .',at was identified in the Master Plan (Attachment D). As you will note this includes the "Big Island Veterans Camp" which is arguably "identified" in that document. "Garbas-e" Bill - This applies to the constitional provision that says each bill passed by the legislature is to have a subject clearly delineated in its title and that all issues within the bill are to generally apply thereto. The Legislature is "notorious" for passing bills that have many unrelated subjects and the passage of this legislation was one of those. Eminent: Domain - This is not a constitional issue as such, 5ut the State prior to this legislation had granted parks the ability to exercise eminent domain procedures when they had the concurrence of the municipality. It is speculated that Hennepin Parks would not have been able to muster the legislative support to amend this specific provision and that is the reason for the provision that they were granted. The State has granted a broad eminent domain policy to all municipalities with more specific ones to various State and County Agencies including the Park Reserve District. On the one hand it may be difficult for a municipality who has very broad e;ainent domain powers to argue against. the exercise even of limited eminent domain powers by another political subdivision, however, it can be argued that municipalities are the local accountable governmental entity in the metro area, and are the ones in charge of the comprehensive land use planning and therefore the other agencies should be very specifically limited in their powers. (It should be noted that Hennepin Parks could possibly acquire the park without special legislation in conjunction with another political entity, who would have the power to exercise condemnation authority for parks, such as a city. They together could acquire the park without special legislation.) 2 2. Alternate Attorney - As noted in the attached draft letter that is being sent to the Attorney it has been requested that 7e take a short period time to give a preliminary reading on the City's standing in this issue. Please refer to the letter as an outline of the issues submitted to the attorney in relation to the City's standing. 3. Direction for Responses as to How the City Proceeds - A potential strategy for undertaking a response to -this matter can be as follows: 1. when deemed appropriate become a party to the lawsuit at a very minimal cost to insure the suit is not settled without the City's concurrence. 2. If Minnetrista wants to settle the suit, require that any settlement also include a resolution of the constitional questions related to the bill together with insuring that the condemnation authority will not be exercised in Orono. 3. If the City chooses not to be a direct participant in the lawsuit they can, should the lawsuit be settled, undertake a suit of their own if appropriate "standing" is available. 4. Should the suit go to District Court prepare the necessary am.ircus curiae brief to be possibly submitted as further evidence in addition to the resolutions, but that the real thrust of it would be at the appellate court level. ALTERNATIVES 1. Requirement of Issue a. Accept b. Expand c. Refii.e 2. Alternate Attorney. a. Acknowledge information b. Request additional information be transmitted to the Attcrney 3. Direction for Proceeding . Table b. Discuss direction. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that: 1. Council accept the refinement of the issues. 2. That the Council give the Administrator any further comments they have to the draft letter to the Attorney. 3 PROPOSE accept issues Attorney 26, 1988 3. That the Council table further discussion on this matter until its September 26, 1988 meeting. D MOTION - Moved by r, seconded by _, that the Council the information from the Administrator regarding the on the lawsuit together with issue discussions with the and directs that the item be tabled until the September meeting. Ayes _, Nays __ krrpl�M2a/r 4 STATE DEPARTMENTS APPROPRIATIONS BILL 24 26. (REGIONAL PARK ACQUISITION.) 25 Subdivision 1. (LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.) The legislature 26 finds that there is a need for a regional park on Lake 27 Minnetonka to serve the recreation open space needs of the 28 citizens of the entire metropolitan area and that it is in the 29 public interest to author, acquisition of land for such a park 30 in accordance with the master plan approved by the metropolitan 31 council. 32 Subd. 2. (ACOUISITION.1 Notwithstanding any contrary 33 provision of law, the suburban Hennepin regional park district 34 may acquire real ro erty for a Lake Minnetonka regional park by 35 purchase-, gift, or eminent domain pursuant to Minnesota 36 Statutes, chapter 117, without local ccnsent or approval by env 37 affected municipality or other local c,overnmental unit. 38 Subd. 3. (METROPOLITAN COUNCII APPROVAL.) Before any 39 acquisition of real property by eminent domain pursuant to 40 subdivision 1, the metropolitan council must find, fol'_,�winv 41 public hearinq, that: 42 (1) acquisition of the property is in the public interest; 1; (2) negatiaticns for acquisition of the orooert•i have resu._ed in acc!l:s: :r. cf and by our^_�ase 1 (3) the proposed acquisition is consistent with the 2 approved master plan maintained by the metropolitan council; and (4) the district is able to carry out the plan and operate 4 the regional park. 5 The findings required by this subdivision may have been made 6 before or may be made on or after the effective date of this act. 7 Subd. 4. (SMALL HOMESTEAD LIFE ESTATE.) The park district 8 may not acquire the fee title to a homestead of less than_20 9 acres by eminent domain without the written consent of the 10 owner, but the district may acquire all title to the property 11 except for a life estate in the person or Fersom. residing on 12 the homestead. 13 Subd. S. (EXPIRATION. Authority to acquire real property 14 through eminent domain as provided in subdivisions 2 and 3 15 exoires on December 31, 1989, except that an acquisition 16 approved by the metropolitan, council before January 1, 1990, may 17 continue. 18 Subd. 6. [APPLICATION.] This section applies in the 19 counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and 20 Washington. 8 Sec. 84. (EFFECTIVE DATE.) 9 This article is effective the day following final 10 enactment, except that the fee increases provided in section 55 11 are effective May 1, 1988; section 26 is effective October 1, 12 1988; and section 56 Is effective January 1, 1989. Section 47 13 is effective July 1, 1989. 14 Sections-40 to 42 are effective January 1, 1989, and apply 15 to amounts checked off on income tax returns filed on and after 16 that date. 4-rr,qo##tar,31 ARTICLE XII — - - - SPECIAL LEGISLATION; LOCAL GOVERNMENT Sec►;:)n 1. Prohibition of special legislation; particular subjects. In all cases when a general law can be made applicable, a special law shall not be enacted except as provic'ed in section 2. Whether a general law could have been made applicable in any case shill be judicially determined without regard to any legislative assertion on that subject. The legislature shall pass no local or special law authorizing the laying out, opening, aizz-+ng, vacating or maintaining of roads, highways, streets or alleys; remit- ting fines, penalties or forfeitures; changing the names of persons, places, lakes or rivers; authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children; changing the law of descent or succession; conferring rights on minors; declaring any named person of age; giving effect to informal or invalid wills or deeds, or affecting the estates of minors or persons under disability; granting divorces; exempting property from taxation or regulating the rate of interest on money; creating private corporations, or amending, renewing, or extending the charters thereof; granting to any private corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever or authorizing public taxation for a private purpose. The inhibitions of local or special laws in this section shall not prevent the passage of general laws on any of the subjects enumerated. Sec. 2. Special laws; local government. Every law which upon its effective date applies to a single local government unit or to a group of such units in a single county or a number of contiguous counties is a special law and shall name the unit or, in the latter case, the counties to which it applies. The legislature may enact special laws relating to local government units, but a special law, unless otherwise provided by general law, shall become effective only after its approval by the affected unit expressed through the voters or the governing body and by such majority as the legislature may direct. Any special law may be modified or superseded by a later home rule charter or amendment applicable to t, - same local government unit, but this does not prevent the adoption of subsequent law, on the same subject. The ' �slature may repeal any existing special or !ocal law, but shall not amend, extr codify any of the same except as provided in this section. Sec. .S. Local government; legislation affecting. Tne legislature may provide by law for the creation, organization. administration, consolidation 4 ivision and dissolu- tion of local government units and their functions, for the change. o boundaries thereof, for their elective and appointive officers including qualifications fur office and for the transfer of county seats. A county boundary may not be changed or county seat transferred until approved in each county affected by a majority of the voters voting on the question. Sec. 4. Home rule charter. Any local government unit when authorized by law may adopt a home rule charter fnr its government. A charter shall become effective if approved by such majonty of the votersof the local government snit as the legislature prescribes by ger law. If a charter provides for the consolidation or separation of a city and a count,, .n whole or in part, it shall not be effective without approval of the voters both in the city and in the remainder of the county by the majority required by law. Sec. 5. Charter commission. The legislature shall provide by law for charter commissions. Notwithstanding any other constitutional limitations the legislature may require that commission members be freeholders, provide for their appointment by judges of the district court, and permit any member to hold any other elective or appointive office other than judicial. Home rule charter amendments may be proposed by a charier commission or by a petition of five percent of the voters of the local go%ernment unit 3s determined by law and shall not become effective until approved by the voters by the majonty required by law. Amendments may be proposed and adopted in any other manner provided by law. A local government unit may repeal its home rule charier and adopt a statutory form of government or a new charter upon the same majority vote as is required by law for the adoption of a charter in the first instance. M• Oa PARK OMMIGTS 7%4 .d "d 09 SPECIFIC POWERS. "' SEE ` Park district boards inaddition to sac foregoing general powers shall have thes�ol' specific pu*cri I .. •' 'ILT (a) The power to regu: to b- ordinance the use of the waters of any lake lying wholly within a park established under this chapter and the use of any lake shore wht..h is within a park established under this chapter and the waterfront immediately abutting such lake shore for not to er -ed 300 feet therefrom, by all persoisr including persons boating, swimming, fishing, skating or otherwise, in, upon or about said lake, lake shore and abutting waterfront, subject to regulation by the state of Minnesota I I I „1 (b) The power to acquire lands either within or without tl.e park district for conversion into forest reserves and for the conservation of the natural rariurces of the state, including streams, lakes, submerged lands and swamplands, and to these ends may create parks, parkways, forest reservations and other reservations and afi.,rest, develop, improve, protect and promote the use of the same in such manner as is conducive to the general welfare. These lands may be acquired by the board, on behalf of the district, by gift or devise, Sy purchase or by condemnation. In furtherance of the use and enjoyment of the lands controlled by it, the board may' accept donations of money or other property, or may tit as trustee of land, money or other property and use and administer the same as stipulated by the donor, or as provided in the trust agreement Thc terms of each such donation or trust shall first be approved by the district court before acceptance by the board If the park district includes all or part of more than one court district, approval shall be by the aunt court of the court district having the largest area within the park district. ' Ia case of condemnation the proceedings are to be instituted in the name of the district and conducted in the mariner provided in chapter 430 and acts now in chat and bereafter adopted amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto. Either the fee q any :esscr interest may be acquired as the board deems advisable. All awards not act aud.- as therein provided shall be a charge upon the district for which its credi+ shall be pledged The duties specified to be performed in said sections by the city councal, the city clerk and the city engineer, respectiveiy, shall be performed by the commissionerssecretary , the sretary and the superintendent of the district. Appeals to the du:nct court shall be taken to the district court of the county in which the land litr< The notices required to be published shall be published in every case in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county or counties wherein the land lies. Al reports and papers required by said sections to be filed with the city clerk shall he filed with the secretary of the district. Unless a lesser estate be designated. U absolute estate in fee simple, unqualified in any way whatsoever, shall vest in t" dstrict to every case of taking by the exercise of the power of eminent domaiu,'atsa suLh estate shall not be limited or qualified in any way by construction. Nothiu} herein contained shall authorize the hood to: cu.l1� 1 Acquire real estate by purcimn ase or co.idenaon which is located within t boundaries of an incorporated statutory city or city unless the governing body�'pd� suLh statutory City or city shall have consented thereto by resulution duly adott or a 2. Acquire real estate by condemnation which is located cutside the district unless the board of county commissioners of the county in which I property is located has consented thereto by resolution duly adopted. (i.) The power, if the board finds that any lands which it his acquired ar aacnsary for the purposes for which acquired, to dispose of such lands upooA terms as are advisable including the power to transfer such lands to other corporations. Where lands which were acquired by condemnation less than 20 yeog before arc to be sold to private parties, the former owners, or their heirs. success 7M PARK DIS-r RIM 311,111.0e or assigns, shall be notified in writing of the board's intent to dispose of the properties and shalt be given 20 days to purchase the property taken from them at such price as the board shall deem fair compensation to the district for such property. The board may lease any of its lands or permit their use for purposes consistent with the purposes for which the lands were acquired upor. such terms as are advisable. No such lands shall be sold without the approval oft' ic district court of the county in which the lands are situated. • ' , * ' (d) The power to fix, alter, charge and collect Pecs, tolls and charges for the use of facilities of the park district, for services rendered by, or for any commodities furnished by, or for licenses issued by, the board pursuant to ordinances authorized hereunder. All fines collected for any violation of a board's ordinance shall be paid into the treasury of such park district board. (e) The power to borrow, make ano issue negotiable bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness, subject to the provisions of sections 398.16 and 399.17, and to pledge its full faith, credit and taxing power to the payment thereof, and/or to secu,c the payment of such obligations or any part thereof by mortgage, lien, pledge, deed of trust otherwise, on all or any of its property, contracts, franchises or revenges and to make such agreements with the purchasers or holders of such notes, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness or with others in connection with the same, whether issued or to be issued. (f) The power to cooperate with or borrow from any governmental organization, state or federal, or from any agency of the state or federal government for any purpose within ti,r cope of the authority of this corporation. (g) The power to cooperate with any public or municipal corporation, with the couaties and with any private or public organization engaged in conservation, recreational activities, protection of the public health and safety, prevention of water pollution, sanitation, and/or mosquito abatement for any constructive purpose, and the power, upon request, to assume control of all or a portion of any existing parks or park lands owned by any county government or municipal corporation in the park district; such control shall be assumed only at the request of and by agreement Ivith the public authority in control of such parks or park lands. Thereupon se:h Parks nr park lands may be developed, improved, protected and operated as . park as in case of lads otherwise acquired by the board. Such acquisition rc assumption of control or operation of a municipal park system by a park distr;-t shall in ro way impair the authority and power of such municipality to levv and collect taxes for park. playground and recreational purposes, all or part w such tax funds to be hiartsferred to the park district for such uses as may its agreed upon between the futria and the municipality. 1' (h) The power to designate employees as police officers within the parts under Ot jurisdiction and control of the board, and employees so designated may exercise Rid the powers of police officers within the park lands under the jurisdiction and %ORtml of the board. Before exercising these powers, each such employee shall tali: y oath and give a bond to the stage in su-1 sum as the board prescribes for the Performance of his duties in such respect. The board may contract with palities or with the county or counties for the policing of park properties. � k) The power, upon a four -fifths vote of the board, to'enter into an agr«ment *Asection 471.59 with any political subdivision, governmental unit, or agency, iding sit elected park and recreation board in a city of the fir-_t class, to expend money, including bond proceeds, in its possession for any metropolitan park purposes, including transferring money in its possession as a grant to Political subdivisions, governmental units, or agencies, including an elected !rid rccreation board in a city of the first class. *Ult*c- 1933 c 806 s 9, 1957 c 160 s 1; 1973 c 123 an J s 7; 1984 c 654 an 1 .:'J t: , FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR A REGIONAL PARK ON LAKE MINNETONKA AND ACQUISITION MASTER PLAN Hennepin Parks has been asked to participate in the planning for regional park facilities on Lake Minnetonka, particularly as they relate to increased public access in Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka (see attached map from Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report) as designated by the Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report of 1983. The Lake Minnetonka Task Force, appointed by the Metropolitan Council in 1985, in its recommendations concerning intergovernmental coordination, Item c, Page 11, recommended that: "A principal recommendation is that a regional recreation open space implementing agency, most logically the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SHRPD), should prepare a master plan and acquire, develop and operate a regional recreation open space entity on the lake. The facility should be consistent with applicable plans and should incorporate existing regional properties, other new parcels in the lake and on the Lakeshore which may be necessary for its function as a significant regional recreation facility. The facility should provide the following regional functions, among others: staging areas for ferry or other access to islands in the regional park, shoreline access and docks for fishing, areas for viewing the lake and shoreline, parking and sanitary facilities, and boat rentals. Appropriate launch facilities for small craft and fishing boats should be included, especially in zones 3 and 5. The plan should be prepared by the implementing agency, reviewed by LMCD and DNR and approved by the Metrnnolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and Metropolitan Council. In the _it that SHRPD is unable or unwilling to implement the proposed new regional facility, LMCD should be requested to carry out the task as a regional implementing agency. In the latter event, modification of LMCD's legislative authority may be required." EXISTING HENNEPIN PARKS PROPERTY ON LAKE MINNETONKA Among the reasons for Hennepin Parks being asked to participate in this process is the Park District's existing presence on Lake Minnetonka. The District owns four parcels on Lake Minnetonka, including Noerenberg Memorial County Park, Wawatasso Island, Wild Goose Chase Island and a portion of Big Island. (An inventory and summary of these properties follows.) Hennepin Parks desires to acquire the Big Island Veterans Camp (58 acres), which is currently owned by the Big Island Veterans Camp Board of Governors, who are analyzing the possibility of reconstructing the camp for veterans' use. Acquisition of the camp for park purposes is sipported by the City of Orono and is included in the Park District's acquisition plan. The Minnesota State Legislature, in i983, designated all publicly owned land on Big Island as a Regional Park. -2- A. Current Ownership - 73.83 acres B. Existing Facilities •Floral Display Gardens •Maintenance Facilities •Lakeside Gazebo C. This park was a gift to Hennepin Par►.s in 1972 from Mrs. Laura Hoppe. The will making the gift directed that use is to be limited to a formal display garden and nature sanctuary. The park cannot be used for general recreational development such as picnicking, camping, fishing or boat launching. D. Future Facilities A Citizen's Committee helped develop a plan for development of the park. This plan was submitted to the City of Orono and received the unanimous approval of the City Council. Facilities to be built include a visitor center, memorial arbor, parking and garden features. 2. Wawatasso Island (Lake Minnetonka Task Force Zone 5.) A. Current ownership - 34.45 acres (represents total size of island) B. A deed restriction states that "Wawatossa Island shall continue it perpetuity to be a natural wildlife and wilderness area which shall be used for temporary outing and overnight camping purposes, in a manner consistent wtih the preservation of said island in a natural condition." C. Possible Facilities and/or Activities • Tent camping • Hiking trails • Restrooms (vault type) • Water • Trash Collection 3. Wild Goose Chase Island (Lake Minnetonka Task Force Zone 4.) A. Current ownership - 2.50 acres (represents total size of island) B. Existing Facilities • Restrooms (vault type) • Trash collection 4. Big _Island (Lake Minnetonka Task Force Zone 3) A. Current ownership - 63.45 acres B. Acquisition consideration - 77.31 acres (Big Island Veterans Camp - 58.0 acres and miscellaneous parcels - 19.31 acres) C. Existing Facility - Arthur Allen Wildlife Sanctuary D. Possible Future Facilities and/or Activities -3- Boat dock/slips Shore fishing docks Picnicking Swimming Hiking/nature trails Contact station (information and interpretation) Overnight group camping Maintenance/storage building Resident caretaker residence Water Restroom Trash collection E. Consideration should be given for winter use Access to the islands, particularly Big Island, by non -boaters is needed. A staging area where those who don't own boats may park their cars and utilize shuttle boat needs to be identified. Consideration for such a staging area would include: A. Acquisition consideration - 3.0 acres minimum B. In lieu of land acquisition and capital facility development by Hennepin Parks, consider contracting with a private source, i.e., private marina, etc. C. Consideration should be given to the boat shuttle; i.e., private source or Hennepin Parks owned and operated. 0. Possible Facilities -Entry control •Restroom -Parking (200-250 cars) -Boat dock -Water -Trash collection Hennepin Parks will be identifying alternatives for a staging area(s) in the east portion of Lake Minnetonka. This analysis will include identification of potential sites to acquire and/or lease of parking space. The investigation of contracting with a private charter boat(s) for shuttle service to Big Island, as well as self -operation of a shuttle service by Hennepin Parks, will be pursued. Over the last several months, Hennepin Parks has been conducting a planning process for a regional park entity on Lake Minnetonka. A series of eight public meetings was held. A tour of the area was arranged and various issues related to this effort have been analyzed. Following is a Master Plan for park acquisition that addresses the eight points required by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission Policy Plan. 1, BOUNDARIES Policies adopted by the Metropolitan Council set forth certain standards and guidelines for the acquisition of regional parks. They state that a regional park should be 200 to 500 acres, in a natural setting, contiguous to water bodies or water courses. In analyzing the potential for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka, the opportunity exists to acquire 292 acres of land on Smithtown and Halsted's Bay. This land is owned by three individuals, all of whom have indicated a willingness to discuss the sale for park purposes. The attached map indicates this property and its relationship to Carver Park Reserve, located across Highway 7 from the property. -4- Two parcels, lying east of existing County Road 44 and totaling 72 acres front on Smithtown Bay. Lake frontage for the two parcels totals 1,100 linei.l feet. The third parcel, lying west of existing County Road 44, north of Highway 7, fronts on Halsted's Bay. Frontage on Halsted's Bay totals 1,400 lineal feet. This parcel also includes approximately one mile of frontage on State Highway 7. Hennepin County DOT proposes to realign County Road 44 through the site (see the attached map). This -realignment equals approximately .8 miles and will allow for a better, safer intersection with Highway 7 and improved access into the proposed regional park. The proposed 292-acre acquisition includes land which is generally rolling, wooded, and has a number of low wetland areas throughout the site. The lake bottom on the Smithtown Bay side 1s generally silty, sandy conditions with a depth of 5± feet, 150 feet from the shore. The shore itself is somewhat rocky with variable slopes. The lake bottom on the Halsted's Bay side is generally sandy clay with some weed growth and a depth of 6t feet, 150 feet from the shore. The shoreline is generally sandy, then becoming rocky with steep slopes 400 feet from the east boundary. These three parcels together with a fourth, which was considered for acquisition and is identified as a desirable future acquisition to the park, are the last remaining large tracts of open land on Lake Minnetonka that have the potential to meet the standards for a regional park. Sale and development i> somewhat imminent. In fact, during the process of analyzing this site for park purposes, one of the properties was sold from Hagen -Mason to Mr. Ed Pauls. In addition, Mr. Gagne has indicated that he desires to sell his property for development. If this land is developed for residential use, the opportunity for a major regional park on Lake Minnetonka is lost. Acauisition Cos Apprai!als have not yet been made on the property, thus the final acquisition cost is unknown. The preliminary estimate places the acquisition cost from $7 to $8 million. 2. STEWARDSHIP As the Park District acquires this be put into effect. These include boundary signing and security. 3. NEEDS ANALYSIS property, normal stewardship practices will shade tree disease control, weed control, The need for the proposed regional park facility on Lake Minnetonka has been identified in the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Policy Plan. The following three comments are excerpts from different documents prepared by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission to identify and then prioritize regional outdoor recreation needs. The following summarized the need identified by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission: a) Recreation Open Space Development Guide/policy Plan - Recreation Facility Analysis; February, 1981; Pub. No. 11-81-0054 -5- This is the most comprehensive study available and is intended to "develop facilities based on their ability to provide the variety of recreation facilities needed by the Region's population, now and in the year 2000". The result of the Facility Analysis identified the "top 20 potential sites" for future development accounting for present facility use, user characteristics, facility inventories, population characteristics, travel distances, site capabilities, general participation and preferences. Two of the top three sites identified are on Lake Minnetonka. b) Service Area Needs Analysis - Lake Minnetonka Regional Park; circa 1982 This study identified the expected facilities for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka, the characteristics of the anticipated use and the affect of other surrounding regional facilities. A park of about 250 acres: a picnic area of 20 acres, 1,000 feet of beach, 600,000 summer occasions, peak day 6,100 people; 100 car -trailer parking spaces (consistent with Cooperative Water Access Task Force standards), 20,000 boats launched/summer, 250 launched peak weekend day; 2 miles of bike/hike trails to support the other facilities, rather than an attraction, would generate 60,000 occasions per summer season, 700 on an average weekend. c) Leisure 1n the Twin Cities Area Survey; Activity Interest and Constraints; 1983 In the preceding study, most of the major facilities currently being discussed for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka are addressed with the exceptions of cross-country skiing, camping, and a historic center. From this general population survey, leisure time activities were identified along with the public's interest and the perceived barriers to participation. Of the fifty-eight activities identified, visiting historic sites and museums ranked llth with 71% of respondents interested, camping ranked 21st with 60% interested, and cross-country skiing 32nd with 38% interested. For each activity nearly 50% of those interested identified some barrier or constraint to their participating as often as they would like. "Lack of time" was identified most often as the barrier to participation. While need may be difficult to identify for a historic center in a Lake Minnetonka regional park, this indicates that it would be a desired support amenity and would add to the overall interest of the park if conveniently located with regards to other facilities in the park. A preliminary review of available information indicates that there is a strong need for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka. The indications are that the facility would be heavily used by the public "due to the regional visibility of the lake and the social attractiveness of the Lake Minnetonka area", as well as fulfilling unmet regional demand. -6- 4. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Detailed planning for recreational development has not yet oc_urred for this regional park. However. the following facilities can and will be accommodated within the 292 acre initial acquisition. If the 90 additional acres of acquisition is accomplished in the future. facilities can be expanded to accommodate anticipated increases in use. Facilities planned include: 1. Boat Access 2. Fishing 3. Picnicking 4. Swi mmi ng 5. Cross Country Skiing, 6. Historical Center and 7. Camping Biking and Hiking and other trail uses Interpretation The abcve list is indicated in priority order based on analysis of need and the opportunity to satisfy need on this site. Camping would be limited to Wawatasso Island using the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park as a point to access the lake and island with canoes for both family and group camping. Camping will also occur at Lake Auburn Campground within Carver Park Reserve which will be carefully integrated with this site. Camping is not proposed within the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park site itself. Trails for hiking, biking, and cross-country skiing will be connected between Carver Park Reserve and Lake Minnetonka Rey.onal Park. Initially. these will be on grade crossings at State Highway 7. Ultimately, a grade separated crossing is highly desirable and likely essential. Maintenance services for Lake Minnetonka Regional Park will come from Carver Park Reserve. As a result, maintenance facilities are not proposed within the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park site. The Gagne horse barn may be utilized as a storage area for seasonal maintenance operations. Expansion and upgrading of the existing Carver Park maintenance facility will be necessary to handle the increased use. The Gagne house is proposed to be used as a historical center for interpretation for the history of Lake Minnetonka. Minor modifications to the building will be required. This is proposed to be Oone in a later phase. Access to the park is proposed to come off the realigned County Road 44. One point of access will be utilized for both portions of the park. A grade separated crossing of the new County Road 44 is proposed so that one connection for vehicles and trail activities between the east and west portions of the park can be accommodated. Boat access is proposed to both bays. with an allocation of 60-70 boats to Smithtown Bay and 30-40 to Halsted's Bay. The provision of 100 car -trailer parking spaces on -site will satisfy fully the standards set forth in the Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report of 1983 for boat access in Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka (see attached map indicating Lake zones). The remaining 30 car -trailer parking spaces identified for Zone 5 will occur at the existing Williams Street access site on the northwest portion of Halsted's Bay. (See attached Existing Public Access Sites and Commercial Marinas Map from the Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report) It is estimated that the initial cost of first phase park development will be $2 million. This will include roads, parking, picnic area facilities, boat -7- acc^« . sanitary facilities, etc. Additional costs associated with phase one will i;lclude $500,000 for grading, base work and construction of a grade separated crossing on the realigned County Road 44. Hennepin Parks will negotiate with Hennepin County DOT to then pave and finish the road allowing for old County Road 44 to be abandoned. Additional costs associated with the development of the park will include approximately $350,000 to integrate the relationship between Carver Park Reserve and Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. These costs would include trail extensions, expansion and updating of the maintenance facility and expansion/ enhancement of the Lake Auburn Campground in Carver Park Reserve. Finally, a grade separated crossing of Highway 7 is important to the integration between Carver Park Reserve and Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. It is estimated that this crossing would cost approximately $250,000. At this time cost estimates and phasing are very preliminary. Design development is needed to develop more complete cost estimates. Phasing could be accomplished in the following general categories: 1. Development Phase One: Basic Park Development (including the realignment of County Road 44) - $2.5 million. 2. Phase Two: Integration of Lake Minnetonka Regional Park and Carver Park Reserve - $600,000. The major issue confronting the establishment of a regional park on Lake Minnetonka is the position of the City of Minnetrista. The City has indicated support for a regional park; however, they have indicated that that support is for a 50-acre site which would provide for parking 60 car -trailers. Fifty acres is insufficient for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka. It is not consistent with the standards and guidelines of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space System Policy Plan, nor does it provide sufficient land to accommodate the extent of park use anticipated, or meet the demands in the area. Similarly, the 50 car -trailer parking spaces does not fully satisfy the need for public access in Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka. One of the issues addressed through the planning process is: What can be done to address Minnetrista's concerns relative to its comprehensive plan and loss of anticipated future tax base. Several suggestions have been advanced, including the following: The Metropolitan Council should designate land to be substituted within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area Line for future development within Minnetrista to replace land taken for a regional park. 2. Tax equivalency payments will be made in accordance with the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act. County Road 44 could be realigned now. This is a major concern in Minnetrista's comprehensive plan traffic system. The park will speed the realignment of County Road 44 from what is currently planned by Hennepin County DOT. -8- 4. Establishment of a regional park will resolve the issue of public access to Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka. As a result the Minnesota DNR has indicated that they will abandon their access site on Kings Point Road and in turn should make it available to Minnetrista for local park purposes. S. A total of $124,000 of outstanding special assessments exist against the three properties being considered for immediate acquisition. These assessment& are for utility systems installed by the City of Minnetrista. In some cases the assessments have been deferred completely because the property is an agricultural preserve, or other holding zoning which makes it exempt from assessments. All special assessments could be paid at the time of purchase. There is a need to realign Lotus Drive directly to Highway 7 cn the west side of the park property rather than bisecting the property in the current east -west alignment to County Road 44. In early discussion regarding the proposed park, the Blanch property was being proposed for immediate acquisition eliminating the need for this road, except to serve the homes along Lake Minnetonka west of the Pauls' property. Under the current proposal, acquisition of the Blanch property is designated as a desirable future acquisition. However, traffic on Lotus Drive must be eliminated in order to achieve the desire to have one access point to the park so that it can be carefully managed, particularly related to the number of boats launching through the park. Realignment of this road should be accomplished at the time of initial park development, and access to the Blanch property should be proposed from County Road 44. During the course of the eight public meetings regarding this issue, the one item most often mentioned was the need for some kind of regulations governing the use of the surface of Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is established specifically to address this concern among other matters relative to the Lake. Hennepin Parks cannot take steps to govern the use of the Lake except within 300 feet of the adjoining park property. Hennepin Parks would propose to manage the 300 feet as necessary to accomplish the recreational use as anticipated (i.e., beach, shore fishing, etc.). LMCD has indicated that they will seek funding for a major study to determine appropriate regulations for the use of the Lake. Hennepin Parks supports the concept of this study. Hennepin Parks can take no steps to otherwise address this issue. Another issue for consideration 1s the potential location of a satellite station for the Sheriff's Water Patrol within the Regional Park. Hennepin Parks feels this would be compatible with the park concept and will pursue it further with the Sheriff's department. A final major issue regarding regional park facilities on Lake Minnetonka still unresolved is the Big Island Veterans Camp. Hennepin Parks has communicated with the Board of Governors regarding its interest in acquiring the camp for park use. To date, the Board of Governors is unwilling to sell. Discussions are continuing. Potential sites for the staging area have been identified and are under review, pending negotiations with the Board of Governors. -9- b. PUBLIC SERVICES Utility services are available to the site and will be utilized in park development. Existing road systems (State Highway 7 and the realigned County Road 44) provide excellent access to the park from major roads No other iseues exist regarding public services to this site. 7. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Lake Minnetonka Regional Park would be operated under the Park Districts' ordinances and policies covering such facilities. The Park District charges a fee for parking within its parks and park reserves. No fee 1s charged if an individual enters the park other than by motor vehicle. Non -motor vehicle access to Lake Minnetonka Regional Park will include: pedestrian/bike access off County Road 44 and Highway 7; and the connection to Carver Park Reserve south of Highway 7. As discussed earlier, motor vehicle access to the park is proposed to come off County Road 44 at one park entrance. This will allow for better park management and regulation, especially with regard to the number of boats launched through the park. No estimate as to cost for future operation has been made at this point. A maintenance impact cost projection will be completed at the time park development is proposed. 8. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Citizen participation has been an important part in the formation of this plan. As mentioned in the background lnformaiion, a series of eight public information meetings was held throughout suburban Hennepin County seeking input as to the possibility of a regional park on t'ie Lake. Six of the meetings were open to the general public and advertised extensively in local papers. Two were for homeowners' associations in the immediate area. Two questions were posed at the meetings: 1. Is a regional park needed/desired? 2. If so, what facilities should be included? A copy of the summary analysis was sE t to all who attended these meetings. The Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners has discussed this matter at several meetings. All elected municipal officials from suburban Hennepin County were invited to a briefing on January 22, 1987. Those attending, as well as mayors not attending, received notice of the Board meetings on February 5 and 19 at which this report was discussed. Letters were mailed to each mayor in suburban Hennepin County outlining the process the District was following, inviting their participation and subsequently reporting back to them. In addition, all those who attended the public meetings received copies of the preliminary assessment of the Hennepin nark, Board of Commissioners regarding the proposed park. W The LMCD was involved heavily in discussions in the need for and proposal for a park. A copy of the feasibility report will be forwarded to LMCD, DNR and others for their review. A number of meetings and discussions were held with the City of Minnetrista regarding the District's efforts. To date, there's a difference of opinion as to the scale of a regional park. Discussions regarding resolving this difference is ongoing. REPORT SUBMITTAL — THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS The Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners adopted this Feasibility Report and Recommended Acquisition Master Plan on February 19, 1987. The report has been submitted to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and Minnesota DNR, as stipulated by the 1985 Task Force. The report has been forwarded to the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission for their review and action. The Metropolitan Council will formulate a recommendation for submittal to the 1987 State Legislature. 9 H E R 8 U R.4 E I I 1979 LOUND �— •t . A N O L A 77 ' t .. ........._....... ^ �'+ �' �. •ter.... = 1 I • j ` ...........-------- -. .. ... .... ......... .. .. M7 LMI RNaw '�• MIIN la[s salufrM�rOwf rum PAM MuM 4W i j. �.�..M;.. 'mow ......._...._.«.... r�:...� ... .... ' �� itirl j anNlwa uswOM. +rwlc • �Y . i'�' �" ..: Ir at - I .��.... i! � Cum-yC, � .jL�" •� � . I -•�'1 w. . IL -�!:.• � ` 1 � „„�, ••ice.. -� = v all WVLANO I ti r"• `P�iMNwft -• . - _ "-�.Or Am s� C O •T"gap" J El LAKE ZONES iaa r+�w � .�.�.►r rr � �www� +w� ie w��•' k • 1 5SO ISLAND . • • . • • • • • • • • • • Analysis Zone Boundary is DS SAY -STE #JAL .......... .......... ........... ........... .............. ...................... ........... .......... ........... ....................... ...................... ....................... ............... ...................... r, ........... cwmww moumm" CARVER CAIVIED PARK RESERVE srovj- �� -LA� - PARK RESERVE EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS SITES AND COMMERCIAL MARINAS N .Aft.. U � 2 Public Access Sites Public Access Sites that should be knproved Public Access Sites with most on -site parking Commercial Marinas ® Commercial Marinas with fee launching facilities 4T-1X;q'q41w- 6- CITY Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, M On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka - September 9, 1988 William Soth Dorsey & Whitney 2200 1st Bank Place East Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park Attachments - Minnesota Session Laws, Lake Minnetonka Park Acquisition Minnesota Statutes 398.09, 1984 Minnesota Statutes 645.03 through 645.024 Constitution of the State of Minnesota, Article 4, Section 17 and Article 12, Sections 1 through 3 Complaint, City of Minnetrista etal vs Regional Parks etal(under separat Regional Park - Feasibility Study/Master Plan cover) City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Excerpt dated 6/80 Dear Mr. Soth: The City of Orono is presently contemplating whether it should become a party to a suit involving the City of Minnetrista and the abutting land owners under an emminent domain threat by the Hennepin Regional Parks System. The City is not using the Popham, Haik Law Firm, its primary attorney, as they have a conflict in that they represented Hennepin Parks in the past. BUILDING & ZONING - 473.7357 • ADMINISTRATION a FINANCE - 473-7359 • PtBLIC WORK - 4'3--35" ASSESSING William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney September 9, 1988 Page 2 of 4 BACKGROUND As you may be aware, Hennepin Parks had legislation adopted as part of the State's appropriations bill that gave it unlimited domain power during 1988 and 1989 to undertake condemnation of selected properties indentified on Lake Minnetonka Regional Park's plan. The City of Minnetrista originally felt a park at 50 acres, then one at 125 and upwards at 220 would be an amenable solution for them. The Hennepin Parks, however, has constantly maintained that they want a minimum of 292 acres for their park. During the legislative hearings on the matter, the main bill, for which this was initially aut-bored, did not. come out of committee on the Senate side, but was amended on one of the last days of the session to an appropriation bill. Subsequent to that, the City of Minnetrista and the land owners have joined in a lawsuit against Hennepin Parks charging, as we see it, two major constitutional issues: 1. Violation of the provision as it relates to special legislation. 2. Violation of the "garbage" provision. The land owners are currently represented by 'rim Thorton of Briggs and Morgan Law Firm. ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED At this time, the City is contemplating whether to accept a "invitation" from the City of Minnetrista to join as a party to the lawsuit and contribute to the legal costs of such a suit. As an alternative stratagy, the City could look to perhaps doing an amicus curiae in conjuction with other municipalities that are interested in such an action. One of the main considerations as to the City's participation in to the lawsuit would be whether the City would have standing in the matter. U William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney September 9, 1988 Page 3 of 4 As you will note, the legislation as drafted is much more general than acqusition of park land in Minnetrista for Lake Minnetonka Regional Parks. In addition, you will note that the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park Feasibility Study does indicate that there is possible "acquisition" of the Big Island Veteran's Camp, which does abut the land they currently own on Big Island, with the entire island being in the City of Orono's jurisdiction. The Board of Governors has indicated that they are not interested. The question at issue in part is that the intent of the legislation was for acqusition in Minnetrista, however, given the legislation being as broad as it was, together with the fact that the Regional Park Feasibility Study does include land outside of Minnetrista, does this: A) Give them more of an argument that it is general rather than special legislation. B) Place property in Orono at risk under this condemnation authority. The request at this point is a review by you or your designee to determine whether the issue is a significant issue of standing in related to the City becoming party to the lawsuit. If there is a significant question as it relates to standing, the Council will then review its other options. The City could undertake one of three stratagies at this point, even if it does have standing for a lawsuit: 1. Become a party to this suit, and proceed as a party until it is either settled or adjudicated. By being a party, the City could have a say in the terms of settlement. 2. If not a party to the lawsuit, the City could await settlement or judication and if they did not like the settlement, they could undertake a separate lawsuit if there was appropriate standing tc be a party to the first. 3. If it chooses to not undertake it, at the point, and the matter is adjudicated and appealed, the City could then in conjunction with others submit amicus curiae. William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney September 9, 1988 Page 4 of 4 Your response to this matter, in the next two to three weeks, would be appreciated. Sincerely, i V CLt ( � I • Marc E. Bernhardson, City Administrator MEB/tlr. cc: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members 92688.2HD To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat k� COUNCIL VFFrIMG Date: September 20, 1988 S EP 2 8 _ 19�e Subject: Orono/Long Lake Discussions ISSUE - Informing the Council of the preliminary meeting betweer representatives from Orono and representatives from Long Lake. INTRODUCTION - The meeting that was discussed last time has been set for October 5, establish property. 1988. It is intended that the scope of this discussion will the ground rules to focus on the issue of the sewer plant It should be noted that our City Attorney's in an initial review of the Open Meeting Law has indicated he feels it does not apply in this particular circumstance. This is presented as information only at this time. Once the ground rules discussion has been established, the City will cooperate with the facilitator in establishing a date for the joint meeting of the two councils. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , that the Council accept the information as it relates to the discussions between Orono and Lonc Lake. Ayes , nays 92688.5HD To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Gt From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director ++ Date: September 21, 1988 Subject: Park Commission Chair Appointment <_ Due to the resignation recently of Robert Kost as Park Commission Chair, the Park Commission, at its September 14th meeting, recommended Mr. Phil Bradley to be appointed to the Chair position. Phil Bradley has been a Park Commission Member since January 1985 and has been an active member with a commendable attendance record. RECOMMENDATION - To appoint Mr. Phil Bradley as Park Commission Chair effective September , 1988. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to appoint Mr. Phil Bradley as Park Commission Chair effective September , 1988. Ayes , nays To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. 92688.3HD To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members k-%r, From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administr•itor 01 Date: September 20, 1988 �� Subject: Crystal Bay Road Repair�'�'^; ATTACHMENTS - A. Crystal Bay Road Repair Memo Dated 9/25/87 B. Crystal Bay Road Repair Memo Dated 2/17/88 C. Crystal Bay Road Repair Memo Dated 5/18/88 D. Application #1302 - City of Orono Memo Dated 7/13/88 E. Crystal Bay Road Map ISSUE - 1. Update the Council regarding information as status of repair on old Crystal Bay Road. 2. Determination of direction from Council to further pursue the matter. INTRODUCTION - As noted in the Attachments, the shoreline for a length of about 300-400' on Crystal Bay Road was damaged during the Super Storm on July 23, 1987. Because shoreline is involved and because the City does not have a designated right-of-way, the City has been attempting in the ensuing period to work with residents of the area to determine a mutually satisfactory situation. Such a solution has not been reached and the neighborhood feels that the matter is not being handled properly. Because of the City's indication frcm the residents as to the feasibility of various options, the City undertook an application for the one alternative that would not entail doing anything off property the City can currently claim for right-of-way. Application for this alternative was presented to the Planning Commission at their July 22nd, 1988 meeting. Based on the concerns expressed by the neighbors, the Planning Commission directed staff to contact Minnetonka Beach regarding the possibility of closing off Crystal Bay Road. This was taken to the Minnetonka Beach Council on their September 12th, 1988 meeting and it was their position not to have the road be closed. Crystal Bay Road Repair September 20, 1988 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION - A number of options have been advanced regarding the repair of the road and are presented as policy alternatives: 1. Shore up the road/Restore the bank. In a letter dated 8/6/87 (Attachment A), the initial means to correct this problem were presented by Mr. Cook. Those related to restoration of the bank are as follows: A) Bank replacement - This project costing approximately $95.00 a lineal foot would place black dirt and a grassed mat over it to stabilize the bank at a 1:1 slope. B) Bank restoration with cribbing - This method of restoration would provide a more stable bank utilizing cribbing but costs approximately $120.00 per lineal foot. 2. Move the road - 12 feet. Moving of the road in this manner would allow for restoration of the bank at 2:1 slope and therefore allow the bank to be re -seeded without any cribbing but at a similar cost of $120.00 lineal foot_ 3. Dead -End Streeti'Cul-de-sac. This was ad-anced as a request by the neighbors of the a: -ea in order to cut down on traffic through the area. This would ertail the following: A) Provision cf access via private street or alley across either private proper-:y or Dakota Rail to access onto Minnetonka Beach's Northview Road. (The right-of-way that existed was vacated in 1914.) B) Any close -off would rP-:,:ssitate a cul-de-sac somewhere in front of the Froperties b=tween 3205 and 3309. To the extent that this was cul-de-saced anywhere east of 3255 Crystal Bay Road, there st:_11 would be possibly a need to either restore the bank or stabilize the road as outlined in Option 4, together with the fact that bank stabilization of where the road ends would have to be done just to maintain existing utilities regardless. Crystal Bay Road Repair September 20, 1988 Page 3 of 5 4. Stabilization of the road and Utilities. (Attachment D, Clenn Cook's letter dated 6/21/88.) As a result of the City's limited property rights in the matter, together with a lack of concensus to jointly undertake a project to restore the bank in at least a coordinated manner, the Engineer presented two options as noted in his letter. Such an option would allow the City to remain within its right-of-way to stabilize the bank and at the same time let the residents restore their individual hanks as they see fit. Concerns with each of these Alternatives as as follows: 1. Stabilization of the Bank -his would require a cooperative agreement and concurrence of a! roperty owners together with the City and to date concurrence has :. : been obtained in part, as noted in Mr. Schoops 5/13/88 letter. They still desire to c).ose off the road. The City would not be able to undertake this on its own without the concurrence of all the property owners affected and it then becomes an issue of how the City is to pay for the costs which are estimated at a total of $10,OQ0 to $20,000 as the areas that are just threatening would not be repaired. To the extent that the directly affected property owners from 3205 to 3255 do not desire to concur with the special assessment they could contest it and not grant easements. The City would be faced with a substantial cost for restoration of both public and not have authority to do the private work. 2. Moving the road. This has not been perceived as a viable opti n as it consumes substantial amounts of front yard of several of the affected property owners. 3. Dead -End. The issues related to this one are the ability to obtain the necessary easements and construction of the necessary private street and/or alley as mandated by the City of Orono ordinances. just maintaining an access on the back would probably violate the City's ordinances as it would be used to provide public s:,vices and other access to the property. Concurrence by Minnetonka 'jeach to allow a private road or street in Orono to access off of Minnetonka Beach street is felt to be needed. Finally the location c a cul-de-sac and the necessary front yard to be consumed by that cul- de-sac would have similar concerns as option 2. In addition, depending on where this is cul-de-saced, this solution may not solvF the stabilization problem. The cul-de-saced public street would exceed the City's standards for length and number of residences on a street that has a substandard width. Crystal Bay Road Repair September 20, 1988 Page 4 of 5 4. Stabilize the road. The downside on this is the aesthetic concern of the sheeting and the posts that would be used for safety consideration together with :he fact that the bank apart from the road is not restored. (The guardposts are not proposed to have the galvanized railing installed. They would only be temporary until the owners restored the bank.) In addition to the concerns of each of the policy alternatives, the neighbors are presently expressing frustration over the length of time it hay- taken to repair the problem, the unsightliness of the situation and the fa-,� that they feel the City has not adequately considered their desire to close off the road. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Further explore a joint bank, restoration with the concurrence of all of the neighbors. 2. Cul-de-sacing the road: a) determination of area for cul-de-sac; b) determination of private street/alley; c) obtainment of necessary public/private easement for construction of both. d) Approach Minnetonka Beach to determine their wi ingness to allow such access. 3. Complete the Planning Commission consideration and movA to Council consideration of the stabilization. 4. Table discussion. 5. Take no action. 6. Determine another a ? ' * " •fe . Crystal Bay Road Repair September 20, 1988 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council direct staff i r.ti.nue working on the stabilization bank, that that option will be avail -.Le to be ready t- go when the Council has had the appropriate zoning considerations and if Npropriate can be undertaken; or That the Council have the neighbors prepare specific plans and agreements for the following: A) Cul-de-sac of the road: 1. Determination for cul-de-sac location in concurrence of the land owner. 2. Determination of private street location to serve properties not to be served by Crystal Bay Road. 3. Obtain the necessary preliminary indication of an easement from Dakota Rail/private property owners. B) Concurrence of the prccerty owners and/or concurrence of the property owners for a cooperative project to restore the bank which may be a combination of Alternative #1 and/or #4, and concurrence to pay for the estimated costs over and above the sheeting costs. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct staff to complete consideration of this with the Planning Commission for the recommendation to Council in an expeditious manner as possible together with requesting of the different residents for other alter- Atives to be considered, that they undertake the necessary work to make th -ernativ?s realistic possibilities. Ayes _ , nays cc: Richard Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road Tim Schoop, 3215 Crystal Bay Road Wm Wolfe, 3255 Crystal Bay Road LeRoy Erger, 3265 Crystal Bay Road DuWayne Schibilla, 3235 Crystal Bay Roa,' Thomas McCue, 3285 Crystal Bay Road Mark Zagaria, 3295 Crystal Bay Road Robert Hagerman, 3309 Crystal Bay Road Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Orono Planning Commission Members City of Minnetonka Beach TO: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: September 20, 1988 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Parking/Parking Cour*y Road 51 Attachment A - Singer 1-tter Dated 8/31/88 B - Northshore News Dated 5, "' 3/8 5 C - Northshore News Dated 7/'-,,'65 D - Northshore News Dated 7/18/85 E - Norths- )re News Da,,:ed 8/2'. /85 F - Cou:ici.: Minutes Dated 8/2E;/i? s G - Lake Minnetonka Use Daterlr " .'20/ id 5 H Council. Minutes Dated 9;'23/85 I - Lake Minnetonka Use Dated 10/10/85 J - Lake Minnetonka dse Dated 10/23/85 K City of Orono Dated 11/20,/85 L - Orono Resolutiin ##1915 M - Excerpt 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task Force N - Excerpt Lake Access Parking StuA v 11/30/82 C` - LM.:D Letter DateO 9/26/85 . fl OF NA0 ISSUE_ - 1. Determination of what safety improvements the City would like to see undertaken and recommended to the County as it relates to the parking on County Road 51. 2. Determination as to what a,- ion if any the City wants tc: take in relating safety improvements to the "cTuota rcquirements" for parking slots in Orono as set forth in 1983 Lake Mir ietonka Ta: •. force report. INTRODUCi'ION - 995 and 19A6 the Department of Na Minne-)nka Conservation District was recommended '700 parking spots around Lake established in the 1983 Lake Minnetonka meant 169 slots of which 60 (those in noted in attachment N, the City of Orono t ira 1 Resourc(.S through the Lake looking for co:amit❑»nt of tho Minnetonka for public access. As Ta--k force report. For Orono this the landing) are "o- mitted". As had indicated t'i; iy had more then the required number of slots but were not in the p- i or choose not to commit those slits. Ir 1985 the issue -f access w-,, _sed but the City took no further action on L-rrmit ing iddi tonal slots apart from those that were in the current access. � issue r-. safety impr-vements -..s also raised although further action wd: not undertaker at that time apart from mon.: gyring. Attachrienc A, a ietrr rnm Mr. Singer utlines suggestions to impr(1•-e the safrek.•. nISCUSSION - Mr. Singer notes that the safety problems along County Road 51 are not an issue of balancing but requires that safety be primary over any convenience as it relates to parking for public access. The situation is generally not great, however the City records indicate no personal injury accidents along this area for the last 2 1/2 years. Actual jurisdiction for road marking i.� with the County. Should the City recommend safety improvements to the County along 51 following Mr. Singer's suggestion would remove approximately 6 potentially "commitable" spaces which perhaps the City could find substitute slots numbers to replace those. As noted in Mr. Singer's letter, the City has --fisted nc parking both to the west along 19 and also south along 19 on both sides of this parking posted was done in about 1980. It should also be noted that Mr. Singer has indicated that the proposed solution back in 1985 for pedestrian walk every 100 to 200' was not an appropriate solut-)n because of limitations on sheds in the lakeshore. The City has generally approved small sheds in this areafor storage of equipment of the type noted by Mr. Singer in his letter upon applica` 4.on for a vai._.znce for specifically that reason. ALTERNATIVES Issues #1 - Safety A 1. Request posting the entire street no parking. 2. Wider_ the shoulder (this may have some relationship to the MWCC project foi the Orono Minnetonka Beach interceptor). a. Berm curb for drainage. b. Double stripping for creating a bike pedestrian lane. C. Pedestrian crosswalk. 3. Elimination of up to 6 parking slots in- �rmittently spaced among eixsting over to improve line of sight 4- Take no action. �. Idble. 6. Select the preliminary design after the staff has an initial discussion with the County to see what is acceptable and present such to the neighbors. Issues #2 -Parking Space Commitment 1. Take no action. 2. Commit all the slots currently along 51. 3. Commit a reduce number of slots along 51. 4. Find alternative parking slots probably to the east or the west to replace those removed_ a. On street b. Off street 5. Table pending the determination of safety aspects. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that after an initial discussion at the Council meeting that a rrelim -y solution be _aken to the County to discuss what they conside-- bc. :�asihle and thpt following that this would be presented to ugh: -ors. Fresen.ly the City staff would recommend: a. That ._._u shoulder should be widen approximatley 3' with a bezm curb in conjunction with the MWCC project. This shoulder would encrcjch further into the exi-tinq lake -hone and would be additional hardcover within the 0-75'. b. That 2 to 3 pedestrian crossings be installed. C. That eliminate up to 6 of the parking slots to allow for improved sightlines along 51 in the appropriate intervals. d. Find alternative locations for the spaces eliminated. e. It is further recommended that this be brought back hopfully to the Council meeting on October 24. It is also recommended that the Council take no action on commitments of slots at this point. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved , Seconded , the Council gives staff direction on parameters for a preliminary discussion with the County to determine which of these ortions would be acceptable to the County and that it be tabled until at least October 24, 1988. Ayes , Nayes cc: David Singer DAVID A. SINGER Suite 220 Marsh Run 11900 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 6121544-0110 IN ASSOCIATION WITH PETERSON 3 SINGER 250 North Star East 608 2nd Ave. So.. Minneapolis. MN 55402 U )AVID A. SINGER, LTD. AW OFFICES August 31, 1988 /Mr. Mark Bernhardson City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota Mr. James Grabek I Mayor of Orono and � � v Members of the City Co. City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Ctystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 l 3 11988 u�u� /vl Mr. Eugene S6ommen Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Mr. John Derus, Chairman Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and Members of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners A2400 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Mr. Budd Robb Commissioner of the Fifth District Hennepin County Board of Commissioners A2400 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 5548^ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 To Whom It May Concern: n4� writingI am call your attention matter great concern to me as ahome owner on CountyRoad 51 nearthefNorth Arm public boat landing. The issue involves the inability of residents along County Road 51 to safely c-oss the highway during times when parking at the public boat launch is inadequate. It also involves the safe use of the roadv, ay for joggers, walkers, and bicylists. Page Two August 31, 1988 I am enclosing photographs which Graphically demonstrate the inability of drivers and/or pedestrians to see one another due to an obstructed line of vision along the south side of County Road 51 from the point where parking is permitted to the east of the North Arm channel. The speed limit on the road at this location is 35 m.p.h. It is my understanding that a car travelling at that speed would take more then si.z car lengths to come to a complete stop from that speed, taking into account both the reaction and braking time. Clearly, the enclosed photographs demonstrate there is no margin of safety when the south side of the highway is used for bumper to bumper parking. The problim is particularly acute because boaters frequently drive vans or pickups which are particularly difficult to see over, or around. An additionatf actor exacerbating the risk .s the narrow width of the roadway and shoulder; which literally necessitates a pedestrian stepping into the roadway in order to determine if there is traffic coming. Even then, along the .2urve that is depicted in these photographs, the first line of sight for such traffic coming from the westerly direction would be around or less than six car lengths. I recognize the competing pressures with regard to maximizing lake usage for the public as well as the home owners. However, I respectfully suPaest that the issue in this instance cannot be postulated as a oalancing fo the competing interests of private property owners with the public. The issue is pure and simpie, one of safety, vis-a-vis convenience. A significant part of my professional life is involved in automobile accident litigation. From my professional experiences, and work with accident reconstruction experts in other matters, I hope I am not being prophetic in expressing my concern that this situation is an accident waiting to happen. The safety, health, or life of ;any child or adult is too high a price to pay, or too high a risk to take; for the sole purpose of adding twenty to thirty parking spots for the public using the North Arm boat launch, on the six to eight summer days when usage is heavy. I submit that the recommended lake wide goal of 700 parking spaces for boat launch users must look to some other solution than dangerous off street parking spaces. Page 'three August 34 1988 I recognize I am not the first individual to raise the issue, although I was not aware that a petition had been filed in 1985 by my neighbors. I nevertheless feel constrained to speak out now, having had or observed three close calls myself. I would also like to comment upon my own views with regard to the possible solutions. Ideally, parking should be prohibited an both sides of County Road 51 along Crystal Bay. The fact that parking is prohibited on both sides of County Road 19 and on both sides of County Road 51 to the east of Tonka-ra Road, as well as on most if not all of the other county roads winding through residential parts of the lake area; highlights the fact that safety officials have obviously determined such a restriction is an appropriate means of ensuring the safety of pedestrian home owners who own property on both sides of the road, as well as joggers, walkers, and cyclists. I have review9d the public record that came about as a result of the earlier petition. It does not appear the safety issue was adequately addressed; apparently because no one has been hurt or killed yet. I challenge any government official to locate and find a publi. safety or law enforcement official who can comfortably say these pictures depict a situation that is safe for all concerned. Another altnerative which has been discussed is to widen the paved shoulder along the north side of County Road 51. This only superficially addresses the issue Certainly, it would be nice if the shoulder of the road was wide enough to accommodate the vehicles so it would not be necessary to trample the boulevard. However, a wider lane would only exacerbate the problem that there is no line of vision for anyone standing along the boulevard on the south side of County Road 51 looking west. It would still be necessary for a pedestrian to actually enter the roadway in order to make a firm determination of whether there is traffic coming, unless the width of the shoulder is at least doubled in size. A third alternative would be to stagger the parking so there are intermittent no parking zones which would be safty zones w' .:e residents can walk between the vehicles before crossing the roadway. If this was adopted, I would suggest that there be one safety zone of no less than a 15' width abutting each lot. As there are 22 lots between the North Arm channel and Tonkawa Road, this would result in the loss of only six parking spots assuming the recommended 50' lengths per spot. Page Four August 34 1988 I recognize an earlier suggestion by city officials that there be pedestrian crosswalks at 150' to 200' intervals along the road. This is impractical, in view of local zoning ordinances which restrict the right of property owners to use aesthetically acceptable sheds for the storage of lawn chairs, barbecue grills, and/or boating equipment. Transporting such items across the road at intervals of 150' to 200' from our property is not realistic. An additional suggestion would be to install flashing yellow lights at the beginning of the parking area facing the easterly direction of traffic, and restricting the speed limit to 25 m.p.h. when the lights ara flashing. It would not be difficult for local law enforcement officials to monitor those days when the reduced speed limit would be appropriate, such as the fishing opener, and weekend days when the weather is ideal. I, for one, do riot raise the suggestion of eliminating parking along the south side of County Road 51 because of the problem ;,f boaters trespassing upon private lake access and private dockr:;e te) get to and from their boats. I do not mean to minimize that problem, particularly since a college age swimmer using my beach nearly bled to death from a broken bottle some irresponsible boater deposited in the lake by my property this past spring. Of course, I cannot really say how many of the one to two dozen broken bottles or smashed cans that I retrieve each summer float ashore from the middle of the bay, vis-a-vis are dumped by trespassing boaters at the conclusion of their boating day. I understand that the county traditionally adheres to the recommendations of local municipal officials on parking issues involving county highways. However, because this particular issue evolves from a political problem that transcends local boundaries, I would suggest that the impetus for change should come from all directions. I thank you for your courtesies and attention to this matter. 1n the event this matter is raised as an issue for public discussion in the future, I would appreciate being notified of that so I may attend. Verb truly yours, David A. Singer DAS/jmb Enclosures cc: County Road 51 Home Owners �^ r �+ ,� S \ aii�I .►� •, • T.'' � art .ii 1. Shows view from driveway at 3520 North c.re Drive looking across County Road 51 towards take 2. Shows view westward from 3520 North Shore Drive, standing on boulevard side of eastbound lane. Demonstrates inability to see vehicles coming east on County Road 51. 3. shows view westward from 3520'North Shore Drive, standing on boulevard. Demonstrates inability to see vehicles coming east on County Road 51. 4. shows view eastward on County Road 51, looking toward 3520 NorthShore Drive (approximately at dark blue van). Demonstrates vehicle inability to see pedestrians at 3520. 5. shows view eastward on Countv Road 51, from 3520 North Shore Dri.ve,standing on boulevard side of eastbound lane.Demonstrates vehicle inability to see pedestrians to the east of 3520 *North Shore Drive. Also demonstrates narrow width of shoulder. TO: Mayor and City Council Ct FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: May 23, 1985 ' SUBJECT: North Shore Drive Petition - No Parking / At the last Council meeting property owners from North Shore Drive nanded staff a petition requesting No Parking signs be posted on both sides of the road on North Shore Drive east of the bridge. At present there are no parking signs on the north side. As you may recall back in 1982 a s' 1lar petition request was made. With the principal problem identified being vehicles with trailers. The City at the time explored the possibility of prohibiting parking for vehicles with boat trailers, but as it is a County road they would not permit that, since they felt it was discrimatory without any basis. In reviewing the problem the items of significant concerns seem to be: - Pedestrian Safety - Given the posted speeds along that area, vehicles parked on the side do nog allow much visible distance for vehicles and pedestrians to see each other when people are crossing the road fr:.m the south to t' e north side. At present we have no significant history of accidents, hcwever we understand there have been near misses ci occasion. - Tres assin - There seems to be a proble in the practice /qff persons when the public access is full to put their ty boat in at thE- access to drive up park in the area that the no parking is being requested and proceed to cross J private property and uti 1 itize private docks to board the boat. - Disturbini the Peace - Apparently boaters particularly those who have parked along there tend to be rather raucous `.n their return and wrapping up their activities and generally causing a problem in the neignborhood. Opt these following two items there has not been any significant reports or problems iden+ i+:-�d by the police department in this area. While these las two probYems may be alleviated by eliminatiny parking along that stretch these itenis may be able to be addressed in another man r and working with the police departmen' and the patrol o icer in the area. r The concern on '_hp Cit s side, should there be No Parkina posted, are the allotme:t of lots along the lake for vehicular and trailer parking and since liese are counted in the _-;NR's allocation t,) eliminate these slots woulc necessitate finding allocated slots somewhere else. page 2 May 23, 1985 North Shore Drive Petition - No Parking it is the recommendation of staff at this time that: a) Council acknowledge receipt of the petition for further study. b) That the Police Department and neighbors work together to attempt to alleviate the treL-passing and di:;turbance of the peace problems. c) Staff will explore the concerns regarding pedestrian traffic crossing and see if there are solutions that are ...actical for all parties involved. As this is a county road any posting of signs regarding parking are finally up to the County Commissioners, however they generally don't act on these requests without an endorsement of an action from the City Council of the community affected. Should you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. 3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardsorc o% DATE: ,July 5, 1985 1� SUBJECT: Lake Parking Spots/North Shore LMCD LAKE PARKING As you will note in the attached letter the LMCD has adopted the attached standards for car -trailer parking specs in accordance with the Lake Minnetonka Task Force recommende.t-'ons. Currently Minnesota DNR is attempting to get long tern cc-,:.,tments from the various on street parking sites which previo ! y have not been "committed". In speaking with the peopl. -it DNR that are handling this matter it has been requested that L-hey contact the City of Orono prior to making any long term agreements regarding any spots in Orono. NORTH SHORE DRIVE During the past three weekends the City has had Police Reservists in the area to monitor the amount of traffic that is u:.iliainq the spots on North Shore Drive together with observing any trespassing of other public safety problems related wit..' that parking. Additionally we have asked residents to irrorr us of persons who are trespassing and to take license plate numbers of those individuals. We anticipate continuing this problem identification by surveying for the next couple weekends and from there we'll develop recommendations as to how to address the problems. Based on information gathered to date some of the problems indicated by the residents have .yen verified, however it is a question of the magnitude and frequency as to determine the extent of any public safety problems. Should you ,dve any further questions on either issue please feel free to contact me. r •f i} ; I 3 In.305 r t ti } �. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT L.%1C0 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTI- -;91 TELEPHONE 6121473 7033 FRANK MIAA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS TO: Flobe,1 Topton Brown. Chairman Greenwood DATE poberl P Rascop, V,..e Chairman Shorewood Xsllen Hurt, Secretary SUBJ: Orono Jon Elam Treasure - Mound E=wr.-a C tlaumar MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES July 2, 1985 Public Access Parking for Lake Minnetonka TBoynton B ld E Opniicj The LMCD in response to the Lake Minnetonka Task Force recommen- � P Mrnnelonka BO..ch dations, has adopted the attachod standards for identifying the F•ankde UR lnSla Mmnet"Sla car -trailer parking spaces needed to reach the goal of 700 a.,;hard J Garwood reliable car -trailer spaces set for Lake Minnetonka under the Oeephayen Audrey Glsyold currer.% state access program. Wayzata P;n Krsemer Spr,n9 Park The Task Force, after considerable discussion, particularly l:,ith ROhen K P'0I5Uury netonkd representatives -f the MDNR abour over -flow car -trailer spaces Ro r:..Slocum actually used today vs. the need for long-term space meeting cer- Woodland Richard .l Soeerberq tain basic requirements, determined that LF • MDt4R standard of one vKl- VV" (;art H We tier car -trailer space per 20 acres of water (700 for 0.e La-ei aas t reasonable for Lake Mi t k I 'd + d d nne on a. Inat. rt>oi. rt etermrne that those spaces already r;c(2ting these standards could be supplemented by other nearby parking that also meet these standards when set aside specifically for the use of booting public. The District has developed these standards which the MDNR has ac- cepted for the use of .ie lakeshore municipalities who wish to participate in he program by designating long .erm car-trailei parking spaces on a seasonal basis near eIrist.ng public launching facilities. These spaces may not be resLricted by a permit process. These spaces, when accepter: under the standards, will b applied toward the 700 spaces required .,ill be used to help deternine the need for de,. '-)pment of furt public access on the Lake. The District has been charged with the responsibility co monitor the ) ;;gram. Thank you for yot. :onsideration. Your c(,- ,eration is greatly appreciated� S i n c e r,l�i/; /) A ;:CNSERVAT: )N DISTR_CT LAK)�4� e- O Rt r� Ti t,r, Brown Ch irmu Att. il.;.WNiKA CON �I;KE,tVlUMET,014 aAiCONSERVATION DISTRICT PARKING STANDARDS LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES The Lake Minnetonka -ask Force agreed to a goal of 700 long-term reliable spaces for car -trailer parking in the vicinity of present and future access sites at Lake Minnetonka. The Task Force further recommended that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District establish an acceptable set of standards for identifying and counting of these spaces and monitor progress toward the goal on a continuing basis. The following set of standards has been adopted by the LMCD and the Minne- sota Department of Natural Resources for application to Lake Minnetonka: 1. All spaces must be within 1,500 feet of a public access point. 2. All off -site locations should be provided with a long-term agreement, five year minimum, on file with the LMCD. 3. The location of off -site spaces ther off-street or on -street, must be identified by clear, permanent, : signage zt the access point. 4. All off-street spaces must be'layec on a plan on file with the L:1CD. The plan shall clearly indicate -ea( , car -trailer space and adequate in- gress, egress and maneuvering spact. 5. All spaces must be available on an unrestricted, f-rst-come-first-served basic, as a minimum from 5 p..... on Friday until midnight Sunday, and on holidays, from April 15 to October 15. 6. All on -street spaces should meet the following additional standards: 6.1 Minimum length of 50 feet per space. 6.2 Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into a t-affic lane and to provide a safe route to the access point. 6.3 Regularly -spaced permanent signage stating "transient car -trailer parking only." 6-15-85 �y TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato �(V DATE: July 18, 1985 SUBJECT: North Shore Drive Parking Status As you are aware the City together with the residents have been monitoring and recording problems that have occurred along North Shore Drive during the summer particularly on weekends and holidays. There has been some indication of trespassing, some moderate use of the parking spots on the good weekends together with some parking of vehicles and trailers just off curbing on the send/grass. Although there have been some minor confontations between residents and trespassers there does not appear at this time to be significant pedestrianAicycle problems that have been reported .a,- accidents or near accidents. As you are aware we will be bringing the is ue of commitment to LMCD parking spots back to you on August and we would like to bring this issue at that time. At this time the proposed avenues to attempt ameliorate the existing problems will include parts or combinations of the following: - Acceptable (fencing) by private residences between the road and the beach - Possible asphalt curbing - Restripping to provide pedestrian bikeway passes - Use of a dock off the fire access for loading and unloading of passengers - Appropriate signage Should you have further questions or com,•nents please feel free to contact me. W TO: Mayor Butler, Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Date: August 21, 1985 AUG 2 i98$ Subjects North Shore Drive CITY OF ORM Long -Term Public Access Ccmmitment BACKGROUND At the City Council meeting of May 13th, 1985, the residents along North Shore Drive, between the North Ara Bridge and Tonkawa, presented a Petition requesting that no parking signs be posted along County load 51. Thboat s a follow-up to a petition and request in 1982 to prohibit panting trailer vehicles. In July, the City received a letter from the '+. LMCD requesting that the coaIunities work towards getting long-term � commit- ments for the parking spots that were designated in Lake Minaetonka Task Forcal recommendations. while the LMCD requlations do call for all spots to be within 1500 feet, which would be about the mid -way point between Tonkawa and Baldur Park, they may at least on interim bases be interested in spots beyond that 150o feet. ISSUES A. whether Orono ti_.,ts to promote the 5-year Offsite parking commit- ment requested by the LMCC. This will be in light of the City•s previous stand regarding securing long-term parking, together with a desire to commit spots long-term for public access, in an effort to forestall pressure for other public accesses in Orono. b. If the commitment is made for those slots, whether the appropriate parties are interested in taking other actions to help alleviate the problem. DISCUSSION •'; Since the petition was received by the City, the City and particular the Police Department have been working with the neighbors, Dan Regan, 3410 North Shore Drive. During sole of the week-e ds In June/ reserve officers were in the area together with patrol officers noting conditions during Saturdays and Sundays. Additionally we requested that incidents of 4 non -emergency nature be recorded together with license Plates of offending parties regarding trespassing. If there ate serious concerns we requested that 911 be used. we had a smattering of each of these, but nothing identify an overarching need for elimination of parking. Of the problems we initially 13entified as being significant, tres- passing on private docks together with the attended liability for the privato owners and the *crime* of opportunity* that are occuring because of that aeemed most significantly. Additionally there was some disturbance of North Shore Drive the peace, particularly of boaters returning after partying on the lake. +► 4d 14 August 21, 1985 Page 2 It is felt that these can be addressed in other manners short of posting no-parkinq. As far as pedestrian bike safety along the way, the potential for problcros does exist. Prohibitting parking may not necessarily remedy those and to the extent that the cars parked along North Shore Drive tend to "narrows North Shore Drive may tend to slow the driver and may actually improve the situation. The concern of the neighbors in part iu that they have ones the problem increase over the last 3 to 5 years in part due to closings or x; ;rye limitations of other accesses on the lake together with an expected La - crease in boating in future years. This is in part based on an expected :r increase in use by off -lake residence as areas such as Orono's rural aj.a develop. This may also be aggrevated if a significant number of non- residence boat owners who currently dock at private docks along the lake are no longer able to utilize those docks and begin to utilise public accesses on a regular basis. If it hoped that the DNR's attempts to secure the public accesses either on the west or south side will alleviate part of this problem. RECOMMENDATION A. That the Council encourage the appropriate parties to take the following remedial action to address this specific problems. 1. Encourage construction of low decorative fences of the ease- ment, not to exceed 3 1/2 feet to be constructed by the appro- priate private residents and help provide property definition and limit trespassing, and insure appropriate sigsage is posted - both on the road side of the propwrties and the lake side of tM docks. i . 2. The City work with the County to attempt the followings K - utilization of asphalt curbing to prevent parking off the asphalt damaging the people's grass stripping be to allow for pedestrian/bike path as lakeside of County Road 51 the designated gap (6 to 10 feet) every 150 to 200 feet to improve pedistrian safety crossing - if needed, appropriate signage be put up to direct persons back to the public access 3. That the residents and the City work together to monitor the situation and develop means and information by which the owners can work with the police to limit law violations as relates to their property. North Shore Drive August 21, 1995 Page 3 While the City has looked at the possiblity of putting a make ready dock off its fire access to reduce trespassing on the docks, the residents at this tir..e do not feel that it is necessary and we are not recommending that this be done at this time. If the other measures do not elimiate the problems identified, however, this may be an option to explore. +; B. That the City adopt a resolution that the County slake a 5-year counitmenr with the LMCD for all the spots along north Shore Drive. Both this resolution and the agreement should include that this commitment can be terminated if specific public safety problems arise necessitating that the parking be reduced o: eliminated. It is addi- tional recommended that the spots beyond 1500 feet on north Shore r.'' Drive continue to have parking as they may provide parking for people t #� � using the public access ir. the early and late winter. 1 Kathleen Wallace, the regional coordinator for DUR, wi11 be present ' should you have any questions regarding access on west and south sides of the lake. Should you have further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING FIELD AUGUST 26, 1985. PAGE 6 CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: CRYSTAL BAY CHANGE ORDER #2* It was moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by Councilmember Adams, to approve Crystal Bay Change Order k2 per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Butler had no report at this time. TABLE TV REPORT Councilmember Frahm reported that there is a budget which must be reveiwed and approved within 30 days. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the budget was received today in the mail and it will be on the agenda for reviewal at the September 9th meeting. TRANSPORTATION REPORT: COUNTY ROAD 15 VARIANCE APPROVAL* It was moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by Councilmember Adams, to approve staf f ' s recommendation as requested in the memo dated August 23, 1985. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: NORTH SHORE DRIVE City Administrator Bernhardson recalled that at the May 13th Council meeting the residents on North Shore Drive presented a petition requesting that no parking signs be posted on County Rd. 51, which followed a 1982 petition requesting no parking of boat trailers, at which time the County stated that they would not separately prohibit parking for a certain class of vehicles. Bernhardson reported that because of concerns and discussions with the neighbors in June & July, the Police Dept. has tried to work with the neighbors. Bernhardson stated in addition the DNR and LMCD has attempted to secure long term parking near the public access. As outlined in his memo dated August 21, 1985, Bernhardson requested Council to approve staff's recommendation. Dan Regan, 3410 North Shore Dr. , was present representing the residents of North Shore Drive. Also present was Kathleen Wallace, Commissioner's Administrator for the DNR. Mr. Regan expressed his thanks to staff for their time and assistance in this matter. Regan mentioned a concern of his regarding the liability Gf the homeowner should anyone be hurt on their property even though the property is posted no trespassing. Regan stated that in his opinion, the only one that would possibly be a aversely of fected by the posting no parking signs would be other Orono residents. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that by posting no parking east of North Arm it may just push the cars to park further down County Rd.51 together with adversely affecting the off -lake Orono residents from using the lake. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 26, 1985. PAGE 7 NORTH SHORE DRIVE continued Mr. Regan stated that more traffic is coming from the marina when they are full. Regan stated he is also against a five year commitment. BIG ISLAND* Kathleen Wallace stated that the task force recognizes that there are problems. Wallace stated that there is a need for more secure access across the lake everywhere. Wallace noted that based on a study of parking of 1 per 20 acres, they recommended there be 700 car trailer parking spaces on the lake. Wallace stated that per LMCD there are presently1172 unreliable parking spaces, and 185 free reliable parking spaces within 1500 feet of a public access. Kathleen Wallace stated that earlier this season they wrote to the Hennepin County Sheriff informing him of the additional funds available for enforcement and to date have not received a response. Wallace also stated that they .,: 11 be actively pursuing, through the Attorney General's office, that Hennepin County to increase the prosecution of viulation on the lake. Wallace stated that they will lose some overflow parking because of the re -alignment of County Rd. 15 & 51 in Spring Park. Councilmember Frahm stated that he has never heard the DNR indicate that they would even recognize parking spaces other than ones directly at access parking lots. Frahm also stated that the cities should not be tacked with the expense of maintaining these proposed free parking spaces. Frahm expressed his concerns for the current safety problems on the lake without the increase of traffic and boaters and felt that these safety issues should be solved before more accesses are provided. Further discussion on this matter will be held when all councilmembers were present. It was moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by Councilmember Adams, to accept City Administrator Bernhardson's memo regarding Big Island. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). SEWER ASSESSMENT POLICY City Administrator Bernhardson noted that the case that brought this matter up was the request to put in a laundromat in one of the buildings in Navarre. Bernhardson stated that there are currently 19 sewer units to be assessed to that property which would cost the laundromat owners $25,500 In connection charges only. City Administrator Bernhardson iewed his report and recommendations regarding the pol—I for assessing sewer units. F TO: Mayor and city Cuunc i l C12111vCl, "E PROM: Mirk Sornhardson, City Administrito � >!' SEp 2 3 /385 OATR: September 20, 1985 C/�, SUBJIMT: Lake Minnetonka Use and Access �// Or w1 INTRODUCTION - In 1983 the Tssk Force looking at lake useage sI—sued a report which called for specific recommendations regarding particularly pub is access and use on the lake. Earlier this year the Depar ment of Natural Resources sent letters to each of the communities requesting that they begin implementation of the recommendations under which they had control, which included through LMCD securing long term parking near the North Arm public access. (See attachment 1). During discussion of the issue relating to securing the access, concerns were raised by Councilmembers regarding the general policy direction the City should be taking on this issue. Based on this discussion it was felt appropriate to bring in the principal agencies that relate to these concerns in order that a discussion may eventually help shape the Council's policy direction u,n the lake useage issue. GENERAL CONCERNS - The following represent the major concerns and ssucs un er each that seem appropriate for this discussion. A. "Inappropriate use"/Boating safety on the lake 1. Regulation a. Authority to regulate b. Enforcement 2. Offending users I e. Total boating activity i 1. Users by method of access a. Lakeshore property b. Commercial marinas C. Public access 1 2. Activity a. Total activity b. Distribution of activity 1. Geographically 2. Time (weekday/weekend) 3. Type of boats A report that was completed by DNR on all metropolitan lake areas was issued in December of 1984 which does give data relating to some of these issues. (Examples of some of these distributions are Indicated on attachment 2). 1 . t i. PENDING ACTIONS - In Addition to the issue of secruing the North Arm landing there are some other issues that are presently on the lake e which require review of the Council's policy direction. These pending Actions include, but are not limited to: - Additional public access (Neighboring community concerns) Siting Procurements Securing lonq term off site parking More restrictive boating while intoxicated legislation (Legislature/LMCD) - Regulation of boats at private docks - LMCD - Municipalities - Reviow of prosecutatorial efforts - Proposed funding for increasing boating enforcement PRINCIPAL AGENCIES INVOLVED - The following are the agencies invo ve with a brie 1►sting of the issues in which they become involved(togethe: with the person that will probably be present Monday night to rc _esent their agency.) De actment of Nl Res aturaurces e (Kathl.een Wallace/Karen Goechlrr) -----o----- Enforcement Public access Acquisition Coal establishment/7o0 public access slots Public waters Lake Minnetonka Conservation District - (JoEllen Nurr) Regulation of lake use Lend agency in Task Force implementation Selected regulation of lake shorty/marina access users - Enforcement of selected licensing and regulation Henneein County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol '(Inspector M►ke Pos�le%Leery Pe�eraon)L ----- --- -- - - 2 r, ly - - Enforcement of proper boating regulations on lake - Funding - CompldinLa/Incident trends Minnesota Legislature - (Senator Gen Olson) - Selected laws on improper boating use - Funding/Regulating/Granting powers to various regulating/Governmental agencies Orono/Municipalities - Related land use regulation around lakeshore - Lakeshore - Marinas - Public access Enforcement of regulations - Land use - Limited boating abuse (no boat) - Misdemeanor/criminal activity related to lake Prosecution of violation issued by various agencies Other Involved Agencies Not represented) Hennepin County Public access Operation/acquisition Related county road parking Suburban Hennepin County Park Reserve District Public property acquisition/operation IN CONCLUSION - It is hope 1 that this discussion will result in t • Council cclarifying the issues and than at subsequent meeting address the policy direction with which they want to undertake addressing .ne specific issues, I MINUTP4 OP Till: RF.GlJl.AR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING IIF LO !-,hPTF.MHY.R 23, 1905 PAGJ! a CITY ADIlIINISTRATOWS REPORT: TAKE MINNE'I'ONKA ACCESS/NORTH SHORT! DRIVE PARKING City ,Administrator Uernhardnon invited the following quest speakers: Kathlco,n Wallace, Commissioners Administrator �• for the DNR: Jof::len Hurr, Orono's IMCD Representative, 4, Inspecto- Nike Postie and Lt. Larry Peterson, Hennepin County Sheriff 's of f ice; water Patrol; and Senator Gen 11scn. City Administrator Pernhirdson stated that the primary issues are boatinq safety on the lak,- aridl overall boating activity and a 1so the concerns regardinq the North Arm public arcess. Pornhardson noted thr DNR report containing usage statistics for the summer of 1984. ►" ! Kathleen t:allace presented some charts showinq statistics relating to existing lake Liar on :.ake Minnetonka. She stated that in most cases the private access users and non - access users ( lakeshore residents)Oominated the free public access users, in addition, "cruisers" on the lake dominated the other types of use such as f:shinq, skiing, etc. Councilmember Grabek questioned some of the high and low density areas indicated on the chart. Kathleen Wallace indicated a pattern of where the non -fatal boat accidents have occurred on the lake. She stated that during this past summer, on an average weekday there are an average of 300 boats on the lake, and on an average weekend 1300 boats. Referring to the LMCD data of an instantanious count. Kathleen Wallace stated that from 1973 - 1982 the number of boats ranged from 1210 - 2200 (this is taken from a high use date), with a slivht increase over time, but no steady increase was found. The accidents statistics from 1975 - 1984 they range from 24 - 45 per year with no patterned increase. Acting Mayor Frahm stated that he felt that the accident rate c on I..tke Minnetonka is probably ten times higher than on any other lake. -W !Cathleen wnl lace stated that the number of accidents have not increased with the number of boats on the lake. Acting Mayor Frahm questioned who dictates that these public accesses must be free. Staff was directed to research that question. JoUl len Hurr stated that the L4CD writes the ordinances that q the Sheriff's Dept. enforces and that local departments are al so able to enforce these ordinances such as bridge jumpers. 3 s MINUTES OF T1IK RKGU[.AR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING IIKLD SY.PTPI4HL'R 23• 1985 PACK 5 ORmt; SHORE DRIVE PARKING ecticality IUtEMINNETONKA ACCPSC/N�n110t(l that pra ,`ator =O (liters the local (I(•partr�onts from any m.,;or enforcement. Regarding the numLer of free acces5s"'uiroement% thatthese that the LMCD does not qovern any q must be provided, but are simply just an accounting mechanism. L14CD MAT DOCK ORDINANCE °singan ordinance JoEllen purr reported that the LMCD is prOp�or the keeping of that states an owk. ner must prove ownership - more than 2 boatatthei r1 c the A proof s far sre is ofand a ownership s nc permit required just registration. that ere is no f ree ccess JoEllen purr (;u(— ;oned ^mustfactaccesshthrough Baker Park. on Lake Independence, you KathleenWallAce s required ated that they policylake cessis at no additional charge JoEllen ilurr reported that the LMCD will be establishing their own DWI law which should t•e in force ty ntr Inspect r Mike City and Administrator Lt. Larry nhardson Petersonl f othee Hennepin oCounty Postle +.ish-d to express thanks to Sheriff's offic^ and also gettingir Officer Bob Inspector Postle for his assfo=aactemporary period. Fischer into our community Inspector Postle stated that their concern particularly o the enforcement issues on Lake Minnetonka the ter provide a water patrol on thereulakar eputy aa he stated f-` s *'hlchaare Hacked up by Patrol cby r- ui ar volunteers (special deputy's) of approximately 3^-q40 members. rea to nfolthey arestated concen rating their ef`artsain this enforce however area mainly t penoted Rat a tthis tlime, it a T� son re uses to occurinq. can w about take the implied consent re ther iestingla m sdem�anor charge it. He stated that they are that pursuing t I e use of upon refusal. He also noted that they are personal floatation devices especially after der. OPle Regarding marpower. Inspector Postle stated that two Fredded gthat were audin the middle of the summer and d.with note4,+athat help. he feels they are adequately their overall equipment is soma of the finest in the nation- help. Postle explained the types of volunteer groups and -heir functions. He also explained the types of equipment they have. ��IV- Y . ...tr yam.' _ .•. - ' ' rt i MIIIUTKS Or TRY. MISGULAR ORONO COUNCIL PMETIN6 "I'D SKPTPXBKR 23. 1985 PAGE i continued LARK MINNKTONKA ACCESS/WORT" Sg URB DRIVE R� Krnhandson i troduce Senatot Gen Olson at this time. n the B�akinq while Intoxicated Senator Olson SFoKe o legislation result!: and future process. i City Attorney Blatz explained the background of the BwZ bill. , Senator Olson stated that the DNR has been is charge of siting public accesses since 1947 and discovered Lake Hinne,tonka in 79 pu 19bli She reported on the implementation of the task force end theirrecommendations and progress since within the past three years. She noted that there were several areas in i. which the parking is in going to providequate or imore aa cessesnd due � this there is going to be p planning and e local She stated that her feelings were thet with good governments the a coo-dinat��r eff'would beinvolving t served better. She stated that ublics interests she plans to put considerable attention to this matter. p hardson stated that cmendationsl repc+rt City Administrator Bern back in Novem.)er with some policy i I/TSRIM CgIp018ATtOM STUDY City Administrato{oTe985aand recommends that the package itted the Interim Compensation St,idy , be adopted in to'al. ; Councilmember Adams stated he was in total agreement to the approach taken. + It was moved by Frahm. seconded by Adams, to accept she 1985 t Interim Compensation Study Plan. Motion, Ay The [findings of the Interim Compensation st .dy result in the The findings ing ary adjustments rpt roactive to January1. 19951 folblickorksCoordinator-fromS35.533 John Gerhardson.Pu to $37,500 2 Di - from 533.102 to Tom Ruehn, Finance i $31,666 Asst. Police Chief - from $;0,925 to winton Durmaster, $», loo i Gary Cheswick, Police Sergeant -from $29.514 to $12,600 ; Jack Brinkhaus, Street Foreman - from S28.290 to S29.500 r V TO: Maycr and City Councilf PROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato0o DATE: October 10, 1985 SUBJECT: LAKE MINNETONKA USE AND ACCESS The following represents some of the significant findings of discussion regarding Lake Minnetonka at the Council's September 23, 1985, meeting. - Number of Users - The perception verses reality as to the number of boats and "source- was interesting in that according to study done for D*,Jl<, the total number of persons using pudic access did not amount to more than : 50 at any one time and was often down in the 100-299 range. The substantial number of users came from the marinas, although weekend use by abutting lakeshoce access owners was up considerably both in numbers ano percentages on the weekends as opposed to during the week. - Flow Problem to Public Access - The apparent problem in public- accesses is not so much the parking and the convenient or inconvenience of the parking but from the free public access users standpoint (or intended users) is the actual time and convenience experienced in putting boats in and takinc then out. To this extent the problem is not the parking spots that everyone has focused on, but it is the number of ramp spots available for persons wanting to use the lake. - T -tall Lake 11sage - The actendent questioc, then is if the flow thiough the ramps either public or private is increased does that significanrly affect the total number of users that are on thrr, lake. - Safety and Enforcement - Ar7cidents and injuries on the lake arq not necessarily a function of the absolute volume on the lake, with perhaps a higher correlation to abuses sucn use as alcohol. - Jucie.diction - It was very apparent, coupled with information learned after that meeting that there is a question of jurisdiLtion ar it relates to: - who has what authority to create regulations on the lake. - who has authority to enforce. - Who is doing the prosecution work and how effectively are they doing it. -Access Siting - Prtlsently the numter of existing access srteas jpart om marina docked boats and lakeshoce access docked boats are as follows: - Free Sites - 9 sites around the lake with 180 parking spots committed (another arc "uncommitted" within 1599 feet) Private Marina Sites - 5 sites, unknown number of parking spots The related access issue is the extent to which, if all sites both public and privately owned charged a fee for operation, if utilization of the existing private ramps would increase and thereby perhaps reducing the need for additional sites. Requirement for Free Access - While the Department of Natural Resources has been pushi g for additional free access sites on the lake there is no specific statutory requirement that in acquiring sites that the DUR nor any other public agency has to make t;:em available free of charge. Metro Council Access airinn - As you are aware the Governor's Executive Committee as now involved the Metro Council in the siting of public facilities on the lake. t ISSUES The following represent the major issues as they exist: - Access sites - Numbers using lake - Plow through accesses TOTAL USAGE - - Lake Access Users ,r - Commercial Marna Users r; - Off lake residents of lake communities�'�% - Other access users + SAFETY/ENFORCEMENT ♦ 't Funding A4, .' Expenditure + - Sites Enforcement SOURCE - State - County - Private/Users Given the fact that most of the services pcovided are presently from either State or County funding these is a good chance that persons apart from the users are boo ring the major portion of those expenses. 2 i 11 SAFETY/ISSUE - Jurisdiction - Enforcement - Sheriff - Prosecution RECOMMENDATIONS -The following represent recommendations regarding various issues in front of the Council for both present and future consideration. 1. North Shore Drive - It is recommended that: a.) Staff work with residents to continue to monitor the problems that are 6 to 8 tines out of the year. b.) Tnat the City not commit those reserved slots with LMCD until such time as there is a desionatrated: need for additionally committed parking contigent on other community's commitments and appropriate r geographic distribution of access. 2. Public Access - That the City in conjunction with w the Metropolitan Council and other lake com�munities work ..' to assist in the public access siting to the extent that y additional sites for boating distribution purposes ace ; appropriate for both distribution and packing. Additionally it is recommended that the Council encourage adequate parking spots be obtained near the Mound site. '- 3. Look for Additional Ramp Plow Spots a.) Private access b.) Evaluate current ramp use and parking at those sites 4. BOATING WAILS INTOXICATED - Mork and encourage LMCD y� and Legislature to pass appropriate legislation, at least for =j Laka Minnetonka, to make it a managable situation. 5. Jurisdiction - In accordance with enabling legislation for LMCD have Orono enter into a contract to enforce 49 the applicable ordinances that it desires to enforce with the L `!C D L' done: 6. Pending - Encourage that the following finding be a.) Lake Minnetonka sticker That everyone utilizing tre lake be required to pay a S:0-$25 a year sticker fee and that persons not having 3 •�y 'i wl 0 such be appropriately fined. Monies from this would go to fund enforcement on the lake together with attendant cleanup of sites used. b.) Public access fees Explore a charge or s fee for utilization of at least perking in these public access sites and any ssitted sites nearby at a reasonable rate, to defray cothe oust of operation anA cleanup of those accesses. It is hoped that such a fet coupled with published publication of private marinas that their utilization of existing camp Slots could be accomplished. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. TO: Mayor and City Council r FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato> DATE: October 23, 1985 SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Use and Access -�a O�il:;s►�� hIrETING maws 3)85 Attached you will find a memo regarding the summary of out September 23rd meeting together with recommendations relating to commitment of parking as it presently exists in the vicinity of the North Arm landing. We would like you to review the issues set forth in this cover memo together with the issues listed in the attached memo for discussion at our November 12th meeting. As you are aware the issue has again come to the forefront because of the acquisition option for a site in Minnetrista at the end of King's Point Road. DUR had evaluated a number of sites around the 'lake focusing principally on the south and west and it was their determination that this was t'a beat site and had gone to the Governor's Executive Council meeting oa October 2nd intending to get authority to go ahead and procure. The authority however was not granted because the Executive Council felt that it was appropriate to involve the M-tr..o Council in the siting of such regional facilities. As you ,*I'?. note in the attachment the Council has laid out the pro.rrr :.• which they wil: take a look at the issue. In order to promote the active involvement of the lake communities in this siting process, Bob Rascop, the Mayor Of Shorewood and also the present Chair of L.M.C.D_, held a meeting Tuesday, October 22, 1985, to discuss directions and means of input of the lake communities to this process. It was indicated that L.M.C.D. will develop issues and areae to look at for surface water management on the lake, however they felt it war appropriate that the communities each involve someone else apart from the L.M.C.D, representatives to explore the Issues Of land use as it relates to access siting. We will be eommuaiealand with our L.M.C.D. representative regarding this matter. one of the thrusts that L.M.C.D, is undertaking is a more active role in securing the required slots felt by OUR in an effort to forestall even further pressure for additional accesses around the lake. Mayor Rascop wi11 be present at our November 12th meeting to discuss the issue, Senator Gen Olson. as will JoE1'1en Hutt and possibly Additionally attached is a recent article from the Minneapolis °tar and Tribune regarding Lake Minnetonka access as seen by OUR, together with a list of sites the DNR has been exploring fog ?ossible access. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommendud that Council discuss any 1 •fyi CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•CryaW Bay, Minaesota %M. Municipal OWUM On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka November 20, 1985 Mr. Patrick Scully, Chairman Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka C/O Arne Stefferud Metro Council 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Scully, Enclosed please find the City of Orono's response to your letter of October 30, 1985, regarding the Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka. Sincerely, 4B-e "bards kn City Administrator BUILDING & IONING - 473-1357 • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE -- 473 7358 • PUBLIC WORKS -- 473-7354 ASSESSING Attn: Patrick Scully, Chairman CITY OF ORONO RESPONSE TO LAKE MINNETONKA TASK FORCE 11/20/85 1. How is Lake Minnetonka managed by your city under its statutory authority"? The City of Orono interests and involvement stems from the fact it has 33% of Lake Minnetonka as area and 40% of the total shoreline within it's boundaries. Additionally it has 6 commercial marinas, one of the most actively used public accesses together with having both Big Island and Deering Island, which present unique service problems within its jurisdiction. Because of this it has been a leader in efforts to regulate land use of the abutting shoreline together with it's upland areas in order to preserve and protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. This leadership is coupled with a strong commitment to preserve and protect the public safety both on and near the lake. Orono has utilizied its statutory authority as have most municipalities to govern land use and public safety as it relates to residential property, commercial marinas, Joint docks and other usages on the lake. In conjunction with LMCD, Orono has worked to make the lakes a cleaner and safer natural recreational resource for all Lake users including Orono residents both on and off the lake; and nonresident users of the lake through marinas, persons fishing from shore; free public access users; and park users, all of which constitute forms of public access. 2. Define your city's critical interests in managing Lake Minnetonka and related land uses within your jurisdiction. As noted in the prior response the City's critical interests are working to improve the lake's quality together with the safety for all users of the lake. 3. Please identify/describe land use and public service (e.g., road maintenance, law enforcement) issues which are affected by lake access and lake use within your jurisdiction. In addition to land use considerations to protect both the quality and access on the lake, Orono's attendant concerns regard parking; pedestrian and biker safety; trespassing; vandalism; accidents; fires and law enforcement related issuer both on the lake and at the shoreline, especially on and near access sites (not: only in Orono but in Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park, to whom Orono provides police services). Although Orono has a limited ability or capability for on -lake enforcement, Orono is becoming more 1 involved to better coordinate its efforts with other agencies. With its limited on lake capacity it is working to provide service when called on to address the most significant problems. The City is also concerned with maintenance of water quality as it relates to polluting run off and clean up around the lake. 4. Please describe how your city is implementing the recommendations contained in the "Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force" (June, 1983). The City of Orono is presently reviewing the Task Force recommendations regarding implementation. Since Orono possess one of the major access sites, the principal issue at this point is consideration of the securing of parking as it exists near the public access sites for off laka residents including a large number of potential users from Orono. (Enclosure A summaries progress to date.) 5. Identify any barriers you city has encountered in attempting to implement the recommendations in the "Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force." The primary issues are Council's overall public safety concerns on bosh the land and the lake. There has been significant neighborhood concern regarding commitment of the parking spots because of the attendant problems with off -site parking related to the a;,cess including trespassing and vandalism. As a part of this concern is the extent to which an increased utilization of the lake may escalate existing problems. 6. Please suggest proposals fo-: public participation procedures as well as intergovernme;-tal planning and negotiations procedures to resolve lake nanagement issues. It is hoped the Task Force in the development of the preliminary recommendations would work closely with LMCD on the water surface issues and the individual communities on the land use issues. Is is suggested the departure point for attend land use could well be the marina licensing and zoning ijr the various communities around the lake. (Please refer to enclosure B for a topical outline of land use issues.) 7. Please comment and submit any suggestions on the remaining steps of the Council's review procedure. It is proposed that as the adhoc report is developed that LMCD and the Cities individually be allowed to respond to a draft report in a meeting in the Lake Minnetonka area. 2 CITY OF ORONO SUMMARY OF PROGRESS 1985 LAKE MINNETONKA TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Enclosure A 1. North Arm/Hendrickson - As a County operated facility, the City's primary issue relates to securing of offsite parking on adjacent City and County roads, over which the County has final word. 2. This would be addressed at the point long term commitments are not realized. 3. Noerenberg Bridge - As a County owned bridge and Suburban Park Reserve owned facility this is more properly addressed by those bodies. 4. Molly's Corner -- No formal action taken. 5. Fishing craft/Small recreation boat - No action taken. 6. Big Island Veteran's Camp/Deering Island - The City's Comprehensive Management Plan indicates this should be dedicated as park space. The City of Orono has been active in closing the operation of the Veteran's Camp because of the existance of hazardous buildings among other public safety, health and welfare concerns. The City does suppoLt acquistion of the property for park purposes. Additionally Orono has indicated to the present owner of Deering Island it's goal that Deering Island should also be a park. 7. County 15 - Orono has been a leader in preservation of County 15 as a senic route and Hennepin County has received appropriate state variances to resurface the road as a two lane route. No further action has presently been taken. 8. Trail - No formal action taken. 9. Consideration of conversion of commercial marinas to public acces - No existing marinas have request a change in use. 10. Impr jed fishing access - No formal action. 1 SUM-IARY OF THE LAKE MINNETO2I'KA TASK FORCE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS Community: ORONO Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Contact Person: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Phone: (612) 473-7357 Zones: 1, 2, 3 Zones* Task Force Recommendations I, 1 Recommendation: North Arm/Hendrickson Access - Add make-rqAdy dock; add signs shoving the location of off -site par ; and provide toilets, trash containers, public phones, and adequate landscaping. In addition, any or all of the follovizig methods should be employed to reach the Task Force goal of 700 total car -trailer public parking spaces for the lake: Increase on -site parking by land acquisit'_:an where land availability and funding permits; increase reliable parking by acquisition of or through written parking agreements for off-street parking lots in the vicinity; increase long-term reliable on -street parking in the vicinity through written parking agreements. a 1, 2 Recommendation: If long-term written parkij�& agreements for existing sites within t ese zones cannot be sec7r , then additional access for small boats with associated parking should be considered to meet reliable parking goals for the zones. -� 1 Recommendation --Shore Facilities: Noerenber Bridge - Improve landscaping. Benches, tras'9 containers, and to nts should be provided. 2 Recommendation --Shore Facilities: Molly's Corner/Brovns Ra - Secureparking, an rut a own's Bay. Bencheq, trash containers, and toilette s'� dTfa provided. S. 3 Recommendation: Addirional fi shing craft and small re access should he nuuo t. 1, 3 Recommendation: Acquisition of Deering Tsland and the Bi Tnland Veterans Ca for ores, a ate should obtain full and c ear title to the Camp and t e 1{CPRD should develop and manage the site in conjunction with the Arthur Allen Wildlife Sanctuary as a regional park. *To address the distribution of accesses for fishing craft and small recrea- tion boats, the Task Force arrived at a sy3tem whereby the lake was divided into five majGr zones. See attached map. ,% 1,2,3 Recommendation: When County oad etween Wayzata and Navarre needs improvement, it should be desigi._d and managed as a two-lane scenic parkway ores ruin +ha h:or cal vistas of this uni e a es ore roadway. Improvements should provide, where environmentally possible, bike and hiking trails and scenic parking areas. County and State standards should be modified to alloy the roadway to be classified as a scenic parkway. 1,2.3 Recommendation: If your community has a trail lan, the task force recommends that the plan be impiamented to improve a access. C� 1, 3 Recommendations Implementing.agencies and Orono should cooperate in pouitoring any future land use changes at existin c ereial access a an and should consider pub ie access use prior to any rdz n _ifF""M non -access use fJ� 1.2.3 Recommendation_: When managing access sites and when considering new a eshcre development, particular attention should be given to the goal of improving access for fishing craft and small recreation boats. POSSIBLE LAND USE ISSUES FOR ACCESS BASED IN PART ON MARINA Enclosure B Parking- (Function of expected demand -overflow availability on roads only for few times per year. Relation to ramp slots.) Yard area/Setbacks Landscaping Drainage and Hardcover - (runoff/pollution) Security fencing/screening Required facilities - Sanitary - Road access - Lighting - Cleanliness/Maintenance Tree removal Ramps - Slots - Boat size/draft - Horsepower - Width/Depth - Composition - Setbacks Docks - Length - Width - Construction - Setbacks Operational Availability Hours Dates Usages Compatiability with adjacent development 1 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1915 A RESOLUTION REGARDING PARKING SLOTS POR ZONE 1 AS DETERMINED BY METROPOLITAN COONCIL'S TASK FORCE WEMtEAS, the City o! Orono contains 40% o' the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka, and WEEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is an extremely valuable natural and recreational resoL.-ce, and WEEREAS, the City of Orono has cone to great lencths to not only =:eserve but also improve Lake Minnetonka !o: the public health, sa.et_v and welrare _o: a, 'lake use-s and lakeshc:e owners, and WEEREAS, a Task rorce on Lake Minnetonka reco=enaed among other ite=s t::at 700 parking spots nea: :lee public accesses, cf the existing 1,172 be cc: ited to be re1:a:1e scats .or such use, and WEEREAS, the Lake m1nnetanka Corse:vatic:, Zwistr c: has cevelcped criteria and is seekin; vc:unza:y CO=itcent c= these spats, anal WEEREAS, the !:et:opol_ta:: ;.ounc_l's Task -orce as --he _ssue is enco=: a: _n; co =_t went C= t::cse 70n s" ^ts a-' R'�RrES, he Minnesota De7a:tcent c! rat ra'_ Rescur=es "as pu:clased property Cn th-e. Lake !cr add: tonal :lee pu;1i,. access, a�.d KEER£AS, the safety c! ;oate:s on -he lake is 'ikely .wpai:ed by addit:ona: n;.,=be:s o` ;Cats cn the lake due to inc:eased access, and WEZREAS, lane the only :Cnt ^•.. w::ic:: t:,e:e is an ex:st•nr !:ee ;ut!4: access C:o o need- co.r._ »! _ c_ _p •:, 79 additional spats to :eac:. 1-9 :e::a=-e sects =a ttt zone, a_id RHE8:A5, =a:kinc c`!s:te C! _ne public access or t:.e street can cause certain su:_:c sale-•: ..c leer s, and Bend_ WEEREAS, t:.e v -ickson access :s -_ted to o to :..Its per seascn. 4 City of ORON-0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1915 NOW, TEEREPORE BE ZT RESOLVED, that the City Counci 1 o! the City o! Orono Will work towards the development o: up to 79 additional parking spots in Zone 1 on land owned by either the. City or the County provided that: a.) No accesses in addition to those t`.at existed on January 1, 1984 be placed on the lake and that D.N.R. sign a written agreement with L.M.C.D. that they will not place any accesses on the lake. b.) Fund:nc :or total dere'_cpae::t c: the sites cove !:om sou:CeS outside the City and that development be only to the extent o: available outside "nding and c.) To the extent=easible --"-.at development be phased to meet demand and d.) That an- development o= c::-street parking be done in a Wanner that p:ovides !or a lever o: screening ar.3 c=zatabil:ty wit:,, resident:al ne:c:.bc:hoods, and F RTEZR BE 1T RESOLVED, t::at the :i :v Cc_::..: 1 of the Ci :y o: 0: ono st:onc lv urges the yaks Mi - ..`' -:ae _c:.kr _., .se: ca __on District to use a =ze o- ail boating users C`_ t a take to pay '0: the costs C! law s-=c•Ca=e-t, -_sa- access-_pe:nt:_— aid � :ace ad...znzs __ a __on, anc 1"UR" ER BE =T RESOLVED, that as parking is develcpe! o::-st:let that a=:cp:_ate steps !L%e taken to __=it on-st:eez parking :n ta! vi - it.; Ca t-e access to limit the o_ sa!tty hazards mac r."I sances associated with the access. Adopt*. by the City Cou:.C= 1 0_ the C_ty c= Crone, Minnesota at a :eg:_a: meet_r= hei! C&;uzry _c? �J 61 TABLE 1 OISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING SPACES AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES BY ZONE "'ASK FORCE GOAL FOR RELIABLE — ACRES PARKING IN OF VICINITY- OF ZONE WATER ACCESS SITES 1 2,780 139 2 2,880 144 3 3,100 155 4 2,520 126 5 2,720 136 14,000 700 EXISTING PARKING SPACES IOENTIF IEO IN VICINITY* OF ACCESS SITES -------------------------------------- RELIABLE— UNRELIABLE** TOTAL 60 109 169 46 363 409 0 80 80 79 216 296 0 219 219 185 987 1,172 * In Vicinity means within 1,500 feet from the access site. ** Reliable car -trailer parking space is one that is publicly owned or guaranteed by long term written agreement. Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING BY ZONE ON -SITE VS. OFF -SITE ZONE ON -SITE OFr-SITE 1 360 640 2 11: 89, 3 Oo 100: 4 64 94e 5 OA 100. 11% 89% Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-TRAIL=n NAXriNU OT LUNt ON -STREET VS. OFF-STREET ZONE ON-S7RE=T OFF-STREZ-7- 1 64- 367 2 890 lla 3 0; 100q 4 32. E84 5 I O C. 0' 61X 33% *'* off-street parking includes both on -site and other parking lots within 1,500 feet from launch ramcs. Source: Sae item 20 of Bibliography "P.eoort of the Lske Minnetonka Tact r^. 4 f 1"'A IapiN I La!:e Access Parking Study November 30, 1982 NORTH ARM LANDING - Hennepin County owned/operated Location: on County Road 51 just east of County Road 19, Orono 10x20 Spaces 1Ox45 Spaces Zone Location Boat on Vehicle Vehicle w/Trailer Total On -Site Parking 10 G4 7•1 OFF -SITE PARKING eastward .4 w westward --North Shore Drive o subtotal this zone 0 running total within 500 ft 10 �+ eastward -North Shore Drive westward -North Shore Drive 1 00 0 0 subtotal this zone Ln o -1 running total within 1000 ft 0 10 eastward -North Shore Drive -baldur Park Road westward -North Shore Drive -Maple Place southward-Shadywood Road -Fagerness Pt Rd (actually used) 0 0 (additional spaces available but �Ln 44 rarely used) subtotal this zone 0 0 6 6 70 8 16 24 55 c3 0 104 running total within 1500 ft 10 149 15g _k, eastward -forth Shore 7 i.ve- 10 y -& Wur Park sci 10 41 %W westward -No.: th Shore Drive 3 00 -Maple Place 4 00 ;;ubt tal this zone 0 27 running total within 2000 ft 10 176 18G eastward -(none in use beyond 2000 ft) 0 +' westward -North Shore Drive -North Arm Drive 5 00 0 Ln subtotal this zone 0 11 N N running total within 2500 ft 10 187 - 197 westward -North shore Drive (actually used) 4 w (additional spaces avail. but rarely used) 10 0 o subtotal this zone 0DO 14 0 running total within 3000 ft 10 201 211 CJ n total spaces available for vehicles with trailers 201 '"rT 32' provided on -site p--ov%ded on -street 137 69". or %4 IQ �/i J f '7d Lg�► g u ra c= it J jk a g -4 " c ' 0. 0 o 0 LL Id Q v _ L � .. V,. r 1 l . V� .0b2 r R r' i L r- n ,,.,,�,,.;F,. � : t�aaru:� +� � sue+,► � i .:�6d FA I (2) Ul — - -_ - -- � I SEP 2 7 10 1 �i ► CITY OF O; t0i !Cl LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT L M11C0 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 6121473.7033 FRANK MIXA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARP MEMBERS TO: MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES Rober- Tipton Brown. Chairman Greenwood DATE: September ''6, 1985 Robert P Rascop, Vice Chairman Shorewood JoEllen Hurr, Secretary SUBJ: Monitor Report of Public Access Parking on Lake Minnetonka Orono Jon Elam. TFeasurer Mound Edward G. Bauman Tonka Bay On July 2, 1985 the District forwarded to you standards to assist Donald E Boynton those municipalities wishing to provide long-term reliable car - Minnetonka Beach p g P $ Fronk de Monchaux trailer parking at or near public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. Minnetrista Richard J Garwood In addition to developing standards for the reliable parking the Deephaven District was also made responsible for monitoring and reporting Audrey Gisvold Wayzata progress toward those goals on a continuing basis. The following Ron Kraemer Spring Park is a report for the period 1983-1985. The Task Force Report was Robert K Pillsbury dated May 31, 1983. Minnetonka Robert E. Slocum Woodland No. of Reliable Additions/ No. of Reliable r d J Richa VictoriSoderberg a ne Public Accesses C-T Spaces 1983 Deletions C-T Spaces 1985 Carl H Weisser Excelsior Zone 1 North Arm 60 -0- 60 Sub Total 60 -0- 60 Zone 2 Grays Bay Causeway 24 -0- 24 Grays Bay Dam 19 -0- 19 Wayzata Bay 3 -0- 3 Sub Total 46 -0- _ 46 Zone 3 Carsons Bay -0- -0- -0- Sub Total -0- -0- -0- Zone 4 Spring Park Bay 79 -0- 79 Phelps Bay -0- -0- -0- Sub Total 7; _ -0- _ 79 Zone 5 Halsted Bay -0- -0- -0- Cooks Bay -0- 50 50 Sub Total -0- _ 50 50 TOTAL FOR LAKE 185 -0- 235 Task Force summary tables and maps are attached. Thank you for your cooperation LAKE M N,8 0 7% ONSERVATION DISTRICT LM Task Force r T p on Chairman Alexander, Gardebring, Dayton Carlson, Markell, Wallace, Wheeler Area State Legislators State Executive Council County Commissioners Klossner, Ault, Latvaaho TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING SPACES AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES BY ZONE TASK FORCE GOAL FOR RELIABLE** ACRES PARKING IN OF VICINITY* OF ZONE WATER ACCESS SITES 1 2,780 139 2 2,880 144 3 3,100 155 4 2,520 126 5 2,720 136 14,000 700 EXISTING PARKING SPACES IDENTIFIED IN VICINITY* OF ACCESS SITES ----------------------------------- RELIABLE** UNRELIABLE** TOTAL 60 109 169 46 363 409 0 80 80 79 216 295 0 219 219 185 987 1,172 * In Vicinity means within 1,500 feet from the access site. ** Reliable car -trailer parking space is one that is publicly owned or guaranteed by long term written agreement. Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 2 % DISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING BY ZONE ON -SITE VS. OFF -SITE ZONE ON -SITE OFF -SITE 1 36% 64% 2 11% 89% 3 0% 100% 4 6% 94% 5 0% 100% 11 % goer Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 3 % DISTRIBUTION OF CAR -TRAILER PARKING BY ZONE ON -STREET VS. OFF-STREET ZONE ON -STREET 1 64% 2 89% 3 0% 4 32% 5 100% 67% OFF-STREET*** 36% 11% 100% 68% 0% 33% *** off-street parking includes both on -site and other parking lots within 1,50U feet from launch ramps. Source: See item 2.0 of Bibliography Report of the Lake Minnetonka -12- Took Force June 1983 LAKE ZONES MAP 2 I 13 92688.4HD To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator COUNCIL Date: September 20, 1988 I O Subject: Clean Water Grant Request/Long Lake/M.C.W.D. v` 8 19�6 ATTACHMENT - A. M.C.W.D. Letter Dated 8/25/88-;1 ISSUE - 1. Determination as to whether the Council would give its support to seek a grant for a clean water project for the lake of Long Lake. 2. Determination if the Council supports the idea and at what level of support the Council would give for the grant application. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has for a considerable period of time considered doing a water quality project for the Long Lake watershed area. This project will be the second project to be undertaken in the Conservation District. The first project was the Painter's Creek Watershed District. That project, which cost a little over $500,000, was funded by a conservation district levy. DISCUSSION - The water quality as noted in Long Lake has not been good and the lake has been going from a eutrophic condition to a hyper-eutrophic state, i.e. it is a lake in trouble. In addition to the water quality impact that this has on Long Lake itself, it is a major contributor to Lake Minnetonka and therefore has an impact on its quality. It is proposed by the M.C.W.D. that the cities give the watershed district support so that they can undertake a grant application. If a grant were obtained from the State it would pay up to 50% of the cost of the project and there is a possibility that an additional 20% of the funds could be obtained from other State and Federal programs. The balance would be on a conservation district wide levy. The project itself would be in two parts. The first part would be a monitoring and diagnostic stage in which they would try to determine the sources causing the low lake quality in Long Lake, with the second phase being corrections of those problems. It is estimated that the cost of the initial phase for the project would be between $50,000 and $100,000. At this point it is not known what cost it would be for attempts to remedy that situation. Clean Water Grant Project September 20, 1988 Page 2 of 3 As noted in Attachment A, the initial estimate for a grant application would be between $6,000 to $8,000. Presently the Conservation District, after discussions with the P.C.A., estimate this to be closer to $4,000 to $6,000 to prepare it. Present indications of support are that the City of Long Lake has submitted a petition indicating their support with Hennepin County giving them the initial indication of contribution of $500 to $1,000. It is our understanding that the District will probably go ahead if they get support in the form of resolutions from the cities. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Issue 1. Is the Council interested in support of the project? a) Support the project. b) Suggest alternatives to the project to correct the problem. c) Table for further study. d) Take no action. e) Decline support. 2. Issue 2. Level of support should the City choose to support the 1,roject? a) Adopt the ^roposed resolution. b) Amend and adopt. c) Indicate financial support. d) Table for further discussion. e) Take no action. Clean Water Grant Project September 20, 1988 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the attached proposed resolution be adopted by the Council and since the substantial portions of the lake lie in the Orono City boundaries, that an amount of $500 from an undesignated reserve be contributed to show the City's leadership role in improving the lake quality both on Long Lake and downstream on Lake Minnetonka. PROPOSED MOTION: Resolution # and that City amount of $500. Moved by _ indicating also agree to _, seconded by , that the Council adopt :s support for the grant application process contribute if the M.C.W.D. desires it, an Ayes , nays cc: Jim Mahady, M.C.W.D. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A CLEAN WATER PROJECT FOR LONG LAKE WHEREAS, the City of Orono has long had an interest in preserving and improving its natural resources; and WHEREAS, Long Lake has been one of the natural attributes located within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, the vast majority of property owners on Long Lake are in the City boundaries of Orono; and WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (M.C.W.D.) has slated a clean water project to be undertaken through a grant application to the P.C.A.; and WHEREAS, successfully completion for the grant monies could fund the project for up to 50% of the project from this fund toqether with an additional 20% from other State and Federal funds; and WHEREAS, the balance of the project would be funded by a tax levy against the balance of the district; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono makes up approximately % of the value in that district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota support the M.C.W.D.'s undertaking for a water quality improvement project on Long Lake and its watershed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City indicates its willingness to contribute up to $ should the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District desire such financial support. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of September, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy .4. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor HA I A� MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 SOARO OF MANAGERS Camille 0. Andre. Res. • Albert L Lehman a John E Thomas James R. Soensley • Richard R. Miller • Robert 0. Erickson • C Woodrow Love MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City Council City of Orono .at t;;N WATERSHED /DUNDARY Posb�t'•routlrp request Pad 76" ROUTING - REOUEST Please READ ❑ HANDLE ❑ APPROVE and ❑ FORWARD ❑ RETURN ❑ K P OR DI$CdRD REVIEW WITH ME Date Board of Managers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) August 25, 1988 To i From__ Clean Water Partnership Grant Application for a non -point source pollution abatement project on Long Lake. I. INTRODUCTION The Chairman of the Board of Managers and District staff recently met with the Mayor of Long Lake, and city staff persons of the cities of Long Lake and Orono to discuss water quality issues in the Long Lake subwatershed. The MCWD raised the possibility of a cooperative effort on the part of the MCWD, various municipalities, and agencies in the preparation of a grant application for possible funding under the MPCA Clean Water Partnership program. If such a grant were secured, a project to improve the water quality of Long Lake would occur involving two phases: a diagnostic -feasibility and monitoring phase to better define the problem and possible solutions and the implementation of activ-ties and best management practices necessary to achieve the water quality goals and objectives in the project area. II. SUBWATERSHED DESCRIPTION/PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION Description The Long Lake Creek subwatershed encompasses an area of 11.44 square miles in the north -central portion of the Lake Minnetonka watershed. It is located entiraly in Hennepin County and cortains land lying within the cities of Long Lake, Mediia, Orono and Plymouth. It is adjacent to the Painter Creek subwatershed (,,ee attached map). Prominent lake- within this subwatershed include Long Lake, Mooney Lake, Holy Name Lake ilo 4olsfeld Lake. Major land use categories presently include: agricultural %), wooded (19%), wetland and lakes (19%), low and medium density residential (8%), and open space (7%). Significant changes in land use are projected for the year 2000 conditions, at which time 63 percent of the unit could consist of low density residential development. To offset this increase, the agricultural and wooden categories { are projected to decline to less than 1 percent ui" total unit area by the year 2000. The existing 1,386 acres of lakes and wotlands will remain unc,�anged. Problem Identification and Description Water quality problems in the upper watershed were first identified by the District in the mid-1970's as part of the Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project (UWIP). The project sought to improve water quality and control flows from the major drainageways tributary to Lake Minnetonka. The Painter Creek project, constructed by the District in 1984-1985, was the first phase of the UWIP and consisted of easement acquisition, several miles of channel improvements, excavation of two sedimentation basins and the construction of four sheet pile weir control structures and one rough fish barrier. The total cost of the project was $510,000 and was financed by a District -wide ad valorem tax levy under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 112. The Board of Managers has designated the Long Lake Creek subwatershed as the second phase of the UWIP and has included the project in the Capital Improvement Program of the District's Chapter 509 Surface Water Management Plan. Results from the computer simulation of watershed hydrology completed in 1986 as part of the preparation of the 509 Plan, along with historical records from the District's on -going hydrologic monitoring pi,ogram, indicate the Long Lake Creek subwatershed contributes a significant portion of runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Data also indicates this runoff can contain elevated concentrations of suspended sediment and phosphorus. Long Lake, which is the primary receiving body for a large portion of the subwatershed's tributary drainage area before outletting into Long Lake Creek, normally exhibits signs of poor water quality in the summer months with water clarity being impacted by high levels of chlorophyll -a (algae) and phosphorus. Long Lake also supports a large population of rough fish. The District believes the poor water quality in Long Lake is related to non -point source (NPS) pollution from the lake's tributary drainage area. Non -point sources of pollution are defined as land management or land use activities that contribute to pollutian as a result of runoff, seepage or percolation. This definition includes rural and urban land uses, as well as specialty land uses such as transportation, and recognizes that both surface and groundwater can be affected by non-point\sources of pollution. Major sources of NPS pollution include: agricultural runoff; pesticide and fertilizer use; feedlot runoff; urban runoff from streets, yards and construction sites; leachate from septic systems; highway de-icing chemicals; dredging and drainage activities; and impacts from the loss of wetlands. III. MPCA CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM The Clean Water Partnership Program was enacted in 1987 by the State Legislature to protect and improve surface and groundwater in Minnesota through financial and technical assistance to local units of government to control water pollution associated with land use and land management activities. The program is administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency which may award grants for up to 50 percent of the eligible cost for the development of a diagnostic study and implementation plan and the implementation of that plan. Other available sources of state and federal funding can also be used to fund up to 20 percent of the remaining local share of the project. To be eligible for financial assistance under this program, a local unit of government applying for assistance must have the authority to coordinate and enter into contracts with local, state and federal agencies and private organizations, raise funds, and adopt and enforce official controls; and provide the MPCA with a grant application and s-ipporting documents. The MPCA will accept grant applications from mid -September to November 1988 for funding during 1989. The cost to prepare and submit a grant application is estimated to be $6,000 48,000. IV. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT/PARTICIPATION If the City Council is interested in cooperating in the effort to obtain a Clean Water Pa,tnership Project grant for Long Lake, it is requested that the Council draft , resolution in support of the project and also indicate a level of funding for the costs of preparing and submit-ing the grant application to be prepared by District staff. Prompt consideration of this request is necessary due to the rapidly approaching date for submission. If the City Council members or their staff require additional information, please contact the District En-; , , Mr. Jim Mahady at 473-4224 or the Chairman of the Board of Managers, Mr. James Spensley at 937-4845. n I — J L �Aaple PlalMIV I ` I 1_ t �', PAINTEEEJ( psndenc 1 netrfs Dutch Lake �7 3�� Mound 1. onpdo l ake — C— LONG LAKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED �Ir�■O ■ ■ 24 Katrina �- 1 Lake Mod wal 1t 1 L ~ --� --� J lake r 101 j c0 L �(okc 12 L Lon Orono Glecisc ake— `� Wayzata t n 1 • A11tiAi�_ +/'AMA _ . • • � 1 • ring • j 5 Par ..... • _�,._:::.:.. : �� Woodland Lake Minnetonka• ::: of nLOWV Do�phav _ TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: September 23, 1988 SUBJECT: City Facilities - Site Criteria Attachment: A. Site Criteria B. City Facilities Memo Dated 4/l/88 Ii VOKIL MEETING kP 2 8 1980 ISSUE - 1.Determination as to the types of site criteria and appropriate weightings that the Council would feel appropriate for site analysis. 2. Determination as to whether the Council desires to have another site explored as either an alternate or additional site. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment B the Council directed that Phase II, site analysis be undertaken of the two sites outlined. Tne consultant, in April, developed a list of site criteria after working with staff on the matter and this was submitted to the Planning Commission. in May. The staff received responses from the Planning Commission on these and Attachment A is a summary of the criteria and weightings from both staff and Planning Commission. DISCUSSION - In addition to review and comment on the criteria weighting factors which is step 5 outlined in attachment B, the staff would request that you consider the possibility of analysis of a non owned city site at the SW corner of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. The staff has not discussed this with the owner but several years ago the staff had discussed possible acquisition of the site with the owner. This analysis could either be done as a substitute for one of the current two or as an additional one for an additional amount of about $4,000. ALTERNATIVES - ISSUE $1 Criteria 1. Adopt as presented 2. Amend and adopt 3. Table 4. Take no action ISSUE #2 Additional site 1. Substitute 2. Add as an additional site 3. Remain at two sites 4. Table 1 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the site criteria apart from any amendments that the Council may feel appropriate as to types of criteria for consideration or the relative weights be adopted in order for the consultant to complete Phase II and that the Council table discussion of the additional site to its October 10,1988 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt the appropriate site criteria for site analysis for the City's facilities in order to determine a realistic projection of costs related to the site together with the issues related to any altered facility and site and that the Council table discussion of an additonal site to its October 10, 1988 meeting. Ayes Nays _ 2 4188.4 / S TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato01 DATE: April 1, 1988 SUBJECT: City Facility Study Attachments: A. Facilities Memo Dated 9/15/86 ISSUE - i. Present information regarding current steps being taken in relationship to the site evaluation. 2. Presentation of a review process of the site evaluation and criteria development. INTRO_DU__CTIO_N_ - At the Council's February 8, 1998 meeting the Council accepted the information regarding the first phase of the study and undertook the second phase of the study which was a site evaluation of two alternative sites. The firm doing the site analysis has reviewed both sites and in light of the space study, has been developing block diagrams to see how they coordinate with the site together with selected setback and site needs. Staff has presented the consultant with as much documentation as it has available on the two sites. DISCUSSIO N - The primary focus at this meeting is on Issue 2 to _ determine a process that the Council w,,uld like to have undertaken during this site analysis phase. The principal goals of this review are the following: a. Development of criteria for site analysis of the facility (regardless of location). b. Review of the preliminary sites taking comments from the persons _evolved in the process as to particularly land use issue., ai— zoning requirements. In addition to Council and staff participation in this matter there has been expressed desire on the part of the Planning Commission, with concurrence by Council and staff, that Planning Commission be involved in thi,; site evaluation process to lend particularly their land use expertise in the siting criteria. The consultant is developing draft criteria plus layout block schemes on each of the sites being studied which will be the subject of the reveiw at this point by >_.iose involved. ALTE_RN_A_TIV_E_S - l. Information presented a. Accept b. Table 2. Process adoption Process Elements 1. Draft criteria/site layouts - consultant 2. Review by staff 3. Commentary by Planning Commission - Focusing on criteria and land use/zoning site issues 4. Council commentary based on draft layouts plus staff and Planning Commission commentary 5. Consultant revise site criteria and layout to accomodate issues G. Consultant do further work related to general layouts, building estimates, construction estimates including all site costs 7. Staff and Council review Options A. Adopt as presented B. Amend and adopt C. Table RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information presented as to site evaluation progress to date. Additionally it is recommended that the Council adopt the process that is presented in Issue 2. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , Seconded by __, that the Council accept the information regarding the progress of the site evaluation together adoptinq a process for development of the criteria for the site and specific commentaries on the sites currently being analyzed. Ayes __, Nays __ cc: David Kroos, Boarman and Associates RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the site criteria apart from any amendments that the Council may feel appropriate as to types of criteria for consideration or the relative weights be adopted in order for the consultant to complete Phase II and that the Council table discussion of the additional site to its October 10,1988 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt the appropriate site criteria for site analysis for the Cit.y's facilities in order to determine a realistic projection of costs related to the site together with the issues related to any altered facility and site and that the Council table discussion of an additonal site to its October 10, 1988 meeting. Ayes Nays _ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: September 23, 1988 SUBJECT: City Facilities - Site Criteria Attachment: A. Site Criteria B. City Facilities Memo Dated 4/1/88 C0[5��fx',I!, fvtEETING SEP 2819�,�3 ISSUE - 1.Determination as to the types of site crite is and appropriate weightings that the Council would feel appropriate for site analysis. 2. Determination as to whether the Council desires to have another site explored as either an alternate or additional site. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment B the Council directed that Phase II, site analysis be undertaken of the two sites outlined. The consultant, in April, developed a list of site criteria after working with staff on the matter and this was submitted to the Planning Commission in May. The staff received responses from the Planning Commission on these and Attachment A is a summary of the criteria and weightings from both staff and Planning Commission. DISCUSSION - In addition to review and comment on the criteria weighting factors which is step 5 outlined in attachment B, the staff would request that you consider the possibility of analysis of a non owned city site at the SW corner of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. The staff has not discussed this with the owner but several years ago the staff had discussed possible acquisition of the site with the owner. This analysis could either be done as a substitute for one of the current two or as an additional one for an additional amount of about $4,000. ALTERNATIVES - ISSUE #1 Criteria 1. Adopt as presented 2. Amend and adopt 3. Table 4. Take no action ISSUE #2 Additional site 1. Substitute 2. Add as an additional site 3. Remain at two sites 4. Table 1 91586.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator1`� DATE: September 15, 1986 , SUBJECT: Facilities Assessment - Request for Fund Allocation As indicated at the last meeting I am requesting permission for allocation of $8,000 out of existing monies in the building fund for the Engineer, to conduct an: a.) Analysis of existing buildings as to repair and bring into code compliance b.) Analysis of space needs for all City facilities. This request. is made as in house City staff does not possess the expertise to do the appropriate analysis. The request is made to give Council the needed background for a decision as to whether there is a justifiable need to unJertake a significant rehabilitations or replacement of all City facilities (Public Works, City Hall, Police, Council, etc.) Below is a list of steps for consideration of such a decision. This represents the third step in the process which is a refinement of the ,process in attachment F from the March 20, 1986 memo in facilities assessment. 1. In house facilities assessments 2. Preliminary analysis of needs, financing, etc. * 3. Analysis of needs * 4. Determination of need - Council * 5. Analysis of possible site costs and preliminary design * 6. Determine appropriate method of financing * 7. Select preliminary site(s) 8. a.) If funding requiring referendum - Informational - Referendum * b.) If funding through other means - Public Hearing - Council decision pff 9. If approved * - Acquire site Additional shared tenants commitment * - Facility final design * - Hid project * - Arrange financing * - Award project Complete Transfer * Indicates points requiring formal Council action 92688.9 To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator _ TSMG From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director rP Date: September 22, 1988 Subject: Vehicle Parkin - Summit Park Swimming Beach J g g In 1984, the Public Works Department constructed a ten vehicle parking lot at Summit Park Beach at the east end of Long Lake. Due to increased use over the past few years, it is evident that adequate parking is not available. During the summer months, the current parking lot -ats filled to capacity and as many as twenty additional vehicles are psrked along East Long Lake Road and Old Long Lake Road. East Long Lake Road is very narrow with no shoulder, therefore causing a safety problem for access and exiting from the parking lot as well as complaints from neighbors who have difficulty with exiting their driveways. I have developed a cost for increasing the capacity of the parking lot from ten to twenty vehicles, as follows (also see attached sketch of existing and proposed) : Excavate & Fill Area 60'x120' 506.48 265 Ton Crushed Limestone 1,775.50 60 Guardrail Posts @ $10.00 600.00 $2,881.48 If approved and once the parking lot is constructed, I would develop a resolution designating "No Parking" on East Long Lake Road. RECOMMENDATION - To expand the parking lot at Summit Park Swimminq Beach from ten to twenty vehicles and to pay for the improvement from the Park Dedication Fund. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to approve the expansion of the Summit Park Swimming Beach from ten to twenty vehicles and to pay for the improvements from the Park Dedication Fund. Ayes , nays TO: Mayor Grabek City Council `l FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato J Forwarded recommending approval: /J. F_Xl57'/�/G Bla lei r R Buoys > " C T AD AR--- A 0t DKALJ;.l TD Sc,JLt-- To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Date: S(7;t^tuber 22, 1988 Subject: 1989 Budget Process 92688.10HD !JF ISSUE - 1. The opportunity for further discussion on the 1989 Budget. 2. Determination if Council deserves any further meetings on the Budget. INTP.ODUCTION - At the September 20, 1988 Budget Meeting, Council Members indicated they would be contacting us with further questions. DISCUSSION - The proposed adoption of the Budget has been placed tentatively on the October 10, 1988 Council agenda. The item is placed on this agenda to: A) Allow further opportunity for questions and comments; B) Determine if an additional time should be set aside `or further discussions. Currently, staff is researching the issue of citations, gross misdemeanors and legal costs and will have the information in advance of the October 10, 1988 meeting. Please note an addendum to the proposed water budget will be forthcoming. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following any discussion, the Council table the budget discussion until October 10, 1988 unless they desire any additional meetings. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by seconded by the Orono Council table the 1989 Budget discussion until Aves , nays c Tom Kuehn Mel Kilbo 92688.2HD To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Councii Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City hdministratoz�� Date: September 20, 1988 .ONG r Subject: Media Article's Response ISSUE - Communications any responses that the sta'ft hh* recei,,red in relationship to an article in the paper =egardinj the regular Mayor's Article together with allowing for an opportunity for. Council to hive any comments they have received in regard to the article. INTRODUCTION - The Council, at its August 26th, 1988 meeting, directed sta to continue submitting articles to the paper as an appropriate way of communicating to the community. .t was indicated that the article wo::ld attempt to soliciate community comment or this and as such this was placed on the agenda to determine what if any comments have been received. DISCUSSION - To date, staff has received no comments directly on this matter, but would be interested in any comments that the Council has received. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Discuss. 2. Table. 3. T-.ke no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that bz 3 on any comments that the Council has given, that the format be modif to improve this as a means of community. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , staff accept Council's comments regarding the Article and that improvements be made in the Article to make it a better form of communication. Ayes , nays `,42�ti88.Yd•�q..,. To Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Tom Kuehn, Finance Direr -tor Date: September 22, 1988 Subject: 1985 Improvement Bond Debt Service Fund Tax Levy ATTACHMENT - Proposed Tax Levy Resolution DISCUSSION - The 1985 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project for the Crystal B1v area was originally specially assessed against those properties b; nefitted. However, a significant number of those appealed the assessed amounts and through court settlements, the amounts of the asse:,sments on those properties were reduced substantially. This has resulted ...I the need to determine an alternative source of revenue to fund the resulting shor' all to insure the timely payment of -he bonds and interest as they mature. As the bonds are general oblinitions of the City, they are backed by Its full tai.ing powers. The City has recently had a Special Assessment Cash Flow Forecast Repot prepared by its auditor (see item this agenda). The results of that forecast indicate the need for the tax levy as shown accompanying resolution. Even though the resolution sets specific r amounts for the tax levy each year, the Land wl11 oe m.-r-tored and th .commended levy each year will be reduced or • . eased a! -necessary. Mayor Grabek & Oronc __l Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Aa iotrato OQ Forwarding tecommending ar•ir.oval. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved se led by , to adopt Resolution # , a resolution to levy to _asued for Sanitary Sewer Prcject 85-1 and d5-2, Improvement �)ebt Service Fund. Ayes , nays __ A RESOLUTION TO LEVY TAXES FOR BONDS ISSUED FOR SANITARY SEWER PROJECT 85-1 i 85-2 IMPROVEMENT BONL OF 1985 DEBT SERVICE FUND WT'EREAS, th-, City Council did levv special assessments against property spf tally benefi 'ed by Project 85-1 and 85-2; and WHEREAS, subsequent appeals of levied special assessments and settlement of those appeals has resulted in significant reductions of said special assessments; and WHEREAS, the bonds issued are General Obligation Bonds, the City is therefore required to levy additional general ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the City without limitation as to rate or amount to pay the bond principal and intfrst when due; and WHEREAS, computations made by the City's audito_s to assist the City in determining required future funding of its 1985 Debt Service Fund take into ncco!.tit deferred assessments, bond redemption funds and the reinvestment the_eof, do indicate a need for current and future tax levies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that there is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City, a direct annual general ad valorem tax to be spread upon the tax rolls for collection in the years and amounts as follows: Collection Year Amount 1989 $30,000 1990 35,000 1991 40,000 1992-2000 50,000 each year Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a rr- ular meeting held on tember 28, 1988. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, Cit_- Clerk 92688.10HD James R. Grabek, Mayor 92� ? To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From; Tom Kuehn, Finance Director TY Date: September 23, 1988 Subject: Auditor's Report on Special Assessment Cash Flow Forecast ATTACHMENT - Special Assessment Cash Flow Forecast Report DISCUSSION - In August we contracted with the City's auditors, Pannell Kerr Forster, to perform a Cash Flow Projection and Analysis of the various special assessment levies which support the payment of the Improvement Bond Funds. The purpose of the analysis was to determine if there was sufficient future assessment revenues to maid the bond and interest pay- ments as they come due and to determine if it is necessary to levy and collect the supplemental taxes previously passed by Council or to pass a new tax levy to aid in the payment of future bonds and interest. After reviewing the various assumptions projected, w have determined that thc, 1966-76 Improvement Bond Fund and the 1980 Improvement Bond Fund will not require tax levies so the levies will he cancelled each year. In fact, those two funds indicate sure lusses at the f i ra 1 payment of a l l bonds as shown on Pages 1 and 2. The projections are extended through 25 years due to the computer program, however each fund will be closed after the completion of the spacial assessment levies and the final maturities of bonds issued. The 1982 Improvement Bond Fund on Page 3 indicates the need for support other than special assessments in the last two years, 1998 and 1999. However with the fluctuations possible in the investments earnings rates and other variables over the next ten years, a tax levy need not be established at this time and is not recommended. The 1985 Improvement Bond Fund has two forecasts on Pages 4 and 5. The forecast on Page 4 reflects the situation if no tax levy is approved and shows a negative cash balance beginning in 1991. The forecast on Page 5 includes +-he effects of tax levies under the "Other Receipts" column. At that forecast, the fund will be solvent. It should be noted that the situtation will continue to be monitored and the levy adjusted as needed. The tax levy resolution has been included in this agenda as a separate item for Council actirn. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Menibe> . Fres: Mark E. BPrnhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending acceptance. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , secondeu by , to accept th^ Spe( i Assessment Cash Flow Forecast Report by Pannell Kerr Forstr prosenL�J. Ay,_ , nays CITY OF ORONO ORONO, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CASH FLOW FORECAST PREPARED AUGUST 24, 1988 PANNELL KERR FORSTER Ce,tified Public Accountants 410 Park National Bank Bldg 5353 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis. MN 55416 Telephone (612) 545.0421 City Council and Administration City of Orono Orono, Minnesota We have compiled the accompanying forecasted sources and uses of cash of the City's Special Assessment Debt Service Funds for the periods ending December 31, 1988, and subsequent years of the individual bond issues, in accordance with standards established by the Pnerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The accompanying presentations and this report were prepared to assist the City in determining required future funding of its Special Assessment Debt Fund: and should not be used for any other purpose. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of a forecast information that is the representation of management and does not include evaluation of the major assumptions underlying the forecast. We have not examined the forecast and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accompanying statements or assumptions. Furthermore, '.here will usually be differences between the forecasted and u�tual results, because events and ci-- cumstances frequently do :lot occur as expected, and those differences may be material. We have no responsibility to update this report for evens and cir— cumstances occurring after the date of this report. August 24, 1988 ------------- PANMELL KERR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORECAST PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- FORSTER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BASE INFORMATION AND DATA FOR CASH FORECAST: CLIENT.................................CITY OF ORONO FLND NAME..............................1%6-76 MPROVE)ENT BONDS FIRST YEAR TO FORECAST ................. 1988 BEGINNING CAF4 & INVESTMENT BALANCE.... 649,301 ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE ON INVESTMENTS. 6.50 ROLL 1 ROLL 2 ROLL 3 ROLL 4 ROLL 5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION BY ROLL (IF APPLICABLE):--------•--- --------------------------------- ------•----- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PRINCIPAL BALANCE ................ 103,364 0 0 0 0 INTEREST RATE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ................ 8.007 0.00% 0.00% O.00X 0.00% YEARS REMAINING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .............. 3 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORECAST OF CASH FLOW: BEGINNING R E C E I P T S INVESTMENT D I S B U R S E M E N T S ENDING CASH& ------------------------ INTEREST -------------------------------------------------- CASH & INVESTMENT SPECIAL EARNED BOND BOND FISCAL INVESTMENT YEAR BALANCE ASSESSMENTS OTHER (CHARGED) FRINCIPAL INTEREST ----------- AGENT ---------------•------- OTHER BALANCE ----------- ---- 1988 ----------- 649,301 ---------------------- 42,722 48,318 ----------- 40,094 ----------- 11,51000 30,444 50 500 624,441 1989 624,441 39,966 15,912 36,783 150,000 22,425 50 500 544,127 1990 544,127 37,210 31,246 150,000 13,500 50 500 448,533 1991 448,5M 0 24,116 159,000 4,500 50 500 317,599 1992 317,599 0 20,644 338,243 1993 338,243 0 21,980 360,L19 1994 360,229 0 23,415 383,644 1995 383,644 0 24,97 408,581 1996 409,581 0 26,335.8 435.139 1997 435,139 0 28,284 463,423 1998 463,423 0 30,122 493,545 1999 493,545 0 02,0P0 525,625 2000 525,625 0 34,166 559,791 2001 559,791 0 36,3R6 5%,177 2002 5%,177 0 38,752 634,929 2003 634,929 0 41,270 676,199 2004 676,199 0 43,953 720,152 2005 720,152 0 46,810 766,962 2006 766, %1 0 49,853 816,815 1007 816,815 0 53,093 869,908 2008 869,908 G 56,544 926,452 2009 926,452 0 60,219 986,671 2010 986,671 0 64,134 1,050,805 2011 1,050,805 0 68,302 1,119,107 2012 --------------------------------•--------------•-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,119,107 0 72,742 1,191,849 SEE ACCDINTANTS' REPORT LETTER ON COMPILATION AND RMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FORECAST ASSLW TIONS AND FOUCIES N PANNELL KERR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORECAST PRO6RAM FORSTER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•- BASE INFORMIATION AND DATA FOR CASH FORECAST: CLIENT.................................CITY OF ORONO FUND NAME..............................1980 IMPROVEMENT BONDS FIRST YEAR TO FORECAST ................. 1988 BEGINNING CASH 8 INVESTMENT BALANCE.... 455,988 ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE ON INVESTMENTS. 6.50 ROLL 1 ROLL 2 ROLL 3 ROLL 4 ROLL 5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION BY ROLL (IF APPLICABLE):------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL ASSES" PRINCIPAL BALANCE ................ 331,813 0 0 0 0 INTEREST RATE ON SPECIAL ASSES"S...... .......... 9.50% 0.00% 0.00% O.00% 0.00% YEARS REMAINING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .............. 8 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORECAST OF CASH FLOW: BEGINNING R E C E I P T S INVESTMENT D I S B U R S E M E N T S ENDING CASH L ------------------------ INTEREST --------•----------------------------------------- CASH 8 INVESTMENT SPECIAL EARNED BOND BOND FISCAL INVESTMENT YEAR BALANCE ASSESSMENTS OTHER (CHARGED) PRINCIPAL INTEREST ----------- AGENT -------------------- OTHER - BALANCE ----------- -- - 19% ---•-------- 455,988 ---------------------•• 72,"- 23,464 ----------- z8,635 ----------- 75,000 51,975 !00 275 453,734 1989 453,734 69,057 27,783 75,000 46,275 106 275 428,924 1990 428,924 65,117 26,233 75,000 40,425 ICO 275 404,474 1991 404,474 61,177 14,709 75,000 34,463 100 275 380,522 1992 380,522 57,236 23,219 75,000 28,463 100 275 357,139 1993 357,139 53,296 21,769 75,000 12,388 100 275 334,441 1994 334,441 49,356 20,368 755,000 16,163 100 275 112,627 1995 312,627 45,416 19,029 75,000 9,788 100 275 ?1909 1996 291,909 0 16,418 75,000 3,281 100 275 3,571 1997 229,671 0 14,529 _44,600 1998 244,600 0 15,899160,499 19" 260,499 0 16.932 277,431 200C 277,431 0 18,033 295,464 2001 295,464 0 19,205 314,669 20C2 314,669 0 20,453 335,122 2003 335,12 0 21,783 356,905 2004 356,905 0 23,199 380,104 2005 380,104 0 24,707 404,811 2006 404,811 0 26,313 431,124 2007 431,124 j 28,023 459,147 2008 459,147 0 29,845 4b8.9r, 2009 488,992 0 31,784 520,776 2010 520,776 0 33.850 554 626 2011 554,626 0 36,051 590,677 2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 590,677 0 38,394 629,071 SEE ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT LETTER ON COMPILATION AND 51MARY OF SIGNIFICANT FORECAST AS'31JPTIONS AND POLICIES ------------- PAhNELL KERB SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORECAST PRO6RAM FORSTER -------------------------•------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BASE INFORMATION AND DATA FOR CASH FORECAST: CLIENT.................................CITY OF ORONO FUND FAME..............................1982 IMPROVEMENT BONDS FIRST YEAR 10 FORECAST ................. 1988 BEGINNING CASH 6 INVESTMENT BALANCE.... 219,629 ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE ON INVESTMENTS. 6.50% ROLL 1 ROLL 2 ROLL 3 ROLL 4 ROLL 5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION BY ROLL (IF APPLICABL.E):------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PRINCIPAL BALANCE ................ 10,080 23,617 5,145 0 0 INTEREST RATE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ................ 9.70% 9.70" 9.70% 0.00% 0.00% YEARS REMAINING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .............. 1 6 1 0 0 ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•------------------- F7RECAST OF CASH FLOW: BEGINNING R E C E I P T S INVESTMENT D I S B U R S E M E N T S ENDING CASHL ------------------------ INTEREST -------------------------------------------------- CASH 6 INVESTMENT SPECIAL EARNED BOND BOND FISCAL INVESTMENT YEAR ---- BALfiNCE ----------- ASSESSMENTS OTHER ----------- (CHARGED) PRINCIPAL INTEREST AGENT OT)ER BALANCE 19F„ 219,629 ----------- 22,927 58,219 ----------- 13,728 ----------- 75,000 ----------- 22,650 ---------------------- 165 200 ----------- 216,488 1989 216,488 5,044 12,042 501000 17,938 165 ?00 166,071 1990 166,071 5,463 9,661 25,000 14,988 165 200 140,842 1"1 140,842 5,081 8,075 25,000 12,925 165 200 115,708 1992 115,708 4,699 6,654 20,000 11,000 165 200 95,6% 1993 9516% 4,317 .554 15,000 0,450 165 200 80,752 1994 80,752 0 4,487 15,000 81081 165 200 61,793 1995 61,793 0 3,300 15,000 6,675 165 200 43,053 19% 43.OSt 0 2,129 15,000 5,231 165 200 24,586 1997 24,586 0 977 15,000 3,750 165 200 6,448 1998 6,448 0 (1531 15,000 2,250 165 200 (11,320) 1999 (11,320) 0 (1,260) 15,000 750 165 200 (28,695) 2000 (28,695) 0 (1,K5) (30,560) 2001 (30,560) 0 (11980) (32,346) 2002 (32,54) 0 (2,115) (34,661) 2003 (34,661r 0 (2,253) (36,914) 2004 (36,914) 0 (2,399) (39,313) 05 139,313) 0 (2,555) (41,868) 6 (41,868) 0 (2,721) (44,589, 2007 (44,589) 0 (2,9%) (47,487) 2008 (47,487) 0 (3,087) (50,57;) 2009 (50,574) 0 13,i8i1 (53,861) 2010 (53,861) 0 (3,501) (57,362) 2011 '57,362) 0 (31729) (61,091) 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•---------------------------- (6!,091) 0 (3,971) (65,06") SEE AGCOLWTANTS' REPORT LETTER ON COMPILATION AND SU*IAPt OF SIGNIFICANT FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS 40 POLICIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORECAST PROGRAM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BASE INFORMATION AND DATA FOR CASH FORECAST: CLIENT.................................CITY OF ORONO FIX NAME..............................1985 IMPROVEMENT BONDS FIRST YEAR TO FORECAST ................. 1988 BEGINNING CASH & INVESTMENT BALANCE.... 129,777 ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE ON INVESTMENTS. 6.50% ------------- PANNELL )nR FORSTER ------------------------------------------ ROLL 1 ROLL 2 ROLL 3 ROLL 4 ROLL 5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION BY ROLL (IF APPLICABLE):------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PRINCIPAL BALANCE ................ 299,079 40,015 0 0 0 INTEREST RATE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ................ 9.20% 9.20% 0.00%, 0.00% 0.00 YEARS REMAINING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .............. 13 13 0 0 0 --------------------------------------------------•----------------------------------------------------------------------- FORECAST OF CASH FLOW: BEGINNING R E C E I P T S INVESTMENT D I S B U R S E M E N T S ENDING CASH& ------------------------ INTERFST -------------------------------------------------- CASH & INVESTMENT SPECIAL EARNED BOND BOND FISCAL INVESTMENT YEAR BALANCE ASSESSMENTS OTHER (CHARGED) PRINCIPAL INTEREST ---------------------- AGENT ----------- OTHER BALANCE ----------- ---- 1988 ----------- 129,777 ---------------------- 57,280 40,046 ----------- 7,954 ----------- 50.000 60,650 500 11000 122,907 1989 122,907 54,880 6.245 50,00) 57,525 500 500 75,507 1990 75,507 52,480 3,191 50,000 54,275 500 500 25,904 1991 25,904 50,080 0 50,00(' 50,900 500 500 (25,916) 1992 (25,916) 47,680 (3,658) 60,000 47,400 500 500 (90,294) 1993 (90.294) 45,281 (7,780) 60,000 43,080 500 500 (156.873) 1994 (156,873) 42,881 (12,041) 60,000 38,640 560 500 (215,6-13) 1995 (225,673) 40,482 (16,443) 60,000 34,080 500 500 (196,714) 1996 (296,714) 38,081 (20,987) 60,000 29,400 500 500 (370,020) 1997 (370,020) 35,682 (26,161) 75,000 24,600 500 500 (461,099) 1998 (461,099) 33,:e2 (31,%2) 75,000 18,525 500 500 (554,304) 1999 (554.304) 30,883 (37,898) 75,000 12,375 500 500 (649,694) 2000 (649,694) 28,483 (43,975) 75,000 6,187 500 500 (741,3713) 2001 (747,373) 0 (48,579) (795,952) 1001 UK,952) 0 (51,737) (847,-.89) 2003 (847,689) 0 (55,100) (901,739) 2004 (902,789) 0 (58,681) (961,470) 2005 (961,470) 0 (62,4%) (1,023,966) 2006 (1,023,966) 0 (66,558) (1,090,524) 2007 (1,090,524) 0 (70,884) (1,161,408) 2008 (1,161,408) 0 (75,492) (1,236,900) 2009 (1,136,900) 0 (80,399) (1,317,299) 2010 (1,317,299) 0 (85,624) (1,402,913) 2011 (1,402,923) 0 (91,190) (1.494,113) 2012 ------------------------------------------------- (1,494,113) 0 (97,117) ------------• -------------------- ------------------------------------- (1,591,230) SEE ACCOWTANTS' REPORT LETTER ON COMPILATION AND SL"WY OF SIGNIFICANT FORECAST ASSLWTIONS AND POLICIES I/ ------------- PANMELL. KERR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORECAST PROGRAM FORSTER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BASE INFORMATION AND DATA FOR CASH FORECAST: CLIENT.................................CITY OF ORONO FUND NAME..............................1985 IMPROVEMENT BONDS, WITH ESTIMATED AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FIRST YEAR TO FORECAST ................. 1988 BEGINNING CASH E INVESTMENT BALANCE.... 129,777 ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE ON INVESTMENTS. 6.50% ROLL 1 ROLL 2 ROLL 3 ROLL 4 ROLL 5 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION BY ROLL (IF APPLICABLE):-------•--- ----------- ----------- ---------------------- SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PRINCIPAL BALANCE ................ 299,079 40,015 0 0 0 INTEREST RATE ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ................ 9.20% 9.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% YEARS REMAINING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS .............. 13 13 0 0 0 FORECAST OF CASH FLOW: BEGINNING R E C E I P T S INVESTMENT D I S B U R S E M E N T S ENDING CASHk ------------------------ INTEREST -------------------------------------------------- CASH H INVESTMENT SPECIAL EARNED BOND BOND FISCAL INVESTMENT YEAR BALANCE ASSESSMENTS OTHER (CHARGED) PRINCIPAL INTEREST ----------- AGENT ----------- ---- OTHER ------ BALANCE ----------- ---- 1988 ----------- 129,777 ---------------------- 57,280 40,046 ----------- 7,954 ----------- 50,000 60,650 500 11000 122,907 1989 122,907 54,380 30,000 7,220 50,000 57,525 500 500 106,482 1990 106,482 52,480 30,000 61180 50,000 54,275 500 500 89,867 19°1 39,867 50,080 35,000 5,295 50.000 50,900 500 500 78,342 1°92 78,342 47,680 40,000 4,419 60,000 47,400 500 500 62,041 993 62,041 45,281 50,000 5,747 60,000 43,080 500 500 56,989 1994 56,989 42,881 50,000 3,485 60,000 38,640 SCO 500 53,715 1995 53,715 40,482 50,000 3,342 60,000 34,080 500 50n 52,459 1996 52,459 38,081 50,000 3,334 60,000 29,400 500 500 2,474 1997 53,474 35,682 50,000 2,991 75,000 24,600 500 500 41,547 1998 41,547 33,282 50,000 2,335 75,000 18,525 500 5u0 32,639 1999 32,639 30,883 50,060 1,818 75,000 12,375 500 500 27,025 2000 27,025 28,48-3 50,000 1,636 75,000 6,187 500 500 24,957 2001 24,E 7 0 1,622 ?61579 2002 26,579 0 1,728 48,307 2003 28,307 0 1,840 30,147 2004 30,147 0 11960 32,107 2005 32,107 0 2,087 34,194 2006 34,194 0 2,223 36,41' 200' 36,417 0 2,367 38,784 2008 38,784 0 2,521 41,305 2009 41,305 0 2,685 43,990 2010 43,990 0 2,859 46,849 2011 46,849 0 3,045 49,894 2012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49,894 0 3,243 53,137 SEE ACC0(1NTANTS' REPORT LETTER ON COMPILATION AND SUM WV OF SIriNIFICANT FORECAST ASSLW-,IOKS AND POLICIES s' CITY OF ORONO ORONO, MINNESOTA Summary of Significant Forecast Assumptions and Policies (See Accountants' Compilation Report) This financial forecast presents each Debt Service Fund of the City of Orono which are finan•c�d primarily through Special Assesoment Levies. The City typically prepares its Debt Service Funds' financial statements oil tea modified accrual basis of accounting; however. the purpose of this forecast is to present sources, uses, and availability c_ cash and, accordingly, it is pre- pared on the cash basis of accounting. The assumptions disclosed herein are those that the City believes are signifi- cant to the forecast. The forecast reflects the City's judgement of expected conditions and their expected course of action based on information available as of August 24, 1988. Readers should note that there will usually be differences between the forecasted and actual results because events and circumstances fre- quently do not occur as expected and those differences may be material. For additional information, readers should refer to audited financial statements and footnotes for December 31, 1987, and prior years. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS Iucerest earned on investments is computed based on an average annual cash and investment balance at an average annual rate of 6.5%. Accrued interest and due from other governmental units as of December 31, 1987, are assumed to be collected in the subsequent year unless indicated o'herwise. Provisions for prepayment of Deferred Special Assessments are not included since eventually these will be levied during the term of the assessment fund and the interest earned on the assessment approximates the irterest earned on the resulting cash provided by the prepayment. The forecasts of cash flow are extended through a 25-year period; however, each fund is closed soon after the completion of Special Assessment Levies and the final maturities of bonds issue+ Cash provided by ad valorem tax levies (even if sc-eduled) is not incluu,-d in this forecast other than those certified in 1987 f r collectior_ in 1988. The following S_hedule of Future Ad Valorem Property TaAes are available for certification: 1980 1982 1985 Year Improvement Improvement Improvement Total Collectible Bonds Bonds Bonds Levies 1988 $ - $ - $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1989 18,100 - - 18,100 1990 17,700 - - 17,700 1991 17,300 - - 17,300 1992 16.800 - - 16,800 1993 16,100 - - 16,100 1994 15,300 400 - 15,700 1995 14,400 1,200 - 15,600 1996 - 700 - 700 1997 - 600 - 600 i998 - 500 - 500 $ 115,700 $32400 $ 30,000 $1491100 The forecast titled "1985 Improvement Bonds, With Estimated Ad Valorem Property lax Levies" includes ad valorem property tax levies under the receipts column "Other" of the following amounts: Year Collectible Tax Levy 1988 $ 30,000 (already certified in 1987) 1989 30,000 1990 35,000 1991 40,000 1992-2000 50,000 (for each year) Delinquent taxes and special assessment receivables are assumed to be consist-nt from year to year ..tnd also to approximate the eventual uncollectible amount. A collection of avproximately $48,000 of Delinquent Special Assessments in May 1988 is included in the 1982 Improvement Bond Fund under other receipts for 1988. Due from other funds of $31,824 in the 1966-76 Improvement Bond Fund are assumed to be received 50% in 1988 and 50X in 1989. Due from other funds of $40,015 in the 1985 Improvement Bond Fund represent Special Assessments on City parcels and are spread similar to normal Special 4ssessments. The principal of Deferred Special Assessment Levies of .ne 1985 Improv-mt dond Fund have been reduced by $47,000 in anticipation of the contested assessments relating to the Art Center. y 92688.2HD To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator' Cate: September 20, 1988lNG Subjectr Spring Hill Conference Center - Closure S"P 2 8 I,�i,.}� ATTACHMENT 9F PRORG A. Letter to Spring Hill Dated 9/15/88 ISSUE - Apprising the CoLncil of the steps taken by the City -4r relationship to the anticipated closure of Spring Hill. INTRODUCTION - As you may be aware, Spring Hill has announced that the operation as a non -prof it center wi 11 cease to exist in November of this year. DISCUSSION_ - The initial concerns for the closure of the center relate both zoning and finance. The attached letter highlights the zoning issue, as noted, that the current conference center property has a permitted use for a non-profit conference center. The ordinance also allows for a wider variety of uses other than as a conference center. It was felt by staff that the Cit} need:d to send the conference center a notice as to what possibilities the} may have so that they do not undertake serious discussions with a use that currently would not be allowed. Additionally, it s. oulc be noted that the property abut-ing the center that they currently own is zoned single famil} residential and would be allowe' only to be used for single famil% residences or other items permited in such zones. Se(-nnd ly, the City has for a number of -•ears, received a donation in lieu of t? . from the conference center giver; Lhe fact that they have been able tc mai .,:ain themselves as a tax exr.apt property. On the one hand, this tar exempt status may change depending on the determination by Hennepin Cjunt} and also the use to whic,i they out to the property. On the ;ether hand it is anticipated that thoy will sL_.; making the annual contribution of about $5.500, that they hav(- • •axle in the past. Spring Hill Conference Center - Closure Date Sept:..nber 20, 1988 Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Give staff direction as to what actions, if any, further the would like to have the City take in relationship with this matter wit Spring Hill. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the informatio- at this point as staff does not feel that there are other actions that i take in relationship to this matter. Should further discussion ding the property and its use be unA- --taken by Spring Hill with th of Orono, the City can perhaps take i_ cher action. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , . 3conded by , that the Council accep the information from staf as it relates to the Spring Hill Conferenc Center. Ayes , nays cc: Jeanne Mabusth Tom Kuehn Dave Wilde CITYof ORONO Pwt O(Ra Boa 68•Cryml BRY. MiAo�ta J29•M.nidp.l Oala. • • • On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 15, 1988 Jan Smaby, president Spring Rill Conference Center 725 Sixth Avenue North _ Wayzata, MN 55391 - Re: Spring Bill Conference Uses Dear Me. Smaby, This letter is written to express the City of Orono9s regret as to your decision to close S. ring Bill Conference Center. The City has felt the Center has e a number of good things over the years and has been a good ,sident• in the City of Orono. This is considered unfortunat Iat you had to make the choice you did, but understand why that .,3ision had to be made. Additionally it should be noted that the Conference Center is zoned RR-1B-1 and has been a permitted use under that zone as follows: Section '. 0.29 Subd. 2. Additional permitted Use. Study and research centers owned or operated by one or more non-profit charitable, scientific or educational organizations, provided that no building other than a residence shall be located within 100 feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in any •R" district. Additionally it should be noted that other parcels that are owned by the Center that are not combined with the Center are under a strictly single family residential zoning. This information is provided to you to help you better look at the options for utilization of the Center's facilities and property in the future. To the extent that the utilization of the Center will be other than its current purposes it is suggested that you contact the City regarding the applicable zoning regulations. •Ue.eWr a lewMG - 9117U7 • AMNOTIATON a iINANQ - Obtlel • ml•LIC wORKJ - 973�7M9 Axlffsw G Jan Smaby Spring Bill Conference Center September 15, 1988 page 2 Again, I wish to express the City's regrets that you have found it necessary to close and wish the Directors and staff of the Center the beat in whatever direction their future endeavors take them. ilkncere�l 'a , E. Ber daon City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building S Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Asst Planning S Zoning Administrator Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director cpl TO: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator FROM: Jack BrinkhaUB, Street Department ForemaZOUNCIL MEE P DATE: September 8, 1988 SEP 281988 SDBJ: Fall Clean-up Day - October 15, 1988 r"r., riff `��•p � The City of Orono Public Works Department is planning a fall clean-up day on Saturday, October 15, 1988 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The collection point will be behind the long, gold equipment shed at Brown Road South and Spates Avenue in Cryetal Bay, next to the Administration Building. The following items will NOT be accepted: tires garbage trees brush chemicals truck loads barrels, drums, chemical containers, petrolium products or containers Leaves and small items will have to be bagged and tied. Newspapers and all paper products must be tied securely. ORONO RESIDENTS ONLY! TO: Mayor and City Council ��FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato Forwarded recommending designation. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _, seconded by _ , to des:. ;rate October 15, 1988 as Orono Fall Clean-up Day. Ayes _, nays 92688.2RD TO: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Prate: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Date: September 20, 1988 �QU��,a mhfTN Subject: Temporary Transfer Station 8 ATTACHMENTS - 2 19�r� A. City of Orono Letter Dated 9/15/88 or B. Temporary Transfer Station Memo Dated 9/1/8R ORU.Itg ISSUE - Providing the Council with information regarding steps the City staff has taken in relating to the proposed temporary transfer station at the Hennepin County Maintenance Garage. INTRODUCTION - As noted last time in Attachment A, the County was re - designating all their maintenance facilities as temporary transfer stations prior to the completion of the permanent stations. DISCUSSION - The City has transmitted Attachment A to apprise the County as to the land use restrictions that currently exist on their property. The County apparently does have an override of local zoning authority as it relates to solid waste. The County has expand the list to a total of 22 sites. It is anticipated that they will then reduce this number to 6 to 8 over the next six months. Prior to selection of these sites the county is to be in contact with each of the City's to discuss their site. Given this it was felt that attendance at the hearing on September 22th would not be productive but will monitor the situation as it progresse and keep the Council apprised of the situation. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information provided by staff. 2. Provide direction to staff as to other actions that should be taken in relationship to this matter. Temporary Transfer Station September 20, 1988 Page 2 of 2 3. Direct staff to actively lobby for this not to be used as a transfer station. 4. Request staff keep Council apprised of the progress. 5. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the information be accepted to this point and the City monitor the situation keeping Council apprised of the situation. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the staff information on this matter directing staff to monitor the situation keeping Council apprised of the situation. Ayes _, nays _. 9288.2HD To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: September 1, 1988 Subject: Proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station Hennepin County Truck Station - Orono On August 29, 1988, the City of Orono received a notice from Hennepin County explaining designatipns of Solid Waste Transfer Stations, permanent and temporary (see attached). The notice stated that the Hennepin County Truck Station, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Orono, was designated as a temporary transfer station. On August 31, 1988, I talked to Vern Genzlinger, Associate County Administrator. Vern explained that the notice was very broad and did not explain the program clearly. On September 1, 1988, I received a call from Dave Winter regarding the temporary site program. Mr. Winter stated that Hennepin County listed an inventory of all County properties that may possibly be used for temporary sites. If a temporary site is confirmed it will be a "Weight Station" and not a transfer station. I explained the procedures they would have to follow to use the Orono site and he stated that if there are too many problems they probably would not use the Orono site. To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members0.j Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato Attachment - A. Hennepin County Letter Dated 8/26/88 This is presented as information only at this time. The City is transmitting a letter indicting the limitations and procedures related to use of this site which is abutting significant wetlands in relation to use for solid waste (garbage) purposes and will probably attend the September 22nd hearing if deemed necessary. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by_, seconded by_, that the Orono City Council accept the information regarding the temporary transfer status designation requesting staff to keep Council informed ..a the issue. Ayes _, nays CITYof ORONO Pat Off. B9a fi4.Cry.W Rey. Mina.99fa 36323.afvaidpei Of ffm . e e On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 15, 1988 Mr. Vern Genzlinger Assistant County Administrator Hennepin County 2488 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Re: Hennepin County Maintenance Station - 3888 Shoreline Drive Dear Vern, This letter is written in response to the proposed ordinance change In which Hennepin County has designated the above referenced facility, together with all its other facilities in the County, as a temporary transfer station for the County's Solid Waste Management Ordinance. It is our present understanding that the County's intent for this site is to use it strictly as a weighing point to direct various private haulters to the appropriate off-load site, and not as an actual 'transfer station'. As you may be aware, the zoning on this property in the City of Orono is LR-lC which is a single family residential zoning. while municipal buildings are a permitted use within any of the residential zones in the City, the use as a County maintenance facility however, is neither a permitted nor a conditional use as strictly set forth under the zoning code. we are aware that the zoning of this site was commercial in 1962 when the facility was constructed, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1978's, hence continued use of the property for your maintenance facility has been considered a nonconforming use since that date. I would note for the record that City files provide no indication that the County applied for a *nonconforming conditional use permit* for continued use of the maintenance facility, although such a permit was required and well publicized at that time. In any case, because the current use is nonconforming, the County cannot expand the nonconforming use without receiving approval from the City. WUJMGa ZONING -919Ar71 • ♦MMISTxAnON a nN. Cr-01ap. a MBL:C WORM -91bt99 Aa4elea9G Mr. Vern Genzlinger September 15, 1988 page 2 Your proposed additionaluse as a transfer/weigh station would be considered as an expansion of a nonconforming use, and does require City approval. As you will note in the attached letter, the City has received past complaints regarding the level of use of the facility. It is likely that any substantial change in the level or type of activity would again generate such complaints. The City of Orono does appreciate the County's cooperation in the past regarding use of this facility and looks forward to similar cooperation. Sincerely, VrkE.MBernhardson City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council Dave Winter, Hennepin County John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator April 11, 1983 i Robb Jr. PCITY FORONk" Hennepin County CommissionerHennepin County Coverrent Center300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hobby we, the undersigned neighboring residents, must register our complains concerning the county 'Transportation Department Truck Statior located on County Road 15 at Dunwoody Avenue In Orono. While the area is zoned residential and quite heavily Populated, the following activities take place with regularity, I. Storage, mixing and hauling of materials for asphalt road repair. 2. Storage, mixing and hauling of salt and and for snow and ice control. 3. Dead elm storage and processing including cutting and chipping. 4. ,:ad of trucks and loaders used in the above activities with resultant, a. Use of truck air horns as a means of communication. b. Warning bells sounding as vehicles back up. c. Hanging of steel boxes and tailgates when sand and gravel is dumped. No attempt has be,n made to screen the facility visually from the surrounding residences and the constant nolee pollution, (continuing often past y P, nI.), is certainly a violation of standards for residential areas both statutory and civil. We must go a step further and demand that the station's use be investigated, that the activities of an industrial nature ceaue, and that its uses be restricted to those more compatible with a residential area such as a visu vehicle storage and maintenance area. ally screened In conclusion, we recognize that the station is bordered on the north by railroad right-of-way, but while the four or five trains a week are no core than a pleasant diversion, the county facility is a nearly constant, and growing, irritation that is completely uncal lea for. Thank you for your attention to this matter. eerl�pyl,� " !s .:. /�.r�so�nd :Arnaru of attaaheb page. Copier,, amity of Sprinrr Park Officials .•ity of Orono 4fflclals E E Roos.p IMOM{ DCnRD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNAIR NT GEN TER M IN NEAPOEI3. MINNESOTA 1S4.1 April 13, 1983 Dennis Erickson Box 1 Spring Park, MN 55384 Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for your letter concerning the Hennepin Avenue locall' on County Road 15 at p Avenue in County Department for r have ivrwarded same to Transportation which can be review and correction of those our rancportatlon corrected. your concerns Let me assure you, Hennepin Counry seeks to be end a good public servant. This main tenence obviously necessar good neighbor area in the countyY CO serve a significant and t;m ion is portant Please assure your neighboring residents that naremthelf will do everything possible to causes for county staff Your ^omplsince m--tigale or elimi- Sinc ly yo sjl'n/ E VRj EFR/mf I 92688.2HD To: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members Frost: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato+1 Date: September 20, 1988 Subject: Animal Permit Ordinance COUK'1 F-Ef*'Gj ATTACHMENTS - SEP281�1,'.- A. Animal Permit Ordinance Memo Dated 9/7/88 V OF OR00 ISSUE - Determination as to whether the Council wa tb to adopt the Ordinance as proposed. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's September 12th, 1988 meeting, staff Presented the attached amendment for Council consideration and comment. DISCUSSION - The amendment was presented tonight to see if there is any further commenttogether with request for adoption. ALTERNATIVES - Same Alternatives as the 9/7/88 memo. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the ordinance for the regulation of permits for animals. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt Ordinance Second Series, as an amendment to Ordinance 913. ;. as nays cc: Melvin Rilbo, Chief of Police 9783.4 TO: Mayor and Lity Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: SeptemFer 7, 1988 SUBJECT: Animal Permit - Ordinance Amendment Attachments: A. Animal Control Regulation Memo Dated 5/3/88 (Memo Only) B. Proposed Ordinance Amendment C. Draft Permit Form D. Proposed Fee Ordinance Amendment F. Orono Ordinance 9.13 ISSUE 1. Determination by the Council whether they desire to amend the current urdinance to establish the basic requirements for a permit currently required by the ordinance. 2. Establishment of a :ee for inspections for such permits. INTRODUCTION - This past May tLe issue of the City requiring nnlmal permits was raised by one of the residents when tie City was attempting to have his dogs licensed. He pointed out that the City requirr_ animal permits on horses and other types of farm animals, but the City had no permit process in place. DISCUSSION - After a review of the ordinance by staff and BeveIopment of a permit system Attachment B was developed and -utlines the issues that the staff would like to have addressed „y ordinance in order to implement this permit system. 1. Defining which are required to be licensed. 2. Addressing the issue of those who automatically received a permit based on their established usage level prior to 1984. 3. Indicate that no permits will be issued without inspection. 4. Indicate who is required to review permit prior to permit issuance. S. Indication that the permit shall be for a maximum type and number and not by individual animal. 6. Cross-reference to zoning chapter regarding various animals. 7. Length of time for permit. 1 In addition Attachment D outlines the fee for inspections f?r these types of permits. A follow up insp-ction would only be conducted upon failure to meet the appropriate criteria or, the initial inspection or upon a follow-up inspection where on a complaint basis violations were found. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt as presented 2. Amend and adopt 3. Delete requirement for the permitting the animals apart from dogs 4. Table for further consideration RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council discuss with staff initial concerns they may have and that this matter be tabled until September 26, 1988 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by�, seconded by ; that the Council following discussion table Xhis m t er until the September 2r., 1988 Council meeting. Ayes X, Nay. cc: Mel Kilbo, Police Chief 2 Q A TOz Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: May 3, 1988 SUBJIPCTz Animal Control Regulations Attachment A. Orono police Report P88-882367 B. City of Orono Ordinances 9.12 and 9.13 C. Ordinance #157 (repealed) D. Ordinance P239 (repealed) E. John Hollander Letter Dated 4/29/88 ISSUE 1. Review of the City's dog licensing ordinance and its applicability. 2. Review of the City's kennel licensing ordinance and its applicability. 3. Review of the City's farm animal regulation and its applicability. INTRODUCTION - On Thursday, April 28th C.S.O. Dennison was called to :00 Rollander Road by the resident regarding live trapping of a raccoon. When C.S.O. Dennison arrived the owner was not home, but in his search for the owner he noted several violations on the property and issued warning tags for the fact that the three dogs on the property are not currently licensed and that there was no kennel license in existence together with the fact that there was substantial feces that evidently had not been cleaned up for several days. He did remove the raccoon that had been trapped for role -se near the Orono schools. (Mr. Hollander claims he drowned it.) The owner has said that he had never licensed the dogs nor been required to have a kennel for the dogs and that there was a gentlemen's agreement with the City regarding this. The City is unaware of that and even it the City instituted its licensing arrangements for those substantially after the owner had his practice 1n txistance since 1956 and did not require a license, it is staffs position a license is still required. While in the land use area the provision of grandtathering is subject to a conditicnal use permit does have some presedence, as a legal non- contorming use, a licensing statute generally has immediate applicablIty to all persons who tall under the category. Mr. Hollander indicates Mr. Dick Benson, former City Administrator and Emerson Dressel, former Orono Police Sgt. indicated he did not need them. Mr. Hollander ad, tionally has a problem in be ng able to 1 determine when his dogs had their most recent rabies shots, as the veterinarian to whom he had last had them, is currently in a dispute with Mr. Hollander regarding unpaid fees on some other animals and will not release Information. The concern by Mr. Hollander is that if rabies shots are given in less than a year's period, there is some danger to the animals. The City has made attempts to get in contact with the veternarian, but to no avail " his point. At this point Mr. Hollander is alleging that his n ibors are also guilty of the regulation under which he was 9 a a tag. His claim was that the C.S.O. would not take action on that. Lt. Cheswick did investigate the matter as it relates to the other neighbors but found no basis for a violation. Mr. Hollander is also inquiring as to the City-s permitting process reguarding farm animals under Subd 7 of Section 9.13. While this was adopted as part of the recodification in 1984, no system was ever developed. The requirement does not make a distinction for animal keeping by urban or rural however the zoning code requires 1 acre per animal unit (1 horse, 1 cow/steer, 3 sheep, 58 fowl) plus 1 acre for the prinicipal structure (2 acres if horses are involved.) Such a process would not be a license such as a dog license of the animal but a permit to the resident regarding keeping of animals. (Prior to 1984 there was provision for a Village Livestock Commission relating to permits for horses but no requirement for such permits. It was eliminated by the recodification.) ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. Dog Licensing a. Amend the ordinance to allow for grandfathering. b. Require a licensing of all dogs establishing a date by which the licensing has to be accomplished. C. Table d. Amend the ordinance to delete the licensing requirement. e. Amend the ordinance as it relates to the 24 hour feces requirement removal. (9.12 Subd 11/6) Issue 2. Kennel Licensing a. Amend the ordinance to allow for grandfathering. b. Require a licensing of all dogs establishing a date by which the licensing has to be accomplished. c. Table d. Amend the ordinance to delete the licensing requirement. Issue 3. Farm Animal Regulation a. Amend the ordinance not to require permits. b. Direct staff to develop a permit system. C. Table for further discussion. d. Amend ordinance to require permits only in the urban section of the community provided all zoning amendments are met. Issue 1. It is recommended that the Council require that all the dogs be licensed and that such be done by May 31, 1988. Issue 2. Kennel Licensing - Let Mr. Hollander apply for a residential kennel license and that such be completed no later than May 30, 1988. Issue 3. Farm Aninal Regulation - The City establish a permit system for farm animals . PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct Mr. Hollander to apply for and receive a dog license no later than May 11, 1988 together with a residential kennel license and that staff be directed to develop a permit system for farm animals. Ayes , Nays cc: John Hollander RECOMMENDATION Issue 1. It is recommended that the Council require that all the dogs be licensed and that such be done by May 31, 1988. Issue 2. Renntl Licensing - Let Mr. Hollander apply for a residential kennel license and that such be completed no later than May 30, 1988. Issue 3. Farm Aninal Regulation - The City establish a permit system for farm animals. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct Mr. Hollander to apply for and receive a dog license no later than May 31, 1988 together with a residential kennel license and that staff be directed to develop a permit system for farm animals. Ayes , Nays cc: John Hollander 9788.1 T fAQ. WEUr B ORDINANCE NO. r S?COND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9.13 SUBDIVISION 7 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984, AND ENTITLED 'ANIMALS AND FOWL - KEEPING, TRANSPORTING, TREATMENT, HOUSING' The City Council of Orono ordains: Ordinance No. 9.13 Subdivision 7 adopted April 1, 1984, and entitled 'Animals and Fowl - Keeping, Transporting, Treatment, Rousing' is amended to read: Subd. i. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to keep a farm animal in any portion of the City without a permit therefore from the City. All residents with animals, as defined by Ordinance in Section 9.13, Subdivision 1 Br C and D, before April 1, 1984 will be allowed to continue keeping animals at that same level but a permit is required in all cases. Inspection will be made to insure compliance with this ordinance and all other applicable ordinances i.r luding but not limited to Section 10.03 Subdivision 3 (R). All residents who acquire animals, as defined by Ordinance in Section 9.13, Subdivision 1 B, C and D, shall apply for a permit, be inspected by zoning officials, reviewed by the Police Chief and be issued a permit if all ordinance criteria is met. Ther permit shall list the maximum type and number of animals to be permitted on the property. A permit is good for years unless a shorter period is specified in this ordinance. A subsequent return inspection for ordinance compliance shall require payment of an additional permit fee. The permit fee shall 1 .*ablished in the City's current Fee Schedule. This ordinance becomes effective after its passage and publication. Passed by the Council this 12th day of September, 1988. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor DocotS MM Hallrn-,-Z.`i[y CIeHtC Publish in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers the week of 1 DATE: ANIMAL PERMIT APPLICATION nA TYPE OF ANIMAL: n1�i'�iilnp� Animal/Farm Animal Dangerous Animal (1 Year Permit) $100,000 Certificate of Insurance or $100,000 Surety Bond Attached (Section 9.13 Subd 9(G) (DANGEROUS ANIMALS ONLY) ANIMAL OWNER'S MAMEz ADDRESS: PHONE: PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE: NUMBER AND TYPE OF EACH ANIMAL TO BE KEPT ON PREMISES/PROPERTY: SIZE OF PROPERTY: •ff of♦fu♦��tf•aftuf••♦e��e uee u�++��ef ♦emu �u ee�a u�»��+f»»♦++f POLICE CHIEF'S REVIEW: APPROVED DENIED Sz nature Date COMMENTS: 9788.2 �7TAl}{(Ne{Jr ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 44, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED DECEMBER 14, 1987 AND ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1988 FEE SCHEDLLE." The City Council of Orono ordains: Ordnance No. 44, Second Series adopted December 14, 1987, and entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the 1988 Fee Schedule" is amended to read: LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Fee Applicable Code Section ANIMAL PERMIT $25.00 9.13 Each subsequent re -inspection $25.00 each This ordinance becomes effective from and after is passage and publication. Passed by the Council this 12th day of September, 1988. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: —_—________________________ Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Publish in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers the week of Mtn E less than five regular business days. A "regular business day" is one during which the Pound is open for business to the public for at least four hours between 8:00 o'clock A.M. and 7:00 o'clock P.M. Impoundment records shall be preserved for a minimum of six months and shall show (1) the description of the animal by specie, breed, sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing traits; (2) the location at which the animal was seized; (3) the date of seizure; (4) the name and address of the person from whom any animal three months of age or over was received; and, (5) the name and address of the person to whom any animal three months of age or over was transferred. If unclaimed, such animal shall be humanely destroyed and the carcass disposed of, unless it is requested by a licensed educational or scientific institution under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 35.71. Provided, however, that if a tag affixed to the animal, or a statement by the animal's owner after seizure specifies that the animal should not be used for research, such animal shall not be made available to any such institution but may be destroyed after the expiration of the five-day period. Subd. 11. Other Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for the owner of any dog to (1) fail to have the license tag issued by the City firmly attached to a collar worn at all times by the licensed dog, or (2) own or keep a dog which is dangerous (any such dog which has caused injury to persons or property shall be deemed "dangerous"), or (3) interfere with any police officer, or other City employee, in the performance of his duty to enforce this Section, or (4) fail to keep his dog from barking, howling or whining, or from emitting loud or unusual noise, or (5) fail to prevent his dog from defecating in or upon public property or the premises of another, or (6) permit solid waste of a dog to accumulate on his premises for more than twenty-four hours. Subd. 12. Immobilization of Dogs. For the purpose of enforcement of this Section any peace officer, dog catcher or other person assisting a peace officer or dog catcher may use a so-called tranquilizer gun or other instrument for the purpose of immobilizing and catching a dog. Subd. 13. warning of Vicious Dogs. The owner of any dog known to be of vicious habits shall place in plain view of the entrance to his premises a sign no smaller than 12 inches by 14 inches which shall read: "Beware of Vicious Dog". SEC. 9.13. ANIMALS AND FOWL - KEEPING, TRANSPORTING, TREATMENT, HOUSING. Subd. 1. Definitions. As used in this Section, the following definitions shall apply. A. "Owner" - Any person who owns, harbors, feeds, boards, keeps, or otherwise possesses an animal, and who is the head of the household of the residence, or the owner or manager in ORONO CC 208 (4-1-34) 5 9.13 charge of the establishment or premises at which an animal remains, or to which it returns. B. "Farm Animals" - Cattle, horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine, ponies, ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens and honey bees. C. "Animals" - Includes farm animals and all other animals, reptiles and feathered birds or fowl except dogs, domestic cats, gerbils, hamsters and caged household birds. D. "Dangerous Animals" - Any wild mammal, reptile or fowl which is not naturally tame or gentle but is of a wild nature or disposition and which, because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristics would constitute a danger to human life or property if it is not kept or maintained in a safe manner or in secure quarters. The term "dangerous animal" also means and includes any domestic mammal, reptile or fowl which because of its size or vicious propensity or other characterictic, would constitute a danger to human life or property if it is not kept or maintained in a safe manner or in secure. quarters. Subd. 2. Keeping. It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any animal, not in transit, excerpt (1) farm animals kept in accordance with the Zoning Chapter, or, (2) animals kept as part of a show licensed under the City Code, or, (3) animals used in a parade for which a permit has been issued, or, (4) animals kept in a laboratory for scientific or experimental purposes, or, (5) animals kept in an animal hospital or clinic for treatment by a licensed veterinarian. Subd. 3. Animals in Transit. It is unlawful for any person to transport animals unless they are (1) confined within a vehicle, cage or other means of conveyance, or, (2) farm animals being transported in a portion of the City zoned for rural purposes, or, (3) restrained by means of bridles, halters, ropes or other means of individual restraint. Subd. 4. Treatment. It is unlawful for any person to treat an animal in a cruel or inhumane manner. Subd. 5. Housing. It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal in any structure infested by rodents, vermin, flies or insects. Subd. 6. Trespasses. It is unlawful for any person to herd, drive or ride any animal over and upon any grass, turf, boulevard, City park, cemetery, garden or lot without specific permission therefor from the owner. Subd. 7. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to keep a farm animal in any portion of the City without a permit therefor from the City. ORONO CC 209 c 9.13 Subd. 8. Impoundment. Any animal found running at large shall be impounded in accordance with Subdivision 10 of Section 9.12. All fees or expenses incurred for capturing and impounding shall be paid before release of any animal. Subd. 9. Special Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to keep or maintain any dangerous animal without a special permit therefor from the City. No such perm'.t shall be issued for a period exceeding one year and such permit shall specify the conditions under which such animal shall be kept. The Chief of Police shall issue a special permit for the purpose of keeping or maintaining a dangerous animal if it is found that: A. The animal is at all times kept or maintained in a safe manner and confined securely so that the keeping of such animal will not constitute the danger to human life or property of others. a. Adequate safeguards are made to prevent unauthorized access to such animals by members of the public. C. The health or well-being of the animal is not in any way endangered by the manner of keeping or confinement. D. The keeping of such animal does not constitute a nuisance and will not harm the surrounding neighborhood or disturb the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood. E. The keeping of such animal will not create or cause offensive odors or constitute a danger to public health. F. The quarters in which such animal is kept or confined are adequately lighted, ventilated and are so constructed that they may be kept in a clean and sanitary Condition. G. The applicant for such special permit proves his ability to respond in damages to and including the amount of $100,000.00 for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for the damage to property owned by any other persons which may result in the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such animal. Proof of liability to respond in damages may be given by filing with the Chief of Police a certificate of insurance stating that the applicant is, at the time of his application, and will be during the period of such special permit, insured against liability to respond in such damages, or by posting with the City a surety bond, approved by the City Attorney, in the amount of $100,000.00 conditioned upon the payment of such damages during the period of such special permit. Such certificate of insurance or bond shall provide that no cancellation of the insurance or bond will be made unless ten days written notice is first given to the City. Subd. 10. Investigation Required. The Chief of Police in investigating any applicant for a special permit under this Section or any enforcement of this Section, is authorized to consult with and seek the advice of the Society for the Prevention ORONO CC 210 (4-1-34) S 9.13 of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society, any representative of the Animal Control Center of the County if there be one, or any other individual, agency, organization or society which may be able to provide information and advice concerning the keeping of dangerous animals. Subd. 11. Permit Fee. Upon compliance with all provisions of this Section, a special permit shall be issued for an annual fee adopted by the Council by ordinance, provided that such permit shall not be issued for the keeping of more than two dangerous animals at any single location. Subd. 12. Exception. The provisions of this Section shall no: apply to the keeping of dangerous animals in the following cases: A. The keeping of such animal for exhibition to the public by a traveling circus, carnival or other exhibit or show holding a permit issued by the Commissioner of Natiral Resources pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 97.6111. B. The keeping of such animals in a licensed veterinary hospital for treatment. C. Dangerous or poisonous reptiles may be maintained by a bona fide educational or medical institution for the purpose of instruction or study, provided such reptiles are securely confined and are properly cared for in a manner satisfactory to the Chief of Police. Subd. 13. Regulation of Horses. A. The term 'horse" as used in this Section means any breed of horse, pony, mule or ass. B. It is unlawful for any person to ride or to drive a horse after tha hour of sunset and before the hour of sunrise along or crossing any public way without appropriate lighting or reflectorized clothing. C. It is unlawful for any person to ride or drive a horse in any public park, beach, golf course or other public property, except within the tight -of -way of public streets and highways, and in areas duly designated as a trailway or hitching area. D. The City Administrator shall designate and sign- post those areas in public lands, parks and beaches where horses may be ridden and driven. drawn vehicle provisions of vehicle, except application. E, Every person riding a horse or driving a horse - upon a public street shall be subject to those the City Code appl:cable to the driver of a motor those provisions which by their nature can have no ORONO CC 211 (4-1-84) S 9.13 F. It is unlawful for any person to interfere with any horse being ridden, driven or kept in a lawful manner. Subd. 14. Feeding of Waterfowl. It is unlawful for any person to feed or provide feed for any non -domestic ducks, geese or other waterfowl in a manner that results in the accumulation of a sufficient number of waterfowl so that the excrement of the waterfowl accumulates in such a way as to cause a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public, or in such a way as to induce the waterfowl to alter their natural migratory pattern, or in such a way as to cause the waterfowl to congreoate for extended periods of time on any neighboring or nearby property or water. SEC. 9.14. CURFEW. Subd. 1. Curfew - Minors Under the Age of Fifteen. It is unlawful for any minor person under the age of fifteen years to be or loiter upon the streets or public places between the hours of 10:00 o'clock P.M. and 5:00 o'clock A.M. of the following day. Subd. 2. Curfew - Minors Between the Age of Fifteen and Eighteen. It is unlawful for any minor person over the age of fourteen years but under the age of eighteen years to be or loiter upon the streets or public places between the hours of 12:00 o'clock midnight and 5:00 o'clock A.M. of the following day. Subd. 3. Curfew - Parents and Guardians. It is unlawful for any parent, guardian, or other person having the legal care or custody of any minor person to allow or permit such minor person to be or loiter upon the streets or public places in violation of this Section unless such minor is accompanied by a person of lawful age having such minor person in charge. Subd. 4. Curfew - Places of Amusement, Entertainment or Refreshment. It is unlawful for any person operating, or in charge of, any place of amusement, entertainment or refreshment, or other place of business, to allow or permit any minor person to be or loiter in such place in violation of this Section unless such minor is accompanied by a person of lawful age having such minor person in charge. This Subdivision shall not be construed to permit the presence, at any time, of any person under age in any place where his presence is otherwise prohibited by law. Subd. 5. Exceptions. Such curfew shall not apply to any students under the age of eighteen years who are lawfully attending, going to or returning from school, church or community sponsored athletic, musical or s.,cial activities or events. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 9.15 through 9.19, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 212 (4-1-84) TO: Mayor and City Council i FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administratox% DATE: May 3, 1988 SUBJECT: Animal Control Regulations Attachment A. Orono Police Report t88-002367 B. City of Orono Ordinances 9.12 and 9.13 C. Ordinance 1157 (repealed) D. Ordinance 4239 (repealed) E. John Hollander Letter Dated 4/29/88 ISSUE 1. Review of the City's dog licensing ordinance and its applicability. 2. Review of the City's kennel licensing ordinance and its applicability. 3. Review of the City's farm animal regulation and its applicability. INTRODUCTION - On Thursday, April 28th C.S.O. Dennison was called to_2¢0 Hollander Road by the resident regarding live trapping of a raccoon. When C.S.O. Dennison arrived the owner was not home, but in his search for the owner he noted several violations on the property and issued warning tags for the fact that the three dogs on the property are not currently licensed and that there was no kennel license in existence together with the fact that there was substantial feces that ev :dently had not been cleaned up for several days. He did remove the raccoon that had been trapped for release near the Orono schools. (Mr. Hollander claims he drowned it.) The owner has said that he had never licensed the dogs nor been required to have a kennel for the dogs and ,that there was a gentlemen's agreement with the City regarding this. The City is unaware of that and even if the City Instituted its licensing arrangements for these substantially after the owner had his practice in existence since 1956 and did not require a license, It is staff's position a license is still required. While in the land use area the provision of grandfathering is subject to a conditional use permit does have some presedence, as a legal non- conforming use, a licensing statute generally has immediate applicablity to all persons who fall under the category. Mr. Hollander indicates Mr. Dick Benson, former City Administrator and Emerson Dressel, former Orono Police Sgt. indicated he did not need them. Mr. Hollander additionally has a problem in being able to 1 determine when his dogs had their most recent rabies shots, as the veterinarian to whom he had last had them, is currently in a dispute with Mr. Hollander regarding unpaid fees on some other animals and will not release information. The concern by Mr. Hollander is that if rabies shots are given in less than a year's period, there is some danger to the animals. The City has made attempts to get in contact with the veternarian, but to no avail at this point. At this point Mr. Hollander is alleging that his neighbors are also guilty of the regulation under which he was given a tag. His claim was that the C.S.O. would not take action on that. Lt. Cheswick did investigate the matter as it relates to the other neighbors but found no basis for a violation. Mr. Hollander is also inquiring as to the City's permitting process reguarding farm animals under Subd 7 of Section 9.13. While this was adopted as part of the recodification in 1984, no system was ever developed. The requirement does not make a distinction for animal keeping by urban or rural however the zoning code requires 1 acre per animal unit (1 horse, 1 cow/steer, 3 sheep, 58 fowl) plus 1 acre for the prinicipal structure (2 acres if horses are involved.) Such a process would not be a license such as a dog license of the animal but a permit to the resident regarding keeping of animals. (Prior to 1984 there was provision for a Village Livestock Commission relating to permits for horses but no requirement for such permits. It was eliminated by the recodification.) ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. Dog Licensing a. Amend the ordinance to allow for grandfathering. b. Require a licensing of all dogs establlshin a dataq by which the licensing has to be &ccomplishad.��Il4llak..y__ C. Table d. Amend the ordinance to delete the licensing requirement. e. Amend the ordinance as it relates to the 24 hour feces requirement removal. (9.12 Subd 11/6) Issue 2. Kennel Licensing a. Amend the ordinance to allow for grandfathering. ,,,,��,,��1, b. Require a licensing of all dogs establishing a der 01 yy by which the licensing has to be accomplished. 11��"" C. Table d. Amend the ordinance to delete the licensing requirement. Issue 3. Farm Animal Regulation a. Amend the ordinance not to require permits. b. Direct staff to develop a permit system. c. Table for further discussion. d. Amend ordinance to require permits only in the urban section of the community provided all zoning amendments are met. Issue 1. It is recommended that the Council require that all the dogs be :..tensed and that such be done by May 31, 1988. Issue 2. Kennel Licensing - Let Mr. Hollander apply for a residential kennel license and that such be completed no later than May 38, 1988. Issue 3. Farm Aninal Regulation - The City establish a permit system for farm animals. PROPOSi MOTION - Moved byjI seconded by • , that the Council direct :qr. Hollander to appl for and receive a dog license no later than May 31, 1988 t gether with a residential kennel license and that staff_.Pe dir ted to develop a permit system for farm animals. Ayes , Nays cc: John Hollander UMONO ✓ULICE UE✓ARTMENT MEN Y CONTROL NUM[ER IpG♦1 CONT ♦O!NCY NCIC 101NT IC♦GI ♦T! IME REPORT MADE E C 1/ / M N 0,2 .7751/ IDAY: V WC ,7 rFTj- LNS / DATE REPORTED CARD / i.ME R� e0 ITAPI / LOCATION O fD NOR ILDNI jl•��j PLACE COMMITTED (PLC) nfT In m L NaR M�R7Dj, EOUAD OR IADGEMIEBNI TIME A6IG,ITA51 TIME APR ITARMRD casks,I TIME CLR.ITCLI ❑T Pad.. °00 R — Rr,e Lot: rr OFFICER AumN O Ism Osr A — At.. / Iry /LJ�1LJ/ — Inn 6 / / M —MehI J .} T — OMN. FF[NEE O NITIAL COMPLAINT y..E,RPRINCIP L COMPLAINT 0 OFFENCE R MrVICTIM❑ D.O.B. BUS I N SESA D° ROSS BUSINESS'NONE HOME ADDRESS ONE (7� nONE'I OTMSA REPORTS INCLUDEDYY7GG I,aRwea ❑'.es, In.F.,mry ❑ I,nm,r Cenr.I ❑ Aam.T RBeeN ❑ TRIP O mnu.... A.oe,. ❑ Pnem. ❑ R!P°RTINOPEREON❑OFFeNDER❑VICTIM❑ I D.O.• BUSINESS ADDRESS BUSINESS PMONE SEE CASE FILE ROLL CALL C Wrn & Release I Dept. ASSISI Muaap Deliver Treated 6 Transported Advtnd Citation Issued Detail Cpmpletad G.O.A. COPY TO CC ATT%V ❑ CITY ATTNY ❑ COURT ❑ CHIEF OTHER DISPOSITION. Unfwnded Cleared Or arms Ref, pine. agency Inactive Other OFFICER'S X SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE Polk-v DC'1)I I T't In (.1 1( FOLLOW-UP CASE FILE 88002367 BADGE 565 OFFENSE._ Animal Problem DATE 4/28/88 PRINCIPLES) DATE TYPED 4/29/88 John Hollander TYPED BY SAS On 4/28/88 upon my arrival to the office, I found a phone message awaiting from Mr. John Hollander of 200 Hollander Road, had called stating that he had a racoon in a live trap at his residence. I arrived at 1742 hours, found no one at the residence. I knocked and also yelled outside the residence but no one came to the door. I looked around the residence and was unable to locate the trap anywhere. On the property, I did find a dog kennel that had three dogs inside. The dog kennel was made of chain link fence with a wooden house attached. Also inside the kennel were several piles of defecation inside the cage, appearing as if it hadn't been c' ned for several days. Also the dog food was dumped upside down, lvir the cement floor in a pile, not in a dish. Knowing that this was violation of city ordinance, I took several pictures of the area inside the cage, showing all three dogs and the mess which was inside. I then cleared the residence and came back to the office to do Daoerwook. At 1853 hours, I received a radio call to Mr. Hollander's residence. He had returned and wanted the racoon nicked up. I arrived at 1858 hours, met with Mr. Hollander who showed me where the racoon we . I brought this trapped racoon back to my car and advised Mr. Hollander I would take ca-= of it. I then asked Mr. Hollander who owned the dons that were on h: property and he stated that they were his and that he also had one more inside for a total of four. He stated that he had owned the dogs for a couple of years now. I asked Mr. Hollander if he had current licenses fcr the dogs and he stated that ves, but did not know and was unsure of when he had purchased license for them last. I asked Mr. Hollander if the four dog licenses were the onlv thing that he purchased at this time and he stated ves, it was. I advised him that he was in violation because the dogs were not registered at the time with having dog licenses in the dog licensing book. I also advised that he was in violation because he did not have a dog kennel license which is required if you have more than two dogs on vour property. I also asked him then when the last time that he had cleaned out the cage where the dogs were outside. He told me that it was two weeks ago, and they had gotten new dishes at the same time the cleaning was done. I had a cow of the ordinance with me and showed Mr. Hollander that it said that you are not to allow solid wastes of a doe to accumulate on the premise for more than 24 hours. By the amount of defecation that was built up in the fence, you could tell that it had been more than 24 hours as the page 2 88002367 pictures will show. I issued Mr. Hollander a warning taq which gave him 7 days to obtain a kennel license and also for dog license from the city of Orono. I also issued Mr. Hollander a citation for allowina the solid waste to build up on his property more than 24 hours. Mr. Hollander then cave me a list of names of people who lived on Hollander road that he was sure of who were in violation of the same ordinance and wished that I act upon this immediately. I advised him that I had to take care of his racoon and had other things pending at the time and would not be able to resuond immediately to this. He got very upset and questioned why I would not go over right away and also stated to me that if I did not, he would file a suit against the city for harrassment the following day. I told Mr. Hollander that he was free to do so, but that I still would not be able to get over to the residence of the other parties on Hollander Road to take action right away. I advised him that I would make a report and followup on this as soon as possible. I then advised him that there was no ordinance governing the control of racoons and that I did not have to take the racoon off of his property. I told him I would, but I just wanted him to understand that I did not have to do this. He said it was uo to me if I wanted to, or if I wanted to leave it, he would call the DNR to nick it up. I advised him that I would, but we are not going to make a habit of it and I was not going to keen coming back and forth, takino the racoons which he is trannino. It should be noted that Mr. Hollander spoke to one of the other officers of this department about a black cat which he 1s missing and has been missing for the past 14 days. Mr. Hollander is setting two live trans on his pr' party with cat food attempting to tran his cat that he has lost. The wild arimals are going into these tiaps after the catfood anc are being subsequently being trapped in them. I advised him that the police department will not continue to let these racoons loose if this continues on a regular basis. CSO Denneson — _ — — ORONO ROLICE OERLRfMENT - VIOLATION WARNING T OM cep Tima �COmm COGe Lo[e4M [/s DRIVER —� �— yyp. Meke ---Yt MOO.1 Cda VIN- SmIe- L�c- Tlr. Meka - VIN — . _StM- ------------ NO I d Mm O � Idkwe ❑ ppiArtwn YW Mva vUltl OM Iew4 Em �y,4i a lrcenM ❑ Tnt11C Ou�pTe VIOLxT� r I 00 I m r nmP wPrPY yAF u� SSVED v 10 Wr; W �1 id MwG 'euasHHYcmrwx xo. °Ouilnotlxb'x ' 388-052092 3 win.euaxn xuxew roc —Wf,IIIY.,,pgyYYryM 1 1 I 11 1 1001YtlefJ,Y �v o n L L s 'z,& i- A 'h :3,q bnwwa me xrax• wn gm I •ar°tlun .exwulcexsew ,. ,r L 1 I I I SO"C L.L. .Me G°IOYmIG, M. 0O11W 4♦ 4 L d ORPROPERTVAFE E Cl ACCIDENT ❑ COMMONS I,pb,°na°M°alW u,uwnKUYw,IIMNIn11xIaO,M NLIYWI Iwllla.In b IIw,1° uY r.Ynn mnl b aab lo- my ♦m,,. H♦e,Y� Y YYw6 �aV111��IrIiY I�• 1 .ti '. S 9.11 limits for trapping, location, number of traps and approved maintenance procedures of trap lines. Applications for limited permits shall be made to the Chief of Police and shall be accompanied by a written statement of proof of hardship and a certified property owners list of property owners within 500 feet of trapping area. Property owners shall be notified that such application is being considered by the City. The permit fee shall be as set by resolution of the Council. SEC. 9.12. DOG REGULATION AND LICENSING. Subd. 1. Definition. For the purpose of this Section, "owner" means a person who owns, harbors, feeds, boards or keeps a dog. Subd. 2. Running at Large and Biting Dogs Prohibited. It is unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such animal to run at large. Any dog shall be deemed to be running at large with the permission of the owner unless it is on a durable leash secured to an object which it cannot move and on the premises of the owner, or on a leash and under the control of an accompanying person of suitable age and discretion. Any dog, having bitten a person or other animal, shall be forthwith impounded for the period of incubation. Subd. 3. License Required. It is unlawful for the owner of any dog, six months of age or more, to fail to obtain a license therefor from the City, except as follows: A. Dogs confined to a City licensed commercial kennel need not be individually licensed. B. Dogs confined to a City licensed residential kennel shall be individually licensed but need not wear the license tag while they are confined in the kennel. C. Dogs currently licensed by another jurisdiction may be temporarily kept in the City for a period not to exceed thirty days provided the dog wears a tag or other identification from such licensing jurisdiction, and provided that a current City license is obtained if the temporary stay extends beyond thirty days or otherwise becomes permanent. Dogs licensed by other juris- dictions are not exempt from the kennel licensing requirements or from any other provision of this Section. Subd. 4. Application. Application for a dog license shall be upon a form supplied by the City and accompanied by a certificate of a veterinarian, duly licensed to practice veterinary medicine within the State of Minnesota, which certificate shall state that the dog for which application for a license is made, has been innoculated against rabies within six months of the date of the application. No more than two dog licenses shall be issued to ORONO CC 206 (4-1-84) S 9.12 any one person or for any one lot, property or address at any one time unless there shall first have been issued a current residential or commercial kennel license for said person, lot, property or address. Subd. 5. Fees. All licenses and impounding fees provided for in this Section shall be issued only upon payment in full of fees fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. License fees shall be due for the full two-year license period except that licerses issued in even -numbered years may be prorated to one-half of the two-year license fee. No other prorating shall be permitted. Subd. 6. Tag Required. All licensed dogs shall wear a collar and have a tag firmly affixed thereto evidencing such license for the current year. A duplicate for a lost tag may be issued by the City upon presentation of the receipt showing the payment of the license fee for the current license period, and payment of the fee for a duplicate license. Tags shall not be transferable, and no refund shall be made on any dog license fee because of leaving the City or death of the dog hc9ore the expiration,of the license. Subd. 7. License Period. All dog licenses shall be issued and be valid for the whole or unexpired portion of two year periods beginning on January 1 of each odd -numbered year. All dog licenses regardless of the date of issuance shall expire on December 31 of each even -numbered year. Dog owners shall apply for license renewal prior to the license expiration date. Subd. 8. Notice of Impounding. Upon the impounding of any dog, the owner shall be notified, or if the owner is unknown, written notice shall be posted for five days at the City Hall describing the dog and the place and time of taking. Subd. 9. Release From Animal Pound. Dogs shall be released to their owners, as follows: A. If such dog is owned by a resident of the City, after purchase of a license as aforesaid, and payment of the impounding fees. B. If such dog is of the City, after immunization payment of he impounding fee for impounded. owned by a person not a resident of any such dog for rabies, and the period for which the dog was Subd. 10. Animal Pound. Any dog found in the City without a tag, or animal running at large, shall be placed in the Animal Pound, and an accurate record of the time of such placement shall be kept on each animal. Every animal so placed in the Animal Pound shall be held for redemption by the owner for a period of not ORONO CC 207 (1-1-81) 5 9.12 less than five regular business days. A "regular business day" is one during which the Pound is open for business to the public for at least four hours between 8:00 o'clock A.M. and 7:00 o'clock P.M. Impoundment records shall be preserved for a minimum of six months and shall show (1) the description of the animal by specie, breed, sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing traits; (2) the location at which the animal was seized; (3) the date of seizure; (4) the name and address of the person from whom any animal three months of age or over was received; and, (5) the name and address of the person to whom any animal three months of age or over was transferred. If unclaimed, such animal shall be humanely destroyed and the carcass disposed of, unless it is requested by a licensed educational or scientific institution under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 35.71. Provided, however, that if a tag affixed to the animal, or a statement by the animal's owner after seizure specifies that the animal should not be used for research, such animal shall not be made available to any such institution but may be destroyed after the expiration of the five-day period. Subd. 11. Other Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for the owner of any dog to (1) fail to have the license tag issued by the City firmly attached to a collar worn at all times by the licensed dog, or (2) own or keep a dog which is dangerous (any such dog which has caused injury to persons or property shall be deemed "dangerous"), or (3) interfere with any police officer, or other City employee, in the performance of his duty to enforce this Section, or (4) fail to keep his dog from barking, howling or whining, or from emitting loud or unusual noise, or (5) fail to prevent his dog from defecating in or upon public property or the premises of another, or (6) permit solid waste of a dog to accumulate on his premises for more than twenty-four hours. Subd. 12. Immobilization of Dogs. For the purpose of enforcement of this Section any peace officer, dog catcher or other person assisting a peace officer or dog catcher may use a so-called tranquilizer gun or other instrument for the purpose of immobilizing and catching a dog. Subd. 13. Warning of Vicious Dogs. The owner of any dog known to be of vicious habits shall place in plain view of the entrance to his premises a sign no smaller than 12 inches by 14 inches which shall read: "Beware of Vicious Dog". SEC. 9.13. ANIMALS AND FOWL - SEEPING, TRAMSPORTIMG, TREATMENT, HOUSING. Subd. 1. Definitions. As used in this Section, the following definitions shall apply. A. "Owner" - Any person who owns, harbors, feeds, boards, keeps, or otherwise possesses an animal, and who is the head of the household of the residence, or the owner or manager in ORONO CC 208 (4-1-84) 5 9.13 charge of the establishment or premises at which an animal remains, or to which it returns. B. "Farm Animals" - Cattle, horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine, ponies, ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens and honey bees. C. "Animals" - Includes farm animals and all other animals, reptiles and feathered birds or fowl except dogs, domestic cats, gerbils, hamsters and caged household birds. D. "Dangerous Animals" - Any wild mammal, reptile or fowl which is not naturally tame or gentle but is of a wild nature or disposition and which, because of its size, vicious nature or other characteristics would constitute a danger to human life or property if it is not kept or maintained in a safe manner or in secure quarters. The term "dangerous animal" also means and includes any domestic mammal, reptile or fowl which because of its size or vicious propensity or other characterictic, would constitute a danger to human life or property if it is not kept or maintained in a safe manner or in secure quarters. Subd. 2. Keeping. It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any animal, not in transit, except (1) farm animals kept in accordance with the zoning Chapter, or, (2) animals kept as part of a show licensed under the City Code, or, (3) animals used in a parade for which a permit has been issued, or, (4) animals kept in a laboratory for scientific or experimental purposes, or, (5) animals kept in an animal hospital or clinic for treatment by a licensed veterinarian. Subd. 3. Animals in Transit. It is unlawful for any person to transport animals unless they are (1) confined within a vehicle, cage or other means of conveyance, or, (2) farm animals being transported in a portion of the City zoned for rural purposes, or, (3) restrained by means of bridles, halters, ropes or other means of individual restraint. Subd. 4. Treatment. It is unlawful for any person to treat an animal in a cruel or inhumane manner. Subd. 5. Housing. It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal in any structure infested by rodents, vermin, flies or insects. Subd. 6. Trespasses. It is unlawful for any person to herd, drive or ride any animal over and upon any grass, turf, boulevard, City park, cemetery, garden or lot without specific permission therefor from the owner. Subd. 7. Permit Regyired. It is unlawful for any person to keep a farm animal in any portion of the City without a permit therefor from the City. ORONO CC 209 (4-1-84) S 9.13 Subd. 8. Impoundment. Any animal found running at large shall be impounded in accordance with Subdivision 10 of Section 9.12. All fees or expenses incurred for capturing and impounding shall be paid before release of any animal. Subd. 9. Special Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to keep or maintain any dangerous animal without a special permit therefor from the City. No such permit shall be issued for a period exceeding one year and such permit shall specify the conditions under which such animal shall be kept. The Chief of Police shall issue a special permit for the purpose of keeping or maintaining a dangerous animal if it is found that: A. The animal is at all times kept or maintained in a safe manner and confined securely so that the keeping of .such animal will not constitute the danger to human life or property of others. B. Adequate safeguards are made to prevent unauthorized access to such animals by members of the public. C. The health or well-being of the animal is not in any way endangered by the manner of keeping or confinement. D. The keeping of such animal does not constitute a nuisance and will not harm the surrounding neighborhood or disturb the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood. E. The keeping of such animal will not create or cause offensive odors or constitute a danger to public health. F. The quarters in which such animal is kept or confined are adequately lighted, ventilated and are so constructed that they may be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. G. The applicant for such special permit proves his ability to respond in damages to and including the amount of $100,000.00 for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons or for the damage to property owned by any other persons which may result in the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such animal. Proof of liability to respond in damages may be given by filing with the Chief of Police a certificate of insurance stating that the applicant is, at the time of his application, and will be during the period of such special permit, insured against liability to respond in such damages, or by posting with the City a surety bond, approved by the City Attorney, in the amount of $100,000.00 conditioned upon the payment of such damages during the period of such special permit. Such certificate of insurance or bond shall provide that no cancellation of the insurance or bond will be made unless ten days written notice is first given to the City. Subd. 10. Investigation Required. The Chief of Police in investigatiny any applicant for a special permit under tnis Section or any enforcement of this Section, is authorized to consult with and seek the advice of the Society for the Prevention ORONO CC 210 (4-1-84) S 9.13 of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society, any representative of the Animal Control Center of the County if there be one, or any other individual, agency, organization or society which may be able to provide information and advice concerning the keeping of dangerous animals. Subd. 11. Permit Fee. Upon compliance with all provisions of this Section, a special permit shall be issued for an annual fee adopted by the Council by ordinance, provided that such permit shall not be issued for the keeping of more than two dangerous animals at any single location. Subd. 12. Exception. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the keeping of dangerous animals in the following cases: A. The keeping of such animal for exhibition to the public by a traveling circus, carnival or other exhibit or show holding a permit issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 97.6111. B. The keeping of such animals in a licensed veterinary hospital for treatment. C. Dangerous or poisonous reptiles may be maintained by a bona fide educational or medical institution for the purpose of instruction or study, provided such reptiles are securely confined and are properly cared for in a manner satisfactory to the Chief of Police. Subd. 13. Regulation of Horses. A. The term "horse" as used in this Section means any breed of horse, pony, mule or ass. B. It is unlawful for any person to ride or to drive a horse after the hour of sunset and before the hour of sunrise along or crossing any public way without appropriate lighting or reflectorized clothing. C. It is unlawful for any person to ride or drive a horse in any public park, beach, golf course or other public property, except within the right-of-way of public streets and highways, and in areas duly designated as a trailway or hitching area. D. The City Administrator shall designate and sign- post those areas in public lands, parks and beaches where horses may be ridden and driven. drawn vehicle provisions of vehicle, except application. E. Every person riding a horse or driving a horse - upon a public street shall be subject to those the City Code applicable to the driver of a motor those provisions which by their nature can have no ORONO CC 211 (4-1-841 5 9.13 F. It is unlawful for any person to interfere with any horse being ridden, driven or kept in a lawful manner. Subd. 14. Feeding of Waterfowl. It is unlawful for any person to feed or provide feed for any non -domestic ducks, geese or other waterfowl in a manner that results in the accumulation of a sufficient number of waterfowl so that the excrement of the waterfowl accumulates in such a way as to cause a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public, or in such a way as to induce the waterfowl to alter their natural migratory pattern, or in such a way as to cause the waterfowl to congregate for extended periods of time on any neighboring or nearby property or water. SEC. 9.14. CURFEW. Subd. 1. Curfew - Minors Under the Age of Fifteen. It is unlawful for any minor person under the age of fifteen years to be or loiter upon the streets or public places between the hours of 10:00 o'clock P.M. and 5:00 o'clock A.M. of the following day. Subd. 2. Curfew - Minors Between the Age of Fifteen and Eighteen. It is unlawful for any minor person over the age of fourteen years but under the age of eighteen years to be or loiter upon the streets or public places between the hours of 12:00 o'clock midnight and 5:00 o'clock A.M. of the following day. Subd. 3. Curfew - Parents and Guardians. It is unlawful for any parent, guardian, or other person having the legal care or custody of any minor person to allow or permit such minor person to be or loiter upon the streets or public places in violation of this Section unless such minor is accompanied by a person of lawful age having such minor person in charge. Subd. 4. Curfew - Places of Amusement, Entertainment or Refreshment. It is unlawful for any person operating, or in charge of, any place of amusement, entertainment or refreshment, or other place of business, to allow or permit any minor person to be or loiter in such place in violation of this Section unless such minor is accompanied by a person of lawful age having such minor person in charge. This Subdivision shall not be construed to permit the presence, at any time, of any person under age in any place where his presence is otherwise prohibited by law. Subd. 5. Exceptions. Such curfew shall not apply to any students under the age of eighteen years who are lawfully attending, going to or returning from school, church or community sponsored athletic, musical or social activities or events. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 9.15 throoyc 9.19, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 212 (4-1-94) ORDINANCE NO. / 3 % AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO BY AMENDING SECTION 34.037 AND ADDING A CHAPTER 110 RELATING TO THE KEEPING AND MAINTAINING OF CERTAIN DOMESTIC ANIMALS WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF ORONO AND ESTABLISHING A LIVESTOCK COMMISSION. THE VILLAGE OF ORONO ORDAINS: Section 1. The Municipal Code o_ the Village of Orono is amended by adding Chapter 110 as follows: 110. ANIMAL REGULATION 110.10. Animals Defined. As used in this chapter, except in Section 110. 000, animal shall mean any specie of cattle, horse, ass, mule, sheep, swinc, goat or any other uomosticateu animal which would normally not be housed in the residence of its owner or in a kennel. 110.20. Animals at Lame. No person shall permit any animal of w cFiL h e is tie owner, caretaker or custodian to run at large within the Village. Any animal shall be deemed to be at large if said animal is: (a) Not picketed, confined in a corral or otherwise restricted by.a properly constructed and maintained legal fence, (b) Off the premises owned or rented by the animal's owner and not accompanied by the owner or an agent or employee of the owner, (c) Herded upon any land over the protest and against the will of the owner of said land. 110.30. Impoundment. The Village may impound any animal found at large and shall provide proper sustenance for any and all animals impounded. The police chief or his designated agent shall give notice to owner (if known to him) within 24 hours, Sundays excepted. If owner is unknown, written notice shall be posted in two 'conspicuous places in the Village and published once in the official newspaper describing the animal and stating that sail animal has been impounded. 110.35. Taking Im ound_. _.mod Animal a Misdemeanor. No legally Impoundedanimal Shall be re ease except to a person displaying a receipt from the Village Clerk showing payment in full of the applicable costs listed in Section 110.60. If any person, without authority of law, and without first paying the costs due, shall take any impounded animal out of the enclosure in which he is impounded, with- out such receipt, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 110.40. Disposition of Animal. If any animal is impounded and not redeemed w thin six days after notice is posted or four days following published notice, whichever is later, the Village Chief of Police or his designated agent shall give three days posted notice of the time and place where the animal will be sold at public auction. 110.45. Proceeds of Sale. Proceeds of any sale shall be used to pay t e tota o costs and fines as listed in Section 110.50. The '•lance of the funds received for the sale of the animal sl be retained by the Village Treasurer and if not _laimed by the owner within one year from the date of sale, fie_mohey shall be paid _into_ the Village General Fund. 110.50. Schedule of Fees. The following Schedule shall be used in etermining the total costs due on any animal determined to be at large within the Village: Fine for animal at large: let offense $ 5.00 2nd offense $25.00 (if it occurs within one year of first offense) 3rd offense $50.00 (if it occurs within one year of first offense) Care of Impounded Animal $ 1.50/day Trace and catch animal at large S10.00/hour Trailer Charge $10.00 plus .25 per mile for total distance involved 110.60. `Nuisance. No person shall keep any animal in a manner creating a public or private nuisance. 110.70. Conditions Not Allowed. No person keeping animals shall permit or a low any of the following conditions to exist: a. Land upon which the animals are kept is unsightly or is a harbor for rodents, flies, and insects. b. winter accumulation of manure which is not removed from the premises or disposed of in an approved manner prior to May 15 of each year. c. other accumulation of manure which is not removed so as to prevent an unreasonable amount of objectionable aroma. d. Failure to make a reasonable effort to keep the animals under control and within proper fencing. e. Animals have been treated cruelly or inhumanely. f. A public nuisance exists on that property. 110.80. Re ulation of Horses. As used in this section "horse s a re er to any specie of horse, ass or mule and in addition to the general provisions of this chapter the following regulations shall apply specifically to horses: a. No person may ride or drive a horse after the hour of sunset and before the hour of sunrise along or crossing any public way without appropriate lighting or reflecto- rized clothing. b. No person may ride or drive a horse in any public park, beach, golf course or other public property except w_.thin the right-cf- way of public streets and highways, and in areas duly designated as a trail way or hitching area. c. The Village Park and Recreational Director shell designate properly post those areas in public :6, narks and beaches where horses may �e ridden and driven. d. Every_person riding a horse or driving a horse drawn vehicle upon a public road- way shall be subject to those provisions of the Village Code applicable to the ' driver of a motor vehicle, except those provisions which by their nature have no application. e. No person shall interfere with any horse being ridden, driven or kept in a lawful manner. 110.90. Livestock Commission. The Village Council hereby authorizes the esta ishment of a Livestock Commission to assist the village Clerk in inspection of the premises of those seeking a horse permit, to receive complaints from those aggrieved by animal owners or keepers, to investigate complaints, to advise animal owners against whom complaints have been lodged and to advise the 'tillage Council as to appropriate action. The Village Council shall appoint three persons to the Livestock Commission, including, when possible, a repre- sentative of the largest local horse -oriented association or club, a veterinarian, and any other person the Village Council feels is qualified to serve. Each member shall serve a two year term without compensation and shall be eligible for reappointment at the end of that term. The Livestock Commission shall make recommendations to the Village Council on requests or other matters re- quiring Council action, which arise under this Chapter or other applicable Ordinances or Statutes. 110.100. Cruelty to Animals. Minnesota Statutes 346.21-346.26 relating to cruelty to animals are hereby adopted and incorpora'ed herein by reference and made a part hereof. 110.110. Violations. Every person convicted of a violation of any o t e provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than $300.00 or by imprisonment for a period of not more than 90 days or both, but in either case the costs of prosecution may be added.. Section 2. The Municipal Code of the Village of Orono is amended by amending Section 34.037 as follows: 34.037. Animals. The keeping of domestic animals for non-commerceia purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises, provided that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional -horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. such minimum pasture acreage shall be exclusive of minimum lot re- quirements and shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of Chapter 110. Section 3. This ordinance shall be published in the Mound-Westonka Minnetonka Sun and shall be effective upon publication. Passed by the Orono Council this day of �,y, , 1971, by a vote o ayes an n nays. Mayor Attest: Administrator Published in the Mound-Wastonka Minnetonka Sun on the day of 197_ ORDINANCE NO. 239 AN ORDINANCE AIICNDI1]G CHAPTER 63 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORONO RELATING TO DOG AND KENNEL LICENSING THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 63, Section 63.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby amended by repealing the existing definition of the word "kennel" and by adding the following new definitions to read as follows: Kennel, Commercial. A place or premises where three or more dogs over six months of age are kept or housed at any one time for commercial purposes including sale, boarding, breeding, grooming, training, or medical care. Kennel, Residential. An accessory residential use or place where three or more dogs over six months of age are kept or housed for the sole non-commercial use, benefit or enjoyment of the property owner or occupant. Kennel Structure. A dog house or enclosure of any kind including a fenced pen or dog run constructed, maintained or used for purposes of keeping, housing or restraining one or more dogs in a limited area. A fenced -in yard area amounting to 600 square feet or more per dog shall not be defined as a kennel structure. Section 2. Chapter 63, Section 63.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby amended to read as follows: 63.020 Do License Re wired. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, harbor or Reep a og over the age of six months unless a current City license for such dog has been obtained and the license tag is affixed and worn by such dog at all times, except as follows: a) Dogs confined to a City -licensed commercial kennel need not be individually licensed. b) Dogs confined to a City -licensed residential kennel shall be individually licensed but need not wear the license tag while they are confined in said kennel. c) Dogs currently licensed by another jurisdiction may be temporarily kept in the City for a period not to exceed 30 days provided the dog wears a tag or other identification from such licensing jurisdiction, and provided that a current City license is obtained if the temporary stay extends beyond 30 days or otherwise becomes permanent. Dogs licensed by other jurisdictions are not exempt from the kennel licensing requirements or from any other provision of this Chapter. ORDINANCE NO. 239 Section 3. Chapter 63 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby amended by amending Section 63.030 and by adding Sections 63.031 and 63.032 to read as follows: 63.030 D29 License Duration. Dog licenses shall be issued and be valid £or the whole or unexpired portion of two-year periods beginning on January 1 of each odd -numbered year. All dog licenses regardless of the date of issuance shall expire on December 31 of each even - numbered year. Dog owners shall apply for license renewal prior to the license expiration date. 63.031 Dog License Requirements. Not more than two dog licenses shall be issued to any one person or for any one lot, property or address at any one time unless there shall first have been issued a current residential or commercial kennel license for said person, lot, property or address. Dog licenses shall be issued by the City Clerk upon presentation of the following: a) Applicant's information including the dog owner's name, address, mailing address and telephone number. b) Description of dog including breed, color, sex and name. c) veterinarian's signed certificate identifying the dog and attesting that the animal has been vaccinated for rabies within six -months of the date of license application. d) Payment of a dog license fee as setforth in Section 63.032. 63.032 Dog License Fees. Dog license fees shall be in the amount prescribed in the current City fee schedule. The basic license fee shall be for a license issued in odd -numbered years. Licenses issued in even -numbered years shall be one-half of the basic fee amount. License fees shall not otherwise be prorated. Licenses and License fees are not transferrable to other owners or other dogs, and dog license fees are not refundable. Section 4. Chapter 63 of the Municipal Code of the City of Orono is hereby amended by amending Section 63.180 and by adding Sections 63.181, 63.182, 63.183, 63.184 and 63.185 to read as follows: 63.180 Kennel License iR uir^dd. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, operate, use, maintain or allow to exist any kennel on any property in the City without being licensed to do so according to provisions of this Section. a) It shall be unlawful for any personor persons to own, harbor keep or house three or more dogs over six months of aqe on any one lot or property without a valid residential or commercial kennel license. b) It shall be unlawful for any personor persons to operate any kennel for business or commercial purposes including sale. boarding, breeding, grooming, training or medical care without a valid commercial kennel license. ORDINANCE NO. 239 _ c) It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, keep, maintain or use a kennel structure for one or more dogs without a valid residential or commercial kennel license, except that kennel structures used for not more than two dogs over six months of age need not be licensed if said kennel structure is located in a side or rear yard and is not less than thirty (30) feet away from any property line. 63.181 Kennel License Standards. All kennel licenses are permissive only, granting finite aut or ty to the licensee according to the provisions of each license. Kennel licenses may be issued by the City Clerk only after review and approval by the City Council. The City Council shall review each kennel license application for pertinent facts and circumstances including, but not limited to, location in the City, zoning, lot size, number of dogs, existing or proposed kennel facilities including location on the lot, kennel maintenance, sanitation, and any previous dog or kennel license violations by the applicant such as keeping too many animals, nuisance complaints, excessive noise, running at -large or commercial activities occurting at a residential kennel. Based upon their findings, the City Council may grant or deny any kennel license application, or they may grant a license subject to reasonable standards or conditions. Kennel licenses may at any time be revoked by the City Council for cause including violation of any license condition, provision of this Chapter, or any other ordinance or law. Prior to any revocation, notice shall be given to the licensee who shall be granted a hearing before the Council to show cause why the license should not be revoked. 63.182 Residential Kennel License Standards and Re uirements. Residential kennel licenses are nten a as a special privt a ge to a granted upon a showing that the keeping of more than the normal two dogs, and/or a kennel structure location will not be a public nuisance or otherwise adversely affect neighboring persons or property. The City Council shall have the authority to limit the maximum number of dogs kept at any residential kennel based upon the kennel standards listed in Section 63.181. No residential kennel license shall be granted unless the property contains a proper kennel structure or is otherwise fenced to prevent the dogs from running at large. Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude the breeding of licensed dogs kept at a residential kennel, the sale of offspring, the occasional sale of licensed dogs, or the private grooming, training or medical care of such dogs on the premises. 63.183 Commercial Kennel License Standards and Re uirements. New commercial kennelcenses she be tssu�oZy of property that is properly zoned for business purposes or for rural residential property of sufficient acreage to comply with Section 34.822 of the Zoning Code. Commercial Kennels shall not be allowed as a residential "home occupation" pursuant to Section 34.043 of the Zoning Code. No commercial kennel license shall be granted unless the property contains a kennel structure and other enclosed buildings sufficient to operate the business without nuisance or other adverse effect on neighboring properties. 63.184 Kennel License Duration. Kennel licenses shall be issued on an annual basis expiring on March 1 of each year. Application for annual renewal of an existing kennel license shall be made to the Cit Clerk at least 30 days prior to the license expiratlCn date. ORDINANCE NO. 219 63.185 Residential and Commercial Kennel License Applications. Residential and Commercial Kennel License applications shall be made to the -City, Cleric on official forms provided for that purpose, which applications shall include the following: a) Applicant's information including the property owner and/or kennel operator's name, address, mailing address and telephone number. b) Brief statement of the purpose of the kennel. c) For residential kennels; the maximum number of dogs over the age of six months to he kept at any one time during the kennel license duration. d) Signed agreement authorizing the City Inspector to inspect the premises prior to City Council review of the application, and at any other reasonable times thereafter during the duration of the kennel license. e) Payment of the appropriate residential or commercial kennel license fee in the a..,ount prescribed in the current City fee schedule. Kennel license fees are not prorated and are not refundable. Residential kennel license fees are not in lieu of required dog license fees. Section 5. This ordinance shall be published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun and shall be effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 22nd day of March , i982, by a vote of 3 ayes and 0 nays. � C William B. Van Nest, Mayor Mary C. Butler, Acting Mayor ATTEST: A berta M. Strom, C ty C er Published in the Lake Minnetonka Sun on the day of 1982. u fv;� 0 YN - FS6 pa�e� # &AI - � 0,90 92688.7HD TO: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members Proms Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator nI� coviv tL rgtkiING Dates September 21, 1988 �'fP2di9 Subjects Administrator's Information C17i t)F j,A•'u WOODHILL AVENUE - This first "lift" of asphalt was placed on this street two weeks ago and the final lift has been awaiting the movement of the utility poles. The utility poles have now been moved and they are now scheduling, weather permitting, the final lift for the first week in October. It additionally should be noted that we have had an inquiry from the Foxes regarding the width and we have sent them the information that the Council had reviewed back in July. The base course of bituminous has been placed with the wear course to be placed after utility poles have been relocated. The utility poles and transmission lines should be relocated by September 30, 1988. The contractor should be able to place the bituminous wear course, shouldering and slope restoration by the first week in October. COUNTY ROAD 15 PROGRESS - Construction continues throughout the project with curbing installation in Orono as well as utility relocation. The semiphore at County Road 51 in Spring Park is in operation. Paving and sidewalk placement in Mound. Hennepin County is not optimistic in regards to completing the project this year with the exception of the paving and street lights. Sidewalks and some restoration may not be completed until Spring of 1989. 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE - As you will note in the attached letter, Jeanne Mabusth has been in contact with Mr. Toberman and this is the response we have received. In order to use the facility in the manner to which he had originally been approved, we will be sending him a letter indicating that he now needs to come back for renewal conditional use permit. 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE - Smith's Bay Marina. The variance was granted on June 8, 1967. A demolition permit was issued on June 25, 1987. We received the building permit for the demolition within the year time together with an addition to a permit for the sea wall work and one dock work. Administrator's Information September 21, 1988 Page 2 of 4 Based on the special conditions of approval setforth in the original Resolution 42194, it would appear that since the applicant did not file for a building permit for the marina structure by the June 8, 1988 deadline date, Mr. Toberman must file for a renewal variance application. The resolution has been enclosed for your review. 1950 SHORELINE DRIVE - The attorneys are currently pursuing the matter with the property owner and Hazardous Building Proceedings are being re- initiated. Additionally, we have had a report of additional work being done on one of the rear cabins that is currently being investigated. CRYSTAL BAY SEWER HOOK-UP STATUS - The following residents were issued warnings on August 16, 1988 for failure to connect to the sanitary sewer: 1270 Arbor Street 2140 Prospect Avenue 12/1 Arbor Street 1290 Briar Street The owner at 1270 Arbor Street is out of town until September 26, 1988. The resident at 2140 Prospect Avenue contacted me stating she will connect as soon as she can make arrangements with a contractor. The resident at 1271 Arbor Street contacted me and stated that his wife had just gone through a major operation but they would be concentrating on getting the connection done as soon as possible. The resident at 1290 Briar Street has paid the SAC Charge and is trying to schedule a time with her contractor to complete the connection. I should have more specific information during the week of September 26, 1988 and ii necessary issue citations to those properties that are not at least making an effort to connect. Once the above are connected, the balance remaining of 10 units are involved in easement negotiation, assessment negotiations or City properties that have a deferral until December 1988. Administrator's Information September 21, 1988 Page 3 of 4 LONG LAKE/LAKE LEVEL - You may have recently noticed in an article that was in the newspapers regarding a recent Long Lake Counci.. meeting regarding the City of Orono's responsibility for installation of a plate which would have an influence on the lake level of Long Lake. This is an issue that staff has beer working on for over a year. Apparently the original plate rusted out several years ago and because of the differences of opinion. Orono asked the DNR to establish the ordinary high water mark for Long Lake. They did this based listorical precedence and they then indicated that Orono should to a the plate that had rusted out. (The location of the outlet is in Orono.) It seems to be a difference of opinion in the City of Long Lake as to whether this should be installed or not as it has an impact on the shoreline of some of the residents that live there. Because of the low level it has not been a significant issue this year, but the City of Orono is attempting to work with the Long Lake Engineer and the DNR to satisfactorily resolve this matter. LIVINGSTON TOWER PARK SCULPTURE - As it was mentioned at the budget meeting on September 20, 1988, the sculpture ha- been installed at Livingston Park. The City has been attempting to :lean or the a?ea and set a date for our "unveiling" of the sculpture. Presently the City is looking at mid October for an unveiling. HIGHWAY 12 - City of Orono staff was invited to a meeting at MNDOT District 5 on September 19 to review their initial plans for m:4ing safety improvements along Highway 12. These improvements are scheduled for 1991 and would entail widening of the road to allow for continuous left turn lane in the corridor from east of North Brown Road all the way through Old Crystal Bay Road. The cost of this project is estimated to be $500,000. The City staff had requested copies of this so this could be reviewed and comments made as to the City's thoughts on the matter. Administrator's Information September 21, 1988 Page 4 of 4 In a related note, I was in attendance at the Ad Hoc Task Force meeting on Monday niqht. Mr. Bill Crawford, Chief Engineer for the District, was present and after reviewing the status of Highway 12 it was his suggestion that the people on this end, in order to generate some planninq support fr)m MNDOT, establish a meeting with Commissioner Len Levine from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to indicate the need and the request for the assistance particularily as it relates to the current corridor. 'he request at this time would be assistance to determine the maximum improvement that could be made within the current corridor as it exists and secondly if a four lane road were to be designed along the current alignment, what would be negatively impacted by such an improvement. Based on this, it would provide the Ad Hoc Task Force with information as to whether there is a need to go ahead with the actual corridor study and possibly aid receiving MNDOT assistance in that. Staff will keep Council apprised of when these meetings will be established. It should be noted that the Mayors are invited to the next Ad Hoc Task Force meeting which will be on October 17, 1988 at 7:00 in Delano. City of ORONO _ . •,4' Y �^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 a •.a a A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 (A)(B)(D), SUBDIVISION 9, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVIS.ON 2 APPROVES THE COMMffiIICAL SITE PLAN FOR SNITH'S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB, INC. PILE 41142 WHEREAS, Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (lereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the Norch line of Central Avenue extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120.05 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 degrees 45 minutes East 29.04 feet thence North 37 decrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to the intersection of North line of Grand Avenue extended Easterly thence North 59 degrees 45 minutes west 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 degrees 115 minutes West 131.05 feet to beginning including accretions, " ON LAKE MINNETONKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a principal structure and major restoration of the marina property and has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision. 1 to permit fencing 10 feet from the lakeshore ins` -.d of the required 75 feet, 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit parking s for ivision 49 to permit instead of the required 48 stalls, Section 10.41, D parking 10 feet from the street lot line instead of the required 30 feet, Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (A) to permit the principal structure to be built 50 feet from the shoreline instead of the required 75 feet, Subdivision 10 (B1 to permit the principal structure to be built 40 feet from the side lot line adjacent to a residential zone instead of the required 50 feet, Subdivision 10 (D) to permit 15,862 s.f. or 63.41 of hardcover (actual reduction of 10% over existing hardcover at 73.6%) within 75 feet of the lake where no hardc,er is allowed and to yernit hardcover to remain at 5.100 s.f. or 300% o the allowed amount of hardco�-r az commerical o4 site plan fSection and per lSubdivision approval or the comp,ete restora ionof a marinaroperty.c a NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RBGOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. 2194 FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed is Zoning File 41142. 2. The property is located in the B-2 shore Business Zoning District. 3. The Orono Plannino Commission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the subject property on May 18, 1987, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. B) The majority of the prrnorty is located within the lakeshore protected area where nc harecover or structure is allowed. C) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently razoned to B-2 in 1975. D) The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in overall hardcover in addition to improvir.- i.uality of atom water runoff prior to entering lake. E) The majcrity of i... rro%. ants provid, a major reduction in hardcover imm.-'ately aciacert to shoreline. F) Access to to and p..rking areas have peen greatly improved with a propose - gle structure making for a more efficient use of the severe ited land area. 4. The City Council has dered this .li'cation including the findings and recommendati ,f the Planning Commission, reports by city staff, c, nTents by the rlicant and the effect of the proposed variances on :afacy and welfare of the community. S. The Ci- inds that the conditions existina on this property to it and do not apply generally I o•_her property ':a i:�7 district; that granting the variance. would •..t advs. .t traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire Lasard or c„ to neighboriar property; would not merely serve as a convenie,,..a ^o toe applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demo::strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a L ibstantial property right of •he applicant: and would be in keeping with the spirit rid intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 :'''-J CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based uron one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants the variances as set forth above and approves the commercial site plan dated April 20, 1987 by R.L. Wuornos and Associates for Smith's Bay Marina 6 Yacht Club, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. Owner to execute a Developer's Agreement and post a letter of credit with the City to insure the following improvements are irstalled by August 31, 1988. a) Drainage/surface water treatment improvements per final plans approved by the M.C.W.D. and City of Orono - the City would ask that as underground drainage the s-stem be located and its use reviewed as part of that improvemer;. b) Paving of parking area, lighting, signage, and installation of grassed area per plans by R.L. wuornos and Associates dated 4/20/87. c) Reconstruction of dock adjacent to shoreline in conjunction with shoreline restoration - areas of dock located above the 929.4 elevation not to exceed a 6 feet width. d) To construct a six feet high rivacy fence along the west side lot line adjacent to the public access. 2. The executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit (amount to be 150% of the cost of requirement improvements) must be submitted to the City prior to application for a building permit for r ?rincipal structure. City Engineer shall review total estimate of •.?rovement costs prior to submittal of letter of credit. ''. E: :on contrc' shall be employed at all times on the site during t = of the const-,uction of the principal structure and the reline restoration. 4. Owner/applicant shall apply for a buildinc hermit with penalty fee for commercial dock constructed prior la ownership of the property. 5. Demolition permits are required for all buildings to be removed. Such permits must be obtained �y applicant at the time a per::..t is issued for new construction. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued for the new structure until all buildings designated for removal have been • -ad. 6. Owner/applicar a hereby advised that at the time an application for building permi� is submitted to the City, the Orono eraff shall evaluate the proposed improvement and sea of the :erty per standards adopted by Metropolitan waste Control Com., pion ir. the determination of Service Avaii ability Charges to be col.--ted with the issuance of a buil-arn-9parmit. Page 3 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 'ry NO. 2194 rJ.e. 7. Owner shall reimburse the City of Orono for the cost of the installation of a striped crosswalk within the right-of-way of County Road 15. 8. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date (June 8, 1988). 9, violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate :-ny authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 10. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby acrees 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 June, 1987. ATT T: _ thy . Rallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. Page 4 of 5 h6E[ING LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL�^ L`t�ilN® FOR MEETING OF 9-23-88 �a No Licenses Sni'S �:f CITY OF ORONO P A Y R ,%6 FCw /LOv O v�1 P F d � PL-NO NAME DIV Y-T-D 4 - - GROSS GROSS EXP/ALLOW ANDERSON BL 31 26322.86 1500.37 BERNHARDSO ME 12 37796,44 E044.08 11 AG SOBZIEN SA 31 16572.41 856.80 - '.a�f�irtiI BOSMA JL 12 9399.52 531.53 BOYLAN SO 93 3391.54 325.17 BRINKHAUS JF 42 28197.78 1327.11 CARL'SON MB 35 711.45 48.45 PJ� QNY�O _�..s�! CHESW!CK GB 31 26925.49 1418.00 7 7 VV Y CORNICK JL 31 24S44.55 1255.34 DENNESON RJ 35 3031.97 228.04 ENGLISH 11 IN 31 24906.21 1444.84 -- ERICKSON DJ 93 1354.53 112.88 ERICKSON KR 31 25521.16 1273.52 FARR PS 33 2821.00 0.00 _ FISCHENICH DT 31 22636.88 1281.10 FRITZLER JM 31 25990.95 1440,67 GAFFRON MP 33 22412.E6 1213.60 GERHARDSON JR 42 31066.48 1636.08 GREGORY JD 4E E1658.E3 1150.56 HALLIN OM 1E 11550.91 1030.00 HANSEN 3C 42 1908T.37 959.E1 HANSING CJ 31 9050.5E 497.E6 JACOBS TJ 33 EZ412.25 1E13.60 JOHNSON BP 31 E4300.08 1395.98 KILBO MH 31 33386.79 1760.00 KIRNYCZUK M 31 ST62.11 153.72 KNUTSON CA 15 13866.38 771.13 KUEHN TM 15 30795,61 1646.64 LINDSTROM DJ 93 291.14 66.00 MABUSTH JA 33 26930.05 1418.24 MARQUARDT BJ 93 31.8E 0.00 MEYER MA 35 283.05 0.00 111KEL50N RA 15 1544E.51 06B.64 MILLS JR NM 93 2029.50 153.00 MORAN MF 31 ET370.51 IE24.ES MOROWGZTN3 J 31 E6369.04 144T.51 MORROW JS 31 T160.55 549.ES NAAS TL It 1EEE6.33 993.35 DAS DO 93 961.99 0.00 OBRIEN RL 92 3980.00 910.00 OMAN LE 33 18411.66 1017,60 PALMER PB 31 505-00 0.00 PETERSON RW 93 0.F4 0.00 OUAST WA 92 21511.45 1013_92 RATHBUN SJ 92 4487.22 935.48 ROSS JA 93 783.00 54.00 SASS JJ 42 19202.29 977.19 SCHAUSS CA 31 18122.27 1114.89 SCHEFFLER LK 12 2942.67 534.81 5KREEN 05 42 19226.59 959.20 5TEFPENRAG RE 73 E03T0 69 1072 80 1i 11 CITY OF ORONO P A Y R . y_1_p a _ _ _ _ _ �a EMPL—NO NAME DIV -DROSS OROSS EKP/ALLOY ' OTEVENS BB 93_ 1172'50 E28.50 . .__. _ __.. THOMTON MR 3t E0B71.19 1146.15 ' TOMCHECN LF 31 81178.10 11EB.M a _ TOMCZYK _ MN_31 E439t.4E _1358.5p T WALSH —I(C SS 789.30 0.S__ -- a COUNT GRAND 47,682.39 5 ,o " PAID 00049 rz ____TOTAL--00056 - --TOTAL-- -- " VA TOTAL FICA TAX GROSS • E8p892.53 EMPLOYERS FICA " A • GROUP HEALTH 0 0 PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH —PLAN— — -- ae *� C • BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD D • MEDICAL CENTER PLAN P• E •PRUDENT IAL 1 aal p F • COORO. HEALTH CARE 7Ye G • MINNES07A HMO A .r --- H •TRANS—AMERICA OCC--"------ --" a: I • BANKERS LIFE J • MUTUAL SERVICES K • MUTUAL OF OMAHA - - --"—' L • EOIPLOYEE68 BENEFIT M • AETNA N • NICOLLET EITEL----— "-- --_-- 0 • LEAGUE OF CITIES P • METROPOLITAN HEALTH PLAN 0 • SHARE 2 • WEALTH CARE MAINT ACCT. MISSING HOOP CODE FOR SOME EMPL'S IOff CITY OF N0110 ■TNN N/aw" 144.64 ?".Of CME= RECIBTER AGEO-IIINNNTA INC NTALN CAGES 99-16-00 PNE ACCOUNT N0. INV. • Y.O. f NESSN 01-I232-I11-33 O04131 ff/LLff 4.39 AT ELEPHNE— - "Gall Lf/LLN .11 AT f T COMMIT TELEPHONE 72-I389-EI9-31 1 • 47Nf3 H/tl/N 868.66 BPI EQUIP RENTAL 41-I131-290-61 •__J11"N N/RLN 5$.00 BPI EQUIP RENTAL 74-I331-336-93 • 3N. N . ., P•.... •..-Cw • 00113 N/O/N N.Of KAGEONIAN 1 Nw MAIMT GEOVwf 9/-I343-999-17 N/23/$$ IN Of RLACMGUTAN f $GAIN MIST GEOUNN 31-I311-230-01 __ v -_07900—_ If2.ff . � - 27404I 01/f]/N 239.94 MAMB PHOTOGRAPHY FILM f PHOTOS 1I-IElf-1E3-01 11701f1 —tlfEiL10_ RS.13 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY FILM $1-IEIE-n1-n LN.l3 176M Of/23/N I1S... BUDGET PRTN PAINTING; 01-13N-1E9-01 lu Its. —w•u. ..O-Cw iA #TEN/ GE/ti/�—riiT.7l-111�Y7-QIOLBOO-INC -- F - 1,iN.N o N00.0 Y f7E111 /f7/N 114i._11/ CASE PONN 3 EQUIP EQUIP PARTS •1-/8X-E49-I8 , Y ••f•.. .-Cw + — AOf1 tl/93/00 657. OS COCA COLA GEw7110 CONCN$IN$ N$ALL 71-/802-331-31 ff).Of .. w...• ...-CEN W� • S101H H/f3/N f1.2i PAL-CI►E-f1N ZO�IFE 1 "52-12F 670136 111/43/08 ST. TE NLONIAL LIFE IM CO LIPS IN fA-PIN-IN-71 • IM.04 . _— —---- _ ••.... •..-ew ice: 1986 CITY Of GRONO CHECK REGISTER CNECN NG ROTEAmour 9EMDOS ITEM OSSCRIPTI 270142 H/2LNG IAI.]I COPIES__ _ 2T9112 09/23/00 96.00 COPY DYP PR ING COMES 270142 09123/041 19.30 COPY DYP PR INC COPIES 970112 01/23/410 21L29 COPS PR in COPIES _ "eta#91231" ]S1.f1 COPY OW R� COPIES 270112 09/23/60 I63.10 COPY DIP PR ING TRAMSPAXANCIES _—molm 99/23/11S IL 91 COST OYP PR INC COPIES OS —OS -OS PASS t 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE ....-.-- ...... .N-CXS ' t90IiT 09/01/40 1,12l.10 DANLREII $MAIK.OY COIF PLAN HUY 12 01-1300-999-I! 8791E7 lia3l"...— 1179.01 OANLLNtN_ SUARIMON0 RRLRS APPL 01334 91-1300-010-7I 1.790.11 . 4701" 09/t]/00 SIO.IS E A SNGR CONCESSIONS RRALE 7I-IS02-911-91 144.15 . ...... 970197 - 01/23/44, 14.91 APPhTTTYPPCY PLOT - - - 16.51 . • [19199 09/23/44 4.931.00 ROLP E RICNtON SEPT SERVICE 01-007-OS9-11 lT9t11 wall/OS 3t3.tT SOSINGtt Mtn" COOP ELECTION SUPPLIES 51-1219-010-13 3t3.s/ . • NNN ....CKS - 000110 N/!]/OS 17.01 K[NGOSD INGLLYOSD YT7 LTY Its - - - w •- IT.p . Y tl0[/t H/l3l41 34.99 NANING/COSOL CLOTHING 01-Nt1-IH-31 - 34.99 . ' ...... ....CN0 270911 09/23/OS 6.15 NALLI01/004O1NY MILEAGE 01-1301-439-tt e10411 99LL7/u l.[t NALUY/GOROTMY MILEAGE 01-/381-010-13 9.43 .N-ClUl ...... 21OT9 49/23/u Is.tt HIM CITY SEPT TAX POSTAGE 01-13[I-0/0-13 �'� 19" CITY K GROW CHECK REGISTIS 11-40-441 FARE 3 270330 09123/80 _ 01.87 ICU ORTRRMT COOP ICU In - 9/is 01-4119-031-I2 1O U. 67 . 1713N 09193/N 1N.50 INTL COMF-BLDG OFFLS • ww.. 270343 11/93/418 20.91 TOM IACOSS 20.11 . BOONS 01-4240-174-33 '___ tl)3Ei H/E3/N 11.9a EEAVRMYS DRUG OFFICE EUFFL OId218-174-33 R713K 09/23/4111 20.11 M"VIENYS ORYG Is AID U7iL QI-4E39-1ET7i 6T.3T . __RT03N_�9..3A1 RTO.N 216404 1.01 MILOO-MRLVIM MM CHIEFS FALL CONF 01-/356-199-01 FUSL ISHI NO 11-4M-a4l-19 270021 OU23/00 74.00 LRCIT NO STAR RISK LIAO INS 11-4370-121-31 tT0421 _ 69/23/00 210.00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK LIAO INS 01-4374-17I-33 2T0421 00/t3/ MC fTT10-tTAR7If - 3T"- 270421 09/23/R 29.09 LMCIT NO STAR RISK LIAO IU /1-4370-291-61 276421 LT.42i 270421 _)1/113[w__ 09/93/08 O/tLN N.N 71.06 40.00 ■10.00 . LMCIT NO $TAR RIOT LIAO INS LMCIT NO STAR RIOI-77Ft-IAf�7=17TE3fF9 LMCIT NO STAN RISK LIAO INS TR-1370-549-11 T1-13T1-S90-91 s .q 2T0423 09/23/80 i1i .1 �OF-IIM�L IFIt0 fill-MEM7E(Oi[F� - - - t70.01 . 270437 01/23/08 51.E3 CITY OF LONG LANE MARRIMOTON LS 73-011-509-9t ti It" CITT OF MIUW CHEM RECISTER Ot-it-DD PASS ♦ � CHEM N0._110111 -_ MOUNT Income ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT MO. INV. 0 F.O. 0 MSSAN 59.53 . D1N4 N/NLRR 64.71 MACGREGOR GOLF CO GOLF DALLS 7I-/501-591-t1 ' N.71 . _ .-CX8 " S'ONtt 89/t3SO 672.35 MARTIND IIAVARRE tt MAINT AUTO 91-I241-IH-71 ETNOE 89/R3/04 14.88 MYTINB NAVARRE fit PAINT "TO 7/-/]11-599-9] -• t8t.S5 ...CR8_ ' ""So et/t./N tS. ♦TI.IT MIDWEST A#MALT ASPHALT 01-4933-EI9-I8 1S.IT1 IT - ...w. ...-CKS t/01Nt et/tLtt 59.00 MPLB HEALTH DEPT OTHER CONSULTING 1-4- - $8.08 ...... ... -TNDE—fit/ELM ES It ML8 OXYGEN CO UTILITIES 6IM3E4-219-/2 ' 29.44 ------ ....CAS -. STNtt wav" 15.0E MIIIMECASCO UTILITIES Ot-/R/-MS-iT ...... ....MIS " ETBSM Ot/aw" It♦.SO MM ■I�FTY F[FB - -mm 1t1.tt . ww.. - ...Cls NO.$@ MOTMOLA INC MAW* CABE$ I"232-tT1-X5 _ET0534 _Rt/lLtt - 27.545 N/tl/SS I72.15 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR MINT AUTO 81-I341-17I-33 o tr 545 way" toois"VARItE AUTO UNFAIR MINT "TO tt-ISIt-ITI-SS 270505 M/tLM 15. 80 MA AMt1EACMO—fESASS--fN�MY "TO iT R70S45 Ot/SLN t0. BE NAVARRS AMC REPAIR MAINT "TO TR-/NI-SIS-SI 111.N ...... ....ME t75S52 of/ELN 19RI NAASso- - - ♦.N • Z "N CITY OF ORON CHECK REGISTER 171[9} k DATE M T MORE ITEM DESCRIPTION "DEEP 249.38 RN e .lR . ' "DEN "/iLN 1]1.11 171.11 . • T.10p H/O/N lY.11 STREET LICMTS /1-4]15-249IE 970679 "/tLN 70.13 PRNI INTO SARI ►"TOG SO- 110-174-71 76.85 "-lO-N ►OK E W. 0 P.O. 0 NNOCE 97NY "RLN ]71.00 REED CARRY 1 TOYCCO CONCESSIONS RESOLE 7I-4008-591d1 - -- -- - -- 771.00 • "plE "/p/N 2.077.04 ■OL:.INO OIL CO GASOLINE /1-PEPS-IO0-S1 1.I77." . �J e "ONI "/tT%N —� �Z —fTTO11L f00E-- �OETEO-OIIYO�iZElOTT77 6.06 . 97069E "1 3/N 32.54 OCOMIN C"RLN NGLTi IN RORNO 0 IEEE-1N-]I STST.O "/tl/N 170.0E 0TR"CNRS ENV PARTS 01-/171-110-1/ __--- 110.611. It" CITY OF $am CHICK REGISTER as-"-" PAN a _g0.02YlR RNOIMf V2MMR ITS" DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N. INV. a P.O. 0 mE ' ■V*M N/RS/N e]e.OS TARP SUPPLY CO a]a.a5 . - w.w. -ff�1K "Imes !.!f NI TI ETETN ge/R]/N RIa.TS NIPOR S UNLID'. • ONIS VEST CONRUN 46.98 US ge/t` 19.50 US UEST CONNUN _11llIL-- ESIR -+ N.Ti YS NEST CONNUN ETMIS 01/E3/N 20.75 US WEST CURNUN - ET0e•f H/E]/N I6.57 US WEST CORRUN ]i.1a US WEST CONNUN ` ETNIE 11/t]/N 24.94 U6_ WEST CORIIUN • 174.44 . NOUNS MINT SWIL T1-41F]1-5/4-/] a EQUIP 01-1LE1-1E6-31 a EQUIP EI-/2E1-I81-31 —ttaPNM 61-432r-1n- 01-0X0-2R1-AL DATA PROC[stlN DATA PROCESSING O-nss-oat-IS APORE -0 2 - 11-11 PROCESSINGn DATA PROCESSING Tt-ss-Sn-11 TELEPHONE ELE 73-4320-561-1t -—2iY1-1'ROCEtfTM`,777JSS-sE>=1t .w.o w.-CNN _JTQ3S_ N/RJ/N SN. iO WMNIN LITES INC ENIP RENTAL 91-4331-249-0t •• _pww '• Riegel ge/RJ/N STAIN N/RLN ETNO] N/tl/N Rawl i,A w.-CEG R51.00 LANE COUNTRY CHAPTER CONPERIUM 01-4350-170-73 age NY EQUIP TMtI'::4-990-13 RSH EQUIPMENT EQUIP PARTS e1-02]t-t49-01 ET0/01 09/27tN toasPOWERS JAMS WATER METER REGUN TE-I277-60-06 Wall _ • "*sm "law" N.00 PRONN SPECIfLTIEN NTRT$ 70-4901-511-90 ETNN ft/tl/N N.tt RETAIL MIA SYS-MINN CAN an MT 1/16/81 01-4300-431-12 j/NN N.11 RETAIL MIA SYS-RINN CAN RES NT //la/N 01-4310-062-15 _--/11E7140 ETNN at/ET/aa N.tt RETAIL DATA -SYS-RINN--CAN-W-NIST 0/16/89 41-4340-174-33 ' ETNN SVO/N 6141 RETAIL a.'A SYS-MINN CAN REC NT //fa/N TR-nIO-SOP-H 71 j7" i / f/eves _ RETAIL A SYS--INN MN REt NT 1/14/69 T7-/344-E69-/2 i".54 • ...-gee w.... 11M CITY M ttORO CHECK REGItTGO 19-tt-416 PAU T • fltttl Waal eTt911 •—.tutu _ n1911 71. of TLU ACCOUNT M. SM. 0 F.O. 0 MO!!tt 01-4210-120-01 -atvtl_ that CITY OF MEDI" 19M-to PERMIT 73-4303-S09-92 s17ty,ib 277.90 tr-scr-n� t9niI enal- CITY Of M INA 19tt-44 M PERMIT 73-4343-569-92 _t9n3i4141 _ _ mat- uT9 OF Nut" »p-n a t ly 73-43E3-E69-92 t1/t3/04 27T.t1 CITY OF R SSM Ittt=H �t�[EIITT-17=�T2S-3iT-93-- --- mat . n.Tn.st RM111, a TOTO. ZINC? FWD 9t TOTAL 1961- an •j FUND 43 TOTAL 1180 tlt. tl ?ONO 14 TOTAL toga 111.It two K TOTAL 11a5 Oil as { L--04TEt 1lT.7s FOND 73 TOTAL MUEF FONG T. TOTAL GOLF 311.1641.50 TOTAL 0/3 NA :196 Coll OI t':• w0 CNCC. w0 tl-.. AHCU.T on= 2E0101111 011-21-416 PRIDE v[NOY am wSEDIFTtY _ __ tCC011R Y_tN. O I.l. • aYMY _ _ _ .I",, H/IVY 14.09 IH M1111 LAKE! Ilan TIED TO 0/7 OI-IIK-0[hfl MANUAL .CORTI JELIVY ]H ]T oo LAKE! _ ___ l" l/t! TO SIT N_IIK-Hf-It_ MANUAL _ .000II "low"2" 11 _Jif iH BANK LAKE! Ilan T/L! TO BIT OI-11K-Rt-1! MA ... L H/1!/Y lf. t'• 1H !YR LAKES IICA T/L! TO a" EI-III2-011-17 nNNVAL .COLA .Cowl /11/N 94.51 ltT D. LAKES _ plan T/L! TO VT - 01-11K-11\-21 _ _ 1... AL N1.11. _._ __ H/IVN 11a 1� lEl BANK LAKES ri" T/C! TO SIT 01-IIK-\1!-]1 MNVAL H/1!/N 36.65 IH EYR LAKE! Ilan T/tl TO BIT 01-41 412-\[\-)1 MANUAL nCIC' .Car -1_ raY 3.00 )\ I_IY_ ...Wl .Car" 01/\VN ant. IS ___ 1H DANK LAND Ilan TIE, TO elf 01-II441-IH-]] MANUAL wCasll H/M:N ).lf \R BANK LAKES Ilan VE! TO O11 01-IIK-IY-]! MNwveL NCYH_ H/IVY 4BI at at BANK I1CA TIES TO VT H_IIIE-LIf-K - MNVAL - KCSOT1 _ H/IVY .1_11 'IT N BAK _LAKES LAREO IICA l/Y TO B/1 BI-IIIFHf-!\ MANUAL NCOETt H/IVY 101 Oa IT BANK LAKE! f?CA T/t! TO VT 1F1\It-111-11 I...L )E :BT_BMK LAKIN TIM TO B/l_ T]_I\6-1H-1L MANUAL NCYTt_--!}/.Oi/Y 1,, _ --___IICA FICA 1/!! TO 9/1 _ 11-1\IC-IH-!! N.... L wC[!lO H/IVN Too IS IST WMAN LAMS L.OM.w 'a 1^ iVY P.l0-- w11MCt ... LN1w11 MANUAL w.EB TO fA4 Of N11f-0]t-1t -wANUAL IYA 111i T/1\ TO Tn1 B\-1111-BIMI) NIAU.L YBYI tt/IE/N IEEA IPN T/I\ TO T/H 0\-IH1-Hl-1• MANUAL MEOf H/TVN 1.04 \.Y I Y/1\ TO T/EC _ 01-1111-H1-1! ANNUAL YwE1 \Y.1N 1. I T/11 TO TIE1 •1-1111-011-TT MN1.L iYO1 of"VN •1/\VY f.11 I_ IYA TO in1_ 01-IlCYT1\-)T Mn:.1L ytBEEI _ _ Ot/\VN 1,464.41 IYA —IYA — _ IORA III\ 1111 TO T/N - al-11t1-1T1-]i MAN AL NBBEf eflla/N Y.ft IENA T/11 TO TIES 01-4141-ICI-31 MANUAL 1t� • H/IVSS IH.N IENA ILRA 7/11 TO T/t1 01-IIII_1LO-]I MANUAL NEYBI H/1!/Y - - K1. - L0 - IYA —MESH-7111 1O TIED 01-111'-1T1-i0-- MANUAL wEOtO\ H/I l/Y a)[ !0 FIND MESA T/11 TO Vp •1-IIIIY.II-K MANUAL NYfDI H/'1'Y tt1. 10 IYA IENA i/11 10 NH BI-1111-HMU MANUAL wc•COI __"'T •Y - AN La _ Falls — FROM 1III TO 1/EI TF0141-1I1-1 _ - MANUAL - •!0: H/IVY to la ICNA ILY Tlil TO VEI T]-1111 -1H-fC MANUAL ' al/1!/N ICo.11 I A ItRA 1/11 TO 1/N i1-1111-1I1-11 MANUAL more, - IKOt01 H/IVN - -h%IVN Y.as -!1 IPA - - --IYs 1/If TO IIN—TI-IIII-JIf-fi- - MANUAL .Care. N- OYA IENA T/I I TO T/EI 7I-014I-110-13 MANUAL KCS201 H/ !/Y Y IYA 43 BI.eT "an FERA TIED TO BIT /1V141-039-lt MANUAL .Ce H/TVY 7.02 KNOWN, SPA T/P TO 8/1 01-1141-010-13 MANUAL .Cl - se/fa•Y ----- - IENA TIES TO BIT 01-1111-099-11 MANUAL +Ca_ t It" Van ROI---- MESA IENA TIED TO 0/7 01-4141-001-IE MANUAL .Cots, ",IVN I".at IENA IENA vn TO Bn n-u11 -a1f-n MANUAL .C.F.r ",TV" O.14 _ FEaA — PM. TIES To BIT _ - _ -0I-4141-111o1 MANUAL ."Eel H/i!/w 1.254.60 IYA L1aA FQA TICS TO SIT B\-Ct11-ns-): ...UAL .COeee SVIVS4 aT.tf MA ICED T/t! TO SIT 01-VII-1Cl-]t MANUAL .Case! _ _00/IVY _ _ _ 101.N HNA TIED TO Vi 0I-11II-IEa-31 MANUAL .CEEU 00/ISIY I91.83 IENA Tn$ TO BIT 01-4141-171-)) nAMUAL .Cote[ Hlla/Y ' TS FPA bA FEDN T/P TO 1/7 0\-I111-tH-IL MANUAL .rANt 0l/IVN ".as .w -- me -- IENA LED TO VT 01-1111-E1f-01 nA%U.L .:We! a* 'a.Y ST.IS MA IENA TIED TO BIT Tt-4101-511-11 MANUAL NCDNt Sells." IPA Sat^ TIP TO SIT 73-1111-1H-1E MANUAL .COII, 111/1WOO 14.14 _ - --MA IENA TIED TO BIT 7I-I1II-e99-1] .TYU.L .Case, HnaIY w.w ).9OI.Y 1162 CITY OF 00040 CWCK wEiliTu 40-31-M 'Aw s CHECK NO DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOIRPT .IOD. _Rov. 0 P.O. 0 nowh" 91/16/s1i It 00 Cn"" REV aALEB_TAX SALES TAX_.4VLV___. 01-3600-000-00 _ MANUAL MC ata7 a1/1Be" E54 00 COMM REV SALES TAX 3A'.93 TAX J11LT TE-EECE-000-00 MANUAL NCstS3 01/1i/N 1,113 OC COMM REV SALES TAX SALES TAX J11LT 74-?E[E-000-00 MANUAL 1,37! 00 • "Cos" ".491W06 450 00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 01-4321-1r7-31 MANUAL �_-,_-- 450 00 0_ "Cates 01/1wes 1' 94 B MALLIN FRAMES Ot-4210-039-12 MANUAL "Cares 01/19/88 43.ST D MALLIN FRAMt3 01-4E10-121-31 - -- --- MANUAL - - - 0115.01 • "CeE66 09/15/8e is 10440_- POPHAM MAIK LEGAL RETAIN JUNE O1M3�1�N�-1�_ MANUAL "Cargo 09/15/se I9,i4m.19 POPHAM MAIK LEGAL PR03EC JUNE 01-430L-040-16 MANUAL HCaLee 09/13/86 E.8*S•30 POPHAM MAIK LEGAL CONSULT JUNE 01-4303-060-16 MANUAL .C6r66 0!/IS/ae i1T. N POPHAM MAIK LEGAL CONSULT JUNE 01-4303-640-71 MANUAL MCar66 99/4.,sa 6i.00 POPHAM MAIK LEGAL CONSULT JUNE 24-4303-41T-00 MANUAL "Cata6 01/19/08 1W .60 POPHAM MAIK LEGAL CONSULT ;UN[ 84-4391-415-00 MANUAL "Cates 0!/I5/08 31.67 POPHAM MAIK LEGAL CONSULT JUNE 24-4319-451-00 _ MANUAL - "C81166 Ol/1S/6s DO 60 POPHAM MAIK LEGAL CONSULT JUNE E4-4399-43E-00 MANUAL "Cars{ 01/15/ae 66 90 POPHAM MAIK LEGAL CONSULT JUNE ES-4303-43E-00 MANUAL 15,007 50 • HCOEST 0!/1S/se 3 60 COMMERCIAL LIFE LIFE INS AUG 01-415[-031-10 MANUAL Pic are? 05/15/sa t.TO COMMERCIAL LIFE LIFE INS AUG_ 01-413E-06l-19 __- MANUAL MCateT 01/19/58 It. TO COMMERCIAL LIFE LIFE INS AUG 01-4152-IB1-31 MANUAL "CarsT 07/11/as 3 60 COMMERCIAL LIFE LIF- .. -;a 01-4152-ICS-31 MANUAL "Ce4!a7 09/Is/M 1 10 COMMERCIAL LIFE �.' AUB 01-41Sr-1E7-31 MANVAL MC6c6T 01/1B/ii 3 60 COMMERCIAL LIFE _ ._ AUG 01-415t-1T4-33 MANUAL MCateT 09/1s/ai 5.40 COMMERCIAL LIFE •- lN3 AUs 01-41SE-E41-4E MANUAL MCBta7 09/19/60 COMMERCIAL LIFE LIFE INS AUG TLI-415E-541-91 MANUAL MCateT 01/13/66 _ .54 COMMERCIAL LIFE LIFE INS AUG T3-415E-561-7E MANUAL NEail7 0!/15/04 .10 COMMERCIAL LIFE LIFE INS AUG T4-41SE-510-73 MANUAL 33.30 • "Coe" a!/10/196 80.41 ►RVSEMTIAL LIFE INS AUG 01-413t-061-13 MANUAL "Cade a1I1-Be" E4 aspaus NTIAL LIPE INS AUG 0)t-415E-1Ee-3t _ _ MANUAL "Cates _ _ 01/111/M 37 67 PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS AUG 01-41SE-1r7-31 MANUAL "Cates 01/I9/4161 c 70 PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS AUG MANUAL "Cates 01/IS/N a 00 PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS AUG Oi-41Sr-t47-4t 'MANUAL MC6cl0 0!/15/ee 118 31 13T BANK LAKES FICA E/8 10 3/El 01-414E-03l-IE MANUAL MCarlO @7'IS/ee rLS E4 IST BANK LAKES FICA 8/8 TO a/r1 01-4149-001-15 MANUAL "Carlo 67/15/ee 1S.Ea 1ST BANK LAKES FICA 8/8 TO a/rl 01-414E-011-1T MANUAL "cat70 07/15/sa 31 E5 1ST BANK LAKES FICA 3/3 TO S/Z1 01-414E-111-31 MANUAL MCatlO 09/19/66 110 77 IBT BANK LAKES FICA 3/5 TO a/Z1 01-414E-110-31 MANUAL_ "Cecil 01/15/sa 34 64 _ 1BT BANK LAKES FICA a/8 T1 a/E/ 01-4148-IEI-31 MANUAL "Car lO 91/15/64 16.00 1BT BANK LAKES FICA 3/a TO a/ci 01-4149-196-31 MANUAL "Cecil 91/13/68 44C !4 1ST BANK LAKES FICA 8/8 TO a/E'1 01-414t-174-33 MANUAL "Cede 09/19/66 4 Be 1ST BANK LAKES FICA a/a TO B/El -- 01-414t-I65-35 - - --MANUAL MCORIO 01/13/66 349 71 IBT BANK LAKE) PICA 8/5 TO a/EI 01-414t-t41-4E MANUAL w it" CITY OF NSM CHECK -.- - smi_iN_-p#...TS MowT VENDOR- _. Me"" "flu" to. on I ST SANK LAKES aT/-w-" --"-To 15T BANK LAKES -_ 1 T1 019f l of" l0T.41 1ST BANK LAKES meow" hf/st" IST.4s 1ST DANK LAKES IICS"s 01flsf" 0.14 ORONO PETTY CASH NC0csl 0111sf" 0,34 ORONO PETTY_5A3H MCSl1/ 090/94Fis .TV ORONO PETTY CASH NCDts/ "flat" 4.94 ORONO PETTY CAS" • NC at0/ h/10lN 4.94 ORONO PETTY CASH '—NCa=1/ a1/1f✓SS .39 ODOMO ►[TTT CASH HCa[11 0lfist" 3.44 ORONO PETTY CASH "Colt 91 _ "tIClas a ORONO PETTY CASH NCal91 Offisf" am -am ORONO PETTY CASH HC911! SWIStss 9.34 ORONO PETTY CASH - HCS!!' 01flw441 11._49 ORONO PETTY CASH MCal91 "flu" i -- -- � s-Es ORONO PETTY LASH HC4991 01f1sf" 3.00 ORONO PETTY CASH NCat9/ OTflsf" �— so.OT ORONO PETTY CASH ---- TT . 31 • HCaa1r 01/Isf010 [0.00 Coll. ["SEEN - - ---at . *@ • --- R11iI8T[R E9.101.04 FUND 01 TOTAL 381.0T FUND Z4 TOTAL N .!0 FUND ►s TOTAL 9" .TT FUND Tt TOTAL 5T3-T9 FUND T3 TOTAL _ FUNS T4 TOTAL_— - +_ • iG, a" - 93 TOTAL 1. i 00-31-00 PACE 7 ' ITQ1 KSCNIPTISM ACCOUNT 00. IRV. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE FICA 0/6 TO 0/21 01-414[-E90-41 MANUAL FICA-0/8-TU -0/t1 _Tt=414E_54!-91 _ MANUAL —3 FIlt S/S TO a/tt 13-4142-969-1! MANUAL FICA 0/6 TO 8/91 T4-4149-910-13 MANUAL 14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4E/0-040-13 MANUAL " FRAN" 01-4[10-/[1-31 MANUAL ACCESS 01-49IC-011-1T MANUAL LATHES 01-4E39-1E1-31 MANUAL LATHES 01-4i3[-[41-4[ MANUAL a POSTAGE a1-43[1-031-1[ -- MANUAL �s P03TAG[ 01-43l1-a40-13 MANUAL POSTAGE a1-13=1-fad-1S MANUAL POSTAGE 01-43Lt-it1-31 MANUAL t POSTAGE 01-43t1-IT4-33 MANUAL MAINT AUTO 01-4341-t41-4E MANUAL MEETING MANUAL - PARKING 01-4381-C49-4t MANUAL '- FRAMES T4-4t10-510-93 MANUAL [NSL[H 01-4510-/21-31 MANUAL A 1• ••s-CMS r "' GENERAL FUND - PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING P 1135 IMPROVEMENT FUND WATER OPERATING FUND 39UCR OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FO LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS I SCP 2 6 1988 A G E N D A Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 23, 1988 Tonka Bay Village Hall 4901 Manitou Road, Tonka Bay 7:00 p.m. Public Hearings: A B 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call Nelson Manitou Harbor Variance Lake Frontage Measurement•+ 3. Public Co®ents - items from persons in attendance not on agenua 4. Reading of Minutes, approval as read or amended, 8-24-88; proposed amend- ment to 5-25-88 minutes, per Boudreau letter 5. Conm+unications 6. Reports A. Special Board Assignments (1) Fee Committee Chair appointment, JoEllen Hurr (2) M.C.W.D. Operating Plan Review, Dave Cochran B. Treasurer (1) Financial Condition for month ending 8-31-88 (2) Audit of vouchers for payment (per summary list) C. Standing Committees (1) WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT (Chair JoEllen Hurr) (a) Approve Action Report of 9-10-88 meeting (b) City of Mound refund request for WSU not used, and sub- sequent City proposal to withdraw request, proposing procedure for annual dock count determination (c) M.C.W.D. request for resolution to support funding for project grant for Long Lake (2) LAKE USE (Chair Bob Pillsbury) (a) Approval of Action Report of 9-10-88 meeting (b) Water Patrol Report (informational) (r) Deposit refunds per minutes M LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT • Board Agenda, September 23, 1988 Page 2 D. Special Committees (1) Advisory Committee (informational - Rascop, Reese, Arndorfer) (a) Subcommittee organization (b) Public meeting schedule development (c) Project schedule update and revision (d) Summer monitoring of Lake Use early termination (e) legislative grants-in-aid funding plan (2) Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force (Chair Tom Reese) (a) "Prevent spread of Eurasian Water Milfoil" sign status (b) Regional, state agency cooperation, assistance from DNR, Army CoE, Hennepin Parks, Hennepin County Lake Improvement, Fresh- water Foundation, private treating consultant (c) Projections for developing a strategic plan to attract needed funding, municipal and regional/state agency assistance E. Executive Director (1) Administrative, personnel progress, needs (2) Priority meetings, exchanges 7. Unfinished Business A. DNR Shoreland Management Rules draft review B. Fee -Study Committee appointments C. Set special meeting date for Professional Fundraising Service reporit D. Additional unfinished business 8. New Business A. Nomination of Officers and estabiishi-ig election procedure B. Prosecuting Attorney replacement: Steve :alien of LeFevere, Lefler, et al; and Herb (Skip) Lefler proposal i;. Additional new business 9. Adjournment y 1 88 I AKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE September 28, 1988 through October 1988 Wednesday 9-28-86 Public Hearings: (1) Nelson (Manitou Harbor) Dock Use Area Variance (2) Measuring Frontages for Dock Use Areas 7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall Regular Meeting, Board of Directors 7:30 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall Friday 9-30-88 Review of DNR Shoreland Management Rules 7:30 a.m., City of Wayzata Wednesday 10- 5-88 Advisory Committee 7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall Saturday 10- 8-88 Water Structures 6 Environment Committee 7:30 a.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata — Monday 10-10-88 DNR Public Hearing on Shoreland Management Rules 6 p.m., Room 100, State Office Building, St. Paul Monday 10-17-88 Lake Use Committee 5:30 p.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata Wednesday 10-26-88 Regular Meeting, Board of Directors 7:30 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall 4-2U-88 MAYOR'S ARTICLE jIMG (Comment by 9/26 ) c ` P 2 B Orono/Minnetonka Beach Interceptor Construction - As you ppaqg :be aware, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (M.W.C.C.) has s�h'ehuled the project to start this fall to replace the interceptor line along County Roads 19 and 51 from Minnetonka Beach to the old Orono Treatment Plant on Old Crystal Bay Road. This construction is to replace an interceptor that was originally put in in the mid 60's and is one that has currently exceeded capacity several times, dumping raw sewage into Lake Minnetonka. Under the sponsorship of JoEllen Hurr, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission representative for this district (who is also an Orono resident, a former Orono Council Member and Orono's Lake Minnetonka Conservation District representative), the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission undertook to develop this project. While this will provide a great long-term benefit for the preservation of the Lake, it will involve some intermediate inconvenience for people along the route. To a degree, the work has been coordinated with the County Road 15 construction, so that persons are not totally limited in access, but it is not anticipated at this time that County Road 15 work will be fully completed before this project starts. It is anticipated that County Road 51 will be blocked off near Tonkawa for a period from September 26 through November 30. This City's pu:)lic safety forces have made necessary arrangements to accommodate this blockage. Should you have further questions or comments, please feel free to either contact either Tim Keagen, Project Engineer, 229-2174, at the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission or John Gerhardson, Orono staff at 473-7357. Orono Police - Emergency Medical Forefront - Recently an article in the Wall Street Journal pointed to the success that the automatic defibrillators have had in the Seattle, Washington area. The City of Orono Police Department together with two other places in the County has for the last year been one of the test sites for such a machine. This is under the sponsorship of North Memorial Hospital This pilot program has been felt to be a success by the Police Officers as it allows a heart attack victim to be defibrillated without having a paramedic present. (It should be noted that all of Orono's Police Officers are trained as Emergency Technicians and are qualified to utilize this spec4al training and equipment.) The pilot program will continue and when it is over, North Memorial Hospital will publish results as to the gains of the Police Department having this new device. Orono Police/MNDOT On -Truck Enforcement - In a recent article in the local newspapers, you have seen Orono Police taking action regarding enforcement of various regulations as they relate to the trucking industry. This program has been on -going for the past two years. So far in 1988, the cooperative arrangement has made stop of 428 trucks and issue 45 citations with 40 trucks being pulled out of service until they are corrected. While this may seem like a routine operation, this cooperation has been unusual between a ...-al police department and MNDOT and has been spear -headed through th, efforts of Marc Fritzler and other_ officers with the encouragement of Chief Kilbo. The important nature of these stops has poignantly been brought home when you see an accident such as the one that occurred a few months ago in Orono/Long Lake on Highway 12 or the cne in Bloomington which resulted in a seven car pile-up. It is the individual efforts on the part of our patrol officers that help make the roads safer for all of us. Highway 12 - Over the past few years, the cities of Long Lake and Orono together with the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce have been working to have signals installed at Willow Drive and Highway 12. To date the effort has not been fully successful but the organizations will continue to work towards this goal. An interium solution that has been authorized by MNDOT is the installation of a yellow flashing light to caution people as to the hazardousness of that location. We, as a City, do not look at this as a solution to the problem, but only the first step. The next step in the process whict. would be a signalized intersection. Lake Minnetonka Regional Park - As you may have noted in the paper recently, the City of Orono has expressed its support to Minnetrista in its lawsuit with Hennepin Parks together with determining what action if any it should take in relationship to this. The City of Orono's issue is the potential constitutional violation. The legislation that was passed is appears specific to local government but was drafted so that local government approval was not required as mandated in the constitution. If this is a violation and is not appropriately struck down, it will allow the Legislature to draft legislation in other areas to avoid a constitutional mandate. This is an issue that is not only a concern to communities around the Lake but to all local governments in the State of Minnesota. 2 Curbside_Recyclijq - For the past two years, the City of Orono in conjunction with six other communities have been operating the West Tonka Recycling Commission with drop off sites for recycling materials. In order to continue to obtain the goals for recycling, the City has felt it necessary to look at curb -side recycling, particularily in the "urbanized" or more densely populated sections of the community. The City has two proposals from contractors and will be exploring whether this is a viable option financially as well as viable option from a participation standpoint. Your thoughts or comments on this would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Jams R. Grabek, Mayor 7 92688.6HD To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: September 21, 1988 Subject: Orono/M.W.C.C. Interceptor Construction Start Date Attached for information is a proposed construction schedule for the Orono/M.W.C.C. Interceptor Project. Also be advised that a meeting has been scheduled for September 29, 1989 with the marina owners. I will be attending that meeting. Metropolitan VN Mears Park Centre, 230 East September 20, 1988 Dear Resident: 7 r Commission ul1( NfrraResota 55101 K Construction is expected to begin next Monday, September 26, on the Orono Interceptor Sewer Improvements Project. This $2.2 million construction project is being built by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. It is designed to provide additional sewer capacity for the cities of Orono and Minnetonka Beach. Kenco Company of Blaine, the construction firm building the project, is expected to complete project construction on the illowing schedule (please note the project route on the enclosed .Sp) September 26 through November 15, 1986, County Road 51 is expected to be closed to through traffic between County Road 19 and County Road 84 while sewer pipe is installed along the road. In the area between Bohns Point Road and Tonkawa Road, County Road 51 will be totally closed. This is necessary so that piling, made of timber, can be installed to better support the sewer pipe in this area. Access to businesses and local residences is expected to be maintained at all times. Pall and Winter 1968-1989: Sewer pipe is expected to be installed beneath the Noerenberg Bridge and Henrickson Bridge along County Road 51, and beneath the Coffee Bridge along County Road 19. While no road closings should be necessary during this work, some traffic restrictions along with increased truck traffic is expected at these locations. Late May through June 4, 1989: Sewer pipe is expected to be installed along County Road 19, between Fagerness Point Road and the railroad tracks. A partial road closure is expected i.n conjunction with this work. June 4 through Tune 18, 1969: County Road 19 is expected to be closed between County Road 51 and Fagerness Point Road while sewer pipe is laid in this area. Access to local residences is expected to be maintained at all times. June 19 through Susaer/tall 1989: Sewer pipe is expected to be installed along County Road 83, north of County Road 51. A partial. road closure is expected in conjunction with this work. Final restoration of the entire sewer route is expected to be completed by late fall 1989. s -over- ,.. 1 15i NORTH MAXWELL BAY FRENCH t�KE .SOW 3 a* i7 st.ewc o!. � Z B �. eoMN s POINT N •�•�•�"�'y « CRYSTAL BAY _ MINNETONKA BEACH NAVARRE 19 LAFAYETTE �`� BAY MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON AUGUST 29, 1988 i- A special meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School Disfrtc,Vp. 278 was held on Monday, August 29, 1988 at 6:30 a.m. 1yr Present: Dave McKown James Franklin Thoma's�� 'lift D )a Anderson John Maresh Wi 1 1 i am Fenho�t Kitty Crosby Lucie Taylor Member Lucie Taylor introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORTZING SPECIAL MEETING UNDER EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES AND WAIVING STATUTORY NOTICE WHEREAS, the S:hool District has commenced proceedings in eminent domain to acquire all of the right title and interest of Woods Academy in the School District's Maple Plain Elementary School site; and WHEREAS, the parties have entered into negotiations regarding the amount of compensation to be paid to Woods Academy for the settlement of all of its claims against the School District; and WHEREAS, circumstances have required that the School Board conduct a special meeting at this time in order to compromise., settle and resolve the dispute so that the School District may make arrangements for its occupancy and utilization of the building with the commencement of the 1988-89 school year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Independent School District No. 278 as follows: 1. That each member concurs in and approves of the corvening of a special School District meeting under emergency c —cimstances for the purposes of resolving this matter, and t,rther, that each School Hoard member waives statutory notice for such meeting. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resoluticn was duly seconded by Member Jim Franklin _ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Kitty Crosby, John Maresh, Lucie Taylor, Jim Franklin, Don Anderson, Dave McKown and the following voted against the same: None whereupon maid Resolution was declared duly passed and adept.ed. 14ember John Maresh introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLiJTION AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT OF ACTION ACQUIRING CERTAIN PROPERTY BY PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN WHEREAS, on July 13, 1988, the School District and Woods Academy, Inc. stipulated to and the Hennepin County District Court entered an Order finding the taking of Woods Academy's interests in the School District's Maple Plain Elementary School site to be necessary, for a public purpose, and authorized by law, and such Order further provided for the transfer of title to and possession of the property by the School District as of August 19, 1988; and WHEREAS, On July 13, 1988, Woods Academy delivered to the School District notice of its intent to exercise a right of option to purchase under the lease; and WHEREAS, the parties intend to reach an agreement regarding the amount of compensation to be paid to Woods Academy for the settlement of all its claims against the School District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278 as follows: 1. That the Chairperson and Clerk of the Board be authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the School Board the attached Stipulation of Settlement which is incorporated herein by reference. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Member Lucie Taylor and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Kitty Crosby, John Maresh, Lucie Taylor, Jim Franklin, Don Anderson, Dave McKown ani the following voted against tht same: None whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and a.lopted. UPON NOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: 1 t ' ave McKown, Chairman Kat er a Crosby, ClerK Y:7� LE O Z; I MIMUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD !aQf. OPONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON AUGUST 8, 1988 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, August 8, 1988. Present: Dave McKown James Franklin Thomas Mich Don Anderson John Maresh William Fenholt Kitty Crosby Lucie Taylor UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent agendi was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the July 11, 1988 annual meeting; - approved the minutes of the July 21, 1988 special meeting; - approved the appointment of Betty Heitke as kindergarten teacher at Orono Primary School; - accepted the resignation of Joyce Lenz who has been a teacher in the ele- mentary school fcr the past two years; - directed the Superintendent to approve teacher contracts from August 9, 1988 to September 12, 1988, in order to help assure a full component of qualified teachers for the 1988-89 school year; - approved the following variance requests: Steve Munson, grade 12, to attend Orono Schools for the 1988-89 school year Tiff iney Taylor, grade 7, to attend :,rono Schools for the 1988-89 school year Ayla Turnquist, kindergarten, to attend Orono Schools for the 1988-89 school year Kristen Decamp, grade 11, to comple, F. education at Orono Schools Celeste Jundt, grade 12, to complete ducation at Edina Schools; - accepted the low bid of Meyer Bros. Da,: )r furnishing milk for the 1988-89 school year; - approved the 1988-89 ice arena lease for the 1988-89 school year as follows: LEASE ON FILE IN DISTRICT OFFICE - directed administration to certify to the State Demographer the following population estimates for Orono Independent School District No. 278 which will serve as the basis for the Community Education levy: Age: 0 - 5 Total: 790 6 - 16 go2,019 17 - 20 If 839 Total 3,648 - requested bids on health and dental insurance for 1988-89, as regUired by law; - approved the continued u;e of the Community Resource Pool for 1988-89, costs to be shared by the Orono Education Fund and Orono Community Education; - approved the Treasurer's Report for May, 1988; - approved the Activity Fund Report for fourth quarter, 1988; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 059922 through 059971 and 059216 through 059406. Dr. Mich stated that he would use the time designated for the Superintendent's Report to provide those in attendance with background information covering the problems/considerations the Board contended with in making the decisions that put in the place the schedule which was approved at the July 21, 1988 Board meeting. Dr. Mich stated that the problems covered areas such as overcrowding in the elementary school, potential overcrowding in the middle school building, late bus problem at the elementary school, length of school day for elementary school students, and lack of adequate preparation time for elementary teachers. He then provided information or the considerations the Board faced including facilities needs/costs, original structure of central campus, long-range planning, academic improvement, student welfare and transportation. Dr. Mich informed the audience that because of the sensitive negotiations involved regarding the Maple Plain School, the Board was directed by the school district attorney to remain silent on the entire issue but at the earliest possible time, which was after the July 21 meeting, the parents were informed of the return of the Maple Plain School, the establishment of a primary school and the change in school starting times. Dr. Mich stated that the Board's decision caused a number of concerned parents to voice their opinions and he expressed appreciation to parents for voicing those concerns as this provided him the opportunity to categorize the concerns into three primary ones - too early an elementary start, sharing a bus with high school students and child care needs at the end of the day. As a result of these concerns, Dr. Mich recommended that the starting times be altered by a few minutes, that the buses be monitored during '.he first few weeks of school and that an after school activities program be initiated fo elementary and primary students. He also informed the audience that during the year a task force will be established to examine child care needs and the school's responsibility in this area. )r. Mich stated that it is regrettable that this session couldn't have been held ,t an earlier time as he feels that communication is necessary between school and community but in light of the circumstances before them, the Board made sound judgments for the welfare of the students to provide the best instruc- tional program possible and the decisions were passed to the community as quickly as possible. Parents/community members were given the opportunity to express their concerns and ask questions concerning the schedule changes and the bussing schedule. The meeting was recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education approved the development and implementation of an after school activities program for primary and elementary school age children. Carried unanimously. Lucie Taylor MOVED, Kitty Crosby seconded that the Board of Education direct administration to implement the following school day schedule: 7:40 a.m. - 2:15 p.m. High School 8:25 a.m. 2:25 p.m. Elementary and Primary School 8:55 a.m. - 3:25 p.m. Intermediate and Middle School 8:25 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. (A.M. Kindergarten) 11:50 a.m. - 2:25 p.m. (P.M. Kindergarten) and further directed administration to report back to the Board at the end of the third quarter as to the workability )f this schedule. Discussion ensued regarding the expressed concerns in regard to either schedule. Jim Franklin stated that he felt the Board should affirm its previous decision on a one year interim basis and then it should be evaluated/addressed. Kitty Crosby expressed appreciation to the community for their patience and support in this major decision and that timing has been a major factor. Dave McKown stated that the previous schedule was a result oT study by the administration/board over a long period of time involving many factors and the schedule decision was not made quickly. John Maresh stated that the previous schedule was developed to try to resolve some problem areas and community input would have definitely been beneficial. The question was called on the motion. Nay votes: John Maresh, Jim Franklin, Don Anderson, Dave McKown. Motion failed and the previous schedule adopted at the July 21, 1988 Board meeting remains in effect. Or. Mich provided the Board with a brief update on the long-range planning pro-. cess He stated that the entire K-12 curriculum for the school district has been put on the word processor and it should be ready for the teachers at the preschool workshop and that Jan Lockwood and Evy Zacher deserve thanks for accomplishing this task. Dr. Mich informed the Board that Sue Sjecklocha has developed a staff development bulletin for the coming year for the faculty. Dr. Mich updatti the Board or, the plans underway fer the opening of the Orono Primary School on August 29, 1988. Bil", Fenholt enumerated on the tasks/set-up involved in reopening the Orono Primary School as well as informing the Board of the various other summer projects that are taking place. The School Board meeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. and the Community Education Compliance meeting was held. Toni Bergland, Community Education Director, pre- sented an overview of the 1987-88 Community Education program, Mitzi Overland reported on the Early Childhood Program and Brian Bergstrom reported on the summer recreation program. Mrs. Bergland introduced the Advisory Council mem- bers that were present and thanked them for their input/support. .tie 'chool Board meeting reconvened at 9:25 a.m. Jim Franklin MOVED, Lucie Taylor seconded, to direct administration to undertake the daycare needs through a task force study in conjunction with a survey regarding school schedule times with a report to be made to the Board no later than March, 1989. Lucie Taylor MOVED, John Maresh seconded, to lay the motion concerning a direc- tive to administration to unaertake the daycare needs through a task force study in conjunction with a survey regarding school schedule times on the table in accordance with the Board's first/second reading policy. Jim Franklin explained that his intention of the motion was to provide a directivr. `o the administra- tion to ensure study of this issue. The question was called on the motion to lay the motion concerning a directive to administration to undertake the daycare needs through a task force study in conjunction with a survey regarding school schedule times. Nay: Kitty Crosby, John Maresh, Lucie Taylor, Jim Franklin, Don Anderson, Dave McKown. Motion failed. The question was called on the motion to direct administration to undertake the daycare needs through a task force study in conjunction with a survey regarding school schedule times with a report to be made to the Board no later than March, 1989. Carrieo unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Kathel,inV P. Crosby, Clerk Approved: VX/ -6/ Dave McKown, Chairman Swimmer's itch: a preventive approach A baby merganser (raving its toenails clipped before treatment with Praziquantel. And below, a cercaria that can penetrate the skin and cause swimmer's itch. The research at Glen Lake centered around use of the drug Praziquantel on infected aquatic birds as an alternative to treating lakes with copper sulfate, the traditional remedy for swimmer's itch. Copper sulfate kills the intermediate snail host, breaking the life cycle of the parasite and theoreti- cally reducing or eliminating the problem. However, this method has several drawbacks. While copper sulfate can indeed kill snails, it is a very toxic sub- stance that can be lethal to most forms of life. Moreover, its effectiveness depends on prolonged, uniform application, exposing snails for several hours. Unfortunately, wave action, changing wind direction, water pH, application method and the knowledge and experience of the applicators are all variables that can drastically reduce the chemical's effectiveness. In addition, scientific assumptions that copper sulfate does not harm the environment are proving incorrect. No long-term studies have been done on the effects of copper in lake sedi- ments on aquatic organisms, but data from short-term studies indicate a higher ratio of adverse affects on animals than was previ,)usly thought. This discovery is prompting resi- derrts on some lakes to threaten litigation if copper sulfate is aF died. Without an adequate remedy for swimmer's itch, some lake -domi- nated statU such as Michigan, are experienciri , increases in the occur- rence and severity of this disease. This may be due to a combination of factors, includ- ing more awareness and reporting of swimmer's itch increased recreational use of lakes, and more aquatic birds In addition, improved water quality on many lakes has raised populations of aquatic or- ganisms such as snails However, the Glen Lake studies indicate that Praziquantel treatments may solve the copper sulfate dilemma. This method treats the infected birds instead of the lake Since . & to. the majority of the infected birds are not migratory, treatments should break the parasite's life cycle. Seed -eating birds, such as mallards, Canada geese, swans and wood ducks, are prebaited and then given Praziquantel in feedings of grain or grain products. Non -seed -eating birds, such as the common mer- ganser, are captured and either injected or given an oral dose of the drug. They are then aged, sexed and released on a lake where the snail host is not found or where swimming is not a major recreational activity. Laboratory studies with mallard ducks found Praziquantel to be non -toxic (even at 50 times the nor- mal dose) to birds or to other aquatic: animals. Further research indicated that treating 50 to 75 birds with the drug costs less than an ap- plication of copper sulfate at current levels. During the past three years, in- fection in both snails and ducks has declined substantially following Praziquantel treatment. Many resort owners at Glen Lake reported fewer incidences of swimmer's itch during the past two years, and none reported an ircrease While much more work must be done before this method's potential can be fully evaluated, re- searchers at Glen Lake are very encouraged with the initial phase Ultimately, this could mean good news for tourists as well as for the economies of those lake areas that depend upon tourist -generated income LAKE LINE, September P88 Page 5 I C?WARNING 97 SWIMMERS ITCH, SWIM AT OWN RISK, DRY YOURSELF ►� COMPLETELY AFTER COMING FROM WATER ' MICH. DEPT. NATURAL RESOURCES Harvey D. Blankespoor, Ph-D., Biolog Department, Hope College and the University of Michigan Biological Station, Pell, and Ronald L. Reimink, Hudsonville Public Schools Each year thousands of swim- mers and vacationers take a dip into our nation's lakes and unknowingly subject themsel- ves to an intense skin rash and several days of misery. This condition, schistosome cercarcial dermatitis or swimmer's itch, has defied preventive efforts until now. A group of researchers at Michigan's Glen Lake have developed a new technique for alleviating swimmer's itch. This technique involves breaking the life cycle of the parasite causing swimmer's itch, and appears to be more effective and less costly than methods previously used Swimmer's itch is caused by a parasitic flatworm that lives in the bloodstream of aquatic Page 4 LAKE LAVE, September I M birds. Its life cycle begins when bird excrement containing the flatworm's eggs passes into lake water. The eggs then hatch into larvae that penetrate a specific kind of snai:. After several weeks within the snail, a second larval stage (called a cercaria) emerges. Normally the cercaria penetrates the skin of ducks, geese or other aquatic birds, but it may also enter the skin of a human swimmer. If this happens, the cercaria dies, leaving a raised and reddened papule on sensitive individuals. The papule will itch intensely for three or four days before subsiding. Young children who play along the water's edge are especially vulnerable to swimmers itch and it is common to see a youngstel with several hundred papules. The result is several sleepless nights which, for tourists, can spoil a vacation. A problem in many other countries, swimmer's itch is prevalent in the midwestern United States. In Michigan alone, approximately 20 kinds of parasites produce swimmer's itch, each species often usirg only a soecillc snail and bird as its hosts. Thus the itch -causing parasites may be different on adjacent lakes, making treatment more difficult. In 1983 the Glen Lakes Association of Michigan began a research program that has made great strides toward ending the ;Nimmer's itch problem The association provided financia! support, volun- teer help and equipment for the first summer of re- search. AnJ, until 198E, additional funds were provided by Michigan's State Departments of Com- merce acid Natural Resources. MINUTES LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS C 5:C0 EXCOL�iIOR CITY HALL FULL. COM%!ISSION MEETING TUESDAY, A;IGUST 16, 1988 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Haggerty called the August 16, 1988 5:10 p.m. POLL CALL erectors Present Peter Berzins - Jerry Roehl - Barb Brance'_ - Kent Ottum -- Dennis Haggerty - Lois C. Johnson - Tom Anderson - Barb Peterson - Others resent Minnetrista Holly Hansen - Admin. Medina Mary Smith - Triax Shorewood Greg Withers - Excelsior Tonka Bay Administator Deephaven Shelly Quaas - Recorder Mtka Beach Tom Creighton - Attorney Medina Orono Lesley Hughes Seamans - Tonka Bay Jim Olds - Excelsior Jim Schmiea - Victoria David Stahr - Excelsior II. APPROVAL OF MINUTFS MOTI0L8.16.88.1: Anderson moved, seconded by Olds, to approve the minutes of the July 19, 1988 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously. III. REPORTS A. TREASURER Roehl reported that the budget for 1988 is under budget on a few items; by the end of the year the commission should have a couple of thousand dollars remaining in the budget. MQTION 8.16.88.2: JUST CLAIMS: Roehl moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve t_ne Just Claims a.: written on Appendix A. Motion carried unanimously. Roehl also recommended that the commission ohould go ahead with the financial review of Dowden. rjOTION 8.16.88.3 Roehl moved, seconded by Olds, to allow W.F. Denny to perform the financial audit of Dowden not to exceed $1,700.00. Motion carried unanimously. B. ADMZNISTRATIVE Hansen reported to the Commission that she has received compla:'Lnts from subscribers regarding the interruption of Fervice mainly due to the construction on County Road 15. Hansen asked comp_aintants to keep a log on how many hours they are out of service. There is a clause in the Ordinance that says if service is ".nterrupted or discontinued for a total period of more than 48 hours in any 30 day period, subscribers shall be credited pro rata for such interruption. Hansen briefly commented on the signal quality of Regional Channel 6. She has spoken with Mary Smith of Triax. Smith informed Hansen that Triax is working on the signal, at this time they are waiting for electronic parts that should help the quality. -1- LMCCC MINUTES August 16, 1988 Page 2 III. REPORTS - All INISTRATIVE - CONTINUED Access: Community Television month is this October, also the MACTA Mini Conference will be October 21st. Hansen encouraged Commission members to attend this very imformative conference. Another big event is the Slate Awards, this year they have gone State wide, LMCCC is entering two tapes in this contest. Hansen would like to have an Open House at the studio in October to promote Community Television Month; she will also be running some special classes to promote the studio. A new program has been televising since July called The Tonka Report. It involves four City Managers who talk about special or major events happening in their cities. The City managers involved are from Orono, Tonka Bay, Shorewood and Victoria. Hansen would like to do a second program in the future involving more City managers from other LMCCC Cities. Hansen would like to attend the NATOA Conference comming up on September 25 - 28, it will be held in Miami Beach, Florida. The total cost would be $900.00 to $950.00. MQTION 8.16.88.4: Berzins moved, seconded by Olds, to authorize Hansen to attend the NATOA Conference. Motion carried unai—mously. C. LEGAL COUNSEL Tom Creighton of O'Connor & Hannan reported that the Ordinance Amendment is prepared and ready to be voted upon. Due to a lack of a quorum the Ordinance Amendment will have to wait until the November Full Commission meeting. Creighton suggested that the Commission may have to look at restructurin.j the Commission due to the fact that there is a problem getting a quorum at the meetings. J. Schmieg asked what the Commission's role is in getting the Channel 6 signal upgraded to a better quality. Mary Smith said that Triax is working on the signal, depending on parts that they get in it may help to bring the signal to a better quality, Creighton commented that if Dowden/Triax does not make the signal acceptable to the Commission, the Commission could hold Dowden/Triax in non-compliance. D. TRIAX CABLEYTSTON Mary Smith handed ost her monthly report, Basic penetration is at 44%, and net loss is 36. Hansen asked Smith what kind of response Triax is experiencing because of the rate increase and would Triax be offering any new services to compensate the subscribers for the sate increase. Mary Smith reported that she is working on getting some new serviceF and they will be coming out soon. LMCCC MINUTES August 16, 1988 Page 3 IV. Treasurer Jerry Roehl reviewed the 1989 budget. He reported that LMCCC is expecting a 16% revenue increase. Also an additional $1,500.00 is being put aside for a Technical Audit for 1989 and funds are being put aside for a Financial Review of Triax for 1990 or 1991. It was asked why the access employees budget was increased. Hansen explained that she would like to give a raise to the employees and also increase their working hours. The secretarial services increased due to the payroll service as they have increased their rates. MOTION 8.16.88.5: Roehl moved, seconded by Olds, to approve the 1989 budget. Motion carried unanimously. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Hansen would like volunteers to help with the Excelsior Studio's Open House that will be held in October. Tom Anderson, Jim Olds, Lesley Hughes -Seamans, David Stahr, Barb Brancel and Kent Ottum have volunteered. VI. NEW BUSINESS Kent Ottum of Tonka Bay asked if the Commission writes reports after conferences. Hansen explained to Ottum that the Commission has a travel policy which requires the Commission member to document expenses, keep receipts and write a report. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION 8.16.88.6: Hughes -Seamans moved, seconded by Olds, to adjourn the August 16, 1988 meeting at 6:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Shelly Quaas Multichannel News - Svptemt� 5, 1 ,rsb Klan Refuses To Appear on K.C. Talk BY R. THOMAS uMSTFAn change the its VANSAS CITY, MO — tF11AAmerican Cablevision here has declined a request by the Missouri Ku Klux Klan chapter to have its own program on the sys- tem's local-orgination channel, but the system did offer the Klan the opportu- nity r on talk showt already syrunning on two LO channels. In May, the City Council amended the system's franchise agreement to Shows ducers of the two shows to formally write out the for- mat of their programs be- fore Klan members would agree to appear, Ms. Both- well said. She added that she did not know how the producers would react to the Klan's latest proposal. Despite the Klan's com- plaints, Ms. Rothwell sa;d the system has otherwise received excellent respons- es from producers and viewers since the system adopted the LO channel format. ■ lawden Breaks Ground In New Cable Venture `iTLANTA — Dowden Com- nsunieations Investors LP, ganeral partner of Dowden Cable Partners LP, which re- cently sold out to Triat Mid- 111est Associates I.P. is main - mining Its spot in the cable induct by beginning a new- twiid . The new system, to serve Campton and pnrtinns of St. Ckarles Township and Kane County, It., will have 120 miles of underground plant, , Dnwden said There are cur- rrntiv 2,HMN) h..mew in the franchise area, wish .0)(m) an- ticipated by I'M � access chan- nel to a local which is owned by Ameri- al different answers to the origination channel in order to block can Television & Communi- cations Corp. Tele- offers. "First the KKK from getting ac- cess for its and Communications Inc., said the Klan wanted to do both of the shows, but own program (see Multichannel News ,May the system sent a letter back to the Klan denying ther they talked to the American Civil 23, page 1). Earlier this the request, but inviting the Liberties Union and decided to de - month, how- evc., the Klan sent a letter to KKK to appear on the two local shows. cline the offers," she said. (In June the ACLU the system requesting that it "We made the Kian two threat - ened to file a lawsuit grant the Kian a time slot on the LO channel offers to appear as guests of either Kansas City Alive, against the city on behalf rides a locally produced se- a nightly magazine -type of the KKK because the group was singled out and Carol Rothwell, director show, or another weekly show, .Justice," Ms. Roth- denied access to the access of public relations for American Cablevision, well said, adding that the KKK responded with channel.) The Klan responded a sever- third time, asking the pro- f 1 9 "3 a Lack of Standardized Research Hurts Cable: Advertiser Survey BY Les Luchter PARSIPPANY, NJ Advertisers and their agencies are generally satisfied with basic cable's programming and overall performace, but seriously concerned about the industry's lack of standardized industry research, according to results of the fifth annual "CableNow" study, released last week by Jack Myers Mar- "71e timing could not be better," said Thomas C. Dowden, principal owner. "As we end fine chapter of entrepreneurial cable tele- visum, our company begins another " Further acquisitions Are - under consalerat tm. Nlr Dowden mid 11 keting Corm, mications' In- fomarketing division. Infomarketing said 375 ex- ecutives responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 31 percent. Mr. Myers said that, due to respondents' positive marks for cable's audience reach and cost -efficiency, basic networks can raise their ad rates without suffering significant advertiser fallout fie said the blame for sales promotion support, 57 percent with audience -reach potential, 46 percent with traf- fic and billing, 40 percent with cable network research data, 32 percent with schedule p ost- anahrsis and 23 percent with standardized industry research. Rating six factors in deci- ding to buy cable, 50 percent of the respondents mentioned audience quality, more than double the 23 percent who cited cost -per -thousand effi- ciency T heeie factors were fol- lowed by: rtdienc, size, 13 Percent; broadcast -network underdelivery, 10 percent. merchandising and promo- tional support, 2 percent; and non -standardized data was laid mainly on A. C. Nielsen Co., not the cable networks Most respondents — 92 per- cent — were satisfied with cable's advertising frequerc,•, followed by 83 percent w:'h oust -per -thousand efficiency, 5.3 percent with "quality of support received from cable network sales reps," 74 5 per- cent with program quality, 64 percent with merchandising aggressiveness of network sale effort, I percent. The survev projected tha advertiser spending on cabl during the next two years wil increase 1,>-27 percent, com pared with 3-9 percen, f, broadcast networks JMMt said that 88 percent of reaps dents said they would increa , their cable expenditure. "$-stly" or "slightly." c . . Pared with 58 percent for s)x, broadcast, 54 percent broadcast networks, 52 F. r cent for "dcast syndicate. r 40 percent for spot cable, t percent for unwired .t., broadcast networks. and p-rcent for home video i / L,tti(, t L (. rt OvAi] t•t k — t w) 0 / d .) / U U Non -Subs in Survey Say They'd Buy Basic at $15 By Larry Jatt.. SYOSSET, NY — After being given descriptions of cable ser- vices, one-third of respondents interviewed for a recently re- leased national survey of non - cable subscribers said they would definitely or probably subscribe to basic service at $15. The survey, conducted by Beta Research Corp., based here, also'.) nd that The Dis- covery Channel was selected as the most appealing basic ser- vice by 4. percent of the non- sub:cribers, who were asked to rank in order of perference five basic networks. TDC was followed by American Movie Classics (37 percent), ESPN (35 percent), Movietime (31 percent), CNN (30 percent) and Nickelodeon (30 percentl. The survev was conducted vi , telephone last March among a national sample of non -cable households. A total of 300 interviews were com- pleted with an available head of household. Thirty-coe per- cent of the respondents had subscribed to cable in the past. Compilation and analvsis of ^e data was completed last th . 1'he primary objectives of the survey were to determule non -subscribers' interest in basic cables services, their per- ceived value of basic cable ser- vices, interest in services among age/sex groups, and interest in program categories Overall, services with a more distinctive identity and defi- nition (e.g., TDC, AMC and CNNI elicited more interest than services with a variety of general -interest programming (e.g., SuperStation TBS, CBN Cable Network. Life- Treasury Meets with Ops OnDepreciation LawsMy Jeannine Averse WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department last week to( k its first step toward collecting informatioe on how equipment and other property used by cable companies will he. depreciated under future tax laws by soliciting the rec- ommendations of some of the •►stion's largest cable com- panies The cable business is one of 10 industries the Treasury has selected for analysis in ac- c.,rdance with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the landmark iegialation that made com- prehensive changes in the ti S tax system Earlier this year. Tressury nt&-ials and broadcasters amiwd with varicus nwth•nts Ia nining the r,onamic mdcast equipment Ile atives from Capital i fit. .0(. inc Naimmal llroad, asking (i) (i enneit Irrc andnthe (Nations) As- s .-tat Mrq Of Iir idraoters were among groups that attended the Treasury's previous two- hour meeting Last week's Treasury meet- ing included representatives I rom Tele-Communications inc. ; American 'Television A Communications Corp ; Cox Cable Communications inc.; Centel Corp , a diversified telecommunications company with cable holdings; Houston Industries inc., the Texas electric utility that recently won a bid to acquire the U . S cable holdings of Rogers U . S Cablesystems inc ; and the National Cable Television As- aocistiom It was the first in several planned meetings at the Treasury The Treasury asked the companies for imput on de- signing a questionnaire that will he sent to cable eystems across the country 17►e volun- tary form is *uplMoed to assist the Tressury in formulating any new deprecint,orn laws for I cable egtupment TDC ranked highest in ap- peal among respondents aged 1849, and AV..0 ranked high- est in the 50-plus age group. In addition, TDC ranked highest in both overall men and women categories, with AMC ranking second among women and third among men . ESPN ranked second among men and third among women. In terms of programming When the Treasury last met with broadcasters in June, it was considering lumping the cable industry into its broad- cast study The key que-4tlon the Treasury had was whether cable industry "has enough identity of its own" lc be stud- ied separately, said Wendell Bailey, NCTA's vice president of science and technology . Mr. Bailey attended last week's meeting as well as the June meeting with broad - elate" Other than that, "'Nothing else was decided," he said 'i i limll. genres, 4Q_pwrcen' or the reson- Other services were among dents indicated strong interest the five most appealing: Arta A in classic films and 46 percent Entertainment (25 percentl; had high interest in documen- The Learning Channel (25 per- taries. Documentaries and cent); Bravo (25 percentl: classic films ranked among the CNN/Headline News (23 per.. highest -rated program cent); CBN Cable Network categories, behind news and (21 percent); USA Network recent Hollywood films. (21 percentl; MTV (21 per- I Only 30 percent indicated cent), Financial News Net- similar interest in off -network work (20 percent); Tle series and sitcoms from the Weather Channel 118 percentl; 1950, and 1960s. Other pro - You TV (18 percenil; Super- gramming which received a Station TBS 118 percentl; The low rating included game Nashville Network (17 per- shows (25 percentl, religious cent); VH-I (16 percent); C- program% 122 percentl, and SPAN (14 percentl; Lifetime music video@ (15 percent). (12 percent); and Cable Value Network (6 percent). "This research reveals a great deal about the viewing preferences of non -subscribers of cable television, and the direction in which cable opera- tors must move if cable tele- vision penetration is expand much further," said Ruth Otte, TDC president ai-d chief operating officer. According to the survev, people likely to subscribe were more likely to be: former cable subscribers 142 percentl: people aged 18-49 (41 percent I; and people with children (4Q percentl. Only 19 percent of people likely to subscribe were aged 50 or older Likelihood to subscribe generally did not vary significantiv by other de- mographic variables. Respondents were asked what would be the most the% ' would be willing to pay per month for cable TV The aver- age respondent gave a S14 value. Thirjy-one percent were willing to pay S20 M more. According to Beta, the result indicates that among s signifi- cant minority, exist was new a factor for not subscribing to cable Instead, a limited per- ception of cable programming of not being worth the rrtc+tte1 seemed to be the w..:rw fac. for rJ